 Okay, great. Welcome all to the Wilson development review board from March 23 2021 growth management. I'm going to start with the remote public meeting notice. I Pete Kelly is chair of the Wilson development review board find that this body is authorized to meet electronically without a physical location to the state of emergency declared by Governor Scott. And act 92 as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. In accordance with the temporary amendments to the open meeting law, I confirmed that number one public access is available by video conference and telephone through zoom. All members of the board and the public can communicate in real time during the meeting through zoom planning staff will provide zoom instructions for public participation before the hearings are opened. Number two, the public public lead noticed agenda, including zoom web address and phone number agendas agendas materials and zoom instructions are also provided on the town website. Number three, the public can alert us if a problem occurs during the meeting if anyone has a problem with access. Please use the raised hand feature or chat box on zoom or call Emily at 802-878-6704. Number four, extension three and leave a message. Number four, continuing the meeting if necessary, if zoom crashes or the public is unable to access this meeting, it will be continued to April 13 2021. All votes taken in this meeting that are not unanimous will be done by roll call in accordance with the law. Let's start the meeting by taking a roll call attendance of all d rb members participating in the meeting. Paul Christensen. John Hemmel guard. Also absent. Steve Lembrek present. This is on. But he's not participating as it. Got it. Yes. Yeah. Scott Riley here. No, I can't get to Dave Saladino here. Dave Turner here. And I'm Pete Kelly chair. I am also present. We're going to have a zoom overview by staff. Is that you, Emily? Yep, that's me. So welcome looks like we have some new folks tonight. We ask that you keep your microphone on mute when you're not speaking to reduce background noise. The use of webcam is optional. If you're talking lower your speaker volume could be getting some feedback. Please use the chat box for zoom technical questions only the chat does become part of a public record. If you would like to provide testimony during the public hearing, press the raise hand button on your toolbar or comment in the chat saying hey I'd like to speak, and we will add you to the list and make your testimony. If anyone calls in on telephone they can press star six to mute or unmute or star nine to raise hand. We'll use a lot of screen share tonight. You should see a green toolbar at the top of your screen. Click view options and the side by side option will allow you to see the gallery view of all the videos and the screen share to whatever size preference is best for you. If you're starting to get bad internet connection you can try turning off your video closing other internet tabs or programs or phone apps. You can also join by telephone for speaker or microphone. There's an up arrow next to the microphone symbol where you can leave your computer audio and join your telephone to the computer. If you have any questions comment in the chat Bonnie or I will be able to help you. Thanks. Okay thanks Emily. So tonight's agenda. We're going to start with a public forum. Then we're going to go into a growth management overview from the staff it's a staff report. Then we're going to do individual hearings for each project that's going to be discussed tonight. Then then the DRB will go into closed deliberations we will finalize our scoring and the allocation schedule. Then we'll come back and return in a public forum to have meeting motions and votes. And then we'll conclude tonight with a discussion and vote on approval of the March 9 2021 meeting minutes. Projects eligible for allocation in 2021. The next one is DP 20 dash 18 the cat amount golf housing project at 1400 Mountain View Road. That's in the RZD district and the number of units of allocation requested is 131. So in that same RZD is DP 21 dash 0 3 the me show development at 260 Mountain View Road. They have requested 19 units of allocation and projects outside of the sewer service area is DP 21 dash 0 at eight. The Barlin lot to subdivision and that's in the RZD. And they are requesting one unit of allocation. So that's the sequence that when it when we get to each project that's the sequence that we will follow will start with cat amount. Then we'll go to me show then we'll go to Barlin. At this point. I would like to open it up to the public for anyone who would like to speak on a topic. Not on the agenda tonight. And so if you've got something to say about the specific projects that are going to be discussed please don't don't speak now but if you have something you would like to raise that is not on the agenda. Now is the time. Mr chair. Yes john. Yeah I'd like to just I don't have a raise hand button I think because I know too much. But I just wanted to say that as you know I'm an appointed member of this board. I'm also an abutting landowner to the property being discussed in DP 20 dash 18 cat amount golf. I would have to recuse myself tonight for that hearing as well as for the other project outside the growth center but inside the sewer service area, which is DP 21 dash 05. Therefore, I will not be attending the meeting tonight as a board member. And I just want to let you know that any participation by me tonight will be as a member of the general public. Thank you john. I appreciate that I was aware of that. But it's very good for everyone on this call to know that so I thank you very much for that declaration. Is there anyone else in the audience that has anyone to say anything to say. Just a quick correction, the address for 2105 is 230 Mountain View Road. It's a typo on the agenda that says 260, but it is 230. Thank you. Okay. Next up on the agenda is a growth management overview from staff. Who's doing that Matt. Okay, take it away Matt. All right and as I get started Emily is going to screen share the staff report. So I want to start by talking a little bit about growth management in general. Growth management is a middle step in the subdivision review process in Williston. It happens between the pre application step and the discretionary permit step. And projects that have made it through the pre application review in the calendar year, must return and request growth management allocation from a limited number of dwelling unit equivalents that are available to build going forward in the future in Williston and must receive that allocation before they can proceed to the discretionary. Permit step. There are two exceptions to the requirement for allocation. There is an inherent right to build one dwelling unit on one undeveloped parcel if that parcel was created before 1990. And also there is an exception written into the bylaw for a project that scores more than 70 points under the current growth management criteria, including scoring full points in the energy conservation category for its allocation area. So tonight we are we are reviewing three projects that are in that middle step in the process. And you can see there the bulleted list in the staff report. There are a number of reasons that the town does this type of review. Primarily to moderate the pace of growth such that the town can be concurrent with the services it provides to that growth as it comes online. And also to incentivize what are seen as some of the positive attributes that new development can provide to the town. So moving on from there. As I mentioned, this is one of a couple of steps in the process. This is a little different in that this step is reviewing projects really only under the criteria established in chapter 11 of the bylaw. So in the pre application review, it's a concept level review by the DRB. And the DRB is striving to notify the applicant and the public of any and all requirements that may apply to the project in the entire zoning bylaw and looking for any, you know, fatal flaws, things that the applicant might need to address before moving forward at all. And then ultimately the vote is to authorize the project to move forward to growth management where we have this much more narrowly focused review under the chapter 11 criteria. Many of the criteria in chapter 11 are about things that are incentivized by growth management but not outright required of all developments. And the applications that applicants make it growth management about meeting those criteria at various levels are binding on those projects when they move forward to growth management. So if an applicant identifies a particular mixture of housing types or amount of affordable housing or amount of bicycle pedestrian facility. Those representations are binding on them when they go forward to discretionary permit and become part of what's required of the project at that stage. If a project were to change so substantially as to undo something that was promised at growth management, the project would have to return through the review cycle, pre