 before we begin. All votes taken in this meeting will be done by roll call vote. If Zoom crashes, the meeting will be continued to December 12, 2023. First up, we'll take a roll call attendance of DRB members for tonight's meeting. Nate Andrews. Here. Paul Christensen. Present. Lisa Brayden Harder. Present. Scott Riley. Here. Dave Turner. Here. John Hemmelgarn. Here. Chair is present. All are in attendance. Seven in total. OK. At this point, I'll turn it over to Andrew for some Zoom instructions. It'll be made this evening. So welcome, folks. We have another business as a public forum. This is an opportunity for people present here in the room or participating by Zoom to address the board on issues that are not on tonight's agenda. Is there anyone in the audience or on Zoom who would like to address the board? No chats and no raise hands on Zoom. OK. Next up is the public hearing. We've got one item on the agenda tonight. It's DP 24-07. This is a pre-app for WSW Investments LLC. It's for a 26,900 square foot expansion at 34 Comer Street and while expanding parking into a residential area currently occupied with two residential homes at 5190 and 5222 Williston Road. Would the applicant come forward, please? Good evening. If you would state your name and address for the record, please? My name is Richard Amlin. My address is Post Office Box 9, S-Exchange. Here are some hard 34 Comer Street closes. Welcome both. Staff goes first. All right. This is a pre-application request for a proposed industrial building expansion and a parking lot expansion. Property overall is just under four acres. The proposed use is industrial. It has access on a state road, Williston Road, aka Route 2, as well as a town road, Comer Street. The zoning districts involve our industrial zoning district west, gateway zoning with district west, and the residential zoning district. This property was subject to design review, but not conservation commission review. Planning staff is recommending that the DRB take testimony in closing hearing and deliberate and approve a list of recommendations. There are several recommendations where the DRB must make a decision. Those are bolded in your staff report. Planning staff is also requesting a legal opinion on the matter of industrial access drive and parking lot in non-industrial zoning districts. I'll get into that in a moment. So property history. In 2014, the property was authorized to be created, followed by a 2015 application for a set of 40,000 square foot residential square houses on this building. Some on the board may recall in 2020 and 2021. And it's a specific plan application to change the zoning district boundary for these parcels. That did not move forward. It was denied by the planning commission. So everything tonight is following the bylaws as they are standing today. The advisory committee, the HDAC, commented on this application. I do note that in that October 2023 bylaw revision, they were renamed. They are no longer the hack. Interdepartmental comment, public works, and FIRE did comment on this application. Their recommendations are included. However, I do note that the FIRE department comments are a plan review standard, which is a select board policy, not in ordinance. And their comments are only applicable to the extent that they can be enforced by and do not conflict with the unified development bylaws, as well as the public work specification for the applicable. One comment letter was received at the time of mail out. And I don't think we received anything to date. So only one comment letter. And briefly, before I go deeper in the staff report, I'm just going to pull up the sketch plan to show the zoning district boundaries. So that main building that exists today is in the industrial zoning district. The two additions are also within the industrial zoning district. And that proposed parking is the front half is in Gateway West, where it has frontage along Williston Road. That access drive and parking circulates around through the residential zoning district and back into industrial. So proposed use. The use is New England chimney supply. They manufacture chimney liners and caps and other chimney accessories, as well as their accessory warehouses or raw materials and finished products and shipping, as well as the office that's accessory to those two uses. And I did have an opportunity to pour the facility on November 15 and observe all their production lines and assembly and equipment that includes, I would call light industrial uses, like plasma and laser cutters, a soldering station, powder coating. But I didn't have to wear a face masks or a helmet or anything, so it was a light industrial operation. In terms of setbacks, the front yard setback is 25 feet in the Gateway District and 35 feet in the industrial. Pedestrian sidewalks are permitted within that setback. And the maximum building height in all districts is 36 feet. Outdoor sales and storage. So that original discretionary permit, DP1515, did not show outdoor storage. However, there is some outdoor storage at the rear of the building. The discretionary permit must demonstrate that the outdoor storage areas comply that they're located inside or rear setbacks. And the DP must also demonstrate how outdoor storage of materials, equipment, or work areas will be operationally contained within the industrial zoning district and not spillover to Gateway West or residential. Those are zoning districts where outdoor storage is outright prohibited. Legal opinion. So we're recommending that you seek a legal opinion related to parking and vehicular access and whether they are allowed in non-industrial districts as discussed below. So chapter seven defines access drives and off-street parking loading as required improvements, which is any improvement public or private required for compliance with the bylaw. In short, a new user building cannot be permitted if it does not meet the requirements for adequate parking and safe legal access. However, parking lots are explicitly referenced in chapter 17 as quote, customary accessory use allowed in all zoning districts. Though that same language doesn't apply to parking, access drives, it's only for parking lots. Furthermore, in parking, NEICS code 812930 defines parking lots and garages as a use. However, that use code is not allowed in any of these three zoning districts, meaning a standalone parking lot cannot be permitted as the primary use. It can only be, as chapter 17 says, accessory to a different primary use. In the access driveway, the proposal shifts the private access driveway into the gateway and residential districts. Truck traffic is a component of the industrial use. Trucks deliver raw materials and take outgoing shipments, including their own vehicles and rental delivery trucks and parcel services like UPS and FedEx. The industrial building use would not comply with the bylaws parking and access requirements without this access. For example, if the only access was the loading area off Commerch Street, then large trucks and tractor trailers would likely need to use Commerch Street to back into or out of the loading area. Onto access chapter 13. Access onto Williston Road is improved in compliance with the bylaws to residential driveways are eliminated. And the access driveway also serves as the parking lot drive aisle. Though the bylaw does not have an outright prohibition on this design, it's not ideal because it creates possible pedestrian conflicts with industrial truck traffic navigating the site as well as customers or employees parking or walking to the exits. No change to access is proposed on Commerch Street. However, the DRB and applicants should discuss the northeastern most curb cut on Commerch Street. It currently serves 30 space parking lot that is going to be replaced with that 11,000 square foot addition. At the hack meeting, HDAC meeting, the applicant clarified that they're not sure if that curb cut is to remain and if it does, it might be used for deliveries, that sort of thing. Traffic study, so they're gonna be required to provide their trip generation data. Beyond that, the DRB can require traffic study. They can waive the requirement with the advice of DPW. The DPW did not comment on it. And I do note that because this property has access onto a state highway, they'll be required to meet all state permitting requirements. Off street parking and loading. So the discretionary permit must show parking lot calculation based on the primary industrial use as well as the office use and the circulation within off street parking loading areas must show that pedestrians have access in and around the parking area. Lastly, the discretionary permit must show bicycle parking and an end-of-trip facility, which is basically a shower and washroom. On-site infrastructure circulation. So the discretionary permit must include a sidewalk along the property's well-estored road frontage. And the DRB may consider requiring it along Common Street as well. 1524 states must sidewalks or recreation paths be provided along roads. And the standard says that they must be provided on both sides of proposed roads. However, recent DRB precedent has interpreted that standard to