 All right, Scott, you ready? All set. All right. I'll call them in in order at six, and at this point, you'll go to public comment. If there's anyone in the room who has any public comment, this is the time to make it. Yes, why don't you come up to the table and introduce yourself? My name is Al Sannickle. I'm with Allen Book Development. I'm not really a great public speaker, so I'm a little nervous right now. I put together a letter, and I'll leave you copies of it, but I wanted to take maybe three to five minutes to read it so that you could get it from my perspective. Maybe. Sure. I'll sit there, okay. And this is just a letter to try to explain to you folks that I really do want to work with the town on this form-based code stuff. And I know I've submitted a few letters, and I've been to a lot of the meetings, and I'm pretty involved in it, but anyway, make a long story short, I'll read it. Dear Select Board members, I would like to figure out a way to donate some land to the town of Williston for a park. Unfortunately, no one is really listening to me. Instead, the town of Williston is creating maps that take land from me. I want to work together with the town, and I do want the town to dedicate to me what land I own and what land I no longer own. I don't know if I read that right, but anyway, I'll let you read this letter afterwards. I think the town is more likely to achieve its own objectives more quickly and more economically by working with me, rather than spending its time passing more and more restrictions on land in the town of Williston. As you might have guessed, I am frustrated with the form-based code review process. I have a long record of working with towns to achieve a mutual, agreeable outcome. Over the past several decades, I have routinely worked with a number of municipalities in a positive and collaborative approach to development planning. My goal is to always find a mutual beneficial result for both parties. Unfortunately, I have not seen much collaboration in the form-based code review, and many legitimate questions and concerns for me and others have simply been ignored or cast aside in what feels like a rushed effort to adopt the latest plant fashion trend. While the town has listened to developers, it has not actually changed anything with how it is approaching the form-based code. Instead it is simply adopting and recommending of its paid consultant without change. To be clear, I am not opposed to either the form-based code or donating land to the municipality for a park as part of a development plan. In fact, in my collaborative work with the town of Essex at Saxon Hill Industrial Park, I worked closely with the town on a development plan that ultimately involved the donation of over 230 acres of land with connecting trails easements for a town park. The process involved a number of meetings to discuss and negotiate the future development layout of our property in a good faith manner that was beneficial for both the owner and the town. I take pride in my ability to work collaboratively with the municipalities and make, in my recent work with leaders in Essex speaks not only the respectful and professional way that we worked through the issues, but also to the goodwill and continued success of both parties following that negotiation. For it is the goodwill created by collaboration that fuels future success. But genuine collaboration seems to be missing from the form-based code review process. At no time has anyone from the town even reached out to me to say they would like to take 16 acres of my land and use it for a park, whether I was willing to cite that park in the prime upland portion of my property or whether there were any mutual benefit development goals that could be included in that conversation. That would have been the Vermont way to have gone about this. Instead, I first learned of a park being seen in, it labeled on a draft official map. After digging further, I also found it identified as one of the handful of unique natural communities in the town of the official map, allegedly due to the, to preserve the bur oak, a common form of oak which is the least, which is of the least concern for conservation value. And there's a website I put on here as well that you guys can look up and see bur oaks are the highest populated oak trees in the country. It is deeply troubling to me that the town would first use a completely made up natural community designed for disparage my property, and then designate 16 acres of the area as a future town park for these are not rare trees and this is not a natural area. It is a prime developable upland area that the town thinks would be a nice park, place for a park. And I kind of agree it is a nice place for a park. But anyway, I had, I had obvious questions about this process, including whether the town can actually do this. I asked my lawyers and it seems pretty clear to me that this conduct is a government, is a governmental property taking or the imposition of an unconstitutional condition on the zoning process. And yes, we could file a lawsuit and have a court determine the legal claims. But that is not how I do business, nor how I want to do business. Rather, my preference is to work with the town and to come up with a win-win solution. There are many good concepts in the form based code. However, there are a number of problems that need to be closer looked. For example, allowing development on only one side of a street is a waste of both natural and economic resources. Imposing design standards that cause the road to cost far more than a typical town road will drive up the cost of housing even further than it does now. And most assuredly, will put affordable housing out of reach. Designing a road layout with input from the public works and the fire department is simply without the, the fire department or public works is irresponsible. It makes no sense to codify an entire road layout only to find out afterwards that there are inadequacies for fire trucks, movements, emergency service accesses, snow plowing, turning movements, snow storage, stormwater, utilities and so on. As I mentioned before, it took me nearly 10 years to complete the development plan and layout of the Cottonwood property. A process involved countless hours of review with architects, engineers, town planning staff, development review board and state agencies, including Act 250. Cottonwood is a tiny fraction of the area covered by the form-based code. It is simply naive to think that you would be able to properly plan and layout a design that large in an area in a short time that form-based has been considered. So my request is, please slow down, do it right, collaborate in good faith with prop