 make up the time. So the next thing on the agenda are the minutes of August 23rd 2022 is there a motion? Is there a second? Second age one, age two, age three There are no corrections then all those in favor of improving the minutes of August 23rd 2022 You say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Any abstentions? Gordon? Moving on to public comment. So this is time for anyone in the room or on Zoom to make any public comment on any issue that they wish to. So if there's anyone in the room who wishes to make a comment please come to the table and introduce yourself then. I think I'll sit down. Good. My name is Joyce Austin and I live on 80 McJ Drive in Williston and we've lived there for 35 years. My husband and I have signed a letter to the select board in July about the concerns of building height regulations in tap corners and tonight I'm here to present this concern in person. The proposed new building regulations would allow for up to six stories 110 feet in height. In order to illustrate this I have collected a few photographs of buildings already present in Chittenden County. And I think Eric gave you some pictures. Yes, we have. One is the Moran Municipal Station in Burlington and that is five fours and the existing existing height is 90 feet. The other photo is the Corporate Plaza Key Bank in Burlington which has eight stories extending to a height of a hundred and five feet. They're both less than what is being proposed in the new regulations. But to me and to people who also sign that letter it's just too big. It was stated at the last board meeting that it is difficult to envision how a hundred plus foot building would look in tap corners and I totally agree. I read an article on Front Porch Forum once suggesting that it would be that it should be a requirement for the select board to have a modern computer-generated depiction of an area affected on how the views in the area will be impacted by a five to six-story dense building development as it is being proposed. Using, and I'm sorry I have to read this, but I get a little nervous talking in front of a group. Using this technology would be beneficial to saving the town from making an uninformed decision. One or two of these buildings, once one or two of these buildings are built and I think that's what I heard at the last meeting, we can change the plan or alter it and I think it's too late to alter the impact of or even change the plan after one or two buildings are built. It isn't if getting a computer-generated technology to show this area to residents maybe another idea is to put a boom truck and raise it 110 feet in Friendly's parking lot and let it sit there for two weeks and see what people say, see what see what the citizens of Vermont say like why is that there and we can inform them that this is the height of the buildings that you want to put in. It's just a thought. I'd even get on board to help pay for the boom truck. Because I have a lot of people who are concerned about the height of the buildings. One more thing at the last select board meeting when the height was discussed and there was a vote on it, it was said that we need the height to the height is needed for affordable housing. I read the plan, the form-based code plan, I have never found anything in the form-based code plan that talks about affordable housing needs and maybe you can set me straight and put me on a page that talks about affordable housing. I would love that because I'll go back and read it again. Also, I'd like to know, I don't know if you can answer it tonight or not, but there is going to be a 341 housing development off of 2A at the Alliance Church, Essex Church. Is there a plan for affordable housing in that development? I'd like to know. Either Matt or Mr. Snyder can probably answer that. Will he be addressing something? They can do that right now. Oh, okay. I can answer very just briefly that through Williston's existing residential growth management allocation system, some amount of affordable housing is encouraged or incentivized in all new residential development. And there is some affordable housing proposed within this project. I don't have the number in front of me. Chris, you may have it. There's 28 in affordable out of it, 341. 341 homes. It's not 341 homes, there's 276. There's 276 dwelling units. There's a separate senior living building, which would be age-rescripted, and the way it was only defined as a senior living facility is that's a non-residential use. So when you add those two together, you get 341. The growth management is often focused on 276 units, which excludes those senior living units. Now the 276 130 are apartments, one or two better apartments. Which are affordable? Some of them are affordable, but it's one more. And also, what is affordable housing? A HUD or a state classification of incomes within your new county, and we use those, and then based upon that, it's that you're allowed up to a certain percentage depending upon how many people are in your household, how many bedrooms. There's a whole metric on how to determine what the valuation is. And then that would influence costs of the price of living there. Okay, I'm happy to hear that. That makes me happy. My husband is back there rolling his eyes. I know he is. But I'm used to that. Okay, the other thing I'd like to address is number eight on the agenda tonight. And that is about the ARP plan for funds. And all I'd like to say is I would just consider the funds go, maybe go towards a community or a senior center. And an aquatic center. So that's it. Thank you for listening. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else in the room who wishes to speak tonight? What? I'm just asking if anybody else in the room wishes to speak. If not, anyone on Zoom who wishes to speak tonight? No one on Zoom. So we'll move on then to item number five, and that's the temporary event permits. And Eric, are you going to lead off on that with the two that we have? Yep, we've got two to consider this evening. One at Red Barn Gardens and one at Catamow Dwarf Family Center. And is it Ben that's here? Ben's from Catamow. Maybe we'll take the Red Barn one. I'm not sure. Noah here from Red Barn. I don't see anyone online. Terry, we could go to the gentleman in the room first with the Catamow proposal if you'd like. Sure. Why don't you come to the table and introduce yourself and then tell us a little bit very briefly about the event and see if we have any questions. Of course. Hi. Thank you for having me. My name is Ben Tyneson, and I'm the founder and the co-director of the Richmond Trail Running Club. We've been around for about three years, and in the last year we held our first two running events or races. One in the fall, which we chose to call Rutfest, which is the Richmond Ultra Trail Running Festival. And this spring we held a 50 kilometer and 25 kilometer trail race on the largely on mountain bike trail networks in the Richmond area, Heinsberg in the area. So the Rutfest event is the one that we are looking to hold on November 5th and 6th, and I think everyone has a proposal and a map. This was held at Catamow Outdoor Center on the exact same date one year ago. And the basics of this event are that it is a community running festival. So it's not a traditional race. The course is open for a full 36 hours, which was our agreement with Catamow last year, even though they don't normally have it open during the night. And runners are encouraged to run as far as they can in a weekend. And we provide them with the support to do so. Every runner who is actually asked to volunteer. So everyone has to sign up for a volunteer slot, and we have one aid station, which is at the Catamow Outdoor Center hub right in the middle. So there's a loop on one side, a loop on the other side. And we have a large board where runners sign in to run a lap and sign out. So in that way, we know when a runner is on course. We know when they've