include existing roads, not just proposed. For example, the build out of the road bare lot U-Haul along Williston Road and Shumpipe Road as well as many other places in town where expansions or development are proposed on an existing street. The sidewalk is also shown on official map, which means that the developer must accommodate it, i.e. not placing anything that would prevent that improvement in the future, such as a building and possibly for ground storm water. There is a provision in 1524 that the DRB could limit the requirement for a sidewalk in areas of low commercial or industrial develop, low intensity commercial industrial development. However, this is in the high intensity area, some transit. So we do not recommend that exemption. Discretionary permit must show compliance with utilities and municipal water and sewer for the public or expect. Maintenance, the snow storage and removal plan at DP must show that snow storage doesn't attract pedestrian waste. And if it's stored in a landscape area that the plantings meet 3-5-3, which is that they're salt tolerant, solid waste. Dumpsters must be screened with a fence or wall. And Chapter 23 also states that a dense evergreen hedge can be required. However, the DRB can permit an exception where there are space constraints. Planning staff is recommending that exception from the hedge. Just screen the dumpsters with a fence or wall because the existing dumpster location in the loading area is paved on all sides. It's very small and compact. And that dumpster loading area is a budding and neighboring industrial use. So I'm recommending that exemption. Chapter 17. So the discretionary permit must include a construction phasing plan, particularly that equipment and materials are stored so they do not constitute an attractive nuisance. This must include something like fencing. And the fencing must be in place before site clearing and grading begins. Chapter 18. So this is our compatibility potential hazards and nuisance check. When I toured the facility on November 15th, it was a light industrial use. During the specific plan process, there were some concerns from a budding neighbors about noise associated with some of the mechanical equipment. That was a metal cutting machine that they replaced with a laser cutter that is less noisy and impactful in terms of generating vibrations and booms. The loading dock is about 200 feet from the property line and houses at 67 and 83 Kirby Lane. And the access drive shifts into Gateway West, thus shifting, in going and outgoing delivery trucks closer to residential homes. What follows for chapter 18 is a list of reports that need to be provided at discretionary permit, showing how exhaust vent stacks and fans are not directing odors or smoke onto adjacent properties or public ways. If there's hazardous materials, that there will be a hazardous materials plan that's reviewed by the fire department. Hours of operation to provide a typical daily, weekly schedule, including deliveries, loading, waste collection. Light and glare were anticipating compliance here. There are no outdoor work areas existing or proposed. Thus, any intense sources of light from the plasma, cutting machines, et cetera, are all indoors. Noise, there must be a sound study provided and this staff report covers some of the particulars of what that sound study needs to show. And the DRB should be aware and discuss with the applicant that hours of operation can be limited and or that landscape firm's walls for soundproofing architectural techniques may be required. I do note that during that specific plan process, there was a discussion of a sound barrier wall. It looks like a fence, but it had wood paneling on both sides and was designed in a way to attenuate noise. And screening, this also refers back to 23 as well, but the discretionary permit must show how roof and ground mounted utility installations and mechanical equipment will be screened. And the DRB should be aware and discuss with an applicant that offense for wall can be provided where landscape screening isn't feasible. And lastly, provide a report about vibration. So we don't expect any from this use. A design review, so the HDAC reviewed this on November 7th and their recommendations are included. In general, they felt like the design standards of Chapter 22 can be met by bolstering the architectural design and entryway features from that new Western entrance and providing for pedestrian connectivity to that entrance. Landscaping, so the DRB and applicant should discuss if a type two or three buffer is preferred where the property abuts the residential homes at 67 and 83 Kirby Lane, as well as 5182 Williston Road. Where the DRB requires a Burma fence, the buffer can be reduced by 25%. That would mean about a 17 foot wide type two buffer or 27 foot wide type three buffer. A type two buffer must be supplemented by a type three or four buffer. And I recommend a type three buffer because type four is defined as being most appropriate for uses of similar intensity. The DRB can require a Burma fence. The staff recommends that along the property lines of 67 and 83 Kirby Lane and 5182 Williston Road. The bylaws. I'm sorry, can you identify which are 67 and 83? Yes. I might get them backwards, but one of these is 67 and one of these is, they're along. I don't think it matters which is which. Yeah, they would run along the edge of the new parking lot and there is an existing hedge within that area. And then 5182, it's driveway is in gateway. And then it's near that northern parking lot. So front yard buffer along the parking lot. Typically only a street tree section is required. The HDAC recommended that the entire street scape or noted that the entire street scape in gateway is dominated by parking and considered an additional planting buffer more than just the street tree requirements to buffer the view. That's a similar recommendation to what the hack and DRB worked on for you all. And then I list a couple other considerations. Landscape buffers along the budding industrial uses and retaining existing vegetation. Street trees, the discretionary permit must identify existing street trees and their protection during construction and propose additional trees that need to ensure compliance with the 40 foot spacing requirement while also maintaining compliance at corners and intersections. That 40 feet might vary a little bit for vision trials. Watershed health and erosion and runoff control plan at discretionary permit. That's a standard recommendation. Outdoor lighting is a very specific recommendation and the lighting plan should be structured so that it provides the required metrics based on both the location, industrial gateway or residential district as well as the area of illumination, parking, building and loading area or security lighting. What follows is a table that summarizes the bylaw metrics in terms of limits for acre or foot handles and whether staff anticipates compliance or if there's a particular note that that discretionary permit needs to address. Signs and impact fees are also standard conditions. If they're gonna do signs larger or more numerous than what's allowed in the table, the discretionary permit must include a master sign plan and transportation impact fees are assessed at the time of administrative permit. And then what follows is the list of recommendations with folded text indicating the DRB edit. Thank you. Thanks Emily, thorough as usual. Appreciate it to work. Okay, so where I'd like to start is for the applicant to walk us through the site plan. And if maybe if staff could display it on the screen, that would be great and is there a laser pointer or? Yeah, if Rick talks, I'll annotate with them. Great, okay, perfect, fair enough. So let's start with the existing building, which is the goal with the darker brown band. That is the structure that exists today on the site. And presently the parking area is just to the east along Commerce Street where you see the other gold box. And that would be that parking area would be taken up by a proposed building addition. And then if we go to the west, the other kind of oblong golden form would be the additional, building projection right up to that zoning boundary line. And so the goal is of all of the three lots that you see here. And so within this lot owned by under up single ownership, we've got the three different zones. So the thought was under the specific plan process, we were actually going to go through the plan process and we're going to move, expand the building a little farther west than it would have been into the other zones. But that process was, we were denied as you may recall. So we're back coming with the concept that we believe meets the rules, which is to put all of the use in the zone where it's permitted. And in the other two zones would be just parking. And staff knows that trucks would be coming in and out of this new entryway. And that's actually not correct. You know, it's only becoming in. So a truck would enter from route two and go to the loading dock and exit as they do now onto comms. So trucks would not be coming out of that exit. I suspect that VTrans will require the same standards that they did