application and growth management again and be reviewed under the criteria in its new configuration. One peculiarity of growth management is that we use for units and for calculating allowed density on projects, the dwelling unit equivalent. This is a metric that finds a house of two bedrooms or greater or an apartment of two bedrooms or greater as one dwelling unit equivalent and counts a studio or one bedroom unit as one half of a dwelling unit equivalent. So applicants as they do tonight can propose a mixture of housing types and those smaller units that are a studio or one bedroom count as half a unit both for density, and for the amount of allocation they need in order to be constructed. So, onto the review process growth management is a competitive process that's that's why there are scores involved. There is a limited amount of allocation in the form of dwelling unit equivalents identified for each of the 10 years extending out from the coming fiscal year, and it's a limited supply so the project is the process is competitive. Everybody who went through pre app comes in they make their representations and the purpose of tonight's hearing is for the DRB to discuss and deliberate on potential scores for the projects and then make an allocation to each project based on its score. We do also have a 30 point minimum score requirement in chapter 11 with some minor exemptions this year we do not have any projects that are recommended to score below 30 points, and therefore that exemption discussion will likely not need to take place. We do have a large allocation schedule that shows what allocation looks like across all of the different growth management areas. Yeah, you can show that for the moment. So what you see here is 10 fiscal years. Each cell in this table is one dwelling unit equivalent cells that are grayed out or shaded in dark gray are cells that are not available to assign allocation to at this time, because the allocation includes some provisions that hold back certain amounts of allocation for future years. The cells that are white are available. If they don't already have a name in them in black and you can see the black names there for the Northridge project in the sewer service area outside of the growth center. Based on the staff's draft scores tonight, you have a recommended allocation schedule for the projects before the board tonight and those are identified in the table in red. There's also a provision that I'll mention just while we're there, allowing only 75% of any of the available allocation to be given to any one project. So there's an intent in the bylaw here to make a little space for more than one applicant at a time. And so you can see that sort of play out in the in the balance in this draft allocation schedule and we'll come back to this later in the evening. So I think on the main staff report. Yep, we can move on to the summary table. As Pete mentioned in his introduction DP 2018 cat amount golf to for its full build out needs 131 dwelling unit equivalents DP 2105 Michaud needs 19 dwelling unit equivalents and DP 2108 Barland needs one dwelling unit equivalent. Within within that we have a summary here of the proposed scores. This is the staff proposed score it's not final this is what we're here to talk about tonight. And we can go over that but cat amount golf with a score of 67 we showed with a score of 35 Barland with a score of 33 so again under the staff recommendations, none of these projects score below 30 points none of them would need to attempt any sort of exemption from the allocation rules. So within the allocation. The other thing you would have, you might have noticed in that great big table and you can see in this summary is that there are certain amounts of allocation that are set aside only for units that are identified as perpetually affordable at one of the levels incentivized under the bylaw. So both Michaud and cat amount golf are proposing that some component of their project be perpetually affordable. What this table shows is the breakdown of dwelling unit equivalents that would be set aside as affordable versus those that could be sold at the market rate. So the total amount 13 dwelling unit equivalents proposed for allocation in the affordable category and 47 in the market for Michaud 15 dwelling unit equivalents in the market rate column and four in the affordable column for a total of 19 dwelling unit equivalents and in the affordable one market for a total one what remains in the draft staff report. Yes, if I could interject Emily, can you go back to the previous page please. So okay go go down a little bit more to the proposed. Yeah right there. Thank you. So Matt so people that are not familiar with this would would probably have the question about cat amounts unfulfilled request. And what does that mean, could you, could you share with the audience how that works in out years please. Yes. So cat amount under the just under the allocation rules even at a maximum proposed allocation cannot receive all 131 unit equivalents it needs to build the full project in in one round of growth management projects that cannot achieve all of their allocation in one growth management round do need to return for subsequent growth management hearings in in future years in order to attempt to receive the remainder of their allocation. However, the project can proceed with a discretionary permit review that would identify the whole project but probably a phase that could be built with the first round of allocation. What happens commonly in Williston it happened with the creeks edge project on north Williston Road. And it certainly has happened in the growth center with our large projects Finney crossing and Cottonwood crossing. You get a project design. There's a certain amount of the residential build out that can happen under what's been allocated. And when when the time is right, the applicant comes back under a new pre application in order to reserve their spot and growth management and then goes through growth management. But the caveat there is it's a competitive process. There is no credit given for having achieved some of your allocation in a past year so when these projects that receive partial allocation as cat amount golf is proposed to receive return. They could be in competition with some other projects and there there could be a points race there out in the future. Okay, does that conclude your staff report. Yeah, I'll just mention that the last page of the report is a set of draft motions. The way we've been doing this the last few years is to have a motion for each of the three allocation areas, approving the slate of adopted allocation and noting that this year we have no new projects proposed in the growth center so there's only two motions there. Okay, before we get started Matt, who are the who from staff are doing the three different reports. So between Emily and I will handle those Emily will take the lead and I'll be the sort of the fallback. If there's a clarification that she wants to turf over to me. Okay, great. Thank you. Okay, first up, DP 20 dash 18 the cat amount project. Who is representing that project if you would identify yourself and and provide your address for the record please. Ken bellows 683 Maple Street, Waterbury Center Vermont 05677. I'm here representing Ethan Allen holdings, who is the applicant for the proposed cat amount golf subdivision for you the soul representative cat. Okay, Chris, why don't you provide your address for the record at this point. And so we get that formality out of the way. We might have a, we might have a mute button. Yeah, Chris on a sec 86 Ethan Allen drive south Burlington, Vermont. Great. Thank you Chris. Good recovery. Okay, Emily, you're up. This is a request for 132 years. For a 148 unit residential subdivision on a 30 acre parcel located at 1400 Mountain View Road in the residential zoning district. The applicant proposes 116 units with two or more bedrooms and 32 units of residential subdivision. On a 30 acre parcel located at 1400 Mountain View Road in the residential zoning district. The applicant proposes 116 units with two or more bedrooms and 32 units with one bedroom. A reminder the dwelling unit equivalent. The dwelling unit equivalent is two or more bedrooms and then a half is a one bedroom or a studio that's why 148 units equals 132 dwelling unit equivalents. We reviewed the applicants questionnaire which I can share in this document as needed. In the conserve energy category we're proposing a score of zero points. We're not providing any energy efficiency levels based on that criteria. For affordable housing we're proposing a score of 12 points. Offer housing choices, a score of 16 points. In neighborhood space and build paths and trails we're proposing the full points 10 out of 10. Design for context full points five out of five. Build close to services zero points like affordable housing and conserve energy. Build close to services is a numeric calculation where it's based on a distance. So it's a quantity. They're scoring zero points there. Neighborhood design we're proposing four out of five points. They're