completed a lap. We know who's out there at all times. And it's completely volunteer staffed 100% of the time with a race director, of course, on call at the aid station. So the only real setup for the event is the aid station, which is several tables and pop-up canopy tents with a few lanterns and a large, essentially potluck aid station where the participants bring snacks to sustain each other over the course of the weekend. So we have walkers, we have hikers, we have runners. Some people do compete. They want to do 100 miles that weekend. Some people just want to do a lap and they just want to contribute to the community. They want to see their friends run. They want to run with their buddies. And above all, they want to support the charities. Last year, we had Josh's house, the Josh Pilata Fund, which is a charity that supports the Veterans Community Center in the, you know, the Ethan Allen Barracks area. The, we had enough is enough Vermont, which is an organization for addiction recovery. And of course, we raised money for the Catamount Outdoor Center. So I think in total we raised about 2,100 with this event. A lot of people sign up just so they can pay the $20 donation, you know, just to support. $700 went to Catamount and will probably make another significant donation to Catamount this year. So above all, it's a charity event. And of course, you probably want to know more of the specifics, but maybe I'll slow down so you can pick my brain about that. But I think the big questions that you had for us were about parking. Last year we had sufficient parking, but we are going to be capping the event. We haven't decided exactly how many we're going to cap it at, but we want to make sure to cap the event so that parking doesn't become an issue, encouraging people to carpool from the Richmond Park and Ride to the Catamount Outdoor Center. Other than that, impacts on the Catamount site were minimal last year. We purchased an extra portlet just to be safe, but there were no issues with that. Yeah, and it's a really important event to our community. You know, dozens of people are really excited to come back this year. I think it was really transformative. A lot of people got to run or walk the furthest they'd ever gone in a weekend, which is a really exciting thing. My dad, in fact, went and decided to walk a marathon. He did it the first day. He came back the second day and walked a marathon again. So, you know, it's fun stuff. And yeah, November 5th, 6th is the proposed event day. Good. Thank you. I think there was a big question. I think some of us had was what happens with the overnight folks that are out. But I think you answered that and that you got the sign in board, sign out board, and the people on volunteers there during the night as well. Yes. Yeah. There's a race director who's going to be on duty 24 seven volunteers on duty, at least two volunteers at all times, including during the night. And camping is not permitted at the outdoor center. So we're providing some opportunities for, I think we had two or three people who needed to camp and we provided a spot for them offsite. Other questions from the board members? More curiosity than how long do you wait for somebody at two o'clock in the morning to see if they made it back and signed in again? The people who are out there at two o'clock in the morning are the more experienced ultra marathon runners. And so they kind of know what they're doing. So we haven't really had any fear or risk of someone being out there too long and not coming back. But it's very easy to sweep the course because it's only for, the longest loop is four miles. So one of us can just, you know, run around and make sure everyone's okay. But I think we had six, five or six people who are, who are going into like the twilight hours last year, the people who are really competing. Sounds like something out of the book born to run. Yeah. A lot of our runners are inspired by that book for sure. So getting back to, hi Jeff, getting back to the question of where will people stay so people won't be staying on site. Although some people may be there during the evening either because they're running or supporting somebody who is running or something along those lines. Yeah, exactly. So the event, you're, no one's required to be there the whole time. In fact, the way that it's designed is most people will come up, they'll hang out for a few hours and they'll go home. And then maybe they'll come back on Sunday and do a few more hours. So you can come and go whenever you please. It's not an event that you have to stay on site. And so the few people that might actually be trying to compete with each other to get the most miles might stay through for the majority of the event. But if they do need to set up a tent, it'll be off-site. Okay. And there will be no, I mean, no food provided. People may bring food, but no food provided or drink or anything like that. Yeah. So we provide water and electrolyte drinks, the club, and maybe a few select items. But, you know, the way that this event works, I mean, most ultra-marathon events have aid stations with snacks and food. But we ask participants to bring a snack and we'll have some way of organizing that. But last year the aid station was extensive. We had too much food. So we're going to have to limit it this year because people want to bring so much. Okay. Yeah. Interesting. Okay. Are there questions? No. Are you looking for a motion then? It will be the second one in the man. Yes. I'll move to approve a temporary event permit for the Richmond Ulterich Grail Festival at the Catamount Community Forest on Saturday, November 5th and Sunday, November 6th. Is there a second? Second. Is there any discussion on the motion? Hearing none. All those in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? No abstentions. So thank you very much. Yeah. Thank you. And go forth and have a good time. Yeah. Be well. Thanks all for your time. Thank you. So we're taking up now the red barn gardens event, the spirit of a day in the sun festival. Oh, yeah. No problem. Oh, thank you. And Eric, you have some comments on that? Yep. I notified the applicant. I don't see them joining the board at any questions, but I can present staff's review of this. I included it in your packet. There's a memo with conditions from staff included for this. There was a music festival at this site a couple of weeks ago. I checked with the police department. They didn't have any issues with that event. And I know the facility owner is aware of all these conditions that the staff's put on. We have added this time to have the fire department to stop by just to make sure things are going well with compliance at the events. There is an accompanying catering permit from Foam Brewers. They did the other events a couple of weeks ago. And I should mention this event is called the spirit in the day of the sun festival will be held at red barn gardens on September the 17th. There's also, I'm sure there's no BYOB, like the previous event at the location. But I can try to answer any board questions the best I can, but I don't see the applicant on here to answer any additional questions. So the big event was held. I think that we could go. This one is a much smaller type of event. Let's say it's the same. Similar size. Yeah. It says approximate number of attendees at 300. I believe that was the same as the last one. Right. And there was no problems with that. We didn't have any issues from police. I didn't receive any calls there. They drove by. They didn't stop on site, but there weren't any concerns that we had heard of. Any other questions? The only question I have is, and it's just trying to get a sense. The other event was pretty clear. It was music based with food and beverages. I'm a little bit unclear about what is the event. This event, it mentions the greenhouse, and we may have to limit people in the greenhouse to 49 people. Does anybody