for the other entrance, which was entrance only for trucks and the trucks would exit on commerce. Vehicular traffic cars in the parking lot would go in both directions, but trucks would only be going southbound in and around to the dock and then exit to commerce. And how would the loading dock walk us walk us through the loading dock like a truck comes in. Sure, let me just go up here. Yeah, that's great. Thank you. So right now the curb exists here and the existing drive comes down and trucks come up and access these dock areas. Now the truck will come in and back over to the dock. So instead of coming this way, we're just moving that over and making that maneuver. Instead of here to there, same fine movement, it's just, we're gonna move. Don't, don't, don't lose her. Nice try. So can you point out exactly where the loading dock is and which is the wall that the trucks are backing up to? So there's dock here, there's dock here and an elevated dock to it. So there's dock access into the building all along the space. Facing dock. Yeah. Okay, so they have to back up to that? To the dock, yes. And so- It's typical, I only know it's not a big deal. This is the preferred trucking movement to access the dock. So when you're backing, you're backing the drivers looking into their mirror at the trailer in the back versus bagel in the opposite way, which puts you looking out the past. So this is a really common preferred dock movement. And when a truck is backed up to the loading dock area, there's still adequate space to get through. Plenty of space. Okay. How big of a truck is coming in there? Full-size semi-tractor trailer? You never get to be asked. We're gonna do WB 62 and probably the 50s. Yeah, yeah, so 53 foot trailer. Yeah. Okay. And the building appears to be a zero lot line? Well, no, because it's all considered it's all one lot. Okay. So the backs are shown on the plans that respect each individual's own. And it respects this front setback and it respects this rear setback. And this building is on this setback. Oh, so it's good. So what you were meaning, what you were reading is it's a zero lot line to the other developments. I think that's right. Because we're building our use to the limit of the zone. Yeah, exactly. District, yeah. I wasn't considering that it was all one lot. So thank you. So you scroll down just a little bit. So as I mentioned, the parking is just parking. So the dumpsters, any outdoor storage, everything is gonna stay in the industrial zone. This is employee. This is parking for visitors, parking for customers. We anticipate that now all of the office is kind of on this section of the existing building. All of that you flip to this side to be the public base of the building. Building treatment on this side would reflect what was done in this corner if you're gonna recall it. Stone, lower van, windows, kind of a change in elevation. Yeah, it's a pretty picture. So here we are looking at that corner, that northeast corner. And so this appearance would now move and be duplicated on the other base. So as you approach the building in either direction, now if you go back to those pictures, the stone work ends. Scroll. Oh, yeah, I know what you're talking about. There's a photo of the other corner. Yeah, so right now the stone van ends here. As the building goes out, stone van would continue to wrap and then this base and the base in this direction would have this appearance. And so it would chop west and then the building would look similar to this. So right now, what you're looking at with the access back to the building? And the building height would be envisioned to be similar? I think that's the perfect plan, although the hack was, had some thoughts about as we got closer to the residential, maybe drop the building down. It'll be too down somewhat, sort of soften its impact in the residential work. Really looking for your end, if it looks like way forward, then the building used to be figured out and how that would all work and where men needed to be desired or not. But certainly no higher. We could go back to the same. So, and just slide this down again. This driveway, everything here stays the same, no changes for our exit point. If we can pull this down. So currently there's a very dead edge here. When we spoke with the hack, they thought it would be a good idea to have some fence in here to here where this wasn't quite so bad. And also there was some thought about maybe a screening fence or two orchbees. So, and it certainly makes sense to put some fence in here. And we know the staff's comments about adding fence in here. We've got quite a bit of distance between the parking area and the property line. So there's some room in there to do fence or vegetation or whatever seems to be preferred by the neighbors. Yeah, have you had conversations with the neighbors? We did not. They were notified of what they're hearing. We've got comments from the neighbor of the process. But again, probably the biggest point of discussion is the concept of use, building all the ancillary things that go with it in the zone where it's permitted. And then the parking in the other zone. And the, I think it's 1771 and Emily quoted it. That talks about parking is in silver used in every zone. So, which makes sense. You should have parking lots in every zone. Question being the drive. I guess our thought there is that in order to access a parking lot, you have to have a drive. And the question is trucks there for the industrial use or for trucks doesn't really matter to you. Trucks going to the parking lot is that an issue. And I guess it's for us, it's not too much different than moving trucks and residential zone or delivery trucks or traveling through residential district. It's just, it's traffic. There's no- What you count basically. How many trucks a day? Less than a dozen a day. Okay. And that's 10 wheeler like ox trucks. Big trucks. Big trucks. Yeah, less than a dozen. Yeah. Yeah. And again, they would be traveling southbound through the parking lot, not south and northbound. So in terms of pedestrian conflict, not very frequent and only one direction. And so if there aren't any questions that we'd welcome your input and thoughts about some of the staff comments and kind of give us a direction of where we might head. Well, again, the group coming into it directly got a whole bunch of fencing already barely moved. It's true. Yeah. Currently there is fence all along the property. Yeah. DRP members, questions? Not a question. John? So you mentioned a dozen trucks, more or less. How early in the morning do those start coming? Delivery trucks like that generally don't come in before they generally freight trucks load and are out of terminals by nine. So after nine, we have our own delivery trucks that leave, get loaded and leave at like five in the morning currently. But they exit the commerce. They exit the commerce. They're there overnight. They get there overnight. So they get loaded. Drivers come in at five in the morning and get in the truck and leave. Because that doesn't include those your trucks do? No, it doesn't. No. Because they don't come in that route. So. Well, they would come in that route, but not generally. So our trucks have basically two primary delivery days, Tuesdays and Thursdays. So they leave Tuesday mornings, leave Thursday mornings. Now there's some daily routes, but it's not like we have all our trucks coming in every day and out every day. So it's, you know, they would, that doesn't would probably include our trucks coming in on average. Our trucks are 26 for box trucks. And we're happy to talk with staff about the parking count. I mean, right now your employee count is? 96. Yeah. How many? 96. And never how many spaces? About a hundred in that. And this is about a hundred spaces. So two, I think it was. You would you anticipate additional employees with the 30,000 square foot addition? There'll be some additional employees. Yes. Probably good to have, not one board member speaking, but it'd be good to have enough parking for all your employees. Mm-hmm. Why is there- You should park- Places are not supposed to, and that tends to get neighbors outside. Right. And zoning administrators, too, yeah. We also have leases with a couple of neighbors on Commerce Street for additional parking. So I would comment that as the DRV representative on the specific plan, that proposal, there was a lot of time and spent discussing the border with the neighbors and the noise. And it seems like the sound is something that you really need to, I would say, get in front of with the neighbors. And we know we're talking about fences. It's not attenuation fences, you know, getting it so that you can take, if they can't see it, it helps. They can't hear it, it's gonna help a lot. Well, and as Emily noted, one of the big sources of noise and vibration in the punch press is no longer there. So that's a huge reduction in noise and vibration. Yeah, that's true. It's those early trucks, though, that will also get people's notice. And so that's why I was asking about what time those are coming in. And if you could limit those to nine o'clock, it's probably not a problem. Yeah, when you're dealing with commercial