property owners, include input from the public works, the fire department and consider practical, economic and environmental implications of the code. I am hopeful that a more thorough vetting of the form-based code will create an archivable vision, an achievable vision we can all be proud of for years to come. And thank you for your time for letting me hear it. If you leave the copies for us, that would be very helpful. Yes, I'll leave you these copies for sure. We're going to be starting our deliberations on this on the 23rd of the month. Right. I just, I knew there was a short meeting tonight. There's only a few things on the agenda. I didn't want to tie you up on my plan. I'll leave. I'll take one copy. Good. Thank you. Good. Thank you very much. Thanks for coming. Thank you. So moving on then to the special town meeting warning and ballot form, Eric, just to give us a brief overview of what we're doing tonight on this. And we've discussed this at length in other meetings. Yep. For the board's consensus at its last meeting on July 19th, I've included for consideration a special town meeting draft warning with the article that would be placed on the ballot to enter into a communications union district to improve, to improve broadband access in the community. The special town meeting would occur on this election day, Tuesday, November the 8th, would be the loan article to be included on this general election ballot from the town. In addition, a public information hearing is included on the warning. I've tend to schedule that for part of the regular select board meeting on November the 1st of a week prior as part of the agenda. As a reminder, the ballot general electric election on general election ballot will be mailed by the Secretary of State's office to all nonchalanced voters or voters in the state at the board's last meeting it approved, including local articles on that for the request of the Secretary of State's office. The spellet form language was reviewed by the town attorney Bob Fletcher. That's included for your consideration this evening. Currently, my understanding is the towns of towns and cities, including South Burlington, Essex, Shelburne and Jericho will be asking voters the same question for entering into the CUD. And the city of Essex Junction is going to be considering this next week as well. So I think it's about five or half dozen or so communities considering this. The working group that I'm part of by the CCRPC is going to continue to meet. We're really pivoted its focus now to communications and outreach to voters on this question. As early voting will begin, I believe in late September or so 45 days prior to the general election. So for the board this evening to consider adopting the warning and if so, I would pass us on the town clerk to then transmit to get on the general election ballot prior to August 9th. Any questions for Eric on where we're at tonight? If not, then there's a motion suggested. I'll move to adopt the official warning for the public information hearing and special talent meeting vote by Australian ballot to be held on November 1 and November 8, 2022. Is there a second? I'll second. So any discussion on the motion? I'd be here if you say city of Essex Junction. Yeah. Jarring, isn't it? That's the last person. But the article seems pretty simple, pretty straightforward. You know, the town attorney in his review said the really substantial compliance with the general form of the law. It's really intent of the voters that significant in the question and we feel we've crafted the question with that. Okay. If there's no further discussion, then all those in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? All right. I'm moving on to the appointment of the Cemetery Commissioner. Eric, just give us a brief update on this. Yep. And also before you start, I just want to. Could be a potential conflict of interest. I don't feel so, but I do do some cornerstone work for the commission from time to time and I can lose myself if that's going to be a problem with the board. So these are private lots that have already been purchased and the digging of the grave is done through the direction of the funeral homes and but your only thing you're doing is free plus the cornerstones. All right. I don't see a problem with that. I'm good. Yeah, thanks. So yeah, kind of brief item for the board to consider. The Harvey step down from the cemetery commission after many years of service this past June, we've advertised to try to find a new commissioner for over two months and unfortunately haven't had an applicant yet. As you know, the summertime is particularly busy for the cemetery commission and B has been helping out a bit and is willing to continue to help out for another couple months on hearing that I thanked her and also said, well, she'll probably be appointed to the cemetery commission if you're functioning in that role. So this is for the board to consider this evening, but the motion is to appoint B for the unexpired term through 2027. It would not, she would not serve for that full term and the understanding would be we'd still have advertised and hopefully have an applicant in the next couple of months to be considered and anticipate B is fine with this. I ran it by her anticipation either way, need to wind down by later this summer, but she wants to see the work through as they need a helping hand right now. Any questions for Eric? We are in this. Then there is a motion suggested also move to appoint B Harvey to the cemetery commission to an unexpired term through June 30th, 2027. Is there a second? Second. Is there any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, I'll close in favor of the motion to say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Moving on to manager's report. Just a couple quick items I'll touch on from my written report. As a reminder, as the chair mentioned, the August 23rd agenda item will have a deliberation on the form-based code on its following up on previous discussions. If I remember the board would be interested in any meetings with the planning, the staff before that, please let me know and we can set up a meeting. I know Jeff, you might be interested. Yeah, just let me know. We can get something on the calendar with Matt here shortly. And if others are interested, I'd prefer to do it together. We just need to award a quorum of the board. Avoid that. Yes. Two of you are interested, no way, but one of you are interested, we can do it. Yeah. Happy to facilitate that. That was actually going to help. Great, thank you. So that's coming up. And then I've included with your packet an opportunity, the legacies in town just put out the end of last week. They're launching