 Hello, my name is Pete Kelly and welcome to the Wilson Development Review Board. I'm the Chair. This is a hybrid meeting taking place at Town Hall Meeting Room and virtually on Zoom. All members of the Board and the public can communicate in real time. Planning staff will provide Zoom instructions for public participation before the hearings are opened. If Zoom crashes, the meeting will be continued to September 14th, 2021. All votes taken in this meeting that are not unanimous will be done by roll call vote in accordance with the law. Let's start by taking a roll call attendance of all DRB members participating in the meeting. Scott Riley. President. John Hemmelgarn. John, you're muted. Sorry, I'm here. Thanks, John. Dave's Halladino. President. Dave Turner. President. Paul Christensen. I'm not seeing Paul in the list of names. Okay. And Steve Lambrick is not present as well, correct? Correct. So there's seven DRB members. We have five present. That is a quorum. Next, I'll turn it over to you, Emily, to walk us through Zoom instructions, please. Sounds good. Hey, everybody. Welcome to the Williston DRB meeting. A lot of new faces tonight, so I'm going to go over some Zoom features. If anyone's here with a cell phone or laptop, please, and you join Zoom, keep the microphone off, the camera off, and the speaker off. For the participants that are with us on Zoom, on the left hand of your toolbar, you'll see microphone and video options. Keeping your video on is optional. On your toolbar, you can use the chat if you're having any technical difficulties or if you would like to speak, please do not comment in the chat with anything substantive. We'll let you know when it's your time to speak verbally. You'll also see the reaction section of your toolbar where you can press the raise hand button to indicate if you'd like to speak. And captions are an option as well on the toolbar. For the telephone participants, I'm seeing one so far. Press star nine to raise your hand or star six to mute and unmute. And we ask that everybody please stay on mute unless it's your turn to speak. We will be using screen share tonight so you can optimize your view. On the green section of the toolbar, click view options and side by side. You can drag the slider left and right to optimize seeing everybody's video feed and the document. You can also alternate between gallery view and speaker view. If you're having trouble with internet, you can try turning off your video, closing browser tabs or computer programs, clicking the up arrow next to the microphone. You can leave computer audio and use your telephone as your speaker and microphone by following the prompt on your screen. Again, use the chat if you're having zoom technical difficulties. Thank you. Okay, thank you, Emily. Next up is a public forum. This is an opportunity for those participating in this hearing to make comments on anything that is not on tonight's agenda. If you have a comment that you would like to share with the group, please use the functionality of Zoom at this time please. I'm seeing no raised hands or no comments in the chat. Okay, we'll segue into the public hearing. We have two items on tonight's agenda, DP 21-16 Metro signs for a master sign plan and DP 21-17 Champlain Housing Trust, a pre-app to convert an existing 99 room hotel consisting of two buildings into 72 units. So first up is DP 21-16, the master sign plan, who is present in representing the applicant. That would be me, Jim Cowell from Metro sign. Hi, Jim, welcome. If you would state your address for the record, please. Address of the property or address of where I am. Your business address. There we go. Now you've got me guys, you caught me off guard 170 Loram Street, I believe in Tuxbury mass. Okay. Yeah. Thank you. Staff is up first. And I see Melinda in the Zoom room, but am I reading this Melinda? Would you prefer that? I'm sorry. Yeah, I can read it, but I'm going to need that screen. My, my computer's being a little uncooperative. So. Yeah, I can read here. I can read, but so this is. Yeah, Melinda, the audio is not very good. Hey, Melinda. Hi. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. We're going to let Matt. Can some, can you just read it, Matt? Sorry. Absolutely. Thanks. I'll, I'll go ahead and just read through and let Melinda clarify anything I miss at the end, but I should be able to get it. This is a request for discretionary permit for a master sign plan. It's for a single tenant property in the industrial zoning area. So this is a master sign plan. We have multiple wall signs in excess of the 24 square foot normal minimum under the bylaw. Staff is recommending that the DRB take testimony and close this hearing tonight, deliberate tonight and make a decision tonight. The staff recommendation is for approval of the master sign plan with findings of fact, conclusions of law and conditions of approval as drafted. So we're reviewing this request. This project was originally a rather this site plan goes back to SP 8907 site plan approval and the lot was created as part of production part under SUB 8624. We did ask for a departmental review on this project did receive a comment memo from fire and meeting the requirements of fire as stated in their comment memo is a recommended condition of the master sign plan. So under under the overview as I mentioned what the applicant is requesting is wall signs in excess of 24 square feet. 24 square feet is the limit at which signs can be approved administratively beyond that it does require a master sign plan and does require that special findings be made by the development review board related to those signs compliance with the language of our comprehensive plan as well as the intent of the bylaw as it relates to signs. There are also directional wall free standing and awning signs for the purpose of the master sign plan. The door graphics are considered wall signs. The applicant is showing four new directional signs. Those are each less than two square feet in size and are allowed by right and exempt from permitting and not included in the sign area calculations in your staff report. There are no portable signs projecting signs suspended signs proposed as part of this project. No non conforming signs and no illumination is proposed of any signs on this site. Maximum allowed sign area in Williston is calculated as a percentage of the street facing facade area of the building on the site. So we have a building with a 1520 square foot area and a 1520 square foot area of the building on the site and allow 8% of that to be utilized in signage. That would be a maximum potential sign area of 121.6 square feet. And the applicant's proposal comes in just under that at 121.2 square feet. There are special findings as I mentioned required staff has drafted those in the findings of fact related both to consistency with the Williston comprehensive plan and application. And the applicant's proposal comes in just under that. Conclusions of law stating the sign area total as it's on the site plan and understood by staff. And conditions of approval. And I just want to correct one thing. I mentioned a fire memo, but that memo was a no comment memo. So there is no proposed condition related to fire. I'll stop there. Okay. Thank you, Matt. Jim, do you have any further comments on this application? No, you guys have been more than helpful. Thank you. Thank you. And it seems like the people I worked with up there is to have helped me come up with a plan that fits right into your. Regulations. Okay, great. Have you read the fine? The. The conditions of approval as drafted by staff. I did. And basically from what I understand. Now I'm just submitting application. After you guys approved this. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. And sending in final. I didn't, I didn't catch that. Could you. Could somebody paraphrase that. What do you just said? I'm doing minutes. Oh. He did. He did agree with it. Okay. Thank you. Everything. Okay. Connections. Not that great, Jim. I know, I know. I'm choppy on my end too. I apologize. Okay. Okay. Any questions from the DRP for the applicant. Any questions from the public. The public, you can comment in the chat or praise. Press the raise hand button on the toolbar. I'm so I'm not seeing any raised hands or chats. Okay. Last call for questions. Okay. I'm going to close DP 21 dash 16. Okay. I'm going to close DP 21 dash 16. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for coming in at 712. Thank you, Jim, for coming. Thank you, everybody. Okay. Next up DP 21 dash 17. Champlain housing trust. If those representing. Champlain housing trust, please come forward. housing trust 88 King Street, Burlington. Welcome. Our architect, Dan Goldsman is also joining us by Zoom. Okay, great. Dan, could you please state your address for the record, please? 