 Yes, that's a yes. All right. So I'll follow me to order this 7 o'clock. The first thing on the agenda of course are minutes only have the minutes of May 17th, 22 to approve tonight. Is there a motion? Move we approve subject modification. Zero second second page one at the top of page one. It shows that said Kenny arrived at 730. It should have been 7. Yeah, I was only a half hour early because we started early. Look at that and page 2 and page 3 and 4 as much as I appreciate the name change. It does list. My name is great. I guess, you know, at the top of page 3. I didn't see that. Hearing all the corrections then all those in favor of approving the minutes of May 17th, 22 say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? So we have taken care of the minutes. Moving on to public comment. Is there anyone in the room who should be making public comment? If you would, please come to the table and introduce yourself. We have about 3 minutes. My name is David Martel. I'd like to add to the problem is that you discuss some concerns I have on topic number 6. That's on the agenda. Yes, you can discuss that when you come to the topic. Which is what you want. I'm not sure that we'll have time for comments at high time. So you're sure we're willing to do it right now. Okay. I'm going to do it right now. So essentially I sent out some documents. I emailed some information to, I believe, the board, slide board members. So my concern is when you're here at the last meeting, they were talking about the size of the building and how they want to change it to the fifth floor with the, basically, a living attic. So basically you're talking six floors. And I did up a diagram that I have here that shows the dimensional comparison of where, what the existing building height is compared to the new ones. So I was kind of concerned that in the document that was presented last time, all the buildings that were represented were all actually in three storage with an attic space, not actually in the crew. It doesn't have the full dimensions, but overall height of the building is going to be with the roof on it. Obviously, different width of the roof with a 14-fold pitch is going to add additional height to the building itself. So my concern is, you know, the impaction of the views in Willis, you know, you're going to have a town, mostly a town still not safe to understand. So you mean the town of Williston, and even right now with the current building designs that they have, which are three storage with a roof, a flat one for a kitchen roof, or separately the hotel, which I believe is a four-story building. When you drive, no, I used to drive down through the town of Williston. You look, you see the mountains, the surrounding mountains, you've got the views, you've got the skyline and stuff. That's restricted already because of the current building design, the height limitations that we have right now. I believe if you go to the fifth floor, basically you're talking six floors, not five. You're looking at a building by my calculations. It's going to be up to like 90-14 feet tall. If you take a five- or six-story building, so the five-story building, I believe the documentation had a 64-foot to the top wall of the fifth floor. If you add another 12.8 feet to that for the six-floor attic, you're at 76.8 feet. And then you add the roof of the pitch, you're adding at least another 30 feet under that. You're talking 94-foot building. So a couple of concerns I have is, for one, the town of Williston, I talked to a gentleman, a friend of mine, he actually lives in another town, he's on the select board there, and he drives the town. This is basically the current density of the multi-unit housing in Taverworners. It's already at its max capacity for the surroundings. The other issue is the school is right now, I understand if they're already talking about this, they might be to add on to the school because there's not a room. We add more housing learning apartment buildings. That's a large, dense population we're bringing into the area. That means now we're going to pay more taxes if we build the school. The other thing that we brought up was that the traffic was also in Williston because of the current dense residents that we have in the apartment buildings. Traffic is pretty much adding to the max capacity, and we decided to do something different with the roads. Because right now the intersections feel a bit of a way, but eventually if we add another 500 people, cars driving in Williston, it's going to really get back things up. I don't know if you folks drive through that junction in the morning with all the apartment buildings they have there. It's a nightmare sometimes getting through that traffic to get to work. The other thing I have, has the flight board even thought about having any conversations with the fire chief of Williston? Because when you build a five or six-story building with that roof up to a 94 foot tall, do we even have the equipment or ladder truck even reach that? I doubt with you. Winooski had the same issue when they built the CECD building, college building in the middle of Winooski, and then all of a sudden, hey, we need all the fire equipment for this because we can't handle that size of the building that added an additional tax burden on to the residents of Winooski. Obviously, you want to be happy about that as well. Those are my concerns with it. I just think, Williston is going to be a town, I'm not supposed to be a city. There comes a point when the cup is full and there's just no more room. And really, Williston and Vermont's a big state, not really big, but big enough, there's more areas than just Williston to live. There's actually other towns as well that are actually kind of dying off. I know you have a vision of having all this congested area once all town in Williston, but really to sacrifice the views that we have, the skyline, what really makes Williston and makes it a rural, supposedly a rural community, that's all going to be lost. Once you start building these large apartment buildings, and the reality of people in apartment buildings, I guess, what is the turnaround time for people living in Vermont? I talk to a lot of people, I work for a company, I talk to everybody all over the United States, and a lot of people come to Vermont, at least here about three years, they can't stay on the weather, it's expensive, and then they go back to where they came from. I know people that leave here to go to Tennessee, they don't like Tennessee, they come back to Vermont. It's kind of like where you're from, you're used to it, you just want to go back home, that your home is where you're going to be. So I really don't see the sense in, I know we want to provide housing for people, but there comes a point where it's full, you just can't keep cramming in apartment buildings, because the impact of that added those people in this area is just too expensive, you just can't handle it, traffic can't handle it, schools can't handle it, and really the benefit to me as a long-term residence, I'm a fourth generation here in Vermont, is I'm just paying more taxes, I don't see any benefit of expanding Williston and adding more housing, adding more apartment buildings, because all it does, they want to build an Almond Book Park. In addition to the school, maybe who knows, busing, transportation, sidewalks, all this stuff, it's just taxes, taxes, taxes, and it's just expensive. Someday I'm going to retire, hopefully in the other five years I'll retire, am I going to retire in Vermont? I don't know, can my kids afford to live in Vermont and retire? I don't think so, so I just think we're turning Williston into something that's really just not friendly for a lot of people who've been here for many generations. Thanks. We will have some more discussions with the planning commission and planning staff, regarding and so on. I know that the fire chief has been involved in the discussions about the height of the buildings, so. Yeah, another email, but I never get to reply back. I want to know what the limitations of the equipment was, but I can't imagine our fire trucks would go up 94 feet. Well, the big question is, is that the right number for height? Yeah, and that's why the document that you guys presented has a lot of graying. If it's just at 64 feet to the top of the fifth ball, anything above that isn't calculated into it. That's the only dimension you're looking at is to the top of the fifth ball. They need to have scale drawings that show the actual maximum height of the building with a certain width and the maximum height of the roof. Because if it's a peat roof, once you cut the top off, it's not a peat roof anymore. It's a flat. And the flat roof height is a different height. It's not the skies that live right now. 64 feet at an additional six floor with a 14-12 pitch on a large building. We're talking massive buildings. It's going to be very, it's going to be very, it's going to be very shocking to the, to the pees all the way around. And not just from the people in town, but I live up now in New York. I'm going to see the building from where I live. You know, it's like, do I really want to look down at the town of Wilson, right now the trees side all the other buildings? A 94-foot building, you're not high enough trees. It's just, it's just too large. Good, thank you. All right, thank you. Is there anyone else either on Zoom that wishes to make any public comments? Yep, I have one person. Terry on Zoom. I'm going to unmute you just a moment. Okay. Can, can you hear me now? Yep. Need to speak up a little bit, please. Oh yeah, I will try. Terry. So this is Terry Zitrich, Williston resident. And I don't remember the name of the last speaker. I missed it up front, but I'd like to second, you know, basically everything he said, I'm a bit concerned about the thought of, and while they're not skyscrapers, they're Vermont skyscrapers. I'm not sure Williston needs skyscrapers in the town here in the center of town. So I second that. The, the other thing in, and certainly most of the other comments the gentleman made about affordable, affordable living here in Williston, I can't see that anything's being done to affect the level of affordability in town. And I'm unclear whether these new apartment buildings will be affordable or will have any affordable units in them. I've also heard disturbingly that there's nobody monitoring the current affordable housing we have in Williston and wondering if the select board is going to do anything about that. So I recall the last time I asked the planning commission, in fact, it was Matt, I think he was just brought on board. He might have been still the assistant at the time, but I asked in the last plan I was involved that I think in 2018 about affordable housing and Matt was telling me at the time there wasn't enough buildable land in Williston or maybe zoned buildable land, but I remember him, him making that exact comment. And all I can, all I can think of is just how often I've seen new building developments approved for Williston outside of that. So it's disappointing that we haven't found a way to make this town affordable. One of my sons finally ended up buying a place here, but it was incredibly difficult. And he has a fairly high paying job, so I've got two other sons and it would be nice for them to be able to stay in Vermont. The last thing I'd like to comment on and ask the select board if they're going to do anything about it. That is this whole, this vision that we have a revolving door between our planning commission and the development community. And that is the prior planning, who is a planning director, Matt's predecessor, not a very friendly fellow, but is now promoting or helping developers take advantage of the development bylaws he put in place. And I'm wondering if you all have thought about how to prevent this in the future. How do we maintain the integrity of that office and the rules we put in place? And that the rules we're putting in place are actually for the public good and not the developers good. So it'd be nice to know that you're thinking about that for the future. I know in big government, we see a big revolving door between lobbyist and government, which always puts what they're doing under suspect. It'd be nice in a small town, in a small place like Vermont, that we don't have those same concerns. And I tell you the way development has progressed in Williston, while what's happening isn't illegal, it certainly looks suspect. It's hard to believe that Williston has turned into what we have today. But that's just my opinion, of course. And that's it. Good, thank you. Any further follow-up comments? Yes. Who'd like to identify yourself and come to the microphone? Sandra Parber. So I, first of all, not for the six-story apartment buildings, but he made a couple of comments, the gentleman before, and I've had this discussion with my brother as well. So it's really kind of an Act 60 question. So if you don't mind, I'm just... So Williston, and here long enough, Williston used to have nice homes before Act 60. It was built nice homes. We had an excellent school, and then Act 60 came along. Oh, we also had a nice business base, by the way. Nice business base. We had a plan. This is where the building is going to happen. It's the sewer district. For the most part, believe it or not, Williston really kind of has stuck to the plan, that this is more dense population here than it gets into the sewer district. And so we really are sticking to a plan. We're talking about a plan that's been in effect for over 20 years. But again, Act 60 comes along. Williston has to put on the brakes because they're like, wait a minute. Now we're considered a gold town because our grand list is so high. You put in the really nice house. It adds to the grand list, but it only adds usually two kids to the school. So the whole plan is now we got to rethink the process, not put in such big houses, get the numbers of the kids in the school up, which is, again, back to apartment buildings. My first question is the apartment buildings, since their commercial properties and commercial properties don't feed the town directly, they go to the state, I believe. They pay property taxes in town. But does it go straight to the state? Or does it go to the town? It comes here. Okay. So the same thing with an apartment building. Yeah. Is their taxes only come to the town? The property tax comes to the town. There's a town tax rate. And they pay, actually, they pay a different rate. I think for a commercial basis than the homestead. Okay. Well, that was the other thing. I was like, if I had heard, and that's why I was asking, that the commercial properties don't pay their taxes directly to the town. They, it's more of a state thing. And then the state redistributes some of this stuff. No. So that's not the case. No. What you might be thinking about is the 1% taxed commercial establishments charge. There's a 6% state tax of 1% town tax that goes to my figure that comes back after taking somebody out. All right. Well, that was my thing. My main question was, if we put up these apartment buildings, who actually gets the benefit of the taxes level? We do. We do. All right. But I am against the 6 stories of apartment buildings, but I'm not anti-growth. So I think Williston's doing as long as you stick to the plan, all is good. So. Thank you. Thank you. Any other comments on public comment tonight? No one on Zoom. That's going to Zoom. Then we'll move on to item number four, and that is the policy for collection and payment of property taxes. And Eric, you're going to take this, because we have some documents in front of us as well. Yep. So the board first looked at this last month, and after the board's initial discussion, I have the town attorney review it. He had some comments for consideration of the board and this policy. So I've included in your board packet both a red line version with the town attorney's suggested edits and a clean version of it. I can walk through it fairly quickly for the board and take any questions to the board. Sure. Mainly section one is just some language added to reference roles and statute in the purpose of the policy. A couple of minor, just language cleanup in the definitions section, in section three, we've also made a new section two that was also, it was originally included in section one for tax payment installments. Then in section four, some language rearrangements and removal and specifications. And then you'll see in sections, D&E town attorney's advice, we added references for when the interest and penalty is applied to taxes that where it was approved at town meeting in 1991 and 2005, just for reference for those items. The main changes were in section five, which is we're looking to clarify tax sale process. Town attorney advice, not over complicate things. This is word to Shirley and I. A tax sale process could occur each year for delinquent accounts. Our initial draft looked at a 3% figure of revenue outstanding. It's a complicating factor. It makes it more work than it needs to be the town attorney's advice us. And we didn't want to limit our ability to collect and create expectations of when we go to tax sale. And it really becomes a yes-no choice to go to tax sale. The satisfactory payment plan cannot be made with an account or the account isn't paid at all. So process-wise, based on this draft and trying to codify what we've been doing here is the delinquent tax collector, who's currently the town manager, would evaluate the need to conduct a tax sale prior to June 1. Done that this year. There's a need identified. And then the draft policy states prior to initiating a tax sale, the collector shall inform the select board and seek authorization to engage legal counsel to assist with the sale. Should the board decide to adopt the policy as presented, staff would work to send first a curse reminder to the delinquent accounts to pay or set up a payment plan. And then for accounts remaining unpaid or without a payment plan set up, there'd be a future agenda item for the select board. Listing the delinquent accounts and the board would be asked to authorize engaging legal counsel to assist with a tax sale. At that point, we'd have the town attorney's office send the letter to those delinquent accounts as a final notice letter looking to either pay those accounts in full or set up a payment plan. And if after that communication from the town attorney's office, those are not rectified and we would proceed with the with the tax sale process of that. Good, thanks. There appears to be just one title I found on page three down towards the bottom says delinquent taxes messing with the extraneous of in there in the middle of the Is that the definition? Taxes unpaid every night of or after the I think that should be stricken shouldn't it? Yep, good catch thing. Okay. Questions for Eric regarding the the proposed policy? That should be out there in the future that would be after so that's when we are in a Oh, the final strawman. No, scratch the run. Okay. Scratch the run work. Okay. Here we go. Thank you. If there are no questions, we have a motion suggested. I'll move to adopt amendment to the town's policy for the collection and payment of property taxes as presented. With the one type of correct. With the one type of corrected. Yes. Is there a second? Second. Is there a discussion on the motion? Hearing none. All those in favor of the motion? Say aye. Aye. Aye. May you post? Next on the list is the permit to be scheduled for fiscal year 2023. Eric, that should not take long but Eric, do you want to talk a little bit about that? Matt, text. Next door. I know we're all set. I think I can handle this one. Matt, any questions for Matt when he gets over here? So every year the board has to consider permit fee schedule and we'll do the rate in other fee schedules on the next board meeting. But for the planning fee schedule, there's no recommended changes to the fee set for FY 22 and FY 23 planning staff looked at other fees in the area and find out our fees are reasonable looking at the fee structures. There's no changes suggested by staff but there's a motion from the board to approve that. Any questions for Eric? Seeing none, there is a recommended motion. I'll move to adopt the permit fee for fiscal year 2023. Is there a second? Second. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none. All those in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay, is Matt coming soon? He says they're on their way. On their way. Okay. They're walking. Planning commission is walking. Let's go. All right. They had a briefing. We're just about on time here for the bylaw amendment the discussions and I hear footsteps. Nothing I expected but that. Perhaps we could do the volunteer reappointments then while we're waiting for the board to come. So, Eric. So this is another annual June business item for the select board where to consider reappointments to town volunteers, the boards and commissions. I've included a list of those incumbents who are interested in seeking reappointments with your agenda packet. Staff has connected with these individuals and consulted with our volunteers and there's no concerns with attendance from any volunteers following our volunteer policy we put in in place a couple years ago. And I just want to take a brief opportunity to recognize some long time volunteers who are who decided not to seek reappointments this year and certainly will do some more to recognize their service. But B. Harvey has served on the cemetery commission for 10 years and Carl Runge has served on the conservation commission for, I believe, 32 years since 1990. So certainly great contributions for our community on these volunteer roles. We'll have more ways to recognize their service moving forward here. And you'll see in the managers report we do have a number of vacancies on town boards and commissions. We're currently looking to recruit folks who are interested in serving. There's certainly a decent number this year and we need to find folks who would be interested in serving those folks. Any questions for Eric regarding the if not there is a motion to get the address as well. Move to reappoint for another term. The individual is currently serving on town and regional boards and commissions who have expressed an interest in continuing their positions as indicated in the report dated May 31st, 2022. Your second. Second. Very discussion of the motion. If not, those in favor of the motion and say aye. Aye. Any opposed. All right. We are getting to the point where we are ready to take up the bylaw amendment for half-corner's form-based code and then the discussion that goes with that. So we have our planning director here and the chair of the planning commission making hope. So Eric, if you just give an introduction to the subject and we'll go to receptors. Yeah. Thanks, Terry. And Matt, we did the permit already. So this evening, the select boards received an overview of the transmittal for a development bylaw amendment to establish form-based code overlay district in the half-corner's area at the May 3rd and May 17th select board meetings. This evening's agenda item is time for the select board to hear comments on the transmitted draft from property owners and developers in the proposed form-based code area and just saying our planning director Matt Blanche will if there's we'll look to go through the final section architectural standards. There's also time plan for select board discussion and to consider next steps how we'd like to proceed in considering this bylaw amendment Matt's included a memo with the agenda packet that he'll walk through as we as we go through discussion this evening and one item for the board to consider as part of that discussion is warning a public hearing on the proposal. Back to you, Terry. Good, thank you. So we have been in touch with several of the developers in town who had some concerns regarding the draft that we have we've invited them to come tonight to give us a description of what their concerns are and then those of you like a point counterpoint discussion having the presenters and then having Matt and Megan respond to the concerns so when we're asking them to limit their comments to 15 minutes each so I would call them upon I think Chris and I are first so they're coming to the to the table. Welcome. Hi there, how are you doing? But thanks. Okay, thank you very much for your time tonight. So as the developer of the Finney-Crossing neighborhood and also the potential developer of the Essex Alliance church property I have been very involved with the permitting process over the last 20 last years here in the town and feel pretty connected to the overall goals and ambitions and visions of the town and I'm excited about continuing to work here for the next national project. So really there's a couple of things that I think I'd like to talk a little bit about and I don't think I'll take 15 minutes so be available to answer any questions regarding my comments. So first is about the Essex Alliance church property and you received a notice today from the zoning administrator Matt regarding a discretionary permit application that we did submit for a substantial portion of the property and it's really been limited we would have submitted for the entire property which would have basically followed under the existing rules and regulations because of the file being filed for completeness however because of the growth management process we are not allowed to file for a entire master plan approval for the neighborhood and so my request is that the Essex Alliance church property be removed from the form-based code area or I guess given a waiver or something of that sort because of the situation resulting in the growth management process which is unique to the town of Williston and the development patterns that you have so because of the rules and regulations we have been limited in what we can provide so our goal our request is really pretty simple on the Essex Alliance church property is to have it removed from the form-based code area the other pieces that in terms of form-based code and concerns within the Tafts Corner zoning district and in the growth center area are is related a little bit to Finney crossing and to also a future potential development that might happen and it's not specific related to something that we're proposing or would be proposing but it's just me as the person who works within other municipalities that already have form-based code in place so first off in terms of Finney crossing you know we do have a couple of remaining properties within the neighborhood and it's going to be an interesting dynamic because they'll be required to meet form-based code within the existing project that has a street layout and there's going to be some requirements within form-based code that are challenging to achieve and I think that sometime it would be good to allow projects that have existing permits in place like a master plan that they might be able to just continue through the design review process through the design review and we're accustomed to that the town is accustomed to that and it would be something that we could come in and present to the DRV I would the other piece on that same note is the DRV process is really given kind of a some hard knots over the years and people say oh it's terrible and missing that and it takes too long and I actually have a bit of a different opinion to that in that we sometimes present something and people may not love all the parts and pieces and they question us and they challenge us and I find that we actually come out in the end with a better project after the week through the DRV process and so form-based code essentially eliminates that personal touch of going through and interacting with neighbors, concerned citizens you know the staff and you know generally sitting in front of a board and having those discussions is actually a very positive and I know some people tell you that's crazy to say but it is true and I do think that we end up having good projects so I think the form-based code by shifting the burden to the zoning administrator you lose that review process that may actually improve the development within that within the Taft Commerce Department so my recommendation is to figure out a way to include the DRV in any sort of code revisions and the current plan under form-based code does not have them participating in that a couple of things that I'm concerned about on the specific form-based code discussion is the regulating plan regulating plans are very restrictive to variations and changes and I've seen that both in Manuski and in South Burlington that we're building more and more repetitive products in homes and buildings because of the plans and the architectural standards that are in place and there's a very small window in which you're going to be able to achieve the desired form-based code requirements so the variability does change and I know that some people say that's good and I would tell you that variability within the design of the buildings is a good thing to see within municipalities the other piece on the regulating plan is what I've seen to date it's not finalized it's it's it's rough there's no engineered regulating plan that we can use and refer to and it's something that is going to be developed but it is not developed yet and so my concern is is if you've worn the public hearing on this essentially by doing the warning you're going to be enacting form-based code and what that comes what comes with that is the regulating plan and that is a piece that we should all understand or really understand what is included in that regulating plan it was really developed that regards to existing buildings easements wetlands other restrictions that are within the town current bylaws and so we do need to be careful about what those that regulating plan really does there are variations allowed within that but they're somewhat restrictive and so we should be careful about the other piece that I think is important is the public works and fire department comments and the regulations that are currently in place have not been modified to the form-based code and what I think should be done is if you're going to change the code they should be done simultaneously not active and so the regulating plan form-based code is going to be implemented but then what's going to happen with the public works and the fire department standards and they're currently not being met and so you're going to see a complete disarray I think because you're in a form-based code that's enacted but two other pieces are not actually in place and so is that going to work the other piece that I think we all need to be careful about is and we hear about is cost of housing the cost of housing is extremely high it's uh affected by manufacturers and producers outside of our markets but it's also affected by what we do in the road and infrastructure components as outlined in the form-based code and the regulating plan are certainly going to be more expensive and so based upon my review what that's going to do is going to increase the cost of housing and so we do need to be careful about what that looks like and try to address some of that so I think you know those are really my points and I certainly understand form-based code I understand the goal of it and I think it can be good but I also am concerned that in the town of Williston that we could also be well-served utilize the existing code regulations thank you any questions for the rest while you're here Jeff no sorry I wasn't really prepared maybe I'll wait if possible so everybody's done sure okay so Matt if you would like to address the a few points that Chris brought up tonight sure very agree with me yes and and I'll try to try to cover everything I heard on but I'd also reserve time for the board to certainly call myself and planning commission back and I might have seen I sat up here first and then I sat back down because you were rolling right into comment and the only thing I wanted to say by way of division of labor between myself and planning commission tonight I'm here to try to provide answers you know in a sensible sense what's in the draft code and what isn't when it's a question of something that was a policy choice made by planning commission things like the size of the boundary of particular dimensional standard Megan Coop and Chapin Kane are here in the room and I have other planning commission members in attendance on Zoom for that so a couple of things the board would want to think about let's start with the Essex Alliance church property the planning commission had a pretty lengthy conversation during its hearing process and before about whether to include this property in the form-based code area or not and the ultimate decision the commission made was to include it that was with knowledge that there was a project in the works and in the application process before the DRB we did also as the staff to the DRB make the board and the applicant aware that this process was taking place through you know overlapping with the DRB process and then there was likely to be some interface in friction between the two so you know we've tried to be really clear about that so it is also true that I issued a zoning administrators opinion today finding the completeness of the discretionary permit application for the first phase of the project and the first phase of the project is roughly 75% or more of the dwelling units in the project it's the subdivision flat the layout of all the streets and drives screenspaces like that and other occurrences that go with those proposed dwellings and it's the phase of the development that's supported by the growth management allocation and decision that the DRB was able to make in March project scored relatively high in that competitive system it provides diversity of housing types some affordable quite a lot of amenities and it was given essentially the maximum amount of allocation that the town's current set of rules allow anyone project to be given this area so that finding of completeness is important because the point at which someone has filed a complete application for a discretionary permit is the point at which they are considered vested in the town's bylaws and discretionary permit is a it's a name for this stage of the process that's a little bit unique to Williston it's essentially the big review by the DRB it's when the really that plan set comes in and things are really quite well designed so you you have where things are going to go on a site plan you also have the design of buildings you have interior floor plans you know what the exterior materials are going to be like by you know row profiles you know the location of constraints and where utilities are going to go and all those kinds of things typically that big review by the DRB would result in an authorization to file final plans final plans often look an awful lot like the discretionary permit plans but we have a few changes to meet any particular conditions the DRB chooses to impose that it believes are necessary to cause there to be compliance with the bylaw but it really is about a a 95% design that's required to be submitted at that discretionary permit level so that's when you best under the version of bylaws as an applicant is when you file a complete application for discretionary permit so everything in this project that's fully designed that's in that first phase would be covered and if it proceeds under the rules Williston has for vesting it would not be subject to the form-based code if it were adopted some things to note about that and I provided Eric with this opinion letter and a couple of attachments so that it can be shared with you as well vesting has limits obviously you have to continue to pursue your permits under the normal deadlines the town establishes and actually achieve them and build on them in a timely fashion you also are committed to not making any substantial changes to your project so there's a page I excerpted from the bylaw in chapter 5 5.6.3 about what is a substantial change and so this project is vested most of the way it lays out is vested there are ways that that vesting might go away if things didn't proceed or also if they changed substantially and so if the select board were to want to leave this site out of the form-based code it would mean essentially leaving it in the tap corners zoning district as it currently exists per bylaw and it wipes out tap corner zoning district because the overlay otherwise covers all of it but you know as a mechanical thing you would just leave that tccd language in and effectively this piece of property would be the only thing left in that zoning district and would not be covered by the overlay what if this is kept in the form-based code area there would be some applicability of the form-based code to the buildings and sites that are not fully designed under the pending application that would that would include architectural standards probably building form standards including placement and setback to the extent that they don't conflict with the already approved layout of the streets and amenities on the project and I'm not going to offer a hundred percent guarantee of exactly how those the code would be applicable I think there's probably some room for interpretation and some careful work that would have to be done there to to include it if if for some reason this project did not proceed and it had been left in the code area obviously the piece of land would be entirely subject to