know? The limit on 49? No, no, no, no. What the event is about. What is the theme of the event? What would they be doing? My understanding is music performances. It would be music again. Music performances by some local musicians. And then the restriction on the greenhouse, that's used as a facility for the performers. The limit would need to be no more than 49 people in that facility with some fire safety concerns. The music's not being performed in there. They're just backstage, essentially. I believe that's where the stage is. Oh, it is where the stage is. The assembly would not want to be over 49 people within that structure. Other questions? Looking for a motion on this as well. The first one. Move to approve a temporary event permit and catering permit for the spirit of a day in the Sun Music Festival at Red Barn Gardens on Saturday, September 17, 2022. Is there a second? Second. Is there any discussion on the motion? If not, those in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Moving around a lot. Then to the item number six, the public worst standards exemption request from Snyder Homes. And invite Chris and engineer, I presume, to the table. And perhaps if you identify yourself, both of yourselves, then give us a brief description of what you want to do. Yep, thank you very much. My name is Chris Snyder with Snyder Homes. Andy Rowe with Snyder Homes. So our request tonight is due to the application that's in front of the DRB for the proposed annexed residential neighborhood proposed on the Essex Alliance church property and specifically is related to Baudry Lane and the right-of-way width. And so what we are proposing is to construct Baudry Lane at the same street width, so 27 feet wide, and then have a green strip and then a recreational path on the south side of the road. And so all of the, so all of that fits within the current right-of-way. However, the current right-of-way does not, is not 64 feet wide, which is what is in your current town specification. So we do need to come to the select board and request the acceptance of having the right-of-way be narrower in this particular location. So what prevents you from getting a right-of-way to the proper width? So, go ahead. So the property, the church parcel now is it approaches Baudry Lane from the large wide field parcel next down to a fee-simple strip that's 60 feet wide for about 150 feet and then next down a little bit further to 50 feet for a distance of about 180 feet as it intersects route 2A. And then similarly at the other end of Baudry Lane where it intersects the Chelsea Place neighborhood there was an old right-of-way about 95 feet in length there that was originally reserved when the public works specs were only 60 feet wide for a right-of-way so that's only 60 feet as well. So if you were to expand it you'd have to buy property, is that it? That's correct, we would have to buy property to meet that requirement. So your proposal, of course, would be to pave this right up to route 2A. That's correct. With curbs. That's correct. And all the proper utilities would be in the right-of-way? Correct, the sewer doesn't extend out there at this point and it's not being proposed to extend out there. There is an existing water main that's within the Baudry Lane right-of-way a portion of that would be replaced as you get to the easterly end of the 60 foot wide right-of-way but there would be storm drains within the curb street and those storm drains would convey the water back into the site for treatment and detention. So yes, short answer is yes. Everything fits within the right-of-way including a 10 foot wide paved path and the 10 foot wide paved path was at the request of the Public Works Department in order to sync up with their project that they're working on with V-Trans to extend the 10 foot paved path down along route 2A up Baudry Lane and connect to the path that runs over to Meadow Run. There is a paved path that runs through the INX project as well that will link over to Chelsea Place, Dunmore Lane and the paved path that extends through Finney Crossing but this would sort of be an alternate route to get out to 2A in the sidewalk at Alpine Drive where the State Employees' Credit Union is and then continue down 2A. So not to jump ahead but in the memo from Avalange it talks about having sidewalk on both sides. Theoretically sidewalks could be provided on both sides with a green strip. However, at the request of Public Works a 10 foot wide paved path is being proposed and with that 10 foot wide paved path and maintaining a green strip for snow storage on the opposite side of the road there's not enough space within the 50 foot wide right-of-way for both the paved path and the sidewalk. We could do a sidewalk on either side instead of the paved path but that doesn't really accomplish the goals of making that connection to the town's project that's being proposed along route 2A. You mentioned that there's no sewage available off of 2A coming in on Baudry Lane but is there sewage exiting onto the other properties? Chelsea Development? Yes, Chelsea is served by Municipal Sewer. This neighborhood will be served by Municipal Sewer but the four homes on Baudry Lane that are there now the two at the intersection of Baudry and route 2A and then the two lots behind it are not served by Municipal Sewer at this point. I got it, okay. Other questions from board members? So I just want to make sure I understood the current right-of-ways that are less than the 64 feet or because the properties are not in or those right-of-ways are not within the boundary of your project. They're outside of the boundary and either you don't want to or you are not able to increase those right-of-ways. Purchase additional right-of-way might be a way to put that. Is that correct? I just want to make sure I understand. Is it because you don't want to purchase it or it just physically is not possible? There's not enough room. As I look at this drawing, it looks like it might be tight but I don't know that. It might be tight and I think it's also the existing right-of-way has been there and there's been two other proposed projects and the specifications have changed over time. Right, that piece I get. We're trying to utilize what's already in place and construct the road to the width and include the bike path because we think that that's a benefit to both the town and to the overall proposed neighborhood. I should note one thing about Baudry Lane in this location and it doesn't really matter about right-of-way width but this is not going to be the primary entrance or exit for the overall proposed neighborhood. Alpine Drive will be the primary entrance and exit. Alpine Drive then is the proper width? It is. It's an irregularly shaped right-of-way the way it was configured when the credit union was approved some years ago so there's adequate right-of-way there. There's no more questions for you I'd ask Bruce to weigh in on his memo and also Matt. You have my memo on the right-of-way request and our thoughts on that. I gave you all the right-of-way widths of all the roads in the town of Wilson so you can see what the differences are. We don't have a 50-foot wide right-of-way in our current public work standards but we do have a third of the roads in town of Wilson within a 50-foot right-of-way. My concern at this one is just what I have in my memo is that and what I've always said is I don't like to give up right-of-way anyway and what's going on with what Chris said it's not going to be the main way in or out. Alpine is that means of egress and they've already dealt with the state. The state's not saying about putting any more lights there besides at Alpine so my concern is just that 50-foot right-of-way if we decide that something needs to be wider later on whatever else the burden comes back to the town of Wilson to have to go chase to get that additional width if it's ever needed. Can everything be put within a 