119 Caroline Street in Burlington. Okay, welcome, Dan. As a disclaimer, my employer, DEW Construction, does do work with Champlain Housing Trust. I do not deem that as a conflict of interest tonight, but I did want to disclose it. And I have an disclosure too. I work in the housing industry. I'm not in a butter and I don't work with subsidized housing, but I do own property that is within the similar neighborhoods. And I do actually have worked with Dan Goldsman as well. Okay, great. With that, turn it over to staff. Terrific. So this is a request for pre-application review to convert an existing hotel to residential dwelling units. The units will be studio units or one bedroom units. The site is currently developed with two buildings, parking and related appurtenances. There are no major site layout or building modifications proposed to the exterior, just the changes to the building to convert it from hotel to dwelling units. This property is a little under two and a half acres. The current use is again, commercial as a hotel. The proposed use is residential. Access is from town roads. We're in the Taft Corners Zoning District. Tonight's recommended action from the staff to the board is that the board take testimony and close the hearing, deliberate tonight and improve a set of recommendations. We have provided a set of draft recommendations for the board to consider. This is the first time the DRB is reviewing this project request. This property's history involves approval for a hotel under SP 98-3 and the subdivision creating the whole hotel lot under SUB 98-2. This project did not receive review from the Conservation Commission or Historic and Architectural Advisory Committee given the nature of the project and its location. We did ask for interdepartmental review of this pre-application and received memos from Public Works and FIRE. Recommend that their comments and those memos be addressed as part of discretionary permit moving forward. Public Works Comment Memo was a no comment memo. FIRE Department's memo was not especially customized to the project, calling out the existence in need for compliance with their plan review standard. At the time of the mail out of the physical package to DRB board members, we had received one comment letter that was the mail out was on August 19th, 2020. That was a letter from Gregory Martin. Following that, we did receive three other letters after the mail out to the DRB. Those letters are on the website for this meeting and have been provided to the board members via email. One was from Reed Carr on behalf of the Hamlet Homeowners Association, one from Ron Boomer at 90 Madison Drive in the Hamlet and one from Megan Cope in Williston as well. I will summarize those letters as we get into the staff report a little bit and happy to provide sort of some background to the DRB in terms of what those letters talk about that's in zoning and what's not and how they might be addressed. As I mentioned, this project is in the Taft Corner zoning district. This is a district that allows and in fact encourages per bylaw language residential use. As far as dimensional standards in this district, there really are no changes to the site layout proposed. Existing parking areas and building are proposed to remain. So no changes to try to capture under the dimensional standards of the district. There are a number of design standards in the Taft Corner zoning district. Most of the existing site here complies with today's standards under chapter 41. In other words, the building is pulled up to the street, contains an urban park element. There are no dead walls as defined by our bylaw in this building. There are pitched roofs and in general the architectural design and site layout meet the development standards of the district as is. One thing that staff has noted is the discretionary permit for this project. If it moves forward must include direct pedestrian connection between the principal building entrances and the sidewalks or paths along the adjoining streets to provide compliance with that element of the Taft Corners chapter. So we'll talk a little bit about sidewalks and pedestrian access. Can you just stop for a moment? Do you know what that background noise is? I think we might be having some technical difficulty. So Scott's talking to his tech guy. Oh, okay. We're just having, you're just having some technical issues. You're working it up. Okay. Okay. I didn't know what it was from. That's fine. Okay. Okay, continue. So I want to note that we do have the famous five of nine design elements, some of which I was just discussing in there, but this is an existing building that was developed under a different version of the bylaws. And with interior changes, primarily what's happening here, we don't require full return to the five of nine standards or compliance with the five of nine for a project like this. In terms of non-conforming lots, uses and structures, again, this was a legal conforming use and structure at the time it was built. And the existing and proposed use both comply with today's standards under our current bylaw. The interior renovation, again, is the focus of the project. There's not major site modifications or changes to the structure. The DRB would want to look at if there were non-conformities to be corrected that the effort and costs necessary to correct them would be in proportion with the amount and cost of work that was happening in the scale of the development. There are some non-conformities that come up with a change of use like this related to the number of vehicle parking spaces, some of the landscape buffer widths and types of plantings and sidewalk and pedestrian connectivity, which I mentioned before. And there's a bylaw citation for you to look at there from chapter 2.8 about non-conformity and the statement that that work required must be reasonably proportional to the scale of the proposed project. So this is a residential project. Most residential projects in Williston proceed from pre-application to a phase of review called growth management. There is an exemption in chapter 11 of the Williston bylaws, the growth management chapter for units that will be affordable at or below 80% of the area median income. Those units, whether it's an entire project like this one or units that are included in a project that has units at other price levels are not required to receive allocation through the normal growth management system and are allowed to proceed without being identified as part of the town's normal growth management limitations. This is a bylaw amendment that is intended to encourage the production of affordable housing in town. And there's a citation there of chapter 11, 11.2.2.3 related to that exemption. So procedurally, the track for this project, although it is residential, would be from pre-application to discretionary permit review, just like you would have for a commercial site development or other non-residential project. I want to come back to bicycle and pedestrian access. This is an area of non-conformity with the current rules, but it appears it could be corrected with a few changes. The applicant is proposing to add a sidewalk to the site along Zephyr Road where there is not one present today. There's already a sidewalk along Day Lane. And then staff has identified two locations where there should either be a sidewalk connection or a crosswalk on the property to complete the continuity of the pedestrian facilities on the site. There is a draft recommendation in your slate of recommendations related to this. In terms of vehicle access to the site, there are no changes to access proposed. The property is served by two curb cuts onto town roads, both Zephyr Road and Day Lane. The property was permitted as a hotel in 1998. Several rooms, that was several years before Day Lane and the remainder of the Hamlet project were constructed. Looking at the original permitting record, there was no evidence in that record that the driveway onto Day Lane was required to be one way only as that driveway predated Day Lane. And you can see in that aerial image of the pre-Hamlet development, there was essentially a dirt driveway coming out of that curb cut to provide 360 access to the building prior to the construction of Day Lane. There is a need for the discretionary permit though to identify clear vision triangles. These are areas that provide visibility for drivers entering and exiting those curb cuts to see what's going on, primarily when they're leaving the site and a recommendation for that is included. As it relates to traffic study, staff is not recommending that the DRB require a traffic study for this project. We did want the applicant to discuss trip generation as part of the discretionary permit, but the applicant has actually provided a trip generation analysis prepared by Lamero and Dickinson on August 24th, i.e. today. And I'm gonna quote this from memory, but as I recall, the PM peak hour trip generation of the existing hotel was estimated at 36 trips and the PM peak hour trip generation for the 72 units was estimated at 32 trips. So a reduction of a few trips from existing conditions per ITV. Moving on to parking and loading, the existing site has 106 parking spaces, including four ADA spaces. The applicant has stated that one space per unit plus one space per four units as guest parking would meet their demands, that would be 90 spaces. The discretionary permit would need to include 20 on-street parking spaces in the calculation to meet the bylaw requirement, which would be for 126 spaces. You can see down below the parking analysis table, the reason we under the bylaw get to 126 spaces is because our current bylaw requires 1.75 parking spaces per unit. So we do have some updates that are headed to hearing in the planning commission to the parking chapter that may be actually adopted and in place by the time this project is reviewed as a discretionary permit. Projects in Williston vest in the version of the bylaws that are in existence at the time that a complete discretionary permit is filed. Those requirements would reduce the required parking demand a little further down than the 126 here. The mention of street spaces that I started with there is that we do allow under our bylaw an offset for nearby street parking spaces within 600 feet of a major entrance of the building at a one-to-one rate. So you can offset required parking on-site with pre-parking. So I have a question on that. We've been told through my business that my public works that that is not allowed in the wintertime. Yes. Yes. So yes, you've been told that and that is correct. The town bans overnight parking at street spaces during the wintertime. So Williston's parking ban is not so sophisticated as a nearby city with washing yellow lights. We have a blanket overnight ban for the bulk of the winter. The development standard, which requires a certain amount of parking and allows that street parking offset is basically saying that lesser amount of parking can be provided on-site and essentially not concerned that some of those spaces are unusable at some times of day, some parts of the year. You know, they are not those, that street space offset, those spaces are not exclusive to any one use. You can have one entity on one side of the street and another on the other and they're both claiming those