not eligible for any of the bonus points because they're not providing any additionally conserved open space. And lastly the new category sustainable transportation. They're proposing. This is also a quantitative calculation based on the number of options they provide we're proposing a full 10 out of 10 points. That comes to a total of 67 points. This is the first time the project is coming to the DRB for allocation. In this report I talked about providing one more do you for a total of 27 do you ease to achieve that 12 point category. Matt and I had some back and forth with the applicant to make sure all the numbers were adding up correctly. The applicant revised their questionnaire so they are showing 27 do you to be built as affordable. And the rules that Matt explained that limit how much allocation can be given to anyone project maximizing that out this project can get 60 do we this year. And they would need to return to growth management in subsequent years for the remaining 78. This is the summary of the allocation schedule. What I've attached to this one is staff report is an addendum walking through the density calculation and the affordable housing calculation. There's two elements at play here to be eligible for the higher density at five 12 unit equivalents per acre. The equivalent of the units need to be affordable, and that's based on actual dwellings not dwelling unit equivalents. So, 48 148 times 30% is 45 dwellings. So even though 27 do you e must be, but must be provided to score 12 points, those 27 do you need to be built as 45 dwellings. I think that needs to be worried about for the growth management approval process, but when the applicant moves forward to discretionary permit. Both the growth management score and the density bonus will need to be upheld in their proposal basically means some number of their units affordable units will need to be the one bedroom units. Let me know if you have questions thanks. Okay, thanks Emily. Next up is a board questions. DRP members. Any questions. Oh Dave you're muted. No comment but just on the staff report it stated 131 instead of 132. No, it doesn't make a big difference, but just want to bring that up. Yes, that's that inherent right to build one dwelling unit. We're building 132 do you ease they only need 131 of allocation. Anyone else from the DRB when this project is from from a growth growth management perspective it's way above the 30 threshold so I don't think a lot of debate is warranted on individual scoring. Mr Bellovo do you disagree with that statement. Well, first of all, Pete, we would like to thank the work of the staff. We spent a lot of time going back and forth with the staff Emily has alluded to that but a lot of other conversations previous to that in trying to make sure that we're fully in compliance with the town's rules and the intention all along was to try to score as high as possible in growth management. And obviously we want to be able to get as much allocation as possible but also it's really it speaks to the intent of this project which is to try to incorporate as many of the things that are incentivized that the town is looking at why there are incentives into this project to really make it a really well rounded project that that tries to accomplish the goals that the town is trying to accomplish so that's all of those things are inherent in the in the project and and I think reflected in the score. We would have like nine eight nine five six seven. Me. We would have liked to have scored higher. We'd like to gotten all the points quite frankly. And you know Emily's alluded to there's a couple of dimensions in growth management which are, you know, they're, they're, they're, they're cut and dry they're black and white. Obviously close to services we don't meet that criteria. We don't get any points we have no disagreement on that. We would have loved to have been able to build an energy efficiency project that met the town's incentives, but it's just quite frankly it's cost prohibitive and there wasn't intention at one point to try to score the 70 points and, and, you know, get what's called I guess the high flyer status but it just, it's just not economically viable especially when you include affordable housing units. So those are just a couple of comments we do. There are a couple of things that we would disagree with the stats proposed scoring on just a couple of items that I would like to address by could Pete. Absolutely. So, the main one has to do with it would be 11.8.3 which is to offer housing choice. So in our submittal. We made a number of brief statements in there to describe to address the issue of offering housing choice and you know some of it is just describing the number of units by dwelling structure type. And this was really a big goal on the part of, you know, Chris and his brother was really to build a project that had a lot of diversity. And really felt like, here's a project that's got virtually every different type housing type that you could possibly offer in this zoning district. And, you know, in the last sentence that I wrote at the bottom of that box box. We feel that it's the it offers the greatest range of housing diversity that's ever been proposed in this growth management area or in this zoning district. So, you know, our, our thought was that this project, it warrants a score of 20 points not 16 points. And the way I would put it is that, you know, 16 points might seem like a lot of points, but when you convert that to a percentage, you know, it's 80%. And, you know, where I went to school 80% get you a B minus. You know, it's okay but it's nothing to write home about. And we really feel like our project on this dimension deserves to get a score of an a. So we would advocate for ourselves in that area and hopefully the board would see it in that way as well. I have one more that I would like to address if that's okay Pete I was just waiting to see your your prompt. Oh no I was, you have the floor please continue. Okay, thank you. So the other one would be on this would be for section 11.8.8. This is neighborhood design. And so the staff is proposed a score of four, and there's, there's basically there's two different ways to score in this category if I understand it correctly. You know, one is the first one which is scored zero to five, and then it's possible to score between one to five additional points, which is that middle row in that, that little matrix that Emily's pulled up on the screen, says depending upon the extent quality open space resource to be protected. So here would be my comments on this. So, unlike a lot of properties in Williston, a lot of properties in Williston are chuck full of all kinds of development constraints. They may have steep slopes. They may have wetlands. They may have all kinds of things which are required to be protected under the town's bylaw or under state regulations as well. And what the bylaw says, and what the bylaw wants you to do is to is to protect those obviously as much as possible and to try to integrate those things into the design of your project. Well, we have a property doesn't have a lot of constraints. So the, you know, the range of things that we're going to be able to do relative to that. Well, it's limited. Now, Emily made a statement earlier about not adding additional open space. So a couple of comments that I would offer on that is number one. Unlike in the ARZD, there is no mathematical open space requirement to be protected in this zoning district. If there are wetlands and wetland buffers and certain there are certain things that under statute have to be protected and those have to be included in the open space area. So, but, but we don't really have that as far as we know at this point. You know, there could be wetlands are discovered later on we do permitting but we don't think so at this point. However, when this project went through a pre application, one of the recommendations of the DRB was for the applicant to add an open space area along the southerly side of the property that would border up against I believe that's raven circle I believe is the name of the street. So, so we have included that in the site plan that we have shown. So there's that additional open space area as well as some additional open space that would run along the westerly side of the property. That would be the side of the property that butts the, the former right of way for the circumferential highway. So, I guess, if we're doing the things the board wants us to do. We feel that should be reflected in the score. And maybe that's only a score of one more point or two more points, but we just like to score as high as we could. And even if it doesn't affect the allocation decision. It does have meaning for the project it has meaning for the applicant and certainly has meaning for me. As the person that filled out the application so we would ask for some consideration on that dimension as well. Okay, thank you. Otherwise, those are my additional comments Emily did mention that we had amended one of the pages in our growth management submittal. When you read through the