50-foot right-of-way? It can be, it is today on other roads. It's tight. One of the things that could help a little bit and I say this just from our own standpoint is to get more green space for snow storage is that path could go down 8-foot wide instead of 10-foot. I mean we only talked about 2 feet but even 2 feet of additional green space could be helpful. I don't think you'll, I mean with that you might get sidewalk, rec path on one side and sidewalk on the other. That's a more of a DRB or planning and zoning thing about sidewalks on both sides of the road and paths to be totally honest. You know, public works is going to do whatever we're told to do but we're not crazy about them on both sides of the road to be honest with you. It's more maintenance and more infrastructure to take care of. Questions for Bruce? Bruce, what is putting your crystal ball to work? What is your... I don't want to run my desk yet. Is it as murky as mine? Yeah, probably. Maybe if it worked. Or he would have... He would have not. True, but he also might not want us to know it works. Sorry. What is the like... What is, I guess the liability of not having a 64-foot right... What is the potential down the road liability? We want to get more easement. I'm trying to get a sense of that. In this case, I mean, if this project is built as per the way it's being presented now there's not going to be a whole lot more you can build back in there. It's going to be built out. So what it really comes down to is if there is something down the road that for some reason the town needs more right away then we have to, you have to get it in some means fashion and form. There's all kinds of different ways you can do that but that's what comes back to Jeff. The burden comes back to us if we need more right away. That's one of the reasons we ask for so much right away at the very beginning so we don't have to deal with it later. Once you've got it, you don't have to worry. I'm looking at this drawing that was provided where it shows a bowdry lane. It's the one that has proposed 50-foot wide right away and then next to it says proposed 60-foot wide right away. And it's hard to tell because this is a relatively small-scale map but it looks like if that right away to be were increased at least the two homes that are closest to Route 2A would be kind of impacted by increasing that right away and I'm just seeking, am I interpreting what I'm looking at correctly? There's no doubt. To get more right away there would impact those homes either one, especially out by Route 2A which is, you know, when it comes down to it if there's any intersection changes they're going to be made it's going to be within the first 50 or 60 feet of 2A. Once again if this project is, you know, everything back in there is going to build out. You're not going to build in more house land, we're going to build in more house land man. But it's going to be built out because it's not going to be something else that can connect to there. So it's not like one where down the road another project could come on board and then impact this intersection more and then all of a sudden you're putting more traffic there instead of just up one lane in, one lane out, two lanes out, start looking at traffic signals, those kind of things. So Bruce, if you don't mind, if I interpret your memo correctly you don't have a strong objection to the right-of-way as proposed or as it currently exists. I don't have a strong objection to it. Okay, good. Other questions for Bruce? Bruce, what is the downside of a 50-foot right-of-way? I mean we're talking maintenance difficulties, renovation difficulties, public safety difficulties, fire trucks, ambulance, buses. No, because the lane widths are going to be plenty wide. It's once again just comes down through the town. We decide we want to have, and I don't know why you ever would, but you want to have a rec path on both sides or something like that. As far as maintenance is concerned, the problem from a maintenance standpoint, from a public work standpoint, is the snow storage in the wintertime. It's always our biggest issue. Once again, you know, that path, right now we're working for a grant with V-trans on bringing that path down two-way and I wasn't even going to put Bode Relay onto that and they told us, you know, if we're going to have this, if you're going to get this grant to put this path and you've got to show the connection to Bode Relay and back to the existing path, not that the path wasn't going to go there, but we just weren't included as part of our original design knowing that the profit is going to be developed and the developer is going to have to pay to put the path there anyway. So there's no, you know, it just means all the utilities end up in our right-of-way, which they have the legal right to do anyway. So there is no, it's the payment with any amount of payment stuff that we put inside that right-of-way. It becomes a maintenance issue. So it's not actually the width of the right-of-way because that whole 64 feet of most right-of-ways we're not using anyway. And Matt, is there any concern this sets a precedent that other developers in the future are going to come in and say, well, wait a minute, why do I have to have standard size right-of-way? I got some legal advice. One's told me that just because you do something once doesn't necessarily make it a precedent, but you wouldn't know that more than I do. I don't mean legally binding precedent. But we can get into the doctrine of stare decisis if you want to. No, sure, Ted, there's always that. You did it for this person, why not for me? But I don't know. I mean, certainly I can't tell you about the street and everything, or so that could be developed in the town of Wollaston in my memory, but I can't think about too many other places where we would come into this kind of situation. If the church were coming in, they'd still be here asking the same request. All right. The way I look at that is there's a huge difference between the right-of-way that's required within their project versus the right-of-way that's required, not required, but is existing outside of their project area. It's that outside of the project area that we're focusing on tonight. It'd be very different if they're coming in and saying within our project area we want something smaller or less wide. I mentioned there was another right-of-way, besides Bodry Lane, that was also 50 feet. That's not being presented to us now, though, for an exemption. There's no other 50-foot right-of-way project. It's the two ends of Bodry Lane. Oh, it's the other? Yeah. I see. They slipped one in on me if they are. Okay. Okay. Right-of-way versus a 50-foot. Okay. Standard in the most recent. Right. Perhaps Matt, you would go over your memo to us. Sure. So, you know, you have my memo which attempts to describe a little bit the interplay when a project is reviewed that needs to meet the public work standards and also the town's zoning. I don't think the two overlap any more than they do in instances when street design is talked about. So, I've provided you with two citations to the bylaw. The first one is about the requirement that there be sidewalks on both sides of most new streets in town. And this is certainly a requirement that the DRB has sometimes struggled with. They do have some discretion in cases of, you know, small or low density projects. And in fact, they've exercised that discretion to promote parts of even some Taft Corners projects to dial that requirement back to sidewalk on one side instead of both. And the other exception that's written there is for where there would be a multi-use path. That could be read a couple of ways. The most strict way would say, well, if there's a multi-use path on the side of the street, you don't have to replicate a sidewalk next to it. It could also be read to say if there's a sidewalk on one side of the street, you don't need sidewalks on both. Suddenly