same spaces as offset. So it's a reflection. Even if they're not available at certain times during the winter. Correct. Or throughout the entire. Correct. And I will say, you know, it's a little different with residential, but there are seasonal fluctuations in parking demand, you know, that occur and in the parking world, there are 13 months in the year because we look at commercial demand. The 13th month is the part of December that happens before the 25th, because it's so incredibly different from the other part for demand. So it's not a perfect alignment between how those spaces are operated and how the by-law sees them. But we also, I'll just note, you know, we do not change in our by-law the amount of parking spaces required per unit based on whether they're studios, one bedrooms, two bedrooms or larger. The 1.75 calculation here is based on sort of an average unit size in excess of one bedroom. We have a project here with one bedroom per or studio proposed plus guest spaces. So have I answered that or have I just obscured it with a lot of words? I won't comment on that. Appreciate that, Scott. One of the things that I'd like to touch upon when you have a chance to address the board, I don't want to derail your flow too much is you have some historic data on how many parking spaces are required or are utilized on similar projects. So I'd like to talk about that when we open up the dialogue. Go ahead, Matt. Sure, thanks. So we were talking about vehicle parking numbers and appending by-law update. I'll just also note that our parking chapter also addresses bicycle parking and what we call end-of-trip facilities or showers for bike commuters. In this case, the applicant is proposing outdoor bike racks and there is indoor long-term bicycle storage. We would need specifications for those things as part of the discretionary permit. End-of-trip facilities, i.e. showers for bike commuters is not applicable to this project because it's residential. Those residential units have those things. In terms of onsite infrastructure, this property is currently served by municipal water and wastewater. The hotel has existing sewer allocation for 7,840 gallons per day. That is in the estimation of the Public Works Director more than enough allocation to support the proposed 72 one-bedroom dwellings. In terms of maintenance as required under the by-law, the discretionary permit will need to include a snow storage and removal plan and solid waste plan showing dumpster locations and screening. And although it's not a requirement of Williston Zoning By-law, we do work in coordination with Chittenden Solid Waste and encourage the applicant to communicate with them about ability to serve by haulers, both the trash and recycling as well as compost facilities that are required for that. They're really generous in providing feedback about layout and ease of access for the hauler. In terms of residential density, this project as proposed would comply with the residential density in the Taft Corner Zoning District. The applicant is proposing 72 units, 24 studio units and 48 one-bedrooms, and all units are proposed to be perpetually affordable at or below 80% of the area median income. A maximum density in this district of 15 dwelling units per acre is allowed with the provision of a minimum of 30% of the proposed units as perpetually affordable housing. For the purposes of density, a dwelling unit is a dwelling unit equivalent whereby a studio or one bedroom unit is one half of a dwelling unit equivalent and two or more bedroom unit is one dwelling unit equivalent. So this site, as I mentioned at the beginning is a little under two and a half acres, 2.45 at 15 dwelling unit equivalents per acre. That's 36.75 dwelling unit equivalents. That would be 36 two-bedroom units or as proposed 72 studio or one-bedroom units. In regards to design review under chapter 22 of the bylaw, the discretionary permit will need to explain the exterior architectural changes, if any, and a few things to bring the site up to compliance, including the screening of mechanical equipment. These changes would need to comply with the standards of chapters 22 and 41 that's design review and Taft Corners District and the historic and architectural advisory committee may review the application for discretionary permit if significant changes to those exterior materials or architectural design are proposed. In regards to landscaping under chapter 23, the discretionary permit must include a landscaping plan, identify areas where the site is not in conformance with the current bylaw and then while we don't have buildings or parking areas moving on the site, so not a lot of room to adjust therefore the width of landscape buffers, additional plantings could be provided within the existing buffers if that's needed to bring the site closer to compliance with today's standards. And we've listed under the bylaw today in the landscape buffer table what today's required buffers and landscape buffer type, buffer types and widths would be. So this talks about buffers type one, two and three as well as type four, you can go to chapter 23 in the bylaw to understand what the density and types of plantings are that are required within those buffer widths. In terms of street trees, the discretionary permit much like landscaping needs to identify street trees, front yard landscaping and any non-conformities to today's chapter. Existing landscaping is anticipated to fulfill the requirements for street trees but the DRB at discretionary permit rate may require additional plantings or they may decide to allow existing landscaping to remain as is under the theory of existing non-conformity in chapter two, which I already discussed. In terms of outdoor lighting, the discretionary permit must include a lighting plan showing compliance with the standards of chapter 24 of the Williston Development bylaw. Any non-conforming lighting on the site should be updated as part of this proposal. Generally, updating lighting, which usually involves bringing things into conformance related to brightness or screening is in proportion to the scale of the project as discussed in that balancing test in the bylaw. Not a big deal if you're changing out a fixture as opposed to an entire light pole or something like that. In terms of signs and public art, there's no master sign plan anticipated for this project. Any proposed signs that meet the size and quality limits, sorry, quantity limits of table 25A in the bylaw could be approved administratively. So for example, a freestanding sign meeting the dimensional standards that says, I don't know, Day Lane Place or whatever the name of the site is could be done administratively without DRB review. Finally, discussion of impact fees. Impact fees will be assessed on this project at the time that an administrative permit is submitted. Transportation impact fees are waived as a matter of statement in the bylaw for any affordable units at 80% of the median income or below. That same waiver does not exist in our chapters related to school and parks and recreation impact fees. This would result in an estimated calculation of about $213,000 in impact fees for this project. That's $1,569 per unit for parks and rec and about $1,400 per unit on the school fee. Those impact fees could be appealed to the select board. That's the avenue for asking for them to be reduced or eliminated. And the same statutory authority that lets towns have impact fees does allow select boards to choose to waive them for certain things. I believe affordable housing is specifically mentioned in statute as one of those things. So with that, there is a list of recommendations that the staff has prepared as I've discussed throughout the project. There is a memo from public work stating no comment, a memo from fire highlighting some of the elements of their plan review. And I wanted to just go back at the end if the board would like me to and address a few things about the comments we've received thus far. I'd actually like you to do that now. Sure. So a summary of some of the comments and how it relates to the bylaws in which we are bound to follow as a DRB. What is in our purview and what is not. Sure. So most of what is in the DRB's purview are the kind of things that I just went over in this staff report. So the dimensional aspects of the site, its conformance with requirements as they relate to things like signage, lighting, landscaping, residential density standards, architectural type, et cetera. So what's the building like? What's the site like? Is the use allowed in the district? What's the intensity of the use? Very brief summary of what that staff report says. That's, these are the applicable sections of Williston's bylaws for this project. There have been, there's four comment letters. And I would characterize one as being generally just all about being in support of this project and the provision of affordable housing in Williston in general. Other letters have expressed support but have also expressed concern about the management of the existing apartment building nearby and the behaviors of some of the folks who live there. And there have been some concerns expressed about who is going to live there. And so when I mentioned what we do under the bylaw, I mentioned a lot of things about how and where and how much. And those are the things that Williston's bylaw regulates about development. Whether we're talking about another bank being built in Williston or a particular sort of chain store or if we're talking about a person, we very much do not talk about who. And that's very intentional. And it's in compliance with the Federal Fair Housing Act that we do not have things in our bylaws that discriminate about who's going to live somewhere. So to the extent that questions are raised about who's going to live there, my statement is that our bylaw both does not talk about that and very intentionally does not talk about that. And I'll kind of leave it there. And if there's clarification, the board needs as you look at those or as folks may want to read those letters into the