carriers, they don't. One minute before their alarm goes off is bad. Right, right. Got it. Along the property line with Rock and Soren, right now your drawing shows one free, I'm assuming in there, is there more full-size trees in there or? That's actually a very dense hedgerow along those two properties, but we're certainly willing to supplement or the staff mentions, combine what's there, what's fencing. There's enough elbow room between where we're proposing to park. We pulled it close to the building because it should be close to the building and that left us with some open area that I anticipate will probably end up with underground stormwater tannuation in that belt, but certainly we can have fencing and vegetation and that's on two, so. Is the room for trees though? So they would help hide the building, got the noise. Definitely, yeah. I mean, between the parking lot, these parking spaces are 18 feet. 40 feet. Yeah, there's 18 and 25, almost 30 feet. So there's good elbow room there. Additional planting fence, landscaping, and that's all. The only reason I'd recommend trees over there is then you're on just fiddle with cutting the wood pipe because the trees will break it up. You know, I think as a comment for you, for DP though, it's a well-developed land, how you're going to develop that space, how it mitigates the negative impacts on the neighbors would be really good for us to hear. And the neighbors to comment say, if you talk to them and there's that as far as would go, a tremendous distance, I think. I believe Mr. Brock is on the call this evening so we may be able to. He can dispute that back if he'd like. I know. So we get a chance to actually hear from him this evening. One of us. As staff noted, we'll. Mr. Rock. Yeah. Yeah, hi, John. If you would, I think we know your address and all, but for formality purposes, if you would state your name and address for the record, please. Sure, John. So I have a couple of questions that didn't hear the. He said between the law and our. And looking at the. Looking at the diagram today, I may have measured on the 15 feet between the fence and the where the 1st part is what we look at these 35. Yeah, it looks, looks to be a 35 or 36 feet between the head end of the parking and the property line. And that it's, it's pretty much parallel down through. So from the fence, actually from the fence, it's almost 40, 38 feet. But 36 to the property line. So can you show me just again from there from right there, if you get at the top arm? 36 feet. Okay. All right. The other question as far as the truck, so we do hear the truck still early in the morning can do good in one weekend too as well. Just wondering how the key address with the truck community can close. Well, we generally don't operate on the weekends. It'll be a rare occasion. I don't know about, if, then figure out what trucks would be coming in on the weekend. We're not open. So, we have a rare occasion. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, that, that should be the exception, not the norm. If we have, you know, we have to abide by DOT regulations. So if we have a driver out and he has to stay overnight on a Friday night, he would obviously get back some point on Saturday. But again, that's, you know, that's not our goal is to have our, you know, women over time and not have our team out on the road on the weekends. You have no operations there on the weekend. No. Monday through Friday. Well, just to reiterate what Mr. Hemmelgaren said is when you come back for DP, this board would like to see would really like to see the rocks and to see Jeff Soren a statement of acceptance of the proposed solution for, you know, for both visual and sound mitigation. And we did something similar at U-Haul and the Mr. and Mrs. Hines were very engaged with U-Haul and they were aligned with what was being proposed. And there was, they participated by video. And I seem to recall that there was even a letter of acceptance of what was being proposed. And so work with your neighbors, work on a plan, reach agreement, it's gonna be really important. Any day, I need to edit what you just said. Just for my own personal point. And that is that this approval and certainly my vote is not contingent upon the acceptance of the neighbors. They have input. Okay, and I'm gonna correct, modifying what you just said. But so they have input and we in the board highly recommend you talk to them and work with them. But the approval is not contingent on that. At least it's not my vote. No, no, thank you for that clarification. I agree with that. But I think that I'd be surprised if you, if you got ahead of it, I think you're gonna be able to- We understand. You're gonna be able to reach consensus. Yeah, we understand the point. We'd be happy to talk to the neighbors. Yeah, so just being good neighbors. But Scott makes a good point is the regulations have rules of engagement. One of the things that we really try to do here in Williston is abide by the bylaws. And if you have a compliant project, that governs. But in the sake of being a good neighbor, and I think that everybody can win here. I would just comment overall on this This is, I think, a well-conceived plan to stay within the rules of the bylaws. I think that you put the parking, which is a quieter, less intrusive use as a buffer between the industrial use and the backyards of the neighbors. I think this is doing as much as you can within the bylaws. And that's why I'm hopeful that when you talk about timing of the noise sources and how much there is and where it's located, I think that there's a nice, it's a nice attempt here. And I appreciate that. I mean, I'm hopeful that it does meet all the bylaws as we look at this more closely. And then obviously, as much as I like it, I've voted how to vote no against things I'd like before because it doesn't meet it. So we believe that we can meet all the bylaw requirements. One issue, of course, that's still kind of hanging. And it's a key one is, will you be seeking a legal opinion about, may a vehicle drive through a parking lot? And if so, when would that be available? Because that's certainly the linchpin for this. If the legal opinion is that you may not drive through a parking lot in a residential zone, then there's no sense talking to the neighbors about fencing. Right, right, understood. So that's a topic that we're gonna talk about in deliberations and in terms of how fast should we recommend a legal opinion? What's the typical turnaround anyway? So it varies. If the DRB issues a decision tonight and it says seek legal opinion, reach out to the town attorney very soon. And then I would hope we could hear from him by the end of the year, but with the holidays. Maybe it's in early January. When we have that opinion back, we can communicate it to the DRB as other business, send a copy to the applicant, and that would give us a clear direction. Can this move forward to discretionary permit? Okay. Paul's way. Do you have a question? David. Oh, sorry. Oh, Paul? When you talk about post-edition, that's when there was to be office space, right? Correct. So that's actually gonna be potentially a noise filter because your equipment is gonna be against the back wall mouse that you're gonna have. Correct. 15,000 square foot absorbing noise inside the building before it goes. Or if there was equipment there or industrial use might be the powder coating area, which is powder coating or just or just shelving. Yeah, or shelving storage. Not, and it may not be office, but it wouldn't be. But what I'm trying to say, so you're gonna basically have. Right. We're gonna push. Sound effectively. Sound dead. Right. We're gonna push manufacturing towards commerce. Yeah, factory's not moving. Move the office on the other side. Yeah. And actually all of the office space that's on commerce now is gonna flip over and manufacturing will be moving more toward commerce. Okay. David? No, I'm good. You're good? Lisa? Good. One clarification on the parking. The, you mentioned 96 employees in a hundred parking spaces here. So this parking lot is solely for employee parking. How many drive up customers you have that are parking in the parking lot and walking into the building? So it would serve both, but as Mr. Samart said, right now they also have leased parking just across the street on Mr. Lake's property. So not the ice cream shop, but the behind bearing specialties, there's some area there, big gravel parking lot where additional parking is available. So. From employees. Yes. So customers, this is where I'm getting in. Right. So where are the customers parking on that plan and how, where do they walk and where they park their car to get into the building? They would come in where the entrance would have to be on that side for all employees and customers. So our lobby watching move to that side of the building. And we anticipate that they'll be on the, on the Williston road corner end of the building would be for visitors, customers, non-employee entrance and the employee entrance would probably be a little bit farther to the south down that West wall to have those two separate and their problem will end up based on the length. At least an emergency exit