these questions might be asked at a higher degree of detail when the DRB is presented with a layout as they have been. So the first part of my memo just talks about that sidewalk requirement and, you know, Bruce is right, you might be able to squeeze in a sidewalk on that other side of Baudry, but it's awfully tight. You know, we're quite close to some existing structures. The creation of this street, regardless of width, is going to require some tightening up of some of the existing access into Baudry Lane of those existing properties to, you know, manage conflicts, et cetera. So the other part is I'm going to bring up a word that hasn't been spoken yet and it's appropriate for the planner to speak for the trees. You know, the Williston Development bylaw does include some language about requiring street trees on the streets. And since precedent was mentioned, I will say the DRB's history of practice on where and how street trees are required has been somewhat variable. There's any number of challenges that someone can face when they're trying to locate street trees in the right of way, oftentimes along with things like street parking or multi-use path, et cetera, trying to accommodate snow storage or maintenance ability. And there has been some flexibility there. That said, it appears to staff that what would be proposed here would be within the 60 and 50 foot widths of this proposal, certainly within the 50, there just would not be physical space to accommodate a street tree section along this new private street. You have the language down there, street trees be provided by project, et cetera. The exemptions listed there probably would not apply to this project. So the DRB even in light of a potential favorable decision from the select board on the right of way may still be faced with a conundrum about whether this configuration is approvable under their bylaws. They may seek legal advice on that or try to figure out what their flexibility is under that bylaw language I've cited. Can I ask a question? Andy, what's the one foot beside that 10 foot right there? That's one foot off the property line. Where are you going to put the snow there? I'm sorry? I said, where are you going to put the snow there? Where are we going to put the snow? On the sidewalk. We're going to put where we need to. No, I mean this is kind of like where we plow sidewalks now. We put snow on private property now, Jeff. Oh yeah, I know that. I've seen it on my property. On my driveway. Wow, that's a different story. One foot off the property line when it comes to snow it still means that probably some of that snow is going to be on private property when we go by with a sidewalk or something. Wow. We pile it up in a 5 foot or 6 foot green space as much as we can and if the storm is big enough and it hasn't happened since I've been at Willis to get, there have been instances where we've had to move snow. That's what happens. As far as trees are concerned you know, I don't know that I necessarily agree with we don't, we don't Public Works loves trees. We just don't like them in our rate of weight. So I want to make sure clear on that. Not against trees, but being in the rate of weight presents problems for us especially when we talk about things like water lines. We don't like trees over our water lines. It happens all the time. There's not a whole lot we can do about it if we want to keep having trees in there. But if you could increase those green spaces that's 6 foot space there depending on the kind of tree you're talking about you put in the right kind of soil amendments and stuff. You could probably still get trees in in some of that. Once you get that 60 foot rate of weight there's plenty of room for trees. So it's just that, what's that distance that 50 foot? I don't have it used. A couple hundred feet or something? 180 feet 180 feet. So it's not really that long of a stretch anyway that, you know, you could probably get a couple trees in there. Even still. Other questions? So we have the opportunity to either take up this tonight as far as motion or not, or if we need more information to continue it. But if you're looking to know if there's more information that's required about us. I'm not sure what additional information would help our decision. Just asking. So we have an opportunity then either to approve it or if we don't approve it tonight it could come back to us. But it's up to you if you like to make a motion to approve the proposal that would be a motion that would be acceptable. Before we do that can I I know you asked if I had any more questions I didn't when you asked that but I do now. Which would be if we deny this what would be the consequences? What would that mean? And I ask that generally. That's more a question for Matt I would tell you. For me. So if we were to say now it's got to be 64 feet. So and this is a bit of a guess but that would likely lead to not build a public or private street in this Baudry Lane alignment. What that has implications for in terms of the overall site plan of the project. We have some limitations in the bylaw you cannot access more than 40 dwelling units with a single point of access. So if you think about this project right now there are three ways in including Baudry if you remove Baudry there would be about pieces of the project that could not then there would be more than 40 units at that point where the other two ways in converge. So it would lead to changes in the layout of the project. You might look at Baudry and say well could we don't have similar rules for commercial driveways. Could you rework the project such that Baudry was a commercial driveway of some kind? But you would start to look for probably some rearrangement of the site plan to continue to meet the other access requirements in the zoning bylaw. The layout would have to start to change some. Okay. Anything else? If I don't hear a motion then we would it would not be approved at least tonight we could bring it back at some other time but at this point we would not be approved to be inclined to make a motion. My difficulty is that I want to make sure that it's worded correctly so that it's perhaps we should wait for another meeting then to have the appropriate language drafted then we can see whether it's approved or not. That would be my inclination just because I don't want to I don't want to use the wrong then grant permissions that were not intended. So without objection then we will postpone action on this until another select board meeting. So we'll move on to the development bylaw amendment from the foreign base code overlay. Two weeks ago we were here and we resolved five of the six issues for us. We only had four of us here at the time. The one that we were tied at two to two was on the building height. So tonight we'd be looking to Gordon to say whether or not it all falls on my shoulders. Thanks everybody. I hope well that the proposal was one of the proposals was to take the option to decrease the building height. Two of us said yes and two of us said no. I guess the question for you Gordon is that would you agree to lower the building height and if you do then we will go on and discuss that as to what we would consider having the height at. So I reviewed this because I know I wasn't here and I've had a lot of input through email. Actually on both sides and I do appreciate the process. People were very respectful about it. It brought some really good points to my to my light. I've been born and raised here my whole life and I look at our town unique. Lots of different things have changed over time. Some for the better. Some maybe not so much depending on people's perspectives. I'm inclined to lean towards lowering the height in my opinion. I just in the summertime I build I get the efficiency of going up rather than a footprint going out. I know affordable housing is another huge thing. It depends on who defines it and how what percentages are going