record, I'm happy to provide it. Great. Okay. Thank you, Matt. Yes. This is John. I was thinking it might be helpful to if Matt were able to kind of again go over the fact that this is pre-application and the type of information that we were looking to discuss and the type of feedback that we're looking to give the applicant tonight. Please. Absolutely. So as John reminded us, the stage of the proceedings we're at is pre-application. Our bylaw identifies pre-application as a conversation between the applicant and the DRB and the citizens about the project proposal. It's a time when the applicant can identify more than one idea for the site and discuss options. And it's an opportunity for the DRB to provide feedback to the applicant about what items might need to be addressed by a further application, which we call discretionary permit. Staff generally uses the pre-application process as an opportunity to identify any challenges under the bylaw that the applicant might be encountering. Or if there's any sort of conflict between something in the public work specifications and something in the bylaw, it's a good chance to iron those out and make sure that there can be compliance with all applicable rules. So pre-application is a conversation. It does not result in an approval. It's a step in the process. It results in a set of adopted recommendations to the applicant. In the case of residential projects, pre-application also either authorizes an applicant to proceed to the growth management, or as in this case, identifies why the applicant would not need to go through the growth management process before proceeding to the discretionary permit level of review. Thanks, Matt. Thank you. Okay, thanks, Matt. Miranda and Amy, it's your turn. I'd like you to fill in the blanks of anything that we didn't cover. Maybe talk a little bit about the project. I would also like to hear your comments on the recommendations that have been proposed if you have any, any of those. And if you could address the parking data that you have from other similar projects, that's a starting point. And I'm sure there'll be other things that come up. Sure, thank you. Thanks, staff, for a thorough review. And as we appreciate, there's a lot of interest in what we have proposed and who CHT is and what we do. I just thought I'd give a little bit of an introduction about CHT, if that makes sense. So CHT offers affordable rental and home ownership opportunity and home buying education to Vermonters and Chittenden-Franklin and Grand Isle counties. We own and manage more than 2,500 apartments in Northwestern Vermont. And we've enabled home ownership opportunity for more than 1,200 families through our shared equity home ownership program. This particular project stems from the legislature's appropriation of funding to BHCB, the Vermont Housing and Conservation Board, to award to housing organizations such as CHT to accelerate the production of housing. CHT's been awarded these state and federal funds to create new apartments because Vermont has a severe housing shortage and housing is unaffordable to many. Conversion of hotel rooms to apartments offers the opportunity to create apartments quickly and at a lower cost. And this location we feel is ideal in a residential Chittenden County neighborhood close to jobs, services, and public transportation. Williston's Town Plan states goals of increasing housing opportunities and promoting the development of affordable units in the Taff Corners Growth Center. And the town's gone through the process to obtain designation from the state as a growth center for the Taff Corners District. Because of this designation, the state considers this a priority housing project. So this project will create 72 apartments, as Matt noted, 38 apartments will be for Vermonters experiencing homelessness, will have an on-site property manager and on-site residence services to help support these households. And 34 typical affordable apartments for households whose income is less than 80% AMI. This middle income targeting creates apartments that are affordable to Williston's workforce. For reference, 80% AMI in the Burlington, South Burlington, Metropolitan Statistical Area, which Williston falls in, is $54,000 a year for a one-person household and $61,000 for a two-person household. We plan to create a 24 studio and 48 one-bedroom apartments, so small households. It's a great location for apartments because of its proximity to jobs and public transportation and it will help the town accomplish the goals laid out in the town plan. I thought I might turn it over to Dan Goldsmith, our architect, to talk about some of the recommendations in the staff report and the building characteristics in particular. Amy, did you have anything to add before that? No, we can come back to the parking issue. Yeah. Go ahead, Dan. Yeah, thank you. So I think Miranda and Matt did, certainly Matt did a very thorough review and covered most of the items I was going to talk about. The project, the hotel as it exists now was built prior to the current zoning law, but what the use we're proposing is compliant with the TAF Corners of Zoning District and also per the staff reports, the project does comply with the majority of the current zoning district requirements. And as Miranda said, the rents will be set 80% AMI, so the project will be exempt from the growth management review. In regards to traffic, no changes to the site design or vehicle access or circulation are proposed, except for the few recommendations which we intend to implement for the staff report. Summarize the memo we sent today about the ITE trip generation manual and how our findings were that the proposed 72 apartments will generate 32 peak hour trips while the existing 99 room hotel generates 36 PM peak hour trips. So our proposal will reduce the traffic burden, however slightly. As also noted in the staff report, the hotels tend to generate more weekend trips so this conversion will result in less traffic at those times as well. As we're converting from a hotel to an apartment building, we will be removing all the common services associated with the hotel. So things such as the truck deliveries will be eliminated, which will reduce the traffic burden as well. Finally, in regards to that, I'd like to say that the parcel is located along Zephyr Road and it complies with the 2006 street grid evaluation report which the town commissioned. And this parcel is on a grid street on Zephyr Road. It's in the growth center and due to its location on Zephyr Road has excellent access to both the state highways and the local street network around Taft Corners. So per the town plan, a multi-family housing project here is very well located in terms of vehicle access. I'd also like to say it's well located in terms of alternate transportation access. There being a bike path directly across Zephyr Road from the parcel and along route two way, one block away of bus route. As stated previously as well in terms of parking, 126 spaces required for the bylaw. On site we have 106. We intend to satisfy that delta of 20 spaces through the provision allowing offsite parking within a 600 foot radius. And much of that can be met with street parking along day lane on the block directly adjacent to the parcel. Having said all that, THT has determined that for their use only 90 spots are required for the 72 apartments. So perhaps Miranda, could you speak to how THT made that 90 spot determination? Yeah, so based on our portfolio of apartments in Chittenden County, we find that the small unit, the studio and one bedroom apartments, not everybody has one car and at maximum they might have one car. So we calculated that we would need 72 spaces maximum. For 72 cars for 72 apartments. And then added an additional 18 spaces for visitors and staff with the ratio of 1.25 spaces per apartment. So that would bring our total to 90 needed spaces which we feel confident is what the project. As stated, the existing parcel has 106 spaces or 16 more than we will need. And again, the 126 called for by zoning. If we were able to use the on street parking for that 20 space delta, it would meet those requirements but we don't feel that the project can use them. Okay, there's been a number of recommendations that have been proposed by staff. I assume you've read them and do you have any concern with anything that has been recommended? Yeah, I would like to raise one point. So in terms of the staff report and all the recommendations, they're quite straightforward. We intend to comply with all of them but I would like to raise this issue of adding a sidewalk along Zephyr Road. So our team met with the zoning folks in a pre-application conference where they requested the addition of a sidewalk along Zephyr Road. And so to the left of the image that's up on the screen right now, that sidewalk shown is not existing, it's new. As we got a bit deep into this and started investigating it, unfortunately it's executing it is not going to be as easy as we would wish. From the Zephyr Road street edge to the edge of the parking, there is a significant moderate to medium grade change from three to six feet. As well in that westerly strip, there is some utility infrastructure. So this raises two items that would have to occur to accommodate the sidewalk. One is utility relocation. And the second is installing either a retaining wall or regrading that portion of the site from Zephyr Road all the way back to the edge of the parking to accommodate a five foot green strip and five foot sidewalk. Even if we got rid of the five foot green strip and just did five feet against the street, it would still require significant regrading. And as this image we're all looking at shows removal of mature landscaping, the trees and the shrubs. So between the utility work and the regrading, it would be a relatively complex and costly endeavor. Also, it would between Route 2A and the Town Place Suites parcel, there's another parcel. So the same work would have to go on there. Once you got to the intersection of Zephyr Road and Route 2A, that southeast corner of that