so I've probably gone a little too far in the mechanics of what would happen either way I think for the select board to consider is are there are there some policy implications that you want to ask about or do you want to talk to our planning commission members about some of the why so why did they think about taking it out but choose to leave it in moving south into Finney crossing there are some some buildings anticipated in Finney crossing whose general footprint is established on approved final plans but are not completely designed if if those buildings come in under the form-based code they would they would benefit from the flexibility of the code but they would also be subject again to the architectural building form standards as they exist so those buildings might be allowed to be taller than they were under the old zoning but they might also have to be brought a little closer to the street or be designed in a way that conforms to the code comments on the level of finality of the regulating plan so keep in mind we have a regulating plan that lays out the location of streets and it is backed up by an official map that does exactly the same and that plan was developed by our consultant with careful consideration every piece of information we could give him about the locations of wetlands wetland buffers, utilities existing streets existing approved easements etc etc it's not 100% nothing ever is wetland delineations are only good for five years so you know we did not do a complete wetland delineation of the overlay district prior to preparing this but we bet an incredible amount of information to our consultant team in developing that and if anybody really wants to enjoy a complicated map the computer aided drawing CAD file that lives underneath this that fold all the information in is almost unrecognizable as Williston because of the level of detail that goes to it that said and you'll probably hear me say this more than once the regulating plan is an adopted policy if it's adopted as part of this code it's also a policy statement so it's a wish list that says we would like tap corners that's the words of the town plan have said for a very long time to be a design conscious downtown with a strong dexterine orientation and our consultant has said and planning commissioners agreed that means having a pattern of walkable blocks around three to four hundred feet in dimension the regulating plan an official map and drawing accomplishes that it's not the only way to accomplish that but it's a statement of policy and the statement of this is what it looks like to make tap corners into a design conscious downtown with a strong dexterine orientation proposals to change this based on more information about field conditions or landowner preference could be compared to this for their relative unity walkability connectedness and arrangement so it's a statement of policy but it's also a statement of this is what it looks like if you have an idea that that looks different but does what this does the planning commission and select work could consider amendments to this plan going forward in fact I'm sure you will if you adopt it so that's something last thing I'll leave with is public work standards and fire department plan review public work standards isn't adopted policy as I mentioned before we have a consultant drawing profiles that would need to be adopted into that standard in order to enable the streets that are anticipated on the regulating plan to be built that consultant has been in touch with our public works director to talk about what those drawings need to look like and which of them are acceptable to public works they do almost categorically live within 64 feet of right of way the only one that is smaller than that is in 54 because it's a one way street parking on both sides but that's separate policy vote for the select board to take at a later day in terms of the construction new streets and knitting together that vice pedestrian network it is really important to do that piece of work but those those drawings most of the way there we're doing that project this fiscal year and we'll be able to show that to you very soon in terms of fire department plan review fire department plan review is also an adopted policy of the select board and as you know policies don't go through the ordinance process they are you know their statements of policy in the case of the public work specs as a policy they are very much about what needs to happen when someone wants to connect to municipal services that are owned by the public therefore the public works director and public work standard specifications are heavily influenced by our existing by law and would be backed up in this fire department plan review I've been here for a lot of the history of that document it's been about trying to get something in writing what is the fire department looking for when they review and comment on new development but it's it's not an ordinance that doesn't carry the weight of law and it's not quite the same as a public work spec where we can say you need to build your water line this way or we're not going to let them connect it to our water line it's more it's more a statement of preference here are the ways buildings and sites need to look in order for the fire department to be able to adequately serve them there may be a more refined set of policy or ordinances related to fire protection put before this group at some point this regulating plan and form-based code may need to adapt to that we're always doing this that's the nature of the interrelatedness of issues that planners and select boards have to deal with and I've taken too much of your time so I'll stop there um please save more questions and I'll try to be briefer if you call me up again we'll continue on then with our presentations and uh are the two jet when it comes tonight uh Jeff Davis and Jeff Nick to present the cap corners associates congratulations uh Jeff Nick on your daughter's uh wonderful medal in the Olympics thank you very much thanks floor is yours incredibly I'm lady for sure for sure so Jeff Davis with Jeff Nick I just came from a Williston restroom my in-law parents 70th wedding anniversary and I said a week later I went to my first owning meeting in Williston after you guys got married but Jeff is going to carry the weight here and I'll probably come in at the end but thanks for listening thanks for having us we've certainly enjoyed working with your staff planning commission put a lot of effort on this so while we do agree with some of the the items in the form-based code and we certainly have very similar concerns that that you already heard from Chris you know there are certainly a number of unattended consequences in this document for starters I think you know we talked about planning commission and a lot of this was during Zoom you know how it changes made as we move forward and see some of the challenges that you could in the document can changes be made and we were kind of indicated that yes it could be flexible and easy but I know when it comes to these matters changing ordinances and they didn't become quite complex and lengthy so I think we really have to think about how flexible and easily modified it is moving forward a number of things weren't really considered I don't think you could consider some of the stormwater issues and wetland considerations that the map indicates that some of the stuff is easy but it may not be easy some of the mandatory alleyways could could end up standing in the way of good design moving forward we actually shared one plan a conceptual plan north of Haniford that didn't include alleyways and the consultants pushed back on that and said we know we needed alleyways and we couldn't quite understand why alleyways because I think our design kind of took care of some of the design concerns in alleyways it can hide the back of the house things and trash pickup gets hidden which is all good stuff but a parking garage could handle the the same things there's a park that's indicated here on the tap corners associate side we certainly would like that to be flexible in terms of the location it seems to be pretty rigid it's set the boundaries are set so there might not be flexibility moving forward with that the green spaces we're very curious we never really got a firm answer you know if the town I guess desires maybe to purchase the green spaces but there's no zoning underlying zoning with the green spaces but how would they how would they be valued because the phrase is if the town didn't want to buy something you'd have to value but if there's no if it's just green there's how would you value that it's got to have some underlying zoning associated with it in the event that you didn't can we have that that's not true I'm not sure how that works so there's something if you want to success please you may know Scott's been coaching on the microphone so you know the question is about what happens if one of those map green spaces is in a place for somebody who owns it wants to develop and I've talked with this group about the mechanics of the official map and how there's essentially a requirement that the select board be given an opportunity to say if they're interested in acquiring that green space or street layout as the case may be and if the select board says no we don't want to acquire that the application and then proceed the issue is I think that green space there's just white so we don't have the required building line or the parking setback that we would have in the white space otherwise and you know my my short answer would be the most efficient thing to do would be to to hold the hearing that you know both allow the select board to consider whether it wanted to acquire that green space if you were pretty sure the answer was no to also amend the bylaw to create a regulated plan designation in a required building line on that we don't have language in the current draft I don't believe that that automatically reverts you to that but what statute says is if there's an application for development and there's a conflict with something on the official map the select board gets a period of time not to exceed 120 days to make a decision about whether it wants to pursue acquisition or not and if it doesn't the application can be refiled proceed under review so some something to think about how we would address it I know it could be addressed through the amendment process there may be a way working with our team to make that process more automatic work which that thank you my question was that so in terms of a question about how to value the land if what the decision of the select board does is you know absent that decision to pursue acquiring that land that land becomes developed so to me the value of that land is not taken away by designating it on the official map because designating it on the official map gives the select board a chance to decide to acquire it where the answer if it if the answer is no the land becomes developed so to my mind the land that is on the official map that's designated for a planned public facility is otherwise developable and value as such you don't you don't get to take the value away by putting it on the map you get to take the value away by by just compensating somebody and you're compensating them where if you don't compensate them they get to use it for us arguably highest and best use well maybe I'm not an appraiser or whatever well maybe I'm confused on this and I apologize if I've got the basics wrong but what would that do for the value for assessing property taxes so I think in terms of property taxes not an assessor it's a good question but again if the appraiser came to me and said what's this work I would say either the town is going to buy or it becomes developable it's worth all it's worth the same as all the other but what land on that map understood this development so do I interpret that as meaning the value is the value as developable land yes okay nice so I interrupted Jeff I just I'll cut in later but I think that's one of the things where I would hope this like where it would slow down because it's pretty gray how that works so if if it's if we if we came in and said we want to develop the land right across the street from Walmarts in our letter that we sent to you folks we want to develop the land across the street from Wal-Mart called Depot under what ordinance I don't know is it under form-based code is it is it it's it's painted green on the map that that that's all went through so I'm not sure we can develop so say we say we want to develop it and the town says okay we want to think about doing an amphitheater which by the way is a really bad idea right there but that's another subject so the town would say I think intelligently we need to get an appraisal what that's worth so you hire an appraiser the appraiser goes to the zoning ordinance and the zoning ordinance says well it's gray you can't build anything there so what's it worth so so that's an example of it's time to I think we need to slow down think these things out and and make sure that we know exactly the detail that we're getting into before we adopt a map that with respect I had some battles with the consultant that the town hired and I say it like it is and I mean this with respect because a lot of people worked hard on this and went to a lot of meetings and I respect that a lot but you know it's easy to sit down and tap corners and the four quadrants and play tic-tac-toe and draw a bunch of cross lines and say these are going to be the future blocks 40 years from now when Walmart fails and all these stores fail but it takes into account what Chris said earlier it doesn't take into account what Chris said earlier but all the easements and rights of way and common ownerships and Army Corps of Engineers restrictions that just the consultant couldn't have paid to take all that into account and all of us developers three of us are here tonight that control most of the open land and tap corners saying this is not well thought out this is this is this has got some flaws and we need to slow down we need to talk about this and just an example of open space and tap corners you can draw a picture saying that's going to be an ample theater across from Walmart by the way there's no sunset there it really is not a very pretty place it's right across the street from a whole bunch of cars which some people like some people don't but it's easy for somebody to sit in an office and do that it's another it's another subject for a developer to go through the process and try to do something that that makes sense for the town and for us so I'll shut up and Jeff to say some relevant stuff but it's very frustrating to have someone from Washington D.C. come in and tell you what you're going to do with your land and not understand the nuances of Vermont development and the issues that we all go through yeah I mean Matt is correct it's that land is developable if you choose not to buy it it's just under what regulation is it developable you don't know the density you don't know the uses it has to have some underlying zoning attached to it so that the price could value and that doesn't thank you Matt better said better said but but to continue on Jeff's line of thinking that consultant you mean he really dismissed retail as paying a dying industry he says what I heard and we try to correct that by thinking I'm not sure how much way to carry with the planning commission but you know when you think about south of Marshall development pattern really been set there and we have recently after the pandemic had retail interest from retail so the retail industry is evolving is changing it's reacting to the to the internet and Amazon world but there's still a desire by the public to go in and touch and be able to see the product and a lot of stores now are relying on both internet and store merchandising so the customer goes in looks at things and then just on the orders and already I am online instead of buying at the store so there's retail industry is alive and well and we've got some very solid as you can see but the tax revenue we got some very solid players there and there's more lined up to hopefully come in and and those retailers so there's some thinking I'm not sure what the goal is especially the four minutes goes south of Marshall Avenue you're acquiring two-story buildings mixed use it's very hard at this age of the game to have mixed uses in there residential doesn't really fit well that side of Marshall Avenue office space typically shies away from going above big boxes stores like REI and they like that which side lights in they put skylights in the Toys R Us building we wouldn't be able to do that with a two-story building it's more expensive to build with the HVAC systems that are in these stores goes a lot of reasons to keep single-story retail on that side of Marshall Avenue there's suggestions that there's some additional curb cuts on Marshall Avenue I'm not sure how that would play out with Act 250 in traffic studies because Marshall Avenue carries a lot of traffic so there's questions there so south of Marshall Avenue I think the consultant anticipated the failure of retail and our mind that's that's not going to happen these leases are long-term they're not going away and the terms of those leases really don't allow for what you see here in this plan so I think I think that really sums up our thoughts here and happy to entertain any any questions well thank you any questions at this point if I might here if I might if I might just add that Jeff covered it well I would just ask the select board to slow down because this has been this is a major change and I think you've got three we haven't we've heard from Chris we haven't heard from Al but you've got three developers who control a lot of the open land attack corners and I think we've been here for the through the process and we've made a lot of suggestions and honestly the planning commissions work hard the staffs work hard they've been great they've been forthcoming and shared information consultant I'm not so sure about the answer was no to everything we said no no no and you know we feel like a lot of people with good intention and care about the town of Williston offered their thoughts about what should happen attack corners but but none of them have development experience or most of them don't have development experience and none of them were aware of the nuances and the issues that affect all of us as developers that that make it a really hard game and and maybe people are unhappy with 25 years ago they're unhappy with Walmart now they're unhappy with Finney crossing whatever it is it's easy to criticize and and the town's been through three zoning three or four zoning changes major changes in my career and