farther to the south just to have enough exit points on the, on that face of the building. So, but the key as you park in the lot, I anticipate the visitors will be in those first few spaces near the building and that the entry point would be or the offices right there as you come off Williston road and then employees would enter the building a little farther to the south. So this would be the kind of public corner of the building that means this would be where anyone visiting would park and then this access point would be employees and then there's probably going to be another access point at least down there. So more specifically who's parking on the far side of the drive and in the lot furthest to the West. So employee, employee, employees. So in terms of people who visit. Yeah, we have very, very few walk-in customers. You know, plus in one-tenth of 1% of our sales are local. We don't sell to the public. So they would be parked, they would become driving and they'd be parking up facing the building, being able to get out of their cars and enter the building without having to cross the driveway that the trucks are going. Correct. Okay, anything else, John? No, I don't think so. Scott? What? Okay. Members of the audience participating by Zoom, any questions, raise your hand. No chats and no raise hands. Okay. Gentlemen in the audience, do you have anything? These guys, they're on, I have a few questions here. Okay. I may have one for you on the talk, it's a lot of them. Could I present this to you, notified as a partner or should I be notified as a co-op given because I have an easement, given these guys an easement on the property. Should I be notified as a co-op or something? So they're just in the bar. That's a good question for the record that was Mr. Seneca speaking in the audience. So our bylaw requires that the applicants demonstrate that they have safe legal access. So the discretionary permit would need to show that easement. I don't know, I don't think that they would have that you would have to be a co-applicant. We have instances where people have driveway easements over someone else's land and that person's not required to sign off on any applications. Now there might be, you could have a private agreement that says that you wanna be involved in that way, but it's the responsibility of the landowner to say that I'm a testing that I have all authority to sign off on these applications. Now that's a legal agreement that's recorded in log with the town that it's not a handshake. Okay, then they've got a right to use it. What's that? They have a right to use it. Do you use the property? To use the easement across your property. So I just thought I would be listed as a co-applicant because I didn't know, I just wanted to ask. Anything else, Al? No. Okay, any last words? We appreciate the input and the thorough notes from staff given us good direction and we'll wait the decision whether you are going to seek the legal decision and if that's the case, we'll eagerly wait the legal decision. Okay, great. I'd like to thank the applicant for the extra seasonal things you do to put the smiles on the people that drive by there. I had to do it. It really adds a little bit to the area. Good, thank you. Even though you're not in the gateway, just kidding. You don't have to call it public art either. Thank you very much. We appreciate your time. Okay, thank you. Okay, we're going to close DP 24-07 at 7.56. All right, Emily, are we going to do the training after the deliberations? It's up to you how you guys want to do it. We could do it now or after. Yeah, let's do, while this is fresh, let's do deliberations now. And so we're going to go into, thank you, Scott. Welcome back to the Williston Development Review Board for Tuesday, November 28th. It is 8.23. We are out of deliberative session. Is there a motion for DP 24-07? Yes, as authorized by WDB 6.6.3, I, Scott Riley moved that the Williston Development Review Board having reviewed the application submitted and all accompanying materials, including the recommendations of the town staff and the advisory boards required to comment on this application by the Williston Development Bylaw. And having heard and duly considered the testimony presented at the public hearing of November 28, 2023, accept the recommendations for DP 24-07 and authorize this application to move forward to a discretionary permit review. We do have a couple of adjustments to the recommendations that we need to make note of. On a number 2BWDB13.8, provide trip generation data. A traffic study is required. Number 2DWDB15, provide a sidewalk along with developments. Williston Road and Commerce Street. Number 2EWDB16, a snow storage plan in compliance with 16.6. A solid waste plan in compliance with WDB16.7. The requirement for supplemental screening hedge around the dumpsters is not required in addition to the fence slash wall. Scott, do you wanna read that last sentence of 2B? There's a new one we added on the screen. I'm sorry, yes, I do, right? And number 2BWDB13.8, provide trip generation data. Traffic study is required. We are adding a sentence at the end of that paragraph, loading areas not permitted in front of the 35-foot front yard setback per WDB36.3.4. Okay, we did H, correct? We're on H, okay. WDB23, so number 2HWDB23-23, the landscaping plan must provide a type two supplemented with a type three buffer along 67 Kirby Lane, 83 Kirby Lane and 5182 Williston Road. A screening fence and or berm are required along the residential properties. And number 4A will be struck, and that is it, okay? Okay, thank you, Scott. Is there a second? I'll second it. Dave Turner seconds, any discussion? Yay or nay? Nate Andrews. Yay. Paul Christensen. Yay. Lisa Brayden-Harder. Yay. Scott Riley. Dave Turner. Yay. John Hemmelgarn. Yay. The chair is a yay, seven in favor, none opposed. Motion carries. Is there a motion to approve the meeting minutes of November 15th? I remember 14th, if it was here. Yes. Hold on a second here, thank you. Okay, my little cheat sheet was off. Is there a motion to approve the minutes of November 14th? No moved. Thank you, Lisa. Is there a second? John seconds it, is there any discussion? Yay or nay? Nate. Yay. Paul. Yay. Lisa. Yay. Scott. Yay. Dave. Yay. John. Yay. Chair is a yay, seven in favor, none opposed. The meeting minutes of November 14th are approved. Okay, next on the agenda is DRB training. And I will turn it over to staff. So, in October 2023, the select board adopted a set of amendments by developing bylaws, including provisions for inclusionary zoning as an alternative to growth management. And then there's some other amendments to the bylaws. The purpose of tonight is to give you guys an overview of these changes to the bylaw and then have any follow-up question and discussion. So before we dive into the inclusionary zoning and growth management stuff, I wanna note that there was a change to amend the density provisions of chapter 19 allow adaptive reuse projects that are exempt from residential density, projects in mixed use density that include more than 30% of the board. Can you stop right there and go back to that first? The adaptive reuse is exempt, so I read that, exempt from density requirements. What does that mean? So that means this is written for the hotel conversion type of project where you have an existing commercial, non-residential building and you wanna change the use to residential. You're not subject to the density requirements. Okay, so I'm a developer, right? So I look at a building, go how many units can I get in this? So I go find a building in Wiltson, couple of office buildings sitting over there. And based on that statement, I can cram in as many units as I possibly can. No, low limit. Low limit. So form-based code, form-based code district, no longer has to fit as many as you can fit your building that meets the form-based code building requirements. 