intersection is quite full of infrastructure. There's a light pole, utility pole, metering utility pedestals, guy wires, et cetera. So this would all have to be located and reconfigured. Again, adding to the complexity of this proposal. So across Zephyr Road from the Town Place Suites parcel is a bike path. So we would request that the town consider in lieu of our project providing a new sidewalk, we provide a crosswalk allowing circulation across the road and along the bike path to Route 2A in a safe manner. Okay, that was a great explanation. Thank you, Dan. Okay, anything else? No, that's it. Okay, DRP members, questions for the applicant? Pete, I have a couple. Okay, good, good. Make sure you can hear me. Just a question on the 90 parking spaces. You had mentioned the sense that it's kind of one per single unit. I'm curious if that, have you done counts at locations or is that kind of your gut sense that it would be one per unit? Be helpful to have some hard data from actual sites to base that on? Yeah, it would be helpful to have hard data, I agree. And unfortunately we don't have that hard data. It is more of our sense from management as to what we need and how many cars we have in our 4,000 projects, typically in a family project. So with units of two, three, four bedroom, we would want 1.5 spots per unit. In this case, with just one bedroom in studios, we feel very confident that one spot per unit plus those visitor spots would be more than sufficient. We have room six on site and even that calculation brings us to 90. So we feel very, very comfortable with the parking that we have. Okay, thank you. And then I guess a question maybe more from Matt. In terms of counting some of the adjacent on-street spaces, so within that 600 foot radius, how do we confirm that those spaces aren't double or triple counted by other uses, right? Is it kind of first come, first serve or is it just any of those on-street spaces can be counted towards the parking allocation for that unit? Correct, they can be counted toward that unit. It's first come, first serve and we're not assessing how many different adjacent developments are counting them. They're understood as being used flexibly or in a shared configuration. Okay. And then just last question again, I guess for you, Matt. In terms of the sidewalk requirement, what Dan was just speaking about the sidewalk requirement, is that, I don't have the by-law handy, but is it a requirement to have a sidewalk or is that more of a recommended provision? I mean, I guess what would it take to not require a sidewalk along the frontage and go with a crosswalk as Dan was alluding to? So today, if we were, first off, if we were building Zephyr Road as part of this project, sidewalks would be required on both sides of the street. That's just part of our access chapter. We then have some further language in chapter 19, access and connectivity, which I'm not gonna try to quote to you right now because I don't have it in front of me, that requires there to be adequate pedestrian access. And to looking at most sites today, that would mean sidewalks along all street frontages of any new development. So this frontage of Zephyr Road and the Law to Jason is a place where we don't have that. It creates a gap in the system going. Matt, we lost your audio. Oh. I can hear you, John. All right, could you hear Matt? No, it looks like everyone's muted. Let me try again. No. Everybody but you and me. I'm here. It is. So what about anybody, the remote part of visitors? Go again. I think they're back. Okay. Can we just stop? Okay. Do we know where I cut out? All about sidewalks. You were, yeah, that if this were. Yeah. Yeah. So what I was saying is today's access and connectivity standards, whether you were building the street with the site or if you were building a site on an existing street would generally require sidewalk along that frontage. So generally required. Does that mean shall require or is it optional if there's an alternate route as Dan alluded to with the crosswalk over to the shared use path? There is some ability for the DRB to waive sidewalk requirements. And I'm speaking in general again because I don't have the chapter right in front of me, David. But we can, you know, what I would recommend as it relates to the sidewalk issue and some of the complications the applicant raised is that the DRB modify that recommendation to direct the staff to work with the applicant and Department of Public Works to determine the best solution for pedestrian access either on or to and from the site. And, you know, one compromised position might be a crosswalk and an easement to the town should that portion of Zephyr Road be reworked. Yeah, I mean, Dave, I would say I think I agree with what I think you're saying but that a sidewalk there I think would be certainly beneficial. But the other thing I heard tonight was that the, you know, given the limited number of changes that are being made to this site plan, we have to think about the proportionality of the required changes. And, you know, whether this is requiring that sidewalk installation, I think we will have to discuss it. But I think you went to make an argument that that was disproportional to the amount of changes that are being made here. If indeed, all those utilities are there and it really creates that much of a hardship. So I think something we'll want to look at. Yeah, the board may want to consider too that the parcel, the parcel, but Zephyr Road and Route 2A is, you know, placed on the market for redevelopment as well. So I think if the argument, if the argument was being used that the corner parcel was going to be a difficult one to rehabilitate or add a sidewalk to, I guess my point would be that that, at some point in time, the DRB will see that parcel if it is ever put up for redevelopment and it is actively being marketed. So don't discount that one as not being coming available sometime in the future. Yeah, the thing that I would like to add is that, you know, the bylaws are written in that the sidewalks are envisioned to be installed when the road is being built. It's, there may be some language about adding a sidewalk when there's changes, but it's a completely different practical matter when utilities and grades are already in place because the road's there. I think you alluded to that, John, and we'll go on. Yes, it's, I think it's, I think it's pretty clearly a proportionality piece. So we'll have to go up and look at closely. Right, I agree. So we'll talk about that more in deliberations for sure. Okay, anything else from DRB members? Dave, is David finished? Yep, I'm all set. Yeah, thanks. Go ahead, Dave. Dave Turner. I just had a question around staffing, onsite staffing. Is that 247-365 or what would that onsite staffing look like? We'll have staffing, we'll have an onsite property manager who will be there 40 hours a week. We'll have a resident services coordinator who will also be there pretty much 40 hours a week, but they're on call in case anything comes up after hours. And then we will have somebody living on site as well and onsite overnight presence as well. Thank you. Anything else, Dave Turner? Nope, that's it. John Hemmelgarten, do you have anything? I do. I want to talk about bicycles for a minute. The, you know, the bylaw seems pretty clear, 10% of the parking spaces. I guess that would be 10% of the bylaw required spaces which would be 10% of the 126, I think, as opposed to 10% of the 90 that the applicant is suggesting is adequate. I guess I would have a question for the applicant in terms of historical data with your housing developments as people have fewer cars and they're living closer to businesses and it's all walkable kind of place. Walkable also means bicycle roll ball, if that's a word, which I don't think it is. But I just wonder whether that you feel that the parking for that many bikes is enough. And I'm wondering out loud from my position on the DRB as well. We definitely have a lot of bike users. And I'm not sure how many bike spaces we are. 13 outdoor and 18 indoor. Yeah, 13 outdoor, 18 indoor. So if we feel that there is more need for bike racks once folks move in and we understand who's there, we may come back and ask to be able to install more. I guess from a pre-application comment standpoint, then I would say at discretionary permit, assuming that we give you that approval to move there tonight that you look carefully at that and put out a proposal to us of how many bicycle spots you think you need and potentially even where you might put additional ones. Just a suggestion on your site plan when we look at it. A question to go on. So there's probably gonna be a recommendation that at discretionary permit, you show a bike expansion area that would accommodate an additional bike racks as required. I think that's coming your way. We can certainly look at that. We wanna make sure that folks have a place for the bikes. I think that's a lot of sense. And so do we. A quick one on you, at your other facilities, do the tenants bring their bikes into their residence for storage or are they all outside or inside your storage areas? I haven't seen a lot of folks bringing them in but that's certainly it's not disallowed. So it could happen. Do you anticipate signage here at all, site signage? We haven't talked about that. I think what we wanna do is certainly a 911 number just so that people can identify where exactly are the apartments. We haven't named it and I reserve the right to come back with a sign. We haven't decided that at this point. Okay. I mean, I'm looking at the images on Google Earth here and there is at least one lighted sign on the site existing, not for whatever that means but you'll have to address that I guess. We'll take that down. Oh yeah, I doubt you wanted something that says whatever says Fairfield, whatever. All right. John Hemmelgarn, are you satisfied with your questions at this point? I am, thank you. Mr. Rod. Go ahead. Oh, I forgot to note that Paul Christensen did join the meeting during the master sign plan hearing. Oh, okay. Welcome. Hi, Paul. Okay, Dave