each one gets criticized and eight or ten years later people say well we need to do better and and somebody comes up with an idea but for one I can see the consultant that the town hired sat down and kind of crisscrossed and said that this is over this isn't working this is bad tic-tac-toe I'm going to draw on some some some blocks and I'm going to I'm going to see what this thing's going to look like in 40 years and that's not realistic so that that's point number one but the point number two is is is um you know the local option tax is important nobody likes to talk but it's a big revenue source for most of them good for us we've got great tenants it's good for the town we work together some people don't like Walmart and Home Depot some people do a lot of people go there but if we do something that causes us not to be able to develop in a way that we can compliment those businesses where where what we build can can can jive with what those people are doing and they fail Walmart moves to South Burlington Mall University Mall in five years you're you're taking the cornerstone out of the block of the foundation of the local option tax we're not going to let that happen we don't think you're going to let that happen but that could happen and that that's a dangerous thing that's a huge revenue source for the town and and it's a it's obviously good for us we've got great tenants a lot of some people don't like it some people love it tens of thousands of people go there every week and a lot of Williston residents go out for everything so yeah I just ask you to respect that and and think about it and your deliberations and and three and two other little things one is Chris and Jeff both spoke about if we can have some flexibility in the ordinances that are being considered and the consultant said no I've sat down I've drawn this maybe I'm who we're stating but basically this is the way it's going to be and if you want to change it aside from a few little things that you could do you're going to have to get a bylaw amendment bylaw amendments I've been through that for 30 years they take forever they take a year or two three years to get done so if we come in with the project or Chris or I'll do that the town thinks it's a great idea and we have to go through a bylaw amendment that by then the tenant's gone and it's just it's just not doable so flexibility controlled by the town where town residents say yeah this is a good idea let's bend this rule or let's change this alley where let's do this that's not the developer the developer making suggestions in the town saying yes or no it's just it doesn't make sense not have that flexibility so again I just wish you would slow down think about listening to the development community with respect to the work that the planning commission and the staff has done this is too quick too fast and we could really screw up the tax base the tap corners so we don't get it right thank you any questions at this point great to the end that may be the thing to add to your comments thanks for listening thank you just really briefly I appreciate the conversation about green space it's designated on the regulating plan and I think we could prepare something if the select court's interested that would make it clear that there's a regulated plan i.e. a zoning designation built to line parking setback underneath those green spaces that would be applied should the town not move to acquire them if there was pending application and then one other thing I just I missed it with Chris's comment and Jeff brought it up as well is the question of the DRB role and the flexibility and sort of the ability for the DRB to be involved so a couple quick points on that number one I just want to be clear that we've spoken as a staff with the DRB several times about this proposal and explain to them how it would shift their role in development review in the four base code area and that they would have less of a role in the day to day approval of sites of buildings there as I mentioned with this board subdivision flatting and the laying out of streets would still have to go to them our attorneys have advised us that flatting really just cannot be done administratively the other part I wanted to talk about in regards to the DRB is to remind everybody that as a administrative procedure the certificate of conformity permitting process envisioned by this draft has an avenue of appeal and that appeal does go to the DRB and we've explained that quite a bit to the DRB do is that you don't get to just sort of push this binder aside and forget about the middle of tap corners you'll need to be versed in this because there may be either an applicant or a neighbor or some other interested party who appeals the administrative approval of a project here and remembering that the code and the staff are committed to an open transparent well-notified very public permitting process the permitting process for this does not look like these sign-in shed and fence permits on a Monday morning staff meeting as I do currently it involves a butter notification it involves a publicly accessible meeting of the staff prior to the signature on the permit and an announcement that that permit has been issued so just wanted to remind folks there is a role there yes it's it's appeal and yes that's different from going to the DRB with an application it's going to the DRB and saying I don't like something who's only administrative decided but it is part of the role there and that's all that's all I have for right now thank you thank you thank you and I'm moving on then to um Ellen Book Development to with Elsa welcome evening we did receive your latest letter in June 30 I had some trouble with my email on Saturday going to get it out so anyway I'd like to thank you know thank you and thank everybody here for the opportunity for the developers to have a chance to come and state their cases I'll try to be short and sweet here I just got one page and try to read off as best they can one thing I want to bring up is working with Matt and staff I mean Matt has been a great asset for the developers I think everyone will agree with me they've been very good to work with but this reminds me of a situation where we're working for an owner the owner has hired an engineer to design we'll say an electrical system because I do a little bit of electrical work sometimes and they come to us and they say it's too expensive can you help us redesign this and bring it down a little bit make it more real and um we don't want to offend the engineer who has designed it but we still have to come up with these ideas so that's what I'm trying to do here in a nice way because I I enjoy working with Matt he's been great to work with over the years anyway I'll read slowly as developers we invest a lot of our time money in our hearts into our projects let me give you a for instance on on what it takes to develop a project first we hire architects engineers and designers we meet with the zoning and planning and DPW with the time efficient we then meet with the state active 50 personnel to discuss the criteria such as storm water archeological wetlands plant and wildlife to name a few that takes several months sometimes we meet and submit building plans to the state of a rock fire safety division in the inspect for the inspectors in the plan reviewers to issue us our permits and then we negotiate with general contractors and subcontractors and put together contracts and sculpts of work we then take the responsibility of building infrastructure systems that consist of water sewer stormwater gas electric telephone TV underground systems next to be done is the concrete foundations the steel erection in the building frame and I could go on until we get the certificate of occupancy just to make my point we do a lot of work to get to make our side happy and my point is we have a big investment in the local town and we want to make sure that our voices are heard and that we do it right we want to work the town to make it right so we have submitted letters with the hope that you'll hear our messages and then what I would like to do next is just point out a few of those items on my letters as the highlights that I see my parcel of land is about 80 acres this plan allows me to develop approximately 10 of those acres there is an area designated on the town plan for a 16 acre park on the side of one road and then there's another 45 plus minus acres designated as green space or natural space on the other side of a road there are approximately 10 acres of roads in alleyways that will have to be built at a cost of about 12 million dollars this this plan would lead me about 10 acres of developable land on my 88 across this didn't seem like a fair negotiation for me second item I would really like you to consider including some single-story commercial buildings in this new form based code planning as you know in Williston the local business the local businesses contribute 1% of all the sales to the general fund which will help reduce taxes for the residential homeowners and I know that is what brought up but I just want to you know redefine it I also want to mention I'm very concerned with the layout that the consultants did on my block is very schematic in design and it shows several thousands of feet of road with buildings only on one side of many of those roads that makes for a very unaffordable housing projects in addition I want to bring to your attention as I did the planning as I did to the planning commission that they have shown my easement going into the middle of a parking lot in the maple tree maple tree place property which is not the correct location for that easement I brought this I brought this to their attention and it and it was not corrected and I am sure that I am sure there there will be several other changes to that plan that that they did for me basically and to make those changes will require the bylaw amendment that Jeff talked about and that could take several months maybe years to make those changes and it just doesn't seem to make sense to have a plan that's you know failing to start lastly in an effort not to take up too much more of the time there are more issues but I will bring up one last one I believe I have always been a person willing to work and negotiate with the town on development projects and I think that it would be in the town's best interest to continue a relationship like that with me rather than expect me to agree on a plan that allows me to develop 10 of my 80 acres I don't know what my response will be on something like that but it's certainly it's just not something that I would want to agree to you know 10 out of 80 it's just not so so I want to say thank you very much Matt in response just a just a quick one so I believe the select works familiar with the location on the map we're talking about but Emily's bringing it up in screen share and you see the blocks that are created there and there is some fairly extensive green space map on this parcel I don't have the acreage calculations to give you on that but I'll just note that the green space around where the water tower is above Mabel Tree Place it's the burrow or a knoll that green reflects a designation on the existing account plan it's currently restricted from development as a conservation area in chapter 27 of the bylaw although the designation shape is a little different that the shape here takes into account some changes in slow and overall arrangement of the proposed street map and the other part as I mentioned before it continue to encourage the select work to think about it this way yes the regulating plan is an element of the bylaw yes the official map is an element of the bylaw and yes they are quite prescriptive the streets without a bylaw and they need to go at these locations plus or minus 75 feet that is that is very prescriptive they do reflect a walkable path that the genus separates the town and as I said before there's other ways that this might be able to be done this way represents the best efforts of our consultant team following our public input process working with staff and you know using all the information at our at our disposal and yes if somebody wants to develop these 80 acres in a way that looks different from this under this draft they need to come to you the select work for a bylaw change to do that I think it's a little bit when we talk about process some of this has to do with just if you're going to have an official map what the statutes say you have to do when you want to change it I'm not allowed to change an official map very much under statute there's language about mapping planned public facilities as high as the precision possible but really really means when you start moving things around needs to be changed but I think the other question the select work thinking about the framework that the bylaw like this sets is when somebody wants to develop a significant piece of tap corners does the select board think that it should have a policy that puts that development if it's different from this adopted map back in front of the select board for consideration or if by contrast should we continue to have a system like we do today where street layouts are really not talked about at this level detail at all in the bylaw and are part of a vote DRB review and approval with some general standards related to the provision of safe and adequate access so that's the that's the policy question that lives underneath the idea due to use an official map underneath this regulating plan to truly require old streets in a specific location and yes to pull the conversation back to yourselves and your successors when somebody wants to make significant change so now there must be some questions it's kind of one of those who first Matt are you going to come back up I have I have I have a lot and I'm sure others do too a lot of questions or just thoughts I should okay Megan I should express but the one that is is capturing me at least I think might be the most important maybe not the most important maybe the most important from a town costs standpoint is going to be the concept of buying green space and particularly if it's valued somewhere at or near it's it's value as develop a land how are we going to afford that in other words I can see us maybe buying one and then we're tapped out for a long time so is there a an answer to that kind of dilemma there's a couple answers the first is that there's no free auction money has to come from someone and we're talking a lot of money possible yeah yeah you know the first thing to know is though that the experience of Vermont communities that have used the official map tool is that oftentimes that green space fits into the development plan than it than it developed perhaps and I know you're hearing from some folks tonight we're seeing this map and saying this does not fit with what I would like to be able to do with this property but but oftentimes it does fit and it fits in terms of a large master plan development also needing to provide some facilities along with it with the added bonus that these facilities get built turned over to the town and then maintained by the town for duty yes also involving cost for the select board to again look at the official map for the regulating plan and think of it as a wish list these are the places that we think we would make good green spaces but we're going to have to decide about money when the decision presents itself to us when when somebody says I have another idea I'd like to put a building there that's when the select board has to make that decision the select board maybe if this code was adopted want to consider setting up a fund similar to the environmental reserve fund a broadening purpose of the environmental reserve fund and funding it more to to build up some money to fund that sort of purchase we also recall we do identify in our bylaw amendment that the the value of these lands can be used to offset recreation impact fee liability a rec fee is fairly high it's over it's over a thousand dollars per unit by quite a bit if you're building a residential project it's a great way to not have to put that cash out but rather to provide that green space to the town and offset the recreation impact fee liability by the value of that space and also recall that in both transportation and recreation impact fees we say you know you've got a bunch of land you've got a project over here with that project and provide this value you get some credit for that going forward with other projects as you move forward so the hope is that projects accommodate green spaces because it makes sense for them and it makes sense for the town 2.0 on that is that there's an offset of an impact fee that's otherwise going to be due in the form of ash at the time of permitting and then finally select or might also consider setting up some funding mechanisms you know assessing just what would it take and how briefly do we think this decision might be in front of the board and how well funded does the board want to be to pursue that sort of purchase and maybe to prioritize these green spaces okay just a quick follow-up has has it have you assess the town have you had the opportunity to look at this and sort of try to somehow quantify the cost of that the potential cost of that green space is that even possible we could apply some sort of generalized to it and give you something it's probably millions of dollars I know I know we look at the value of the of the class of construction of all the streets and you know we were in we're in the millions of dollars depending on the time horizon you applied to it this is probably simpler okay I don't want to can I ask a question about the valuation excited I wasn't really clear on that if if but this plan gets put into place the green space is there there's building development going around being done around the green spaces um the value of that land wouldn't it change the fair market value would change if it's something that's going to be sold to the town as green space versus something that would be developed on and that's not just like the economics of the situation so as as the context around the green space changes its value might change that I think that's true I'm talking about the use like if it's green space that's one thing tell me if I'm wrong that would have one value but if it's developable land that would have a separate that would have a different value right so does this say which one well I guess it wouldn't be in it it would be part of this plan but I mean which which one would we use which one would be fair to use well I go I go back to say it's fair to use the developable value because but for the select or employment of the official map tool it is developed okay but if so when the town goes to buy this we'd be buying