instructions for how you do those calculations on affordable housing. It's a little tricky. And we were off. You know it was an error in terms of our calculations. We fully intended to pledge enough units to get that scoring of 12 points on this particular criteria that was that was the intention all along and there were some other things in filling out the application we also needed some guidance from staff but this is one where we didn't get it completely right when we submitted it. Pete can I ask a question. Absolutely Scott can just which open space to the south are you referring to. Emily can you draw a circle around whatever what Ken is referring to. Yeah, on this map north is to the left. Right. So this open space houses on Raven circle and the proposed single family lots. And then the top of the page behind the yellow and orange houses that's the open space along the Cirque right of way. Okay. All right. So Scott it's that it's that band of open space it would be to the left, the left hand side there, which is the southerly portion of the site. And that was in the recommendations from pre application. Yeah. So, you know, if you couple that with my other comments earlier, you know, the intention all along was to fully comply with all of the town's and really to try to reach into the incentives and just do it the way the town wants it to be done and so we've, we've incorporated that into the submittal. And that's that's the part we're talking about it. Okay. Yeah, I see it. Thank you. Okay, any other follow up questions from the DRB at this point. Okay, next we're going to open it up for public comment. Before we do that. I'd like to put Matt on the on the hot seat here. Matt, if you could, if you could just give a one or two minute overview of of the distinction of what we are here to accomplish today. What public input would be afforded the public at the next stage of the development cycle at the discretionary permit phase. And because I'd like to draw a distinction of really why we're here tonight. What is appropriate for tonight's conversation. And, and, and lower the heartbeat of some of the public and make sure that you you realize that you'll have an opportunity to weigh in at the at the next stage. And this is by no means to stifle conversation is just to have an open dialogue of why we're here tonight and what will be forthcoming in the future. Sure, Pete happy to do that. So, as I mentioned in the introductory staff report, this is a middle step between sketch plan or pre application as we call it in our bylaw, and discretionary permit which is, which is really the much more full fledged review with completely designed and other components like traffic studies, thinking about stormwater design. Any number of other attributes of the project. So, growth management is special. It's a thing that only happens in Williston in every other community in Vermont that I'm aware of. You go to some form of a pre application for a subdivision and then you proceed immediately to a stage of review that looks like our discretionary permit. And that means that when a project goes through pre application review. The staff is giving it a preliminary review for the DRB under all of the various requirements of the entire 46 page 300 or 46 chapter 318 page zoning bylaw, as opposed to just the one chapter that we're focused on tonight. And when the DRB gives applicants recommendations coming out of the pre application process. Those recommendations can come from anywhere within that very large document so there's a set of recommendations the board made for this project and for the others in front of it tonight. And there's not a requirement that the applicant necessarily address those recommendations for the purposes of going through the growth management hearing it's a it's a reminder and a placeholder that those are matters that will will come up and will need to be addressed at that more fully fledged review. So the project makes it through growth management and you know part of the intent of the town doing it this way is because allocation and the ability to build houses in Williston is an artificially limited supply. It's possible that somebody in a busy year can come looking for allocation from the town following pre application and not receive any. They're not to require full engineering of somebody who doesn't even know if they can build any houses yet and and so tonight as you just heard as we talked about the individual point scores of this particular project. So DRB is trying to do as a board with applicant staff and public input is establish those scores total them up and then determine a phasing schedule that they believe is based on that score. As staff we've provided numerical score recommendations in every category we've provided a total of those we've provided a proposed phasing schedule but it's for the DRB to consider that just as any other piece of input. Consider public input around those individual and total scores and around the schedule and make their decision from there so testimony tonight that illuminates aspects of the project or calls out challenges with projects that are specific to the way these criteria are met by projects are going to be especially helpful for the DRB. There may be other things that folks want to talk about tonight where the response from the chair might be we'll we'll get to that at discretionary permit because that's when when that will be reviewed. So Pete have I have I done what you'd like me to do is there anything you'd like me to add. That that was great. Thank you. And I just want to you know I just wanted to have you provide that refresher for everybody and make sure that that we really are interested in comments. It's just that some may be appropriate at the next phase. So with that I'm going to turn it over to Emily to manage the the public comment phase and the raising of hands and and in hearing from you. Yeah. So reminder, the raise hand button is on the toolbar it's under the reactions section of the toolbar. You can also comment in the chat. And of course Westman will be up first followed by Karen Olson Dave go on ahead and unmute yourself. Okay. Thank you Emily and thank you Matt for the really helpful summary. And I do have a lot of questions. I was involved in some of these meetings in the pre app. And I think that's a huge of this of this project and so I understand that probably a lot of my questions would probably be better directed at that discretionary permit stage so I appreciate Matt's preamble to that. I guess one question that I might have to begin with would be a statement of understanding from from the from the town of on how the number of allocated units for this particular cycle was sort of arrived at. I think we're talking about 60 units. If I'm not mistaken as far as what the staff recommendation was, and you know the comment that I would make on this is that it's a very large parcel with a very, if you look at the individual blocks that are being proposed for development is very dense. And how this project gets staged could make all the difference I would also note that a 10 year project is is an extremely long period of time for neighbors to be dealing with construction as traffic and the rest and so I guess maybe just a sort of if Matt if you wouldn't mind take, you know, explaining how the town staff came to that sort of recommendation for for that number of allocated units and then I'll probably have some follow up. Pete would you like me to answer that piece real quick. Yes, please. So the staffs recommended allocation schedule on the big table that I bet Emily's bringing up under the 75% rule and only using the cells that are available meaning colored white on this. The staffs recommended phasing schedule represents the maximum amount of units that could be allocated to this project, just as a as a mathematical reality. This is the highest scoring project in the RZD and in the history of growth management as far as I can tell under the staffs proposed score. It does hit a lot of the various incentivized elements in chapter 11. So, staff did not see any reason to lower the amount of recommended allocation for this project below what could feasibly be done under the allocation rules. I would note that this shows 10 fiscal years. The growth management chapter does now allow a developer if they wish to develop at a faster pace than this schedule once they get started. The reality of the old system was that we found applicants typically waited a couple of years into their phasing cycle to do anything because they didn't have enough units they could build, then they would start, then they would build on schedule going out from that. This takes that essential unevenness of the system under the current rules and moves it forward to the rule state that once an applicant builds their first unit, they can build any units for which they have allocation in sequence to the end of whatever they've had allocated. A large project like this might end up taking 10 years all on its own, but it won't necessarily take 10 years for this amount of allocation to be built because of the town's