Saladino, did you have something else? Yeah, I just wanted to go back. There was mention of that second driveway out on today lane and did I hear right that there were concerns over site distances? Is that exiting the parking area onto day lane? Yeah, so the vision triangles that public works as really are related to line of sight when you're coming out being able to see traffic that's coming up or down day lane. And so the mitigation there will probably be to lose some of the maybe one space on either side. Is that likely to be the outcome from this? It could be. I don't know, I mean, looking in the street view you can see that there is some triangular hatching leading up to the parking space. Right. So I think it has been contemplated which is showing it at discretionary permit. At the end of the day, it's a curb cut into public works right of way. So they might have more say out of public works specifications on if they want anything to change there. Yeah. I guess just one other follow-up about looking at the same Google Earth images it looks like the day lane on-street parking gets fairly well utilized. And I'm just curious, it would help me to feel more comfortable about assuming 20 of those on-street spaces are gonna be kind of shared use to have some kind of parking utilization, just a count of those on a typical day just to make sure that there are in fact, up to 20 spaces or whatever we are saying are the required number of spaces that those are typically or generally available for parking and that they're not being already utilized by some of the other residents there. Anything else, Dave? Nope, that's it. Okay, Paul Christensen, anything? Yeah, I got a question for CHD. What's your average number of ADA spaces you'd have at a facility of this of 92 units? What would be your normal number of people potentially have ADA requirements? Is five really enough? Parking spots, five ADA parking spots. We do what's required and then we do have our discretion we can designate spots for specific tenants as an accommodation if somebody needs an additional spot. Yeah, but if they're designated as ADA, they're gonna be bigger, which means you're gonna actually have fewer spaces than are currently on the site plan. We can't designate, we can't specify ADA spots for an individual person, but the other spots we would be able to designate. So it'd be a standard with parking spot designated for a resident. And close to the door. Okay. Okay, and then the other item I have a question to ask is you're going to have a laundromat for these 92 units on site or not? Yes, there is a laundry for the 72 units. Now, was there a laundry when this was a hotel? Yes. What I'm trying to say is did the hotel do its own, wash its own sheets and everything for using its gallonage of water? The hotel had both hotel laundry room and a laundry room for guests because it was extended stay suites. Yeah, I'm just saying that normally most extended guests are not big on laundries, but that's another story. And then the final question I was gonna ask is, I'm gonna let that go. Okay, that's all I need. Okay, Mr. Riley, questions. Just kind of curiosity, say, is there any requirement or need for electric car chargers on site or that you've seen in your business? There's not a requirement for electric vehicle charging stations. There is a... Yeah, have you seen a need, I guess? Have we seen a need? We're just starting to experience that and really moving forward with our own plan amongst our properties for installing them. I don't anticipate that here right away, but we're certainly kind of looking at our portfolio and where it makes sense looking to install them. Yeah, okay. And the only other question is, I don't know on the site plan, any snow storage areas listed? Not at DP? We would be looking for that at discretionary permit, yeah. Or a plan for offsite snow, we're taking it offsite. That's where they all go. So the question, I don't see on here, snow storage and again, like I mentioned when I first chimed in that we do own property nearby and a lot of snow is trucked offsite because of the density. We're gonna need to review that as well with the current owners to see what they've been doing with the snow. Honestly, we haven't gotten there yet. Okay. That's it. Okay, any other comments from the DRB before we open it up for comments from the public? Just a quick question, general curiosity. Will the pool stay in the building or is that gonna get swapped out to a apartment unit? There actually is not a pool currently at the hotel. It was, I'm not sure how long ago converted to a breakfast area. Oh, okay. Couple of years ago. It's been a while since I've stayed there. Scott. The only other comment I would make is I would like to echo Mr. Saladino in that I drive through there on a regular basis. And both early in the morning, midday and late in the afternoon. And I do find there is a lot of cars parked on the street. Anecdotally, I don't see a lot of extra parking on the outside. So I can't prove it, I don't have any studies to show it, but it does appear that the streets are narrow and there's parking going on on the street a lot. Okay. So my comment on that back is that, yes, I found that there was plenty of cars parked there, but there were usually spaces because I found it a very good spot to have a teenage driver practice parallel parking. It's funny you say that. I was thinking the same thing. I did the same thing. Okay. So at this point, I would like to turn it over for the public to weigh in and to provide comments. Emily is going to be the keeper of who speaks when. And so at that point, at this point, if you would like to be heard, please raise your hand using the Zoom functionality. And when Emily un-mutes you, please state your name and address for the record, please. All right, so up first, I see Debbie Ingram after Debbie will be Elizabeth Logan. Debbie, go ahead and unmute yourself. Great, thank you very much. I appreciate the opportunity to speak. I'm Debbie Ingram. I live at 2120 South Road here in Williston. And I wanted to speak tonight as I have, I know many of you on the DRB and I think a lot of you know that I've served the town over the years. I was six years on the planning commission, six years on the select board. So I helped to write a lot of the bylaws and particularly focused on trying to create opportunities to build more affordable housing in town. I also chaired two different task forces on affordable housing in Williston. And in my day job, I run a nonprofit called Vermont Interfaith Action which works with everyday vermonters at the grassroots level to try to identify issues in their communities and in the state that affect them and their families. And for the 14 years that I've been doing that, every single year we hear from loads of people all over the state how important it is to try to build more affordable housing in Vermont and how much vermonters are cost-burdened by the rents and my home ownership prices. So I won't go, you've probably all seen the data, how expensive it is to rent in, especially in Chittenden County, the amount of money that people make just doesn't cover the cost of our rents. About 25% of people pay more than 30% of their income on their rents and I believe in Williston, about 15% of people pay more than 50% on their housing costs. So there's a huge need and I'm sure you know that and I just really can't commend this particular project enough if it meets a lot of the need that we have, it opens up rental units in a part of town where we design the bylaws for this to be the area of town where these kinds of projects would best be situated. It's an existing, you know, motel which we've seen very successful projects all over the county of hotels being converted to these kinds of studio apartments. I too stayed in town-play suites. As a matter of fact, that was where my family and I first came when we moved to Vermont, we came and stayed there for about two months. So, you know, I know firsthand that, you know, the kitchens and the kind of living area and the bedroom, it would be a really ideal sort of place to be converted into studio apartments. And also I just really wanna commend Champlain Housing Trust as an excellent nonprofit developer and also property manager. The people who work there are outstanding. The organization has won awards, you know, internationally. So I think this is exactly the kind of project that we need lots more of in Vermont. And I think it will help, you know, a lot of folks, you know, we're talking about, you know, people at 80% of median income are people who, you know, are pretty much middle income, moderate income folks. It will also provide much needed, housing for our precursorly housed neighbors, who, you know, we all know that people can, just with one catastrophic illness or one kind of family crisis, because so many people live paycheck to paycheck, they can find themselves in the situation of being homeless and we need more units that will help them get back on their feet and that will provide, you know, this project will provide that as well. So I just want to commend it to you and really, you know, ask that you move it along and I think it's just really an outstanding project. So thanks very much for letting me talk tonight. Thank you. Hi, I'm Elizabeth Lulgan. I live at 107 Madison Drive and I echo a lot of what Debbie has already said in that I see a great need in our community for this type of project and I'm going with the idea that this is a conversation. So if I'm asking questions that are not within the purview of this committee, please let me know. But I do, the first question I have is about the studio and one bedroom units. I understand that probably from a project point of view that makes a lot of sense going from a hotel space to that size unit, but with the housing crisis as it currently is, there is a very large need for dwellings of, to accommodate larger sized families. And I wondered if this is something that is happening in another place in our community or planned for another place or if that was considered