the developable value not the not the value that it's really going to have once the town gets titled to it yes that that would be my advice to you know whenever whenever an appraisal comes in and we've had these conversations in the work times when the town has purchased open space the conversation we have in the planning offices what could somebody do with this if we weren't conserving it how much could they build on and then that's the decision that's made about what it's going to cost to buy it so kind of some property may have very high value because of its buildability other properties may have very low value because of wetlands or whatever obstacle or barrier there is to developing that land yes so some of the green space on this map is mapped over weapons and land blockers that are not especially buildable some of the news is really mapped over the land that is buildable but for half the town's desire to do something else with it the way we devalue would be the town's so if we took that green space that's living in the formates code area that today we're saying we would like to try to buy this if given the opportunity at its value if I was bringing you a mile on and said let's make that harvest lane had rural zoning construct now we're reducing the value because we would be reducing the devalability at that point mine I think would be more towards the end of this discussion but I can ask it now yes first thanks for everybody for being here and putting their thoughts and perspectives forward I guess what's the compromise here we consider adopting a form base code that in theory is supposed to level playing field and streamline existing procedures in place and consider future development for current residents future residents and businesses and the developers who attempt to provide these opportunities so like I'm weighing kind of both off hearing perspectives here I'm hearing our town perspective I'm just trying to merge the two ideas and what's I guess the best case scenario how do we how do we move that forward that's that's a large question and if you don't mind if I can answer that I have that same type of questioning I'm hearing you know we have the key some of the key developers in the room tonight I assume most of the development that can happen within this area that's covered by the regulating plan would be by some some type of developer maybe a large developer likes here it may be a developer who has smaller parcel or parcels of land and I'm hearing the developer side saying we need flexibility I hear the regulating or the form-based code saying no we we need specificity and so I guess kind of where I'm at I'm kind of asking that same question of is there any ability to is there ability to compromise there and for instance might be is does the answer maybe no I mean I totally understand that but does the regulating plan have the ability to be less specific about things like where streets are or does that defeat the purpose of form-based code well yes at some at some point you become so flexible as to be you know yeah just just to be sure go back to your old and when you when you back it up with an official map you really do run in this statutory issues you know the plan and code as drafted is saying we as a town we really want these streets to be spot and if you want to do it differently you need to show us an idea that's at least as good at achieving town goals as this one and that's that's the statement that's made in the administrative and regulating plan chapters in the code okay but to your question Gordon about compromise and you know Megan might be able to speak to this a little more as well I would point the select for toward two resources when you think about that one is we talked a little bit ahead of this meeting about section 12 your binder which is some of the written testimony from our stakeholders and some staff responses either either clarifying elements of the code or identifying places where the planning commission had some options and made some decisions about what was going to go in a draft that they submitted to you and there are ranges there are places where we talked about development standards where we talked about boundaries and other things the other resource that would be really useful for the select for it and thinking about compromise is to look at the powerpoint presentation and watch the video of the March 15 work section of the planning commission where they really weighed a bunch of these issues around very specific requirements including things like boundaries building height etc and what you see embedded in there is some of the options there might be for you to explore asked about in terms of ways that code could be changed yeah we just have that you know what you see before you has already been a process of a lot of compromises along the way you've heard one perspective from the developers from the planning commission perspective we have made a lot of changes along the way over the almost two years of working on this project and so we are bringing this forward to you as a snapshot in time of where we are right now what we think after a lot of deliberation and conversation is our best way forward now if you really want to enter into more deliberation then you should probably want a public hearing and move the process forward because I think you currently are hearing from planning commission and developers and the residents of Williston have a lot to say too and that may also influence you know how you want to proceed so I would just say you know there there has been a lot of compromise along the way and and I realize that there is still you know this is a this is a big step right the form based code is a huge step but I would also just remind you that there's a lot of unhappiness in the town right now with the the style and to some degree the pace of development in tech corners and if we do nothing which is always an option that will just continue so we will continue to get the kinds of things we have now under the current zoning regulations and so that will not achieve walkable neighborhoods we don't we have a little bit of that right now but not very much it will not address our energy goals in our energy action plan and our need to concentrate more population in a you know tighter space so that we can or I should say a more concentrated space so that we can achieve those efficiencies environmentally in terms of material use energy costs and even creating critical mass for public transportation so you know this is this is where the select board really has to think about how you want to move forward thank you Jerry I've got a Shayla Livingston a planning commissioner online like to like to wait you know I'm good sure I'll connect her then Alex daily another plan commissioner as well Shayla I'm going to connect you right now hello can you hear me yes great hi everybody this is Shayla Livingston I'm a planning commission member thank you for letting me respond to this as well I want to echo what Megan is saying and I think I hear what the developers are saying and I want to start by just saying I deeply appreciate their work in Williston I go to the stores I get my son's haircut and Walmart no I'm I am not here at all to diminish the work that they do and the work that it takes to do this planning change is really hard and this is a big change and so I also hear that that there are a couple of unknowns or pieces that feel you know they're not totally sure about or that might need adjustment in the future and that's going to be a reality I've worked in local and state government for my whole career that's going to be a reality no matter how long we wait and so I want to echo what Megan is saying that I really encourage you to warn a hearing and hear from the residents who participated in huge numbers in this process and made it really clear that what they're looking for in a downtown Tufts Corners is different from what we have today and that will mean that the developer's vision is going to have to conform to a more public broader vision that has public input in a very different way than something like the DRB and I of course honor and respect my colleagues in the DRB for the work that they do but this would this would reflect a plan from the town and enact something that Willis and Willis-Stonians could see into the future and that's very different from what we are seeing today when each developer is looking at their small part of the town or larger part depending on the developer and making that decision in isolation so again I just want to encourage you to warn the hearing and hear from the non-developers and the folks who live here and in terms of compromise again having always worked in government I think that is so important we have made many compromises already and in the future we will have to make more and we will have to come back and change this as the world changes and as the landscape changes and I think that that is not in any way a reason to slow down or to stop and so I just want to really you know reinforce this idea that if we wait for perfection you know we will be waiting forever and as Megan said we can always do nothing that is a choice but I hope that you will not choose that for that reason and continue to hear from the people who have put a lot of thought into this and the last thing I want to say and this is just minor detail but the consultant you know is from Washington D.C. but the work reflects what people who live here asked for and suggested and so I think that it is a little bit I'm going to say goofy to sort of be pointing fingers at the consultant because it really we did work very hard to make sure that it was reflecting what people who live here wanted to see thank you thank you Terry I've got one more planning commissioner on zoom do you want to go to him now sure hi Alex I'll connect you right now hello this is Alex Daly I'm also a planning commission member along with Megan and Shayla who have spoken frankly I can't say it much better than Shayla has I have a series of notes in front of me and she covered most of the points so I'll be brief which is you know I felt a little like I was watching in one of these bad political satires in late night USA oh man comes to Vermont from Washington D.C. it tells us how to do it this is a plan that was developed by us by locals on the planning commission talking to our neighbors talking to the community talking to the businesses a consultant came in to help us put those ideas on paper in a way that's going to be enforceable and workable someone with experience putting plans like this in the place and working with the development community but this is our plan this is a plan of Williston by Williston this is not the plan that came out of a consultant from D.C. I also see a lot of sort of hear a lot of scare tactics frankly oh you're risking the task space let's let's slow down you know they've declared retail dead you know I I agree completely that retail is not dead in fact there's no push at all in this plan to not allow retail space it's actually quite the opposite you know firstly we now allow for much more varied use of buildings under this plan so you know if these developers see a use for the future of retail we're not mandating retail in any particular space but we're also not restricting it right there's not there's something that says hey this building has to be used for this purpose and that purpose only that's covered this in earlier meetings but I think it's a little bit disingenuous to suggest that we're trying to sort of like actively fight against retail and the the local option tax it's quite the opposite not only are is the use of the buildings more flexible but we've actually taken the step to lay out a walkable retail friendly core right the part of Williston's issue is exactly the the sort of threat that was hung over the head of what what happens if we lose Walmart well what does happen if we use Walmart right what we need is a town that supports not just big boxes but smaller more human centric buildings that can support more local businesses and more diversified commercial tax base and that's a really important part of this plan we've considered that very carefully and I think that that is really frankly going to be a better retail experience once we make a more human centric town that's a little more walkable you know the overall tone has been you know I've seen four or five changes the zoning in my career you should just slow down changes bad but I agree with Shaila right what the zoning we've had to date has been based on the Williston we had in 1972 or 1982 it's 2022 we have a different town it's much more vibrant it's much busier it's crowded and that I mean that in the good ways and the bad ways right we need to rethink our zoning so this is a way for us to bring it into this century and start to enable more varied use but also more control over the shape and size of buildings so we create something that doesn't have these buildings where the town members come to the select board and start using terms like Soviet style architecture and some of the other I think quite apt terms we heard in the feedback sessions what I hear when I hear developers say hey let's slow down the process is that I think it was frankly very telling the very first developer to sit down in front of this meeting started with the very first goal of hey don't put me in part of this don't cover my land by this this is going to make it a little bit more expensive a little bit more complicated for me to develop it I just want to do what I've always done make as much profit as always make and not really worry that much about the town right I think ultimately these codes have gotten us what we have today and I think a significant amount of the citizenry have sort of spoken and said we don't love past corners as it exists today we like it has a lot of great aspects but we want to build one that we really love and as a town we can be proud of and a town that will be vibrant 50 years from now and I think this plan is going to lead us to that I would encourage you guys to move this process forward because it has been in development as designed by this planning commission of locals working with the locals for more than a year now I've seen little frankly in the way of very specific requests for change from these developers really just these sort of broad pronouncements to slow down and I frankly think they're really just attempts to grandfather as much land as possible into the old way of developing it and I think that says a lot about how much change and progressivity is in this code thank you thank you any further questions Jeff yes Jeff I think Chris was first Greta okay so you guys okay yeah that's that nope uh you know I certainly I appreciate the comments from the planning commission members and certainly do you want to acknowledge and I forgot to do this about all the time and efforts associated with review of the performance code I do think that compromise is possible we're not saying bro that performance code as a developer what we're saying is that there are components of this that have not been uh as a landowner developer that are problem the unintended consequences of some of the regulations in form based code as currently drafted are problematic and going to create challenges to develop the pieces the way that the town is visioning it and so what I would say is rather than warning the public hearing because that essentially means that this is now enacted and going into a public process is I would say I would refer to have you say okay developers planning commission members we'd like you to go and work through your bullet points of challenges associated with this over the next let's call it four months and come back to us with what items you've tried to address and what items you can't come to a resolution on and we'll make some decisions on but what we're telling you is we have not felt and I haven't felt as though we've had that opportunity to really go in and challenge some of those compliance I've been involved in many of the hearings not all of them I'm not going to say that was at all but I think that we're telling you that we're not comfortable with some of the requirements that are not going to be challenged with it I think in particular it is really hard as a developer to hear that we don't care and I've spent the last 22 years of my life and realistically I've spent the last 40 years of my life my parents developed homes here I remember Southbridge and I grew up in a model home on the weekends and I was there day in and day out so I've been here for 40 years and for us for people to say that we don't really care and don't really think about what the overall role is of the town it's not it's not appropriate to say to the people that are sitting in this room and I would also say that if the public has much interest in this orange-based code they'd also be filling this entire room they're not here they're not here because there is a small group of people who are interested but the overall general population isn't here and that's because they're saying hey things are looking okay you also need to remember that Finney-Provening is a project that has been developed since we started that in 2000 so that's 22 years ago it's taken 22 years to come to fruition it took 11 years to get home right so it took 11 years to construct it to the level that it is now and I can tell you that the walkability and the access and the components that are there are working but it took 11 years for it to come to fruition these things do not happen over time and we need to allow some of these things to continue to come to fruition and you are seeing it and so we're asking you not to warn the hearing and ask and direct the planning commission and landowners not just the three developers here today but generally when they're done is to go back and sit back and work through some of these proposals so thank you Chris before you go yes is this okay earlier when you first started speaking you spoke I remember correctly asking for the Essex church property be removed from form-based code I assume that question is still out there you would like it answered just to make sure I understand you're you're allowed right now to propose a project under the current zoning bylaws that are in place you've submitted an application but it only covers part of the project most of it but not all of it so your concern would be is you get your approval to move forward but you have to deal with this form-based code down the road where what you've done already and what the form-based code allowed are how they integrate together are going to be problematic there could be there could be challenges associated with integrating the two different codes I'm just one in one piece of