200 square foot micro apartments I can... You're ready? Yes. That is going to come back and bite you, you know where. I mean, that's gonna be interesting to see what happens with that because that's the way I read it too. This was written, so there's a couple hotels like Hurricane Lane and Gateway where the residential density is really low. We get a lot of questions about converting those into residential. Yeah. And then there's a couple other properties. This is only in districts that allow residential, so you wouldn't be able to do an adaptive reuse in the industrial zoning districts. But Peter, I mean, Peter Judge owns those two big, two big office buildings sitting right at that corner. You could do this one. With the form-based code and with... Yes, and then this is another level. That would also be true. Would you say the upper floor of the buildings around the green? Absolutely. Yeah, the people tree place. That'll happen at some point. It's gotta happen at some point. I wish you had already. That'll happen at some point. That's definitely such an awesome, but it's not an apartment. Yeah, and the green itself. I know. Yeah, I know. I know with the pending village bylaw amendment, the HAC talked about, the Historic and Design and Committee talked about a unit limit on the size and its configuration. So basically you couldn't chop up a house into really bizarre unit configurations. And I want, I'm maybe... You mean like the Fort and Goldchester, like Burlington, like all of Burlington today? Right, exactly. But... You should have a bunch of... Maybe it would be a future thing if the Planning Commission wanted to add in, you know, a minimum size or a minimum configuration requirement for other zoning districts. So the other change to the Density Provisions, residential projects in mixed use that include 30% or more units as affordable qualify for a density bonus. Previously, that standard was just in the residential zoning district, Catamount Summer Field as an example. And clarify that transfer of development rights only applies in receiving areas within the growth center outside of the TAP Corners Form-Based Code District. That means that it's got to come in from outside and only can come in from outside to the TAP Corners Development Area. No, it can come in from outside and it's areas in growth center, but not for base code, which is essentially the annex, some land around Walmart and Home Depot, and then like where the Allenbrook School is. So those are the only areas that you can now do TDRs. You can't do TDR at the Corners-Based Code District because there's no more density. Next change, allow mobile vendors, i.e. food trucks, accessory to non-residential parking lots with an administrative permit. Some folks may remember going through the whole DRB rigmarole for a hot dog cart outside. Goodwill, we get a lot of these requests and this would require an administrative permit so it would not come to the DRB, but the administrator would be looking at some of the same standards in terms of solid waste and litter, pedestrian flow, maintaining parking, et cetera. Allow food and beverage manufacturers to have a larger indoor eating area and a larger outdoor patio. Recent approvals under the old standard were Goodwater Brewery and Burlington Beer, Burlington Beer is no more in Welliston, Burlington Beer is no more in Burlington. The larger outdoor patio, so during COVID, we were able to give these food and beverage manufacturers temporary larger areas and now we wanted to codify it permanently. Additional changes to encourage solar canopies and parking lots, amend the number of members and name for the historic and architectural advisory committee, allow EV charging infrastructure and administrative permit and clarify that temporary events are now regulated by an ordinance and not the by-law. It required demolition sites to be secured in erosion measures in place. How big is the new, is the HDAC? As opposed to the HAAC? Yeah, they are five members instead of seven. All town boards, including you guys are seven members. DRB and Planning Commission have an alternate for years there were vacancies that just haven't been able to film. You can't hire people these days let alone get volunteers on boards. The name change reflects their changing scope now that there's form-based code, they're not providing review and you guys aren't even reviewing new buildings in that district. And a lot of the standards in Chapter 22 as they exist today are about wayfinding to principle entrances pedestrian connectivity and they felt that they didn't like the name being called HAAC and hackers and the design more encapsulates architecture but it also encapsulates site design that they review as well. So by changing the name, it'll make it easier to get people to volunteer for it. Maybe, yeah, let's see what happens. Is it, I mean it's interesting that this come up here because with form-based code there are projects that we don't hear about until we've read it in the observer. Is there a way, I mean would it be appropriate to kind of do a periodic update of form-based code projects to allow the development review board to actually be familiar with all the development that's being proposed? Yeah, I think that we can do that and maybe it's just part of your agenda packet we could just copy paste things that once they get uploaded to the website we can put it on the next PRB agenda. So it all goes on the town's website, public records and documents, agendas and minutes. So look it up. Look it up if you wanna have it hot off the press and then I think Andrew and I can work together on getting something in your packet such as probably it's part of the agenda, the summaries of what they are. So we upload them and then a couple of weeks after they're uploaded you'll see when the project review committee meets which is zoning administrator, public works and fire in the applicant. So that six story thing they're talking about building that's gonna be form? Yeah, so that had its project review committee meeting or no it has its project review committee coming up on December 15th. The permit will not be issued until sewer allocation is purchased. So what the process is, Matt writes a determination letter after that meeting that says here's the couple minor things you need to show on your final plans before I'll sign off on your certificate of conformity and you have to pay all your fees. So by sometime next year they'll have a permit the six story, so form-based code only allows five stories. State law recently changed to allow an extra story and they're utilizing that provision to get the sixth story. So think about that in front of the TD building in the green space but in front six story building. It's gonna blow up the lake views I can't have that. Well the big change, I mean big change it's gonna change the streetscape. Definitely gonna change the streetscape. Yeah but what happens is that when we look at Williston today and then we look at Williston 20 years from now that's just gonna be the first building that started the sequence of activity. It's true. Because all they're gonna do is lobby the hell out of the state to make the next number will be 10 stories and then 20 stories. And then I'll be able to build my apartment building down on my farm. Maybe, let's put it on the ground. I mean in terms of clarification John, we don't want Emily to add pages to our packet every time. I mean maybe just of like, hey there's updates out there kind of line and so follow all the details of it. I just would like to know that the list of applications that have come in is that's just my suggestion. Yeah, I think what we do is probably these descriptions that are uploaded here are similar to the DRB descriptions where it's like what it is and where it is and we'd probably just copy paste that onto like your agendas that go in your packets. Other business FYI form-based code projects. Sounds good. Put it on the email. Either send it out. I think we're trying to make the DRB to that. Yeah, that'd be great. I'd like to do all this shit. Okay, good. Yeah, do it all. So inclusionary zoning amendments to chapter 11, favorite chapter of the bylaw. There's essentially three tracks now. Either a project is due to its size or number of affordable units is exempt from growth management. It's going inclusionary. It's providing a certain number of inclusionary units or its full market rate and it's going through that old school growth management track but with a payment in lieu requirement. So small projects that create four or fewer units are exempt from both growth management and inclusionary zoning. This means that you guys might see some applications that go right from pre-app to discretionary permit. Medium-sized projects that create five to nine homes must either provide one of those homes as deed restriction or go through the growth management process but that fee in lieu is not required. So you might see something go from pre-app to discretionary permit providing that one unit affordable or it would go to growth management annually in market. Projects that have 10 or more homes must meet the inclusionary zoning requirements which is 15% of the homes are affordable at 100% the area immediate income or 10% at 80% of the area immediate income or an equivalent mixture. And then if you are 10 or more units but you're all market rate, then you must go through the growth management process and pay in lieu and that fee is tiered based on the number of units that are in the project. So for example, a development with 60 homes would pay a fee of about $365,000. Those pay-in-loop fees came from looking at what neighboring communities have charged and what seems reasonable to planning commission spent a lot of time liberating a fee and they didn't want it to be too high that it discourages anybody from building as was experienced in Burlington. If we see a lot of utilization of it maybe then it's ratcheted up but if you're having no development then you have no data to base the fee number on. You've gotten here, you have no units too. You'd have, and you'd have no units so you'd be exacerbating the housing problem. This eliminates now then the exemptions that we used to debate in the growth management with the little projects that didn't get enough before you were allowed per year. Right, because here if you're under and all those were usually just buildings. Right, right. Yeah, so before those exemptions, you're exactly right, John, you had to