with this conversion project at all. Did we respond to that? Yeah, please. Okay. Concise though, because it's really out of the purview of the DRB. Some of the choice on unit sizes, it's just structurally and physically what works in the building. Also the way the zoning ordinance is written, one bedroom unit and a studio each count as half a unit. So it allowed us to maximize the amount of space we used in the building. And yes, we do have other projects under development. We're gonna go out to construction at sevens corners in Colchester with some larger units. Also out at the fort in Colchester as well. So yeah, we have a strong pipeline because the need is so desperate. Great, thank you. My next question is about energy efficiency efforts. Will those be reviewed by this committee and presented to the public at any time? Matt, would you please answer that? Yeah, the current zoning by law only really addresses energy efficiency as an incentive element within the growth management system. So because this project would be exempt from growth management, it wouldn't be trying to access those incentives and there wouldn't be a basis for review of energy efficiency. I do assume that prior to occupancy, the applicants will have to file a residential building energy statement or RBES. That's a requirement for all new residential occupancies. And so that is a statement that there is a standard that's being met. Thank you. My next question is about exterior lighting. Is that something that this committee will review and approve changes to exterior lighting? Matt? Yes, so the staff report talks about compliance with chapter 24 and requires the applicant at the next stage of review to provide a plan that shows the locations of all exterior lights and the brightness of the light they create and also provide some calculations about the overall amount of light on the site and the uniformity with which the area to be lit is lit because those are all elements of our bylaw. Great, thank you. I just need to clarify this, that the green space that is there is going to be maintained because in this area of development, we are starved for green space. The dog population is also an issue in this area and probably outside the purview of this committee, but I just needed to put that in there. So could you just confirm that the green space remains? Yes, no plan to change. Okay, the green space remains. Okay, and that's it, thank you. Okay, thank you. Up next after Elizabeth is Angela Arsenal and after Angela will be Reed. Angela, go ahead and speak. Thank you, thank you so much as the previous speakers have said, thanks for this opportunity and Debbie really did a great job of kind of summing up a lot of my thoughts. So I'll be brief and really just wanted to be here to offer my voice in support of this project and to say again, I guess I will say one thing again that of course we all know the need is great. And when I read about this project, it seemed like such a wonderful opportunity to create these units in what I imagined to be and what I believe the presenters have said is a relatively short amount of time. Of course, I know the review process may not be so short, but in actually building the units being that it is more of a renovation of an existing building, that just seems like a wonderful opportunity to me and I commend, I suppose, Champlain Housing Trust for identifying the building if in fact that is how it happened. And I want to also thank Matt for what you said, the point you made about how intentional it is that the town consistently universally avoids talking about the who, it can discuss the how and the what and where, and I understand that that is pretty much a federal requirement as I understood you to say it, Matt, but I want to reinforce that notion and express my appreciation for the intentionality behind that on the part of the town and ask anyone listening to keep that in mind and to really, I would worry that that to be perfectly honest, I'd worry that that would prevent some from allowing such a project to move forward and that would be a really sad state. So thank you, Matt, for bringing that up, pointing it out and thank you all for the opportunity to speak. Again, my full support for this project. Thank you. Thanks, Angela. Up next is Reed Carr and after Reeve will be back next. Hi, Reed Carr here. I did write in and I believe you have via email a copy of a brief comment on behalf of the board of the Hamlet Hunters Association, directly adjacent to this property. I just want to highlight very briefly a couple items from that. I want to echo the concern about dogs in the neighborhood because we have not had good experiences as homeowners to date in this area. A lot of dog waste not picked up. A lot of dogs approaching people or going on to private property and understandably because there's not a lot of places to take dogs in this area. Also parking was mentioned. There is a lot of on-street parking taking place in the Hamlet these days and it's something that our association is trying to come to grips with. And personally, the thing I'm most worried about is safety of pedestrians and safety of drivers as well as access of emergency vehicles to the area. And so I just want to urge the DRB to be very deliberate in deciding what parking should be required so that we do not worsen the issues with on-street parking in the neighborhood. With regards to the day lane entrance into the property there, there have been a lot of hairy situations and they are exacerbated by the fact that there is a lot of speeding taking place in this area. A lot of traffic comes from the Finney Crossing side where it is shorter and faster to come through day lane adjacent to this property out onto Zephyr than it is to go out to Zephyr on the designated routes or the intended routes and then go over the speed humps. So we regularly see people exceeding 40 and reports of people exceeding 50 miles an hour down these roads in the neighborhood. It's currently not a safe situation for pedestrians and I think it makes it a lot worse the issues that folks have trying to pull out onto day lane out of that entrance. Beyond that, I just want to say that I support the addition of much needed affordable housing and thank you for the opportunity to speak. Okay, Ben's up next. Thank you, Reed, up next, Bev and Max. Go on ahead. Bev, you can go, we can hear you. Oh, Bev, okay, okay. I'm not sure if anyone else can hear you, but I can hear you. Hi, I'm Bea Bassett. I live in Finney Crossing on Maidstone Lane. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak. I'm a big supporter of this project. I would just hope the Design Review Board would give real consideration to extending the sidewalk outside the Town Play Suites to 2A. Seven years ago, when my husband and I were building this property in Finney Crossing, we stayed at the Town Play Suites. My husband is visually impaired at that time and we wanted to go to the then restaurant on 2A. We had our choice of either going through a mud path to the restaurant or going out on Zephyr with no sidewalk or going across the street to the bike path up to the light and then back onto 2A. And so my concern is you have people who may or may not have cars and may be relying on public transportation that are now going to want to use the bus stop to go into SH Junction perhaps and they're going to have to what? Either go in the street, go across a proposed, perhaps a crosswalk right in front of Guy's Farm and Yard which is a totally very busy intersection and then go up to the light, go across the light again. So I think extending the, it's a safety factor that I think putting the sidewalk in would be an enhancement to our entire community and be a safe alternative for everyone. Thank you for your time and thank you for this great project that I hope really does happen. Thank you. Who's up next? Thanks, Bev. So far I'm seeing no other raised hands. In the unzoom, we have a couple of people in the meeting room. You're welcome to come up to this table with the microphone and speak there. Okay, name and address. Emily and Matt, are you still here? Yes, we are. Can you hear us? Dave, I can hear you. Yeah, I don't think, I think we've lost the... Count meeting. The group. The group. Can you? The Pete, the Scott, Emily, Matt. I don't know why it's doing that. Not to mention, Champlain Housing Trust. Yes. I see that they're... Yeah. Yes. So, were you guys able to hear the last speaker? Yes. Yes. John, can you hear us now? Yes. Okay. All right, go ahead. My name is Reed. Can you hear me all right? My name is Reed Willis. I live on Seth Circle, just east of Tap Corners and I'm here to speak in favor of the Champlain Housing Trust. As we all know and has been explained, affordable housing is a really big issue in the state and across the country, but also very much locally here. I participated in the Mike Tap Corners visioning discussions in the spring and affordable housing came up repeatedly as a concern for our town. And in fact, the discussion was around how appropriate Tap Corners was as a location because of the amenities there, grocery, pharmacy, public transportation and so forth. So I think it's particularly appropriate to have this project located there. And I just wanted to express my support for that. Great. Thank you. All right. We have another speaker from the town hall meeting room. Come on up. Welcome, Jim. Name and address for the record, please. Jim McCullough, 592 Governor Chittenden Road in Williston. And I'm also here as one of your two state representatives. So thank you for your tireless work and staff. And I address, of course, all of you who are in Zoom World as well. I'm here as a cheerleader for this project for Chittenden Housing, for Community Housing Trust. And this project specifically, as in your legislator, I'm sure you are all aware, our legislature has been working tirelessly toward promoting affordable housing statewide with minimal dollars to throw at it. For many, many years. There are dollars now, thank you very much. And they are being utilized. And it's very, very