a new initiative in partnership with Abundance Sun. It's a Vermont cultural transformation consultancy. It's going to offer municipal leaders an opportunity to participate in their ethical performance improvement campaign or EPIC is the acronym. I've included more information with the agenda to think about. It looks like a really good designed series to be looking at first the equity inclusion from policymaking and administration. They're going to have a cohort of up to 15 communities that can participate in this. There's an application process. It would involve a number of at least a half dozen meetings over the course of six to eight months. The town would need to have two people participate and commit to be part of that as part of the application. I'd certainly be willing to be one of those from the town should the board like to apply. The other person could be a member of the select board and also the board member is not able to or there's not capacity from the board. Erin Dickinson in the manager's office has also expressed potential interest. Looking for the board's consensus this evening if likely to prepare an application for you to consider at your next meeting. It includes a letter of support from the select board to authorize and should there be a member of the select board who'd like to be part of that application. We have to indicate that the two folks from the community would be involved. So if you'd like me to continue with that I can prep the materials for your next meeting. So our object tonight is to see whether or not a majority of the board wishes to go ahead and at least apply for the welcoming and emerging communities cohort. Any questions? No questions. 100% support the concept. We did something similar with the division I work with at DEC and it just isn't what surprised me is what I learned that I had no idea. I didn't you know and about me myself you know some of my whatever's unintended but certainly there. So this is highly supportive. I don't know if it's aimed at staff versus elected officials. Well and there would be an opportunity for a member of the select board to be part of that as one of the two. So between now and the next select for me we would need to need to know if there is interest on select work part. I'm interested. I don't know if I can commit at this this moment again and I would say to anyone you know these I was just surprised that how beneficial it was when I went into thinking how beneficial it's just going to be and it was very official. So I would I'm interested in taking another opportunity to learn more good. I just don't know if I can commit yet. Sure. Well that's the big thing of the time. Yeah. Sure. Any other comments? Looks like we have consensus to go forward at least for the application. So we'll look forward to that in the in our next meeting. Prepare that. Anything else Eric on your report? No, that's all I have to see. Then what other business we do have a liquor license application. And Eric if you'd like to introduce the folks that are here and we'll consider the application. Yep. This is a change in ownership and it's Roselle and Barbara. They're here. They're going to be the new ownership group for the Vermont taphouse and tap corners. They are I believe looking to take over the ownership by the middle of the month here. And so procedurally the board would need to approve a new liquor license. They retain the current license held for a first third and outdoor consumption permits for the facility. I checked with staff and staff has no no objections to their to their requests. So they're they're here to answer any additional questions the board has and to speak the trust. Thank you for our viewing public. If you'd introduce yourselves to us and then give us a brief description of what currently transpires at the facility and what your plans are to go forward. My name is Barbara Cody. I currently own the Shelburne taphouse. Go ahead. And my name is Roselle Tenna and I'm applying to own the Vermont taphouse. So we really don't really we're not going to change anything at the taphouse. And you know we just intend to take it over have a smooth transition for employees the community and you know the current owner is really anxious to move on and in his other endeavors. And so it's just a really great match for us and great you know we're super excited to go into the old Ponderosa building and be a part of the Williston community make it look nice and really give it some love and care and just keep we're very interested in keeping all people that are currently working there. Yeah, currently it's for on premises service only I resume not take out for alcohol consumption. Yeah, there's they they have a bar 35 taps. We would just keep what what they currently are doing and offering and they'll be outside consumption. Yes, there's currently exists. Yes, so we're always concerned about how you regulate that as far as service outside and kids perhaps being able to be there as well. Well, all the servers have to be DLC certified. They all have to take a class. I believe there are security cameras if not will make sure that they're there. So you know if you're inside the restaurant and you're a manager or where they're we can you know watch what's going on outside but all staff will be trained. The areas have to be enclosed. So their signage, you know, no alcohol beyond this point all those preventative measures or things that if they aren't already there will make sure that they are there. Thank you. Other questions? I guess one question is you said employees. It sounds like you're hoping to retain all the current employees as you take it over 100%. Okay. Okay. I'm just trying to think back to I don't remember Vermont taphouse ever being before us for having a violation. You don't have to answer that because you probably didn't think of that, which is just a sign about your employees likely doing a good job. And so it adds some confidence that they're the same ones who will be maybe having going through the training again. I don't know if that's required, but doing what needs to be done in terms of underage or inebriation. Correct. If there are more no more questions tonight, we're looking for a motion to approve the license. If I may suggest one for the board is having a motion to approve a first and third class liquor license and outdoor consumption permit for Ricky Rose LLC doing business as Vermont taphouse through April 30th, 2023. So moved. Well said. So we have motion being seconded. Any discussion on the motion? If not, all those in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Good luck. Thank you very much. So that concludes our business tonight and we are adjourned. Thank you.