property right I just want to make sure I try to get the concept behind behind it okay so part of our decision as we're contemplating what to do is whether this your prop the property your property should stay in form-based code or not just to make sure and then at some point I would like to hear Matt's thought on if we were to take a form month hiatus what does it mean what are the impacts before I could agree to or entertain agreeing to such a thought but I'd like to hear that all right good thank you absolutely thank you please Jeff thanks for the second opportunity just to address a couple of things we heard you know I've been at this a long time with the retailers and to avoid any unintended consequences I'm trying to explain to everybody here that the retailers that we have especially on and there's many different types of retail so the retail pattern has been established on the south side of Marshall Avenue parking large parking lots people walk in the front door it's very successful for that style of retail and if you start requiring two-story buildings and other things that are in this sore base code the retailers that we're talking to that will just not they will just not come they will already I would not have come here if they had to build the two-story building they couldn't get their skylights in so they would look for an alternative location so north of Marshall Avenue you can fit the small retail in amongst the housing and it works but we'll figure out a way to make that work and there's some demand for that but for the south side of Marshall Avenue it just it just won't work and you know there's a desire to have a walkability we certainly understand that that seems to work north of Marshall Avenue I'm not sure what you gain by trying to create a walkability environment south of Marshall Avenue because the pattern is already there I'm not sure what you gain as a town by trying to create a walkable environment you know I go back to the data that Chippin County Regional Planning has and it's and we've used it downtown Burlington downtown Burlington says 75 percent of the people visiting downtown Burlington 75 percent single occupancy vehicles and that number has not changed in 20 years there's some walking there's some biking obviously mass transit with buses but for the most part and I would have guessed that it's probably because of suburban environment you have a greater number of single occupancy vehicles driving so that's how most of us get around and that's how most of the folks get to those stores south of Marshall Avenue so to try to recreate that is troublesome for the retailer or for what you're trying to achieve here it's probably not going to work and then just to answer the question about the green space Jeff we did a little quick noodling back to the envelope it's probably in excess of ten million dollars the green space on on here that's our assessment and that's under current zoning out of Nathan Aigling the zoning current zone thank you well thank you before you before you go if I could read but let me know if I correctly interpreted what I'm reading between the lines of what you said is you would like to see south of Marshall Avenue we move from form based code you read my mind I didn't say that but that's a I should have said yes okay that would that would make sense to us and I'm having a little bit of trouble understanding so help me out I think yeah why form based code I've heard form based code you know retail ain't dead and form based code doesn't work for at least some maybe many types I don't know where that line is of retail help me understand that better well the retailer likes to be around other retailers so there's just a lot of synergy with that so that's why you have those patterns some of them do like residential there's smaller goods coffee shops they thrive and then with with reach a residential above so and some office certainly downtown Boynton thrives on that before COVID in you know you know now we're struggling with COVID so it's it means is the office environments a little dicey right now but yeah there's so there's different types of retail the retail is auto centric south of Marshall Avenue and it just or it exists here's an example in your town CPS pharmacy was forced to build the second floor it's never been occupied they built it they put an elevator in it they never intend to I've even called them and said I have a yoga studio they don't want to hear from us they don't want anybody involved it just creates problems unintended consequences happen when you put things about some of these retailers and they just have a formula and they that's it single story or they're not going to come interesting all right good again good thank you last shot thank you Jayman hi Jayman K here I'm vice chair of the planning commission and but I wanted to share mostly my own comments but I'll mention if there's something we've discussed on that last point I just came from physical therapy today that's from an office that's over Walgreens on in Winooski on main street in Winooski and somehow Walgreens has physical therapy offices above them and it works so I don't know what the difference is tonight we've heard concerns of landowners and developers and I appreciate their thoughtful comments and I get their points we'll hear a lot of concerns and thoughts from the public though when you have hearings we the planning commission certainly did the public is very interested in if you're watching front porch forum and letters the editor you'll know that their that interest does not die I disagree with you Chris about that point they're not here tonight because this is a developer chance to give you input I agree with many of the statements of fact by those who just presented including what's in their letters I can't speak for the consultant Jeff Barrow but to me a lot of it is a question of goals for example I personally don't think that Jeff Davis is tough corners park stores will fail at all I do think that the development approach that produced them encourages automobile centric uses and the form-based code is trying alter land use patterns to higher density walking biking transit access driving as expected but park once do multiple things as in a mall or in a downtown is the is the goal also don't forget form-based code definitely gets in the way of current developer plans but if they can adapt the value and the revenue from that land will grow tremendously from it on the current zoning capability of that property the local option tax I just want to this my person thing it's a it supports increased services offered by the town for retail it does not to me lower the tax rate unless one thinks property taxes should subsidize the additional cost to the town of retail activity the police fire and road and roads I don't know how that balances out but I don't I don't like the statement that the local option taxes to reduce our property taxes because if we didn't have retail we would have a reduced property tax as well because we wouldn't need as much fire and police etc per the regulating plan mixed use is only required on right avenue so any comments that mixed use isn't pertinent commercial residential development are welcome in any configuration single story or other type maximizes infrastructure per unit and encourages auto-centric access so single story buildings are not allowed because of those costs to the environment and also they increase the cost of developing obviously on alcena cal's property I think I speak for PC members in general and saying that we are certain that the grid layout for that area will have to be changed once wetlands are mapped we consider to plan the street layout for that area but there were too many unknowns to make a decision so we left it as is would be understanding it would be revised based on on the ground information without building green spaces my fear is that we'll see what happened on the commercial part of fending crossing where the green space just kept shrinking and shrinking with each revision to where we face they have a posted stamp green space with it we have a chance for example um alcena cal's borough park raises the value of the residents is near it if the town buys a development value can it then charge admission to his homeowners who want to enjoy it I think that there there's an opportunity here for some sort of balancing of the increase in value of his property to having a park there and so the price should be negotiable with that there should be a compromise and on the Essex Alliance Church property the planning commission I'm speaking for us based on how we make our decision I think we wanted it in the district because if his plans fall through or there is a subsequent redevelopment we thought it was important to be part of the district those are just some personal good thank you chamber so let's go now to talk about next steps but the other a memo for us and then we can determine whether we wish to do anything with that yeah I just have a real quick question for Matt I mean it's not so quick I don't know so we've heard from three developers and I really appreciate all being here and I really appreciate your perspective and you all have you know done so much for the town but by your best estimate how much of the developable developable land within this you know the form based on zoning district here is owned by how many different developers who how what are we not seeing represented in this room tonight so in the in the code area the folks you have in front of you tonight all we represent around I'm going to say 65 percent of the land area in the form based code overlay district other major owners would include a sort of a full elimination of owners in Blair Park including Vermont Tech and Technology we work with some of the way I can see there are some individual owners of lots in a long route to a near the tap corners intersection and on the other side with the judge developable tap for shopping center and adjacent lands man's field investments up by the Hamlet you know so there's another 50 or 60 owners who might own anywhere from a single acre or two acre lot something in more five to 10 acre range throughout throughout right okay thank you thank you Matt could you ask the question sorry can I ask the question of if there were a hiatus so that negotiation negotiations maybe isn't the right word but discussions to see if there is any resolution that can happen with some of the issues and the barriers are foreseen by that you know 65 percent what would be the liabilities of doing that I can think of a couple okay two of them are time and money in terms of money you know this project was very generously supported by the select board across two fiscal years in the budget did not much continue this project in f.23 and our our budget project as far as our ccrpc 60 percent match goes away at the end of this one so so there's a there's a financial capacity to do a whole lot more in salt and work that that is really you know really getting down at the end of that time is the other one that I think is really important in that planning commission has really put an incredible amount of focus in this project over the last almost two and a half years now beginning beginning to you know jumping on the project pitching it to the select board and then and then funding and moving through it there are other issues for the planning commission to move on to among those some revised development standards for the village that have been perpetuating the historical and architectural advisory committee we're scheduled to perform a housing needs assessment and begin to look at more regulatory strategies the town can undertake to ensure that new development concludes the portable housing is at all kinds of different levels of work let me and this really this coming this full year staff is the beginning of our data gathering survey board for the eventual development of 2025 so I said time and money and I'll just say and time and effort are the other two if this goes back planning commission for work first up I think Megan can speak to the work that's already gone in the compromises that have been made and the issues that have been addressed second mechanically the commission would have to fill through another public hearing process the same as the one it went through February and March this year prior to retransmitting back to the slide board and I and I'm sorry I don't mean to take too much time I heard it express that some felt the consultant brought in um who who helped assist with this you know essentially said no often but that isn't your I'm guessing that's not your opinion about how that process went well yes our our consultant did say no sometimes and and what our consultant said no to were when we were looking at the range of how the code could be amended and at what point do you undermine those stated town plan goals what point do you lose the walkability do you lose the strong pedestrian orientation at what point do you fail to achieve your housing goals at what point do you not get the mixed uses of the livelihood and survivability that the town plan slips away so you know this all serves an important role as an extra pair of eyes coming in from the outside you know although we also did spend a great deal of time on the ground with our consultant walking around tap corners walking around some other areas in the county that are subject to different core based code codes including one that he drafted for the city of Winnowski a few years back so a lot it's a lot has gone into that and there are you know some outer boundaries to what you can do with the zoning if you want to meet those stated goals and I go back to the memo I wrote to the select board in 2019 early 2020 requesting and giving us the facts around considering funding this project to say here's where the town is here are the needs here are the stated goals here's the feedback we're getting about tap corners we think this kind of a code could help solve those challenges and the select board said yes though go see what you can come up with well to meet those needs and achieve those goals that we talked about in 2019 2020 there are some outer boundaries to what a code can do is this the only possible code that can achieve those goals no of course not it's it's the best one that the planning commission and the consultant and staff that come up with and transmit to you okay we've heard tonight I heard one request and one expression of it would be desirable if certain pieces either property or areas were removed from the form base code what what do you view as the impact if the regulating plan was you know decreased in size I realize that's you know I didn't put boundaries on that so it might be hard to answer but so at at its simplest you would expect lands that were taken out of the form base code boundary to continue to develop more or less the way other plans in those zoning districts have developed so things in the tap corner zoning district like finny crossing if you if you take the sx alliance church property out it develops something kind of like finny crossing you know we can show you a picture of that because we have an application you can sort of see the layout and the mixed residential units and building types et cetera in in the mixed use commercial zoning district which is sort of more on the tap corner shopping center side of things I would say you have fewer examples because there's been less development under the current bylaw in in tap corner shopping center in the tap corners district you'd be looking at things like cbs for the block 30 project developed under more or less the current tap corner zoning district yeah in the mixed use area it's a little more of a big box type area in one of the slides since we had a we showed a preliminary plan for lot 26 a lot of jason's pets marked on the hill from former circuit city building you know there's there's some statements in there about bringing buildings to the street but some allowance for you know single story mixed head and retail and you can really see sort of the challenge of trying to do all of that under the current local illustrated in there so yeah I was I was bringing up the slide some of the preoccupation which is sort of a project that didn't go forward where I think staff and I don't get experience the struggle of trying to achieve some of the site design goals that the current something has while also accommodating you know relatively large retail format you know a lot of this was about retailers don't want people coming in the back door retailers don't want to ask people to park behind the table how do we how do you achieve that goal under a code that's starting to say things like hold the the street and that was that was a really challenging one that ended up moving forward so you take things out there's the simplest answer is they're subject to the zoning as it sits today unless that zoning is amended the more complicated answer is I think you can go look at some examples on the ground and wait you can come talk to the staff that this bear for those reviews and I can I can tell you all the little things that we you know kind of touch and hold on in reviewing those under the current and hopefully this will be my last is and thank you for for your back of the envelope type estimate of 10 million dollars to build the green space well let's double that you know 20 million dollars that's a hell of a lot of money but I'm also thinking at some of the infrastructure Williston has had to invest in the police station fire station project which I believe was over 10 12 million what 10 15 years ago public works building our our portion of the wastewater treatment plan and Essex upgrade was five million dollars the point I'm trying to make is it is a lot of money but compared to the type of infrastructure investments Williston has had to make in the past it's not out of the round of you know those types of cost and so I'm just looking for yours or others thoughts on you know where I'm right where I'm wrong on that you're right that those other things are very expensive and I know I remember we can all write that you know 20 million dollars is nothing I've worked for communities and other places that had parks fault that had open space fault I've been working places where people would really vote at this stuff and said yes I want to set up funding but Williston has a bike not well didn't we fund a million a million something dollars for bike pass yes about 20 years ago now yep yeah and that that fund continues to be used to leverage you know other sources of money to get those projects done so there there are there's all kinds of mechanisms to do this I did want to mention though as you know I keep kind of hammering on the I give the impact fee offset it's