rules. In fact, the town's rules would allow it to build out a little quicker. Thanks, man. Follow up question. So thanks. I understand a lot of the sort of scoring. I mean, I guess one thing I want to just put some perspective on is you mentioned that this is a one of the highest scoring projects in the RZD and, you know, I don't know I look at this project and it doesn't, it doesn't look residential to me it looks like urban, you know, then growing, you know, growing up in Milwaukee where I lived I mean this is far more urban than an urban area. So I guess, to me like that's, I don't know if that's even an opportunity to criteria but I guess I would sort of point to the, to the design scoring that the town did and it just kind of looking at the density. This, this street whatever road, you know this main street would would look like and all of the sort of the, the, I guess you would either call those secondary or tertiary roads. I mean that looks like a level of density that exceeds what Zephyr Road is in the development zone. But to me that is very much out of context to the rest of this neighborhood, and that, you know, it seems out of place, both on this, you know, if this was a smaller unit with a densely proposed development, like, okay. This is a very large parcel with a very dense application. And so I can understand how mathematically it might be checking all of these boxes that chapter 11 has established. But fundamentally it seems out of place with the nature and context of the surrounding area. I mean it really looks like this is a, you know, development zone project in the middle of the residential zone. And so I'm wondering if the scoring on that design criteria might be too high. That's right. Thank you only that's the design for context so I don't know if the, I don't know if the staff wants to respond to that or if they just want to, if the, if the board wants to sort of consider that for his, you know, in the final awarding of these of these points or allocation of units I do have a couple other comments on the scoring. The trails, the trail scoring in specifically, I've also been involved in the town's sustainable transportation committee and we're in the process of developing a map and while I certainly like to see connected trails. You know, I think that this project would benefit greatly from some collaboration with neighbors, both in the Williston. And in Woods neighborhood to the to the West, which is where I am located, but also in that coyote lane. I believe that the multi use path is intended to connect with the other town pathway there. It's not totally clear to me, but you've basically, you've basically got a. Yeah, there you go so it looks like that multi use path ends at Raven circle, and yet you have a perfectly good pathway through coyote lane and I recognize that that may not be part of this parcel and so they can't propose any development there, but it just seems a little bit, you know, is there is there something to do there. Is there something that can be done there because that trail the multi use path ending at Raven circle is just kind of like it's dumping you off into the middle of the street I mean is that really, is that really a connection. If you would then to actually connect to the coyote lane, you would have to cut through people's property which is not allowed, or at least not encouraged. I would just question the scoring of a 10 on that quite honestly because it's really not connecting to anything. I'd also point to the Brennan Woods connector. That connector is going into, you know, nowhere this that's going into a theoretical right of way that may or may not be open to the to the town I certainly personally and hope it would be at some point. It's not today. So again, you've got a path to nowhere, basically going into people's backyards in Brennan Woods. So that to me doesn't really seem like it's connecting to anything. And then the path that goes all the way to Mountain View Road, also connects to nothing. And so as I understand it the scoring is based on connectivity and length of that path. So really all this project does is have exceptionally long paths that don't go anywhere. And so they wouldn't actually be used by anyone. So I would suggest that that trail scoring is also artificially high I don't think that this, I mean they should get something for the, for the trails but I don't think it's a 10, because they don't go anywhere. So in the future they would maybe if this project wanted to help the town make some connections pay for some of those connections as a as a result of this project then maybe it should deserve that. But I certainly don't see anything in this plan that would address it. And then one one more context point on the scoring. I understand they got a system they got they scored the full points for the sustainable transportation. And I was a little bit unclear as to as to why I know they have a parking lot in an EV charging station. But I'm not entirely clear where else they would actually score for that. So thank you Emily. So we're looking at maybe could you explain this this scoring a little bit better so that I can understand it. Sure. So this score. We'll go to page two. It's the more categories you provide more, the more points you get. There's five options. Transit use, like a shelter car pooling EV charge car sharing and secure covered by storage. The number of each of those is based on how many residential units there are. So based on 25 25 dwelling unit equivalents. So the more categories you provide the more points you get the number you have to provide in each of those categories is based on the total number residential units. Okay, so the, so the scoring is based on the number of residential units that have carports. So, for example, a 25 dwelling unit equivalent project would only have to provide one transit shelter one car pool space, one EV spot one car share space, and two covered bicycle storage cases so that that small project could get a full points, because they're providing one of the five. So that's why they need to those subcategories, because this is a bigger project it's, it's based on per 25 dwelling unit equivalents. So that's why they need to give six shelters six car pool space. So that's a quantification of the number of transit car pool spots. So they're going to have six EV charging char chargers on the on the premise is that is that what that is saying. Correct, there would be six EV charges, and they would be based on the definition of this bylaw available for the public to use and the residents to use looking on their site plan. Most of those facilities are going to be combined. This is a sketch plan so they're not showing it on the site plan quite yet but they're committing to it in their questionnaire. The EV the car share the bike storage and at discretionary permit, how those are specifically laid out will be determined but right now they're just saying they're going to provide these numbers. Okay, thank you that is that is helpful because when I was looking at these numbers. That was not what I thought I was looking at I thought I was actually looking at points. And so. But so that's that so that's really helpful context I mean, honestly like I appreciate the enthusiasm for sustainable transportation, you know, I don't quite understand how you could build six transit centers for one development that isn't even on an active bus route. I don't know maybe they restored the bus service on Mountain View Road but as of the big as a fall it wasn't running. So, six car pulling I get it there's a there's a parking lot that seems perfectly reasonable. I've never seen six EV charging facilities in one place, like ever, and I work at an energy company that encourages electric vehicle charging and I, you know, three terminals and two ports on each side I'm not quite sure how they're sort of defining that or how the town is to find it. But if that is one terminal with two ports on each side to see six of those terminals in one spot of a development zone like this or development like this would be very surprising. I mean to see, but you know sort of sort of doubtful to me so I, you know, I understand that these are sort of legally binding commitments that the developers that is now making to the to the board so, you know, it'd be exciting to see all of these show up in the project itself I just I was a little bit surprised seeing these numbers so thank you for explaining that I'll take a, I'll probably save the rest of my questions for the other phases of the of the permitting. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Emily, who's up next. Up next is Karen Olson Karen, you can go ahead and unmute yourself. Okay, thank you. I actually have the similar concerns to Dave. Specifically, if you were looking at the 11.8 point five the build paths and trails, just like he mentioned the one that I noticed right away was that path that leads to essentially nowhere that kind of leads to the what was supposed to be the Cirque, and my neighborhood, I don't know if I mentioned that but aren't I also live in Brennan Woods so that path seemed to invite people to then cross through folks are into people's yards to connect to the Brennan Woods Drive possibly I think that that path could be rerouted to be maybe a little bit I'm not really sure of my directions but on that on that map, a little bit more to the left where there's kind of an open space that then can connect to. I'm very directionally challenged but if you look at to the left of, like, very close to where the, where the single family home would be. I think that there's, if you were to, if you were to zoom up I think you would see that there's a space that's between. It's off of Brennan Woods Drive where there are no homes that maybe moving that path if there is a need for that path to connect to neighborhoods it would have to, you know to move that path left, I guess. Like Dave was saying the other end of the path to Mountain View Road there's not even a sidewalk there it's a very. It's a very, I don't know if the town has plans to build a sidewalk here but it's a really highly trafficked road and not very pedestrian friendly so I would definitely like to see that path be better utilized to not maybe go right to Mountain View Road where there's not very, it's not very pedestrian friendly at the moment. And I agree with him to along the design for context under 11.8.6 so I will reiterate that but I agree with what he was saying I didn't realize you were going to have the same comments Dave. Yeah, Pete, maybe we, maybe we can get the staff to chime in on on, there's been a couple of questions on on the paths. Maybe the staff can chime in on how pads are determined and, and the idea that you work within the parcel that is at hand, and they don't necessarily, you know, they don't necessarily merge on to other parcels. It's not the same of the development, but that we are putting together a big jigsaw puzzle so I'm doing what I'm asking the staff to do so maybe maybe Matt, Matt or Emily you can chime in. Yeah. Right so our bylaw incentivizes building sidewalks building pedestrian and cyclist connectivity, and the opportunity to get those connections are when individual parcels come into develop. That's one way to go about it the other way is, you know, buying land buying easements buying property rights from people and going out and financially the town paying to build all these facilities so in development review. That's when our bylaw says build your segment of sidewalk on your property. And so throughout the growth center you'll see sites develop and redevelop they just have their portion of sidewalk and it says things come through that, like Scott said you build out that that puzzle, another piece is added to the puzzle. So if it's a stub that showed connecting to the Cirque right of way. It's probably still nebulous and could be decided at discretionary permit, if that path is actually going to be built as a sidewalk, or if it's just going to be given as an easement, our intent with creating. On the other side there's also that substrate is, as land comes up for development around this parcel, or if the Cirque right of way if anything ever happens to that part property that there's the opportunity to create that connection from this parcel to other parcels. And that weren't it's not hemmed in with its initial design. Okay, thank you Emily. Can I ask a question though. Sorry, follow up to that. Yeah, how does, how does the lack of connectivity to the resources affect the scoring, because I told I get that you're building a jigsaw, however, there's still a lot of already developed land. I don't think you're going to convince me that a parcel on Raven circle is going to come up to connect that that multi use pathway to the like coyote lane pathway right I mean it's like that development is kind of spoken for people those those parcels have been developed so the scoring itself connectivity needs to be sort of treated separately from just if you build it they will. They will connect Sunday in the future because if you don't have some kind of mechanism for connecting them, what you end up with is a bunch of jigsaw puzzles of pathways where we were encouraging those developments, not connecting to anything. In the past, maybe those developments didn't have the same, you know, trail requirements so we're enlightened today but we weren't back then and so we still don't have real connectivity I don't know how to solve that problem but it seems like it should be reflected in the scoring. Yeah, I think that's where it evolves from the development review side of things to select board policy on finishing out those networks where where there's gaps in the system that are in public right of way. There's a select board decision on how to handle that after, you know, public roads have been built town right of way exists. And that's where the official map that the project that you're working on will help with helping the town prioritize and incentivize filling out those desired connections throughout the town's multi use path system that I don't know if you have anything else to add. I think Emily just to bring it back to the words of the scoring criteria. So, if I don't know if you want to bring that up I've got it in the, in the bylaw. Yeah. So, see if we can just get that so everybody can see it. Yeah, I'm pulling it up. There we go. This criteria and favors proposed residential subdivisions that build their portion of the paths and trails called for by the comprehensive plan. And we do, we do know, you know, in the, in the bullet points. The majority of the proposed dwelling units are served by the town's path and trail system with the developer building all onsite segments. So this was this was where the staff did propose 10 points. David Westman brought up the question of, you know, there is a there is a gap down at coyote. You come out of the existing path system and you're on. It's called Raven circle or coyote there. Sorry without the map in front of me. You're, you're, you're on the street for a little bit. It's for the DRB to think about I would I would consider that a low traffic street and a fairly safe one, you know, for someone to navigate but you know, having, having worked in the bike advocacy world, I can tell you there's a there's a lot of opinions about that sort of thing. And you've got a little bit there as you go toward the bottom of the page Emily showing on on Raven where you you go just over. And I think you have to go down coyote a little bit to hook around it's going to it's I think it'll be off the plan. Let me see if I can get the map up in order to get there. And then in terms of coming out on to Mountain View Road. It is currently the town's eventual plan for there to be a bike lane added to Mountain View Road as part of a widening project that was the result of the 2014 scoping project the town and the regional planning commission did so not a path at this time. Currently currently a planned lane but there is a plan for an enhanced bicycle facility along Mountain View Road. That project does have potential funding as a circumferential highway alternative project, but it's not currently scheduled or in the state's capital plan. So it's it's out in the future. Can I just remind folks that when you're ready to speak to state your name and your address for the record. Thank you. Thank you Bonnie, or drop your address in the chat to. Okay Emily who's up next. Ken's up next. Thank you. I did want to make a comment related to the question that was just asked these questions about the connectivity. And, you know, Matt has already partially addressed it, but if you were to ride a bike on the town's bike path, and let's say you were to start over there at the Allenbrook school, as I once did once upon a time with the intent of following the town's bicycle path or multi use path system to get to say the building where Matt is standing right now, which I once did. And you would say, what happened to the bike path, because it would disappear. And it didn't really disappear, but it appears to disappear because in fact, the town's bike path goes along whatever the name of that street is through a south bridge. It's just there on the side of the road. So that's something that exists today. And that essentially is, you know, to use a colloquial expression, it's just basically down the street and around the corner from where this proposed project is through, you know, essentially residential streets, one of which is, you know, I don't know if it's technically a cul-de-sac, but it's a, you know, it doesn't a street that doesn't go to anywhere. So a place that I think would generally be considered to be safe for a cyclist or a pedestrian. And Dave Westman pointed out there is the existing section of the separate bike facility, which is I guess to the east, the east of Coyote Lane, that kind of just basically dead ends and nowhere. It's waiting for some other potential project to come along down the road. So, you know, we were cognizant that those facilities were there. And, you know, we want to build a facility that's going to connect, certainly for the people that might live in this area, it would give them an opportunity