to be offered to the public. But I thought long and hard and I definitely feel like I'm going to side with lowering the building. Thank you. So now we can revisit the building height request and Matt has given us a memo as far as lowering the building heights. So Matt, I'll turn it over to you. Sure. So where our discussion led last time was not so much about talking about the number of stories but the interplay between the incentivization the draft code provides to put a pitched roof on a structure which was an idea within the planning to add a sort of uniquely Williston element to the code to get some buildings that were not flat roof to incentivize that by allowing that attic story to be occupiable. And the point that was raised in a couple of public comments was well if you had a really deep building with a really big gable on it that could result in a building in excess of 110 or 120 feet. And so you know just sort of looking at those triangle diagrams it shows buildings at 65 and 70 feet deep with a gable on the end. We do allow a maximum depth in some of the code areas of 80 feet. So if you take the 80 foot building and the top of the fifth story is at 64 even on a 12-12 pitch you're putting 40 feet on top of 64 you're at 104. Now there are a number of factors as we've looked at the way buildings would be built on different sites in Williston that mean building an 80 foot deep building is generally pretty unlikely. First off most residential buildings are built with a hall down the middle going the long way. If you're an 80 foot deep building with a hall down the middle you've got some elements of those apartments that are accessed off that hall that are essentially getting no natural light. So generally our architects advice is most buildings that are like that are more in the 65 to 70 foot deep range. So we look at those depths because they're the more likely depths to be constructed and then to Greta's question last time well if you can only allow the very flattest pitch on top of that building does that possibly preclude it from really being used for occupiable space in the interest well maybe that's pretty short especially on the more likely depth building of 65 or 70 feet. And all of this conversation was an attempt to come up with a number of feet above the sidewalk elevation that could just be an absolute limit on height basically saying to an applicant if you can find a way to put five stories plus an attic story under this height that's okay but you may not always put the very steepest roof on the very biggest building. You may have to go with a less deep building or you might have to go with a flatter roof or some combination of that because there would be this absolute limit over the top. So two weeks ago I mentioned the number 81 feet 81 feet was because that was the flattest pitched roof you could put on the very deepest building but in consideration of the interplay between those things and trying to offer a diversity of roof pitches the diagrams you have in front of you show an 87 foot limit or an 88.8 foot limit and each of those allows the 1212 pitch which is about the middle of the steepness range on a building of one of those reasonable depths. So it's sort of we can have an informed discussion about what that number ought to be and how it would line up with those roof pitches but this would be a way certainly to ensure that the code is not permitting the construction of buildings 100 feet or in excess of that just by saying here's the design you can do but nothing can go above this height. Questions, comments? I'm trying to think this through how significant of a change do you feel this would be Matt? Is it the trouble of talking about building heights is it's hard to envision what the impact of let's say limiting it to 88 feet would be without and we talked about this a little bit early in the meeting about understanding what is what are the buildings around it going to be like? Is what is it going to feel like? So is limiting it to 88 feet let's say really a significant change or is it on the minor side even though it feels but feels like the right things might be a way to put that. I think that based on things like thinking about what a usable building depth is I think that based on some work we've done to play out what it looks like to do infill buildings on sites and meet all of the other development standards it's very unlikely that an 88 foot limit will ever be the thing that actually limits the building's height. So in other words you run into other constraints first so a couple of points we worked through a site we were imagining placing a building on and this site was about 50,000 square feet it was a little over an acre it was in a zone that allowed four stories plus an attic story and I went through the exercise of well you know what's the maximum width building and I gave it I think the 75 foot depth I gave it the attic story I came up with about 40,000 square feet gross floor area figuring one dwelling unit per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area I've got a 40 unit building okay great well now I've got to go on that site I've got to take the developable area 10% of that developable area needs to be provided as private open area on the site in other words a green space somewhere probably behind or beside the building some of the site needs to be provided as an alley for access to the private open area another 5% of that gross floor area can be provided as private open area with balconies on the street facing facade I gave it to the building but it's actually pretty unlikely you'd get it all you probably need your green space on the ground to be bigger now I've got to park this building and the parking standards that come with the form based codes still require generally around two spaces per dwelling unit a lot of one bedrooms but going with either 1.75 or 2 putting one level of parking under the building because that's all we typically ever see putting parking on the surface I was very quickly down to about a 28 unit building maximum with with everything being a one bedroom now this is all back of the envelope but at the end of the day I had a site where you could build a 4 plus 1 building 4 plus an attic story what was going to make sense was probably a 3 story flat building or maybe a 2 story plus one attic story building because otherwise you would just be building gigantic apartments you couldn't park it you know so you couldn't physically fit enough parking spaces under the building and on the surface after setbacks after access I didn't even do utilities and dumpster and all of that and so there were a lot of other limiting factors and at the end of the day it did not make sense it would not make sense to max out the height of that building and most of the sites I'm looking at I mean maybe someday it makes sense for somebody to build two levels of parking underneath a building in Williston maybe but but right now there are other factors that are pushing on that there's also things that happen in construction as you go above 4 stories that changes what it costs to build a building how it would work so I do think that given all of that it still makes sense to consider an absolute height limit because it's just a it's an emergency break on something that has been expressed to the community as being you know we don't want buildings that are 110, 120 feet tall you don't need buildings that are that tall to achieve the goals of the code as transmitted and so the numbers we came up with they sound like funny numbers you know 87 or 88.8 feet pick 85, pick 90 you know either would probably work this is just a diagram to demonstrate that you can still achieve that pitched roof and have a habitable pitched roof under those limits with a reasonable depth building so that's an interesting concept that what actually is going to limit building height maybe part yeah I wouldn't want to design it that way no