important that the town of Williston help them get utilized, not just for the dollars and not even for the dollars used, but for the people. So you know all of that, I'm very sure. And I know that you support the project in principle. And I totally understand the report that Matt has put through and that you will clearly be following that as well as will Champlain Housing Trust. All of that said, I didn't plan to come here and talk about things that weren't perhaps right with this presentation. And but that's why we all listen, isn't it? The sidewalk issue is a major issue. If the housing trust promotes the fact that they don't have, not everybody has cars, but at the same time, a sidewalk poses difficulties, the two do not mesh. And in recent years, this body, the Planning Commission and the Select Board have been much more understanding about the need for pedestrian access. But throughout much of Williston's growth history, we failed to do that. And I'm here to say it is a safety issue. People need to get out their front door, walk on a sidewalk to access the public transportation. And the fact that it makes some difficulties, that's too bad. They need to be overcome because one person run down, run over, kill or remain, would wipe those difficulties right off the map. And so please bear that in mind. When you assess the situation, we understand utilities can be moved, we understand trups can be dug up and things can be regraded. And we also understand that one pedestrian in the street that gets run down is worth all of that work. Thank you so much for your time. Emily, anybody else? No more raised hands. I do have some people that commented in the chat. I will read it into the record. This is from Tim and Teresa Connelly. The traffic on Zephyr Road has risen fivefold in three and a half years. I'm curious why we would not do an in-depth traffic study. Drivers already do not pay attention to speed, speed bumps or crosswalks. The bus stop is on the same side of the road as the proposed site. Why would a crosswalk not be required on the side of the proposed site so that pedestrians do not need to cross the road to the bike path and then cross back to the bus stop? Any other comments? That's it. I'm seeing no other raised hands. If you would like to speak, press the raise hand button on the toolbar or let me know in the chat. It looks like Reed Carr raised his hand. Reed, go ahead. Yeah, I just wanted to, I guess, in response to some of the comments that have come up, I just asked the question about, it sounds as though a traffic study is generally designed only to address like congestion and traffic flow, whether the roads can handle the amount of trips that are anticipated. So perhaps a traffic study is not what's needed, but rather some sort of safety study related to pedestrian access to the property. Is that something that the DRB has asked for in the past? Matt? I don't know that that specifically has been asked for before Reed. I think in general, the DRB looks at elements of site design related to pedestrian safety, usually in consultation with the Director of Public Works. What I'm hearing from the comments, and I've heard some of this in the past, is that there's an existing issue on day lane related to incompatible speeds when people are driving on day lane, and that that has probably increased as day lane has gotten more connected to the surrounding neighborhood. Usually when the town encounters that kind of challenge, which has happened in the Brennan Woods subdivision, as well as other places, the town has looked at modifying things to slow vehicles down. And if you've been up in Brennan Woods, you've seen the nailed in rubber speed bumps. We like those because you can take them out and plow in the winter. And other applications or traffic calming elements, you may have noticed on Maple Tree Place Way, the addition of the bulb out crosswalk at the CHT property intersection, and narrowing that crosswalk and also providing something that visually slows motorists when they come through there. So some of this might be a little out of scope for this particular project. And yet at the same time, staff can carry this forward to Public Works. We can talk about some of the things the town usually does to address those things, working with Public Works, as well as the Regional Planning Commission to study possible traffic calming measures that could be added. And you're correct about, traffic studies are really about are there new trips being created, and then are those trips enough new trips to warrant an improvement to some nearby intersection or other facility that is experiencing congestion? And it's number one, we don't have new trips. We have a projected reduction in PM peak hour trips. And then number two, we don't probably have, therefore we don't have a number of new trips that are triggering some need to improve an intersection. This is more about traffic calming, pedestrian safety. Okay, thank you. Any other public comments, Emily? I'm seeing no more chats and no more raised hands. Okay, DRB members. Last call for questions. None here. Okay. We can zoom. Any final thoughts, comments? Recap? I would just say in regards to the size that we can talk that over with DPW and see what might be possible. Okay. Okay, with that, it's 841. I am going to close DP21-17 at 841. Thank you very much. Thank you. So for those participants who are within Zoom, the DRB is now gonna go into closed deliberations. I'll put you all in the waiting room. When the DRB comes out of deliberations, depending on how long that takes, that they'll make a decision. You can also just leave the meeting and contact staff tomorrow to find out what the DRB's decision was. With that, I'm gonna put the public in the waiting room. All right, welcome back everybody. We're out of deliberations. Okay, it's 933. Town of Williston Development and Review Board. Tuesday, August 24th. As Emily said, we have come out of deliberations. Is there a motion for DP21? Recording in progress. Is there a motion for DP21-16? I'll make the motion. As authorized by WDB 6.6.3, I, Scott Riley, move 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 August 24, 2021, accept the findings of fact and conclusions of law for DP21-16 and approve this discretionary permit for a master sign plan subject to the conditions of approval above. This approval authorizes the applicant to submit final plans, obtain approval of these plans from staff, and then seek administrative sign permits, which must proceed in strict conformance with the plans on which this approval is based. Thank you, Scott. Is there a second? Second. John Hemmelkarns, second sit. Is there any further discussion? Please indicate yay or nay, please. Scott Riley. Yay. John Hemmelkarn. Yay. Dave Saladino. Yay. Dave Turner. Yay. Paul Christensen. Yay. The chairs are yay, six in favor, non-opposed motion carries. Is there a motion for DP21-17 Champlain Housing Trust? As authorized by WDB 6.6.3, David Saladino moved at the Wilson Development Review Board having reviewed the application submitted and all accompanying materials, including the recommendations of the town staff and advisory boards required to comment on this application by the Wilson Development By-law and having heard and duly considered the testimony presented at the public hearing of August 24th, 2021, accept the recommendations for DP21-17 and authorize this application to move forward to discretionary permit review, as well as growth management review in the event allocation is needed for dwellings above the 80% area median income. I've made a couple of modifications to the recommendations. So modifying recommendation 2D to add the word property frontage after the word Zephyr Road, so a sidewalk along Zephyr Road Frontage, adding in item 2G, a new item G, which states access and site distances in compliance with WDB 13, then adding a new recommendation number five, stating the discretionary permit shall include plans for future bicycle parking expansion area to accommodate additional bicycle parking demand. And finally, one last recommendation number six, the discretionary permit shall include plans for onsite outdoor trash receptacles in compliance with WDB 16.4 for the collection of litter. Thank you, Dave. Is there a second? I'll second it. Dave Turner seconds it. Is there any further discussion? No. Hearing none, yay or nay please. Scott Riley. Yay. Donna Hemmelgarn. Yay. Dave Saladino. Yay. Dave Turner. Yay. Paul Christensen. Okay. And the chair is a yay, six in favor, none opposed. Motion carries. Is there a motion to approve the minutes dated August 10th, 2021? How many motions will approve the minutes? Okay. To approve the minutes, is there a second? I'll second. Dave Turner, Dave Saladino rather seconds it. Thank you. Is there any further discussion? Hearing none, indicate yay or nay please. Scott Riley. Yay. John Hemmelgarn. Dave Saladino. Yay. Dave Turner. Yay. Paul Christensen. Yay. The chair is a yay as well, six in favor, none opposed. Motion carries. Minutes are approved. Is there any old or new business to bring forth? Any updates on a Bonnie replacement? We conducted two interviews in person today and we'll do one more Friday that should lead us to a decision and offer. So, you know, give us a month. Yeah. We have someone in the chair again. Great. Great. Are the candidates local? Are they from all over? Two local, one who had experience here but is currently out of state looking to come back. We haven't told that person about the cost of housing yet. They haven't. On Craigslist, they know. And in terms of COVID meeting attendance, we're still strongly encouraging everybody to attend only on Zoom, especially the public. As long as statute requires it, we have to have an in-person option. So we'll be assessing with the DRB chair pretty much before every meeting, depending on what the guidance is. Okay. Is there a motion to adjourn? I move to adjourn. Second. Thank you, John. Scott Riley seconds, indicate in unison approval of that please. Aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Thank you all.