to be able to, you know, whether it's to walk or ride a bicycle or whatever, to get access to those facilities. So I did want to mention that the existing town's bike path just does go along the road. And so if there were a section of the bike path that went along the side of a residential road, we would not be blazing a new trail. The town would be using a template that it utilized once before. The other comment that I wanted, well, you know, that I wanted to make about what's really essentially a proposed path that would link to the former Cirque right of way. Former Governor Shumlin pulled the plug on the Cirque whatever a number of years ago that was now that really set up all kinds of conversations at the town level, notably at the Conservation Commission, and to some extent at the Planning Commission, about ways in which that right of way could be utilized for the town, whether it's some sort of a linear park or, you know, a pedestrian court or something along those lines. So there have been conversations about that, whether or not it might ever come to fruition, hard to know. But we would, you know, if we were able to build this project out, we would certainly want to be able to provide people to get access to it. And that's, that was really our intention and then doing that. And then, you know, lastly, Matt's comment about Mountain View Road. There have been all kinds of conversations in the past, the town level with the Planning Commission, in particular, about having some sort of enhanced bike and or pedestrian facility along Mountain View Road. It had been hoped at one time that the preferred alternative would be a separate facility and not just a wide lane on the side of the road. When the Select Board made the decision, as part of that scoping study, there was a very strongly worded objection that was made from one of the property owners on Mountain View Road to the east of the property in question. And that was clearly was a deciding factor in the town not going to acquire additional right of way. Having said that, I could see where it's very conceivable down the road that there could be a separate path that would be built, say, from this proposed road. Westward to bring you over to Route 2A, where there is an existing existing and proposed multi-use path. And certainly a connection to Brennan Woods would not be out of the realm of possibility. So there are some things there that are very likely to come down the road in my view at some point in the future. I just wanted to add those additional comments. Okay, thank you, Ken. Thank you. Who's up next. Dave, you want to go again. Yes, thank you. I can I want to share your enthusiasm for the Mountain View Road project. I'm going to end the CERC right of way project. I will happily advocate alongside you for all of those projects to be completed. I really, I really do hope and truly, truly hope that that can come to Williston sooner rather than later. I just wanted to say, you know, on the topic of the CERC is that I raised safety comments in the in the pre-app proposal of this project regarding the presence of the high pressure natural gas pipeline currently in that right of way. And my concerns with the proximity of very heavy earth moving equipment in a pipeline that has now been shown by evidence that was at times located perhaps perhaps higher than the stated building permit. What I'm trying to say is that the pipeline may be closer to the ground at the top of the ground and subject to, you know, safety concerns. That was shown in Heinsberg to be the case where it was not buried to the proper depth. We have not raised such issues in Williston I certainly hope that's not the case but it's all the more important reason to just point out that I raised those safety concerns. And that, at least in part was why that 50 foot buffer was requested and I will eventually, you know, concede the point that that's probably a reasonable safety buffer for the pipeline. However, I don't think that that accommodation that the board asked for would necessitate any additional points. You made that comment in your initial presentation and I just wanted to sort of put that out on the record because the CERC has come up a couple times. I'd much rather see it as a bike path personally but you know that could be a long time coming. And then lastly on your last comment on Raven's circle and coyote or dead end streets. Well, not if this project is built. This project will connect Raven's to Mountain View. We have no idea how the traffic patterns will change when you create another connection to Mountain View. The neighborhoods already gets, let's call them short cutters going through the neighborhood, trying to bypass the stop sign, or the stoplight rather at Mountain View and to a, and how that will change the traffic pattern for coyote and Raven circle and the neighborhood is totally undefined. And so I would say that makes trail connectivity all the more important in that context is that you're no longer talking about dead end streets you're talking about through roads that potentially should have double lines on them, given the amount of traffic I know I would, I think that amount of traffic going on Brandon Woods probably deserves a double line, especially at the speed but that's a different point entirely and not for this committee I just so I just wanted to put that out there. So we're still just talking about the scoring of those connected trails. Thank you. Okay Emily who's up next. Don't have anybody else in the queue if you would like to provide a comment type in the chat or press the raise hand button on the reaction section of the toolbar. No more comments. Okay. Thank you members. Are there any final comments or questions or concerns, they'd like to raise. I'm also. Okay. Mr bellow as representing the applicant any final words. No, I think, believe it or not. I think I've run out of words for tonight. Tonight. Yes, tonight. Okay. Okay. Emily mute everybody please. Okay, we're going to close DP 20 dash 18 at 826. Thank you all for everybody who participated in a very meaningful discussion. Thank you. Okay. Next up is DP 21 dash 05 me showed. Who is present representing the applicant and if you would state your name and your address for the record please that would be appreciated. I'm Paul O'Leary with O'Leary brook civil associates 13 corporate drive as it's junction Vermont 05452. And also with me is Scott me show the property on it. I think you might be muted Scott. Yeah, my name is Scott me show 270 Sutton farm drive Shelburne Vermont 05482. Okay, great. Thank you Scott. Thank you Paul. Emily, an overview please. This is a request for 19 units of allocation for a 20 unit residential subdivision on a 10 acre parcel located at 230 Mountain View Road in the residential zoning district. The applicant proposes 20 units with two or more bedrooms and no one bedroom units. The existing dwelling will remain and retains the inherent right to one unit of allocation 20 units minus one equals 19 units of allocation requested. For the score we're proposing an overall score 35 points. Zero points in the category of conserve energy. Eight in the category of affordable housing. Five for housing choices. Three for neighborhood space by for both paths and trails, as well as designed for context. One for build close to services. Five for neighborhood design and four for sustainable transportation. This is the first time the DRB may award allocation to this project. We're recommending a full allocation schedule as requested. Even though the density analysis may preclude building of all the proposed units. I'll get to that in a moment. I'm recommending a low score of three out of the I think it's a total of 10 points yet three out of 10 points for neighborhood space. They're proposing a little community area with a community garden and a gazebo. This could be enhanced to get more points. On density and the dwelling unit calculation. When I was preparing the staff report for this project. It came to my attention that the density might only allow 18 dwelling unit equivalence on this property. They're not seeking the density bonus of five dwelling units per acre. They're trying to just do the three dwelling units per acre. So at growth management and this density table shows that calculation. At growth management, they're requesting 20 at discretionary permit, they might not be able to build all 20. What would happen is if the DRB gives them more allocation than they can build a discretionary permit. Those additional allocation units will be forfeited. We would just take them off this table. I'm recommending keeping them on there in case the density analysis at discretionary permit does allow for 20 units. The project wouldn't have to return through pre app and growth management. Again, and I show the affordability calculation as well as additional information. But again, a total of 35 points which is about the 30 point minimum. Thank you. Thank you, Emily. Okay. DRB members. Any questions? I did just have the question. It looks like the site plan. Was the site plan updated since our last hearing? Yes. Okay. So it