this isn't very interesting but I assume if you're going to go with two levels of parking that adds a tremendous expense $50,000 of space surface parking is a lot less expensive than structured parking okay I didn't even I didn't mention stormwater you have to find a place on these sites to treat stormwater as well so again there's just when you start trying to imagine development under this code it's very permissive in that there's a lot of flexibility either up or out or down but you still have to do everything on that site that's going to make the site work I just get this vision that we're going to have a building you know how in some cities you've seen it where they kind of stack boxes and they're kind of not right on top of each other and they go up really high I don't think they'll have it here and just just no because a pitched roof won't look good on the boxes hmm with that concept that there are going to be so many factors that might limit the building and in particular the building height you know such as all the other things that have to be accommodated and the expense of structured parking mm-hmm I had not realized that there's a really interesting form-based code building proposed in Winooski up near the high school and it's a five-story building the top story is in a mansard roof quite dense and you look at it and you think well how is that working and when you pull up the site plan you'll see that there's the portion of the lot the building is on and it's shaped like a T and the leg of the T goes back about ten lots behind all these houses and there's a two-row parking lot so you know I was looking at this I'm always looking at things approved under form-based codes to try to understand how they're working and how did they get a building that big in that spot on Main Street where there used to just be two houses and the answer is oh well this is the one in a million lot that had all of this surface parking and when I showed it to our consultant who co-authored the Winooski Code he said oh well you couldn't do that even if you had that lot in Williston because of the way we required dimensional standards for our private open area they were using the side yard setbacks for their private open area and he said so that was my question was could this happen under the Williston Code and he looked at it and he said no and here's why because your site planning standards wouldn't allow it also that's a bizarre lot you don't have any lots like that in your town so let me throw out a question to the board asking it for a straw vote and sir how much support is there for an 87 foot limit on a building show of hands he said it doesn't really there's not going to be a difference if it's 85 or 87 out of 90 I mean it's ultimately you might be talking about a 12th hand instead of a 12th 12 on a certain depth building something like that today okay so we've done that now the question is are we ready to move to direct the staff according to the suggested motion to make the changes and call for a public hearing if there is I'm looking for a motion move to direct staff to make substantive changes to a unified development by law amendment to establish a form-based code overlay district in past corners and townwide official map as indicated by a majority consensus of the select board and further move to warn a second public hearing on the proposed amendments and transmit the substantive changes identified for the hearing to the planning commission for comment is there a second second I just want to make sure I'm understanding the motion that we are not scheduling that second we are we're asking the public hearing be scheduled be scheduled okay that would like to be on October the 4th I believe by looking at the warning timelines we would double check that tomorrow but that would be the in the planning commission would have time there'd be sufficient time for the planning commission to comment before that public hearing right so the planning commission's statutory duty is to revise the bylaw report and resubmit it to the state agencies and neighboring communities essentially saying there's a new hearing draft here's what it is they can also provide comment along with that updated report back to the board since you asked me something and I get to talk I just wanted to mention three things first I wanted to thank the board very much for all of your work on this I know it's been a lengthy and complicated review second I wanted to remind the board in the memo you received from me there is a discussion of the other prior changes that were discussed by the board that we would be responding to in an updated draft the two boundary changes there's also mention of a little bit of work we would present to you in that draft related to some flexibility around utility placement flexibility of standards given necessity of utility placement other minor edits last I would just say that I was at the planning commission meeting a little earlier tonight there they are paying attention to this conversation as it has played out at the select board I would say that as a group they're not 100% in agreement with some of the changes that have been discussed here particularly the boundary changes you may hear something but they asked me tonight if I would say that to you tonight so I'm saying it to you just so you know that's thank you we appreciate the extremely hard work that the planning commission has done on this we are responding to numerous comments that we've had from public and so we're all doing our job and probably none of us are going to be happy with it the amount of public involvement you have been able to achieve into this form-based code is extremely commendable I don't think we why can't we get that kind of participation for our budgets you don't have to answer that so we have a motion made in seconded any further discussion of the motion hearing that in favor of the motion say aye aye so we'll move on to the next and the abstentions so thank you Matt and the planning commission and we'll look forward to the public hearing so moving on to the American Rescue Plan Act funds and Eric you're the lead on this so I just kind of introduce this again tonight for the board you're wrapping up one extensive public policy discussion the month that comes also with our FY24 budget process here the month that comes the work at the board but I just want to take the board back we discussed this a while ago now back in March so it's something to put back on your policy agenda so I'm going to briefly speak to seeing about where we are where we're going with our funding I provided you a memo in your materials that kind of takes us where we've been for folks listening at home there's the town's received three million dollars in the American Rescue Plan Act dollars for the last two years we received our second allotment last month that the town's received 1.5 million each year and that's been in our bank account so to date the board's allocated $670,000 of that total award and that was done during the FY23 budget process looking at cap one operating items I've shared a summary of that in your materials this evening as a reminder for using this ARPA funding the deadline is December 2024 to decide how to spend it and December 2026 to spend it so it seems a little ways off but it really isn't we can talk about some larger projects and permitting and costs and all those things that go into it and as a reminder earlier this year the select board elected to take the loss revenue standard allowance which supplies the funds for these funds just over a year ago we were looking at this and trying to determine how we could use it and with this exemption the rule that was put in place earlier this year it really leads to open for any government activity with a couple of exemptions with pensions and debt payments and things of that nature so it really provides a lot of opportunity for the board to think about it