go to growth management in March and ask for it. Now they're just based into the bylaw. Those exemptions. So can I, I got a question for you. If you, it says on the larger projects, if you comply with either the 15% at 100% or 10% at the 80% and it skirts growth management, does that mean that's not taken out of the 80 units per year? That's just, it's around that. It's around that. So if everybody, so if every developer, every person who wanted to build one of these buildings complied with this inclusionary zoning, we could have an unlimited, I'm exaggerating, but we could have an unlimited number of apartments being built in a year. Yeah, we could saturate the sewer system in a year. Well, right. Right, yeah. And that would be the, and that's gonna be the limiting factor. That would be the regulator. Yeah, yeah, it's gonna be. In fact, what we're gonna run up against this year because Chris Snyder's The Annex just purchased its phase one sewer allocation. So projects like me showed, Summerfield, the Sixth Storage F-Mungent Building might have to be waiting until I want to get outpatient. And what happens if the developer who meets all these rules turns around and sues the town of Williston for now obstructing what they put in writing saying, this is okay. That's pretty well tested in court. What? I think that's pretty well tested in court. It wouldn't be the first time that Williston's sewer ordinance just landed in. Yeah. I'm just curious that this could turn in, this could turn into a very financial, lucrative business for a good Esquire. Maybe. Fortunately, that's something that the DRB has to worry about. We don't have to worry about that. Right, right. It won't be awesome. In fact, we could give the rest of the DRB to the new whatever they call them. So the H-DAC or whatever, they could do all of the cases. Emily, I had, if anybody wants to tell me to stop asking questions. No, I had that same one as you, the last, this one is a new one for them. So the, one of the other questions that I noticed in the, in the, in chapter 11, when I was reading that, it seems to say that any, any area that allows a single family home now allows a dupe quad, is that correct? Not a quad, a duplex. Nah. I think in sewer service area. Anything in the sewer service area, it goes to a, it goes to a quad, doesn't it? That's S-100, yeah. Yeah. That's what I got out of it. It says three or four, not two. Duplexes. So I'm jumping over to the DHCD memo. Duplexes and small unit pieces. All right, so which one of you got something? The one that says the Vermont one. Yep, the Vermont one. Municipalities must allow anywhere single homes are allowed for year-round use. An area served by municipal water. Sewer must allow multi-unit dwellings with three or four units to be. There you go. One unit to four. Bingo. So read that again, please. An area served by municipal water and sewer, municipalities must allow multi-unit dwellings with three or four units to be permitted, not conditionally used. So Williston has complied with this. This is state, this is state, this is not Williston bylaw, this is state. This is the state legislature changing the zoning statute and for anywhere town bylaws conflict this preempts. Williston zoning complies with this already because in the residential zoning districts and our mixed use commercial districts, we've allowed multi-family buildings of any size. We're silent. It's only in the act roll district where we say up to a duplex. But we could, you know, Alex across the street with his duplex could have put a quad in there, could put now, could put a quad in there. Correct. Oh boy, that would make Mr. Pinter that. Theoretically. Not theoretically. No, not theoretically. You're permit, so everything's theoretical and you're permitted to do it. You're right, you're right. But this board tries to follow the law and the law is sitting right here in front of us saying it used to be a duplex that you could put in. Now it's 40 years. And theoretically, every single house down this road could be a fourplex. That's a rocker. So I think there's in the state exemptions, you can't double dip the use and the density. So another thing that state law preempts is that density to five units per acre. So our interpretation of things in the village are we've always allowed multi-unit structures of any size, you know, two to however many your density analysis allows. So that's a confusing thing because the state law defines it as a use, but it's more of like a structure form. So you're in the village, the current density is two units per acre. Now state law preempts it up to five, but that five unit per acre still limits how many units you can fit on your law. Not according to that, it doesn't. I think there's a couple of different interpretations of it. Good Lord, it's kind of easy. Oh boy, Emily, I mean, to me that's where you have a, where you can put one house, now you can put four units based on this state BSA statute. I mean, and again, I'm not trying to argue with you, but this is a question that's going to come up with. Yep, so we're working on probably early 2024, another round of bylaw elements in response to the state exemptions. Interesting, it's interesting. And that's why it was such a, it came up in the Glazer application with the whole density preemption. Shifting back to wrap up on growth management. Recording the progress. Did this slide forward? Yes, I did. Slide forward to the proof. Oh. These are. Oh, he's saying glazing. Good, thanks. Five minutes. Even though they've just been corrected or not. They didn't? But our meeting's still out, yeah, okay. Crazy. Oh, because we're not in collaborations. Yes. Yeah, okay. Oh yeah, that was, so in terms of growth management, the affordable housing criteria has gone away. Because if you're going full market rate, you're not proposing any affordable units. Those criteria are only for projects that aren't proposing affordable homes. The conserve energy criteria, our favorite one has changed to include more realistic options, more opportunities to gain points in that category and design for context was eliminated because it didn't add significant value. So come March, you're going to see a different set of criteria, different points, and no affordable housing metric. Now for existing vested projects that have been scored under the old systems, they still have to uphold that, that prior vested approval in their score. That would be things like summer field in the Ennex. Right, this does not apply to that. And the table is going to look different too. So that big scary 11 by 17 table, it had a column for affordable and had a column for market rate. Now it's all market rate. And those previous affordable units will denote them in a certain way. So that table will look different come March as well. I can't wait. Back to the Act 47 state preemptions, municipal parking minimum requirements also got preempted. And then some other things about hotels and housing assistance, and then the density metrics as well, based on in sewer service area or outside sewer service area. Interesting. Can I notice there's something there about limits on local appeals? Is that anything that? Question. I wasn't totally understanding kind of what they were getting at there. Appeals of decisions of the administrative officer adds resonance to the list of potential individuals that may in combination appeal with a 10 person petition. The amendment also prohibits 10 person appeals for character of the area if the project has an affordable housing component. So I think my understanding is the adding residence is designed to encapsulate renters as opposed to property owners. And then also prevent character of the area appeals on affordable housing projects. A lot of these in the memo, so it's a nine page memo from the state online. I think Melinda gave you only a couple of the pages. It's really the parking, the density that come most into play in terms of what the DRB is gonna be looking at. And we may have a couple of applications before our bylaws amended to respond to these state exemptions. So should, until that happens, are we required to, is this more than asked of looking at these state changes and then in making the qualitative judgments that that's an allowable exception bylaw? Possibly, but it would all be teed up for you in the staff report and conditions of approval. And if we need to get a legal opinion, like we'll get the Glazer application that moves forward under their other concepts. We'll queue it up for you guys. Thank you. So no legal opinion back on that yet? So is this saying with this new plan of the extra foreign stuff that the guys who've been doing the golf course system and their next expansion, they can have a six story building out there, right? No, so the maximum building height in the residential zoning district is 30 feet. And right now the bylaw is silent on number of stories in that zoning district. So your guess is to go to as good as mine as to what extra story means in a district that only limits height based on number of feet. It's a form-based code. It's all, yeah. It's form-based code where that applies to the most. Only the form-based both area. Are you sure