not 20 million dollars but 65 unit apartment building in Williston pays over 200 thousand dollars in recreation impacting dollars today if you're building that building or maybe a cluster of those buildings and you've got a piece of land that that you can turn into green space and give to the town for the town to maintain forever for the benefit of everybody you can also not pay that surely just you know our finance director did what I just comment on give you gray hairs we should we're not now we should you know we should talk about that at some point okay so you started to talk a little bit about to the next steps with time and things like that so perhaps you would continue on with say if your memo regarding timing where we explain where we might go sure so prepare to memo a slight work to look at about next steps and you know the strong staff recommendation is to to have to select for more in a public hearing one of the reasons is related to timing and statute says that you know following transmittal from the planning commission select or shall hold the hearing no no more than sorry no less than 14 and no more than 10 minutes it's uh but the plan is a little strange to the March 15 120 days it's July 13 there's enough time if we're told to do so tonight with a warning hearing for July that and meet that statutory deadline the consequences not meeting that deadline are that planning commission would need to hold another hearing in order to to vote again to transmit to the select that would start that clock over again the other reasons I think for for warning public hearing have already been covered by others speaking tonight you've you've had two nights with us staff and the planning commission to talk about the details of the code you've had a night to talk some of the larger stakeholders you you have not had an opportunity to just just kind of open up to the public and and I think that might play into your decisions going forward there is the caveat that warning of public hearing does effectively make the draft the law of the land and at the same time that the current by was the law of the land this is the zoning or taxes my colleague in South America referred to it and it really means any any new big projects that were to be proposed would not really be able to go forward until such time as you know either either the the bylaw adoption process ended without adoption to form based but or it was adopted and replaced the current bylaw so it it does put a pause on some some major types of new development again projects that are in progress bested are not affected by this we're aware as we've talked about the sx alliance church property I have another project that is in the pre application review shortly new office building at the Trudell site where art is coming in under pre app they will have time to file a discretionary permit prior to the potential warning data which life that hearing should they choose to to move forward and invest we don't have others have forms projects right now living at that pre application stage so you know it's never perfect timing but it's it's probably as good as it's going to get there there will that this this 150 day zoning vortex is always true in statute it's just that usually the select board is changing some small piece of the bylaw and it doesn't affect everybody else that's what makes this different if changes are made during or if we you know with the public hearing process and and we recognize that that changes need to be made then then we need to the planning commission needs to then go back re-warn them so you know make the changes re-warn at that level bring it back to us is that is that correct not quite okay if you're in a public hearing process there are two things that can happen you can make minor changes that are not substantive mm-hmm and there's a you can only do that so many days before the final hearing if you make substantive changes so if you change a lot of building hide in one of these districts if you move a boundary you will need to warn another hearing in order to do that the planning commission's role should you should you make substantive changes is to be presented with what the select board does correct the bylaw report which is a statutorily required report that we write about what's happening with the bylaw and present that back to the select board prior to or at the final select board public hearing so there's a there's a role for the planning commission but it's kind of a ministerial one you know really the action that sends it back to the planning commission for more work would be the action of saying you know we don't want more to hearing planning commission bring us a different draft that's dense as I said you know it's far more extensive it assumes time and one other piece I'll just add to the board is with going to public hearing process and a lot of times with bylaw amendments it's a hearing that may last you know 20 30 minutes in a select board meeting with something that's made through the board has the option to you know open the hearing can also continue the hearing later on and capture that accurately not absolutely so you know what we would might take away in the hearing process after after a night is select board saying to the staff we want you to you know give us draft changes of this that and the other but we you know it's the best varbo we'd go and do that and and then you know you could move forward with the draft and say okay well with with the changes that staff showed us tonight plus you know a few others long as the records clear about what's being adopted you can do that and like I said you know the the requirement changes their substance to the board another hearing anyway so we would update a hearing draft saying you know now this is the hearing select board that can all happen during that that hearing process is is it if we were to warn I'm going to play my hand a little bit I'm I'm in favor of the concept of having another a set of discussions with developers first of all I just want to say I'm a fan I started out being a fan of form-based code when we started this I'm more of a fan I think we have good I just wonder if we with some tweaking it might be better that's my concern if we were to do that discussion is it possible to do that discussion after the first public hearing you can have a discussion with it with anybody you want to I would I would say after it's really a continued part of that hearing so if you want to hear me as as how manager said you know that can happen across multiple evenings right there is there is this sort of suspension of some of the normal bylaw process for a new development comes in while you're in that process and and you know you you've got 150 day clock kind of ticking on you at that point how's that in terms of months four times that's a little under four months right so you can more that hearing anybody who comes speak at that hearing including including your stakeholders you can react to that by discussing as a group changes that you'd like to make and if you reach out of a draft during that process that that you're comfortable with you can say well this is the one we're going to go with since we made some substantive changes staff please warn another hearing the next available date and then that becomes possibly your final hearing I'm just wondering if that would work and I'm throwing that out as an open question the kind of discussions I'm envisioning are not ones that would happen under a hearing per se but more the here's what we see as a barrier here's why we see it as a barrier you know this is why we just you know the type of work development we do this just won't work with you know and this is where the planning commission could then say these this is how far we can bend on this and the answer might be hey that's helpful the answer might be no we're still too far apart we'll never come to agreement on this you know kind of what Chris was saying might make some progress in some areas might make no progress on a bunch of others I'm just interested in seeing if that process can help create a stronger whatever the right word is sorry I'm getting tired but you know better is a way of saying it but stronger more efficient more effective there's maybe the word I'm looking for code can I just sure please give a little bit of background information you know we the planning commission did meet with Mr. Snyder and we went through a process of trying to understand and and potentially compromise and we decided that we would leave that property in the boundary now also as background is the fact that we were working on form-based code for the entire time that the annex was being drafted and there was plenty of information about what form-based code would look like and we didn't see a lot of compromise on that side and there were some very concrete things that could have been done to we even have slides where there's like transparencies of the actual plan and and the the possible I don't know if Emily can get them out fast but you know the the possibilities of under form-based code versus what was proposed and so I you know I just want to let you know that I'm not sure there's a lot of room for movement between where the planning commission ended up only you know in March in our decision and and where you know and this request to take that property out of of play so maybe there are other issues that you're thinking of Jeff but but I just want to assure you on that one that that we fully concerted it we had an individual meeting with the planning commission and Mr. Snyder went through a very lengthy deliberative process that I think was very fair and transparent and and we decided to leave it in you may decide otherwise but but word I don't think there's a rule for us to revisit that particular question okay Megan I was thinking of more than just sure that one piece of property yeah I just want to give you that key information no no it's it's the general concern I heard tonight that the form-based code is going to limit development the ability to do development in this part of town and and that's the piece I want to see if any if there's any progress that could be the answer may be no and I'll be disappointed if that's the answer but at least I'll know can I just point out one other thing which is that form-based code um provides guidance for what things look like for how close they are to the street for you know which kinds of trees you can put out and in front but there is a lot more flexibility on the use right that's the whole point like don't forget that right like there is enormous flexibility on the uses and that is you know something that the development community could easily embrace maybe it would take some adjustments but it you know that is a huge bonus that is something that could be extremely compelling about any response I just yeah to the great question how many times are rules here well is this really the meeting that we're going to have this question asked which so much so they they ask us to respond in terms of use rules one of them shape shables that's all shables is all economic for rule then there's you have to go into the details to find out the question know it it's very complicated and although we have knowledge been going on we have been as involved as the learning commission obviously and it is very complicated and it's confusing with us I mean that just is so much to it I mean 120 pages of stuff it has different size load lists and different types of you know locations it should very complicated and it seems like we're going to have to hire an army of engineers and architects and you know attorneys you can go through this another scene which is we're just refusing a slow town a little bit because it does seem to be going very fast and again I keep going back to my point there this is so comprehensive I have to go into to the actual wouldn't it be able to get my land with value there was touched on tonight there is wetlands that I have to be that I have to be delineated so the plan that they're showing right now it probably isn't going to work with the the actual 50 the evaluation that we might quite archaeological on we might find endangered plants we might find so many different things that they'll be buying and I have to develop another product that on ancient Indian burial grounds couldn't touch so they may we may come across in this plan it doesn't pay that into consideration it is so much just the current zoning doesn't take into consideration Indian burial grounds either does it no okay we have to we have to go that that out and now that they show them where I can build what happened because I would I would go to that process first and then I would know that I couldn't build in a specific spot on my leg and I think that you know when we talked about the Rootsky and Burlington I think there's much smaller areas involved with those two cities of the towns that is being you know of this one base tolls down one main street so anything that gets developed later is going to be pulled down to be redeveloped but you're not tearing it down brand new land so maybe to think about shrinking the size of this one base toll in the town well it's right now it's quite different both existing buildings that are constructed and then a bunch of land is not I'm not sure that one base toll in some of those other towns they can be consideration open lands it's mostly down main streets and in areas with the the building to have already been built so it's just so much to look at I don't understand anything I'm trying to estimate what the full-time job is well so I agree very very fair I think there's also an answer to the question is that the regulating plan is what's driving the design of the projects versus some of these other restrictions so if there was an ancient burial ground you would design around that and in this case the regulating plan the roads basically have to follow that plan and you can deviate I believe up to 70 75 feet but that may not be enough and so therefore it disconnects is disconnected from that and you'd have to come in for a bylaw change to amend the regulating plan more than 75 so I think that's where that piece is and I would uh and then jump me back to you know get the plan mission and I had meetings we had discussions uh I think we it's clear that you know we're not in agreement on some items and I think that while the process was being discussed at the talent level uh two years ago I was also working on our project and we had no idea whether or not the floor base code was going to go anywhere and so how do you think well they're going to adopt it so therefore I'm going to design to it so how do you do that so I think you know the argument is a bit challenging for me understand how I that that particular project should incorporate in the floor base code district who knows I agree thanks it was suggested that the developer should embrace the flexibility that the floor base code gives us and that's if there was I mean to try to discuss the south of Marshall Avenue think you know if if we thought that there was an interest in second floor development we would embrace it it works north of Marshall Avenue we've been at this long enough to know it doesn't work south of Marshall Avenue I can I can't imagine anyone would want to live above it all rightly auto parts let's say we're at least office space above that type of use it just doesn't work the environment's not there so please understand we've been doing this a long time and we understand what works and what doesn't work and in this particular case the auto centric south of Marshall Avenue that two-story multiple use idea just it doesn't work so thank you and so this has been a helpful discussion tonight and the question before us right now is are we going to warn a public hearing on this if we do then we do have the opportunity after the the hearings to make changes or I can then changes to the the planning commission so the question that I'm looking for a motion for if we're going to do that tonight is to warn a public hearing I think I would like to do that the reason I would is because if we don't have it by July 5 this has to go back to the planning commission and if it goes back to the planning commission my understanding of it is that they have to then have another they have to warn another hearing they have to have a hearing and then they resubmit it to us and we start this process over I understand there are a number of questions I have a number of questions I don't know the right answer to most of these but I've also seems like if we do if we have the public hearing we can continue to have them 150 days which I don't think is a great idea but but but we can I think whatever whatever issues are on the table now are going to be on the table whether we have a delay and you know I think if we have the hearing then there would be a better chance for I don't know if I call it forced compromise or reasoned compromise but and then and then frankly there are things that just you know may may not be amenable to compromise but you know that's the that's the that's the problem with government is that you have to make decisions that's the same same root word as scissors meaning something gets cut off and something doesn't the decision has to be I think we have to make the decision not saying that I don't know which way the decision should be made but I would like to keep the process moving I agree with the Ted I think that the piece that's missing for me is hearing from the the larger majority of community stakeholders of from our citizens and I think that you know they have let their voices be heard during this process in multiple times and and we need to give them the opportunity to continue to weigh in and and while I do appreciate that we have heard from a large majority of the land and owners and developers they do not represent a large majority of the people that will be impacted by this these new developments and the form-based code and so forth and so I really want to give the the people of Williston a chance to to have their voice matter in this and I think the warning of public hearing is the right way to do that other comments I have two questions Matt you said that that area was represented tonight around 60 percent who's here have you exclusively heard of any of the other remaining owners directly yes we've talked to a number of other landowners you'll find in section 12 your binder a conversation over email with Jeff Mungin who owns a parcel on route 2a we did also do outreach with Mabel Tree Place their ownership is a little harder to pin down because they're they're remote and kind of just managing what what they have our consultant did a preliminary interview with each of our stakeholders here as as well as Peter judge of tap corner