looks like the kind of the type of units has changed a little bit in some of the roadway connectivity or the little stub road got added. That was a pre app recommendation that they show connectivity to the neighboring parcel. So that is new on the site plan. What else changed? The stub road changed to line up a little bit better with the parcel to our west. We also added a neighborhood area in the center of the parcel where before there was a unit there. We also moved the community gardens, which originally were by mountain deep road and that now located in the center of the parcel along with the picnic shelters. And basically we re spaced and readjusted the units a little bit to fit the new road alignment. Paul, is there a difference between the brown or I guess what looks like brown, the brown and the darker brown and lighter brown or I'm sorry the brown and yellow maybe. Different size units, the yellows are a larger duplex unit, the browns are a more compact small unit. The yellow ones can actually be a single floor type unit if you desire, whereas the darker brown units would be a townhouse style with a first and second floor. Got it, but they're both duplexes whereas the other the orange ones or the other ones are single family. That's correct. They also eliminate the unit that was down in that questionable area of the wetlands. That's correct. Any other questions from the DRB applicant comments. Paul you've already added a little something but do you have anything more to add. Just a couple of quick comments. Emily talked about the density and she is correct in that point of time but the density currently is predicated on what is shown for wetlands on the map we had a preliminary discussion that hasn't been approved by the state. We expect to have a re delineated. And once we know exactly what the extent of the wetland is, we will obviously redo the density calculation and it's possible that we could lose the unit. We might gain a year to have to come back for no one will, we won't know that until the summer when we complete the wetland analysis work. So that was on the on the scoring staff had mentioned that under 11.8.4 neighborhood provide neighborhood space that we could score some additional points there by adding some more many to the neighborhood space. We would agree that adding a water supply and adding a tool shed would definitely benefit and enhance the use of that space and we are willing to add both of those items. Pick us up another point or two under that category and also under 11.8.9 sustainable transportation with the neighborhood space we have a we have enough space there so we certainly could add a car sharing space or car pooling space and and pick up a couple more points under that. On that I really don't have many other comments. Okay, thank you. Scott, do you have some comments. No, I'm also. Okay, thank you. Okay, public comments. Emily, are there any any people out out there with their hand raised. I think you're muted. Yeah, raise hand button on the reaction section of the toolbar or comment in the chat. So far the only questions I've had in the chat have been logistical directly to me about accessing documents. Okay. I'm not seeing any comments from the public. Okay. Yeah, I'm not seeing any comments from the public. Okay. DRB members. Any of that testimony prompt any additional questions. Hearing none. Paula Scott any closing comments for me. No, I'm also. Okay. Thank you for coming. We're going to close DP 21 dash zero five. At 836. Thank you very much. Thank you. Okay, next up. I'm going to close the chat. I'm going to close the chat. Okay. So the 21 dash zero eight. Kelly Barlin. First Emily. With the staff report, please. All right. One moment. All right. This is a request for one unit of allocation for a two lots subdivision. Of a roughly 10 and a half acre parcel at lot to Shaq Barg Lane in the agricultural role. Residential zoning district. That it has not yet been constructed. The other two lots on Shaq Barg Lane. Built under SUV 0605 were constructed using growth management allocation in prior years. There was a lot to that retains the inherent right. In the category we are proposing. The applicants proposing zero points for conserve energy and affordable housing. The staff has scored five points for build paths and trails. In this part of the town, unlike the residential zoning district. Trail easements are incentivized as opposed to paved paths or sidewalks. Design for context, eight points. And minimal minimize visual impact 20 points for a total of 33 points. This is above the 30 point minimum. We have a comment letter from Peter and Allison judge. That was submitted. And included in your packets. The concerns in that letter do not relate to the growth management score that will come into play at discretionary permit. Similar with the legal opinion that we discussed. Back in January. That will not come into play until discretionary permit. So we are recommending one unit. That will not come into play until discretionary permit. That will not come into play until discretionary permit. That will not come into play until discretionary permit requested. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Emily. Board questions. I neglected to do was to ask who was represented. For the applicant. I see that you're here, Kelly. If you would please. Stay your name and your address for the record, please. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Are you the sole representative tonight? I am. Okay. Thank you. Okay. DRB members. Any questions for staff. Or the applicant. Okay. Kelly. Do you have any comments or concerns or commentary to provide? Not really. I think Emily did a really good job. Without lining it. And I agree with this scoring. So off we go. Thank you. Any, any wrap up comments by DRB. Members. Okay. Hearing done. We are going to close. Dp 21 dash zero eight. Our land application. At eight 40. Thank you for coming. Thank you. Okay. Next up is the deliberative session. We will now go into deliberations. And we will be back into a public session. At the conclusion of the deliberations. Thank you. Okay. Welcome all. Back to the Williston. Development review board. March 23, 2021. The board has come out of the deliberative session. It is nine 27 PM. There's three proposed motions. And, or at least three categories of which there's two motions. WDB 11.7 growth center allocation. There were no applications submitted. So we are not going to have a motion. For that. For the growth center area. We will now move to the other sewer service area allocation. Yes, there is. As authorized by chapter 11 of the Williston development bylaw. I Steve Lambert. Move that the Williston development review board having reviewed all of the submitted materials, including the recommendations of the town staff. And having heard and duly considered the testimony presented at public hearing. We will now move on to the next slide. We will now move on to the following allocation of dwelling units within the growth target established by chapter five of the Williston comprehensive plan. Within the town's other sewer service area. As shown in table two. Reference approved score column. And table four established by the development review board on March 23rd. 2021. Thank you, Steve. Is there a second? Thank you. Any further discussion? Okay. We're going to do a roll vote. Paul Christensen. Yeah, your name. Hi. Yay. Steve. Yay. Scott Riley. Yay. Hey, Saladino. Yeah. Dave Turner. Yay. Pete Kelly is a yay. Six CAs. No. Nobody opposed. Motion carries. Unanimously. Next up is WDB 11.9. Outside sewer service allocation is their emotions. Yes, I'll make a motion. As authorized by chapter 11 of the Williston development bylaw. I, Scott Riley moved that the Williston development review board having reviewed all of the submitted materials, including the recommendations of the town staff and having heard and duly considered the testimony presented at the public hearing of March 23, 2021, make the following allocation of dwelling units. Within the growth target established by chapter five of the Williston comprehensive plan. Outside of the town sewer service area as shown. In table two. Of the approved score column and table four. Established by the development review board on March 23, 2021. Thank you, Scott. Is there a second? I'll second it. Dave Saladino seconds. Any further discussion? Okay, roll vote. Paul Christensen year. Yeah. Steve. Yeah. Scott. Yeah. Dave Saladino. Yay. Dave Turner. Yay. Yeah. Pete Kelly is a yay. That's six in favor. None opposed. Motion carries. Is there a motion to approve the meeting minutes of March 9th. 2021. I saw a move. Steve moves. Is there a second? I'll make the second. Scott second. Any further discussion? I. I. I. I. I. Any opposed? Six in favor. None opposed. And it's our approved. Is there any other business to bring forth tonight? Is there a motion to adjourn? I'll make a motion to adjourn. Thank you, Dave. Is there a second? Second. Steve seconds it. Any discussion? All those in favor to adjourn indicate by saying I. I. I. I. Any opposed? Okay. Thank you all. Good time. Thank you.