that it's only form-based code area? I mean, that doesn't... The extra story of Leeds is town-wide. Yeah. But what is extra story in the zoning district that only limits height based on number of feet? And I was commenting on Paul in the six stories. Yeah, the six stories. And that's form-based code area. Okay, so you can get five stories into 30 feet and you can put another one on top of that. Well, but I think what's standard story is what, 10 to 12 feet, right? So, essentially a three-story building. Well, and then it's gonna go to a four-story building. Got another 12. It's another, you know, there's something else for the lawyer thing, actually. That's a 15-foot height story and have 10 houses. But that's what I was trying to get at. They could put the extra story out in the... I think you could buy... In the other zones. What they're saying here, as long as you're providing affordable housing, you can put an extra story on anything. That's my point. So, if these guys go affordable... The state trumps the town, right? Yes. Yes. So, in other words, a building can come in, look at the state code and say, we're doing 100% affordable, we're gonna go maximum the state allows no matter what the city said, no matter what the town says, correct? That's the way I read it. That's what I thought. But I think everybody here knows that it's gonna go in front of an attorney and a court and it's gonna get hammered out. And that's funny. So, stay tuned. Stay tuned. The environmental court is very busy. It's the four-based codes, I don't know if this can pass. I'm gonna call my buddy, it's on the mood in Vermont, tell him there's contracts up in the future for him up here. Well, I mean, the intent is to promote affordable housing. Right housing. Yeah. And so... This is gonna do it. And the attempts have been made in the past and it wasn't working. And this is a new trend. But there's no aspect of this when, if someone takes advantage of the inclusionary housing and it's the market that decides who rents that, anyone can go rent it, there's no one's looking at the income of the renters or that was buying, right? That's not true. When you, our daughter just bought a income-based property in South Burlington. And you have a, in your deed, you have to, if you were to rent the unit, the person has to meet the criteria of affordability. Was that specific to South Burlington? I didn't read anything like that in this. It's in here. It is? It's in the, it's in the inclusionary zoning. It's South Burlington, just adopted. It's new. Okay. I haven't been there in a while. It's there now. It's, yeah, there's... Okay. Yeah, there's safeguards on that. What I didn't go over, WDB11.3, so if your project is going the inclusionary route, there are enhanced requirements for its perpetual affordability in terms of deed restrictions, resale restrictions, rent increases. Are affordable dwellings required to be sold rented to income fall by renters? Yes, they must be marketed for rent lease to households within the same income bracket as a dwelling was intended for. 11.3.6. 11.3.6, yep. So there is a little bit of income qualification in the new bylaw requirement, but it's not quite as robust as something like which CHT does where it's a whole application project and you're basically matched. So, yeah. And will you guys have to monitor that? Do you get reports from the seller? That's where the rub comes right there. If the development includes dwellings affordable to those earning 80% AMI, those dwellings must be sold meeting the respective income qualification. So it would be in that the way affordables are done now is there's a calculation done before the closing and then this would add in that income qualification. So existing units that are, sale units that are affordable, they have to do this calculation and get sign off on the zoning administrator where they can close. That shows that the price is still within that. There's easy safeguards with Emily just described for a sale. Somebody's got to police the rentals and that's where it's going to fall between. Absolutely, it's going to fall through the cracks. Yeah. So once you buy it, you buy it and rent it. You rent it out to people because nobody's going to check on it. Well, we did add another person to the department. So willing this role is energy and community development aka housing planner. So it'll be under her purview. That person will be thrilled to have to follow that stuff up. Anything else, Emily? Not that I can think of. Matt mentioned something on the night about the idea of a dual unit equivalent changing from not getting rid of the half. Yeah. But it's still in here as a half. It's still in the bylaw. Yep, DUE is still in the bylaw for the purposes of density and birth management. Part of our Act 47 cleanup would be to get rid of the DUE. It adds confusion if we're getting the higher density that we want. And it would also essentially cut that 80 DUE growth target in half because 80 DUE could be 160 studio or one bedroom units. But now if it's just dwellings, the dwelling is a dwelling. So it essentially restrict that 80 growth target. But it doesn't, it's not now being more restrictive? Yes. In terms of that 80 DUE growth cap, but now that there's so many routes around it in terms of small project exemptions or inclusionary zoning, that it would, we'd see this kind of balancing itself out. I would toss that back at you and say, if you're trying to promote housing, why would you do that? Well, the only units that are going- And you're dialing back 80 units. The only units that are going in that 80 DUE growth target are market rate, fully market context. Understood, understood. But you're still trying to fill out. So you got to have, and housing encompasses the entire range. It's not just a fork. It's an error. And if there are people who show up and want to write the check, which I can't imagine everyone would want to do, because it's expensive, but if they want to write the check, they are providing housing. And that ultimately is the goal. From the whole ranks, through the whole from top to bottom and affordable to unacquired. Well, it's still going to be a bylaw amendment that has to go through the planning commission and select board. So who knows what happens with DUE. And that fee is tiered. Part of the planning commission's working through it was the more units you have in the project, the more realistic it should be to be able to include some affordable. Whereas we've already had, so like for example, when you showed project with 15 units, they're going to be coming to growth management in March and asking to have their three units affordable, be made market rates so that they can pay in lieu and get out of that affordability requirements. So smaller projects, the fee might be more feasible, larger projects and they'd be able to find another way. It's the thinking. Okay. Any other questions? How are the sewer allocation fees determined? Did they increase a lot this year? That's a great question. I'm sorry, I didn't hear that. Wouldn't I? How are sewer allocation fees determined and are they increasing a lot next year? I'm not as versed in the sewer allocation ordinance. I know it is based off of whatever the cost is at the plant that they charge and then you're basing it off of what it costs to connect. I'm sure they go up a little bit each year because everything goes up in costs a little bit each year. And then I know if you buy allocation there, you pay a full. So I will tell you that it is not based off what it costs at the plant. It is based off a standard, very similar to the IBE codes. It's not that, but it is a, if you go talk to Bruce, he has a book that he opens up and says, okay, you have a hotel, hotels have A toilet and A sink and it's X. We just went through that with the most recent Finney Hotel too. And then there was a big argument. There was a big argument because we have a hotel across the street that was X minus. And it was a perfect example, a perfect example of an actual flow. And yet his book was saying it was going to be X plus. And so the argument was, well, here's real world data and this is out of a book. We think you should use the real world data. And then ultimately that's what happened. So that's where it comes from. The town, the town. So that's where it's based on. But you're talking about usage. Well, but that's how you pay for it. Well, there's a couple of different fees and that's a good point that there's. That's calculating the usage. Buying your allocation based on your usage. Then when you actually go to hook up, there's different cook up fees. That was why there was a question. And then once you're a user, then you pay your, that meter amount. When you go and pay for it, it's based off of Bruce's book. I understand this. That wasn't his question. He doesn't like the fact that the sewer system operates like an auto mechanic. This job's gonna take four hours. You know they're gonna do two minutes, but they're gonna charge you four hours labor. Okay. Any other questions? Is there a motion to adjourn? Motion to adjourn. Is there a second? Second. Any discussion? All those in favor? All right. Any opposed? Okay, thank you everyone.