shopping center and Vermont technical college representatives and I think we had a few other stakeholders that we spoke to as well throughout the process and of course everybody was invited in to the public process and then this part too I heard you say earlier that the proposed draft that would be out at this public hearing could be modified but not completely change and you just clarify that one more time of what that means well so you you you warn a hearing you enter into that process and let's say as part of that process you decide to make a substantive change to this and statute defines substantive really pretty broadly if you change a dimensional standard if you change a boundary if you change and allow material type you've pretty much made a substantive change what it means is before actually passing that bylaw into into permanent effect you have to warn a hearing that that includes those substantive changes in your hearing draft but it's a select court hearing you're discussing you're making changes you get to the point you say okay we've got consensus on our changes now we need to warn a draft that has our changes in other words it does not cycle back through to the planning commission again but for notifying them of the changes that you of the select court have made and directing them to correct the statutory required bylaw report did I answer your question I think that's sorry so my my thought is is I've heard a request for there to be this ability for a dialogue and I really support that request what I don't know is if holding the public hearing is going to thwart the ability to do that I can only see that if we allow this dialogue to happen the worst thing I can see happening it's nothing happens nothing gets changed there'll be those who'll be disappointed at that but it is an answer the best thing that can happen is there is some changes that everybody thinks are good and I just want that to happen that will make it easier for me to can to you know vote yes when that big vote yes is going to happen that didn't come out right to vote appropriately when that big vote is going to happen so I'm looking for if there's an answer of does the deciding to hold the public hearing tonight does that thwart that ability for that dialogue to happen and Matt I guess I'm looking at you as a and the others but looking really at you is the dialogue you're describing one between stakeholders and the select board no dialogues between the planning commission and the stakeholders we can have that dialogue we would have to schedule time at a planning commission meeting for that to happen of course you know the staff is always open to talk with stakeholders and you know we've had some of those dialogues as well to try to help shade there I don't know if it needs to be formal I you know formal happening at a meeting versus you know I don't know what the other mechanisms are so well if you're going to speak with the planning commission you've got to do it during every okay you know there are no you know you can go speak with an individual planning commission member you're not highlighting ex parte but a forum obviously gets into an open meeting law I think I think if that were the strategy the planning commission members as I've received it would really appreciate some strong direction from the select board about what are the particular elements of the code that the select board would like that dialogue to be you know because you know again I keep pointing to section 12 in your binder there's been a fairly extensive dialogue and decisions made by the commission to this to this day and you know under some pretty careful consideration I really think that what I'm hearing from the planning commission members talking to me is they're really ready for the select board to take some ownership over the the decisions that need to be made and if there are adjustments to be made or compromises to be made there's a lot of advice commission can give about what went into their decision and what they felt their limits were around some of those compromises but they did make a decision I'm looking for a motion if we don't have what we will not have a public hearing I've moved to one public hearing on proposed amendments to the Towns Unified Development By-Law to establish Task Corner's form-based code over the district Is there a second? I'll second Is there a discussion on the motion? Well I'm just going to say that I'll probably be criticized but I I do plan on voting against it simply because I'm not convinced that meaningful discussion can happen if we choose to have the public hearing any further discussion on the motion? If not well I'll see them favor the motion say aye aye I'll oppose say nay aye nay tune it for your eyes and tune a's so the motion passes and we will schedule a public hearing so those of you came tonight thank you very much for your comments that we'll proceed as we can and we have a few more items on business to do tonight so thank you and the next one is the annual employee wage adjustments and Eric know you're going to speak about that yep this shit here is here with you it is how do we do that something completely good so this is another annual June item for the select board annual cost of living increase adjustment for the police and fire union it's tied to the cost of living adjustment provided to the U.S. Department of Labor using the northeast overall consumer index for December 2019 through November 2021 for this period the cost of living index should have 3.5 percent increase typically the past fact is the select board as adopted the same coal increase for non-union employees this increase at 3.5 percent for coal it was budgeted in the 2020 budget and as a reminder American increase 2 percent is also budgeted in department budgets for non-unionized staff and our unionized employees typically have as for the most part a 2 percent step increase as well on to shoot their coal up so the board is asked to consider tonight approving a cost of living adjustment for the non-unionized staff in the first 2.5 percent for FY23 beginning in July so just in response to something that I saw just today on Front Forge Forum I would love if you would just outline the non-unionized employees that this would pertain to I think there's some misconceptions about whether or not for instance we will be receiving this cola and but who this would pertain to in particular sure thanks thanks credit assistant applied to all so maybe that's why in front of us who are unionized employees are unionized employees are members of the police department fire departments who are we're not administrative for the most part the select board receives a small stipend I believe quarterly which is in the select board budgets and the the cost of living increased for that I I believe we fix it each year actually surely I double check surely if we apply a call into that to that so that's stipend surely for the select board stipend do we approve the cola to it in the budget or we did we increase it by cola okay yep certainly that is that the board's discretion for that component of compensation this this would apply to public works and to you know water and sewer and and all of the other town employees that yep work town administration ending zone excellent thank you yeah I mean what's what's kind of frustrating is is how high the cost of living increase is but it's based on reality on this and in particular on a very specific index if I remember correctly and I firmly believe that we need to compensate the non-union similar to how the union are compensated at least in terms of the cola and now since we're on the board our union contracts specify a ceiling for the cola we it might be off a half percent different but but three and a half percent is I think it's police union ceiling environment okay so we're within the ceiling at the 3.5 yep okay you're looking for a motion I'll move to approve a cost of living adjustment for all non-union employees of 3.5 percent in fiscal year 2023 this is your second second sorry discussion not in motion if not all those in favor of the motion say aye aye aye any opposed then we're up to the matters report I know it's it's getting late um do um Terry want to update on the finance report from Shirley or just if there's any questions from the board please I'll turn to Shirley finance report update so as usual I want to point out one little oops I made and Eric actually noticed it when he was reading it like you're working on April and you're in May and you're working on thing for June as well so when I talked about the sale and room to meal tax and then attached to your report to the financials was the spreadsheet that we keep that current quarter payment actually wasn't received until May so I was a little bit ahead of the April numbers I was reporting to you so just so you realize those numbers were actually our first three three payments for the year not just through April so property tax when you look at property tax you might say oh we're right on budget we're at 99% 96% of budget but we do have an adjustment in May what happens with the property tax we pay an amount to the state and we get a initial cash flow from the state that shows us what we're going to owe for the whole year so I take that out of property tax where the revenue and sit it over here in the liability and then in June we get the final cash flow and typically our June payment is less than the original estimate so those numbers came through in early May so we actually the property tax revenue at the end of the day will be like a I mean 6% of budget so it's just a little timing is she there I'm just going to pick sort of maybe the bigger ones that have changed highway revenue is is at budget we have all four of our class two or all four of our class two and three roads payment plus supplemental payment so it looks high just because we've already get the the whole budget for the year already post town fees at 67% of the budget I have been chatting with Eric and we project that where my current projection is that'll be about 20,000 under budget is more waste moves to recycling stream it's bringing down the tonnage that that we're getting especially from Kassel because that's where the numbers come from those numbers where I have some tonnage numbers in the spreadsheet and you can see those are slowly dropping every year so we expect that to be a little less than our budget one favorable variance we're going to see this year is for our passive insurance for both workers comp and property and liability insurance passive always used to bill us annually and they typically would bill us in December because their policies run on a calendar year but we're on a fiscal year but whatever that payment was in December we just that was the payment for the year so passive has now switched to billing us quarterly which I've told you about but so I chatted with the auditors last week and I said now that they're billing us quarterly let's take the opportunity to align the expense with the year that it belongs and so we're getting an invoice right now for July through September which would actually be the third payment if you think about that for FY 22 but we have agreed to leave that as an FY 23 expense so this year we're only recognized half of the insurance expense so that's good news and that is will help our fund balance at the end of the year let's see and that service really isn't new I'll just say those are the big things that have changed since the March financials unless you have questions so I'll be I'll be very quick I promise you which may be a lie but that 20,000 from the host town fees as much as it hurts not to get that revenue it's actually for a good reason less trash is ending up heading to a landfill I'm on the third on page two the third bullet up from the bottom and so sorry Shirley I didn't quite understand the highlighted part of that bullet where it says we anticipate a savings of 91.5 from the fire station roof and then there's another number after that and and the new fire I guess I'm having trouble understanding the concept here it's actually the two numbers added together so 91.5 is so we had initially anticipate in having debt service for the fire station room and then we decided not in not to do that and we funded the fire station room with debt service payments that we weren't going to make also for the fire truck itself we anticipated an FY 22 having the first debt service payment because of the build timing we went out to debt service later so our first principal payment won't be until FY 23 so we really just took those savings and then someone from fund balance or the fire department budget wherever it comes out of at the end of the year and said oh we're just gonna pay for the fire the roof and not have to have any debt service related to it so that's what that is saying we just use those savings to fund it directly oh okay and those transfers are totally you know common or legit or whatever yep okay yep and then I'm on the next page the second to last bullet and I just didn't understand what was meant by the WWTF stabilization fund I don't know if I've heard of that before it's the wastewater treatment fund so it's the Essex plan so what happens with Essex is in the sewer fund they give us a number and say here's the number that we've budgeted for the cost of the sewage that we're going to process from Williston and that's what they bill us quarterly so whatever the actual flow is doesn't matter during the year so as part of the fiscal year and process they then compare our actual flow treatment compared to what they bill does and if it's over or under there is a fund that Essex is holding and so each of the tri-town tri-city entities has a piece of that fund so what it's meant to do is say we under budgeted say it was more our actual treatment was more then basically Essex just takes it out of that fund so it doesn't impact our financials by doing this it keeps that live so that is the wastewater treatment stabilization fund okay all right good thank you you're welcome no other questions thank you very much get behind okay well let's briefly share our local options tax report for quarter three of 2022 continue good news I'm not recalling for the budget together it's 23 we tried to project where the local options actually see if we're going to land for FY 22 we were anticipating they would come in about $440,000 or budget we're at our current pace we're expecting to exceed that original projection at this point we'll wait until we get in quarter four finishing up the end of June below that August but that's still overall good news that that those receipts continue to assist us and most really know kind of where that that settles where our fund balances in FY 22 as we start preparing for the FY 24 budget we'll enjoy the summer we're still recovering from I'm sorry surely just question here I'm looking at the local tax option I'm looking at the column called variants to budget and I'm seeing two negative numbers the 738 8 and the 641 and why are those numbers negative I'm just oh just because there are no there's we haven't got fourth quarter actuals in there yet so it's so it's just saying budget versus actual there's no actual so it looks like it's negative I'm going to pay for it oh okay I think yeah all right okay yeah I see the numbers all right yeah so all right thank you you're welcome then it's a quick update telcoat road culvert checking with Bruce today so I believe we have a plan A for a fix so Bruce tells me tentative solution to fix the issue or waiting see if we can get it permitted in uptown we'll reply for town highway emergency funds from the state to pay for it which will help 90% we'll know more the next few days I don't want to have a few things moving right now so once I get some definitive from Bruce hopefully later this week I'll share it with the board and for right now at least the road section is going to remain closed and we have some more information on that later this week on timeline it will fix so that could be for this project bluffing me from getting easy access to the new creamy window so that's it interested it's an emergency most of us I've written or else I'll see you there sir my the board of fire crew academy graduations this friday should be an invitation in your inbox so so you're available and interested to stop by the firehouse for me that'll be at the firehouse yep okay right at the firehouse and is there a time in the email about 11 o'clock 11 o'clock yep there's a program starting at 11 and if I can I can force the board again tomorrow stuff but the top you're in the box sir that's you I gotta be in a meeting I won't leave it there I'll leave it there with an itarian state so we have two things in another business that catering permit and a special events permit the catering permit it's a monkey or sorry a wedding by monkey hospitality LLC at um doing business as the monkey house for a wedding at Eisham family farm on July the 30th we get a number of these applications it's not produced just with the board's motion to approve this case for the permit questions yeah the staff what do you hear the motion do you think yep no change move we approve second any discussion on the motion hearing none all those in favor of the motion say aye aye aye aye opposed sorry then the second one it's a special event it's the Eisham farm playhouse at Eisham farm it's June 23rd the applicant is wildheart distillery they would be provide a providing service at the event it's two ounce glasses sample fours unopened bottles for sale on full fours I checked with the police sheet to see if he had any objections to this and didn't it's would be contained within the bottom area so staff's recommendations so through we'll move on to the next question and who's cemented the catering permit wildheart distillery is the name unless the manufacturer it's a special event permit because the manufacturer would be supplying the experience there's no question so looking for a motion so go ahead can I just session on the motion very none all those in favor of the motion say aye aye aye any opposed all right any other business we need to bring forward tonight yes you know kudos to all that we've done that yes yeah yes it's unbelievable we will be still visited it's not the end there's a couple of things that we need to take a look at and that's the architectural standards that the map will do sometime for us and we had to question about the height of building so we could talk about this he talks about the architectural standards and there's been some information floating on social media regarding the storm water and what we do with storm water in the new plots that are being talked about so we can talk about those at some other time anything else if not we're adjourned right