and with that additional opportunity it adds additional complexity to think through some of these applications with this funding so in our discussion last March I proposed a model for the board to consider in this it was looking at kind of three buckets or three areas to think about allocating this funding towards and in general here one was looking at some large scale capital projects you heard from police sergeant shepherd looking at a communications tower multiple creamery roads to improve our coverage an additional you heard from public workers with a number of public works projects in our highway division and also our utilities that could benefit from these funds to some extent and then what I'll go into tonight a little bit is what we could call some operational goals some additional not as expensive pieces with this funding but some things the towns looked at and talked about and the board's directives and policy and budgets think about this funding and finally also think about holding a little bit on some of this funds for future use in the years to come and also thinking about the state has also received a good amount of ARPA dollars and it's still kind of unraveling how the state is going to approach allocating its funding and what opportunities exist for municipalities to use that as potential grant money or rather use their ARPA money as grant money for some of these state programs to unlock those dollars at the state level instead of spending all local dollars on them so I think there's some opportunity for that to look at in the months to come as well so I thought I'd briefly go through some of these additional projects that identified and just for everyone these are, these is a sample this is no way encompasses everything possible to have to think about doing with this funding but some things has come to mind for me as manager and looking at some potential uses and thinking about this a little bit over the last few months so I'll run through them briefly to the board they're in the packet tonight one is public safety master planning, the drafting of the next town comprehensive plan is going to be occurring over the coming two years for its 2025 adoption date we're seeing our public safety service delivery needs are going to continue to evolve over the next decade and this future planning and incorporating data driven decision making model would assist the town anticipating future needs and proper planning for delivery of services we did work last year with AP Triton to evaluate the fire department's operations and identified several possible actions to consider in the years to come to select where address the staffing capacity deficiency in the FY23 budget the community supported and we were able to move forward with that component here earlier this year the police department now achieved its stability in its staffing is also in need of evaluating its service delivery moving in the years to come and a future needs of the department to serve the community we're starting to look at some of the department's data to think should the board support a project like this we can use our data analysis for the emphasis for an RFP to assist with this master planning effort for that agency as well and we have the groundwork for the fire department to assist with that arm of it creating a master plan for public safety will utilize our work completed to date and further analysis to create this roadmap by vision for the future to deliver our police fire DMS services for the community in years to come that is one potential area to be thinking about here another's technology will seem like many communities and I see a lot of especially the local level of government we're still very paper driven and I'm just as guilty any of my paper copies of things to look at but I'm talking more operational in town we have something a paper plan a process that touches many departments with an excel spreadsheet with a hard copy to review and mark up and there's a lot of more sophisticated workflow software out there to improve our efficiencies with that we've looked at it in a few years there is a significant price tag to this but if there's a potential use with RFP to at least have an initial purchase of that I think the benefits of town would see over time would be realized with transparency and transparency with other ways to share information utilizing technology and government there's certainly a lot of companies that do this but I think it's a good project for the town to be thinking about not for RFP but with our operational analysis moving forward we also we've been doing some work looking at the town website it's a template from 2009 a company that supports it's telling us that this template is not going to be supported very much longer Aaron and manager's office has been doing some research as well to see there might be another template we can pivot to some other work on the website kind of look at it as our front door to the town to especially in the information age we're in for people to learn about our services and what Wilson's about so that's potentially an area to look at some RFP funds to have some focus there we also have some other infrastructure there's some five rock cables we're trying to connect all our buildings to our campuses here in town with being interconnected there's some older cable between the library these couple of buildings underground conduits there's some ways to improve that operationally as well to look at here and also you have a memo from town clerk Sarah Mason their continued effort for digitization digitization of property records that's certainly a good service to have that available there's no lack of technology potential for some of this funding next the board last May approved a three-year police retention and hiring incentive funding for FY22 was identified using operational savings in the budget FY23 which we plan to make that in the spring in the May timeline we're definitely going to evaluate in the coming months the FY where the operational savings potentially be utilized this fiscal year but our funds may need be something for the board to consider with that incentive payment it was not in the budget when it was originally put together for FY23 as this was passed last May so it's potential for our funding to be used for that component then also as the FY24 budget is billed you may recall that's the largest component of this incentive and hiring payment it's about double what it is the first two years so as we build the FY24 budget that's one time money here that may be something to identify ARPA funding for as it wouldn't hit the general fund necessarily we could come with that something Shirley and I have been paying a lot of attention to is the state of our global economy and inflation and seeing where that's going to lead us you'll see for one example we anticipate our health insurance plan will go up around 15% for calendar year 2023 we'll work with our broker as we do this time of year to get some final numbers and look at our options but we see it everywhere in our personal lives as well going to the grocery store that the cost are increasing and it's going to be something that the board is going to have to look at at FY24 we're tasking staff and drafting their operating budgets and deliver a first draft budget that shows what the cost is going to be to live in the current level of services and if they have a request for an added service or expanded service to break that out separately for Shirley and I to review I'd like to try to bring the board a baseline of services at what it's going to cost to continue and then consider these requests for added or expanded services seeing if there's room to include that in the original manager's budget include some of these as a side menu for the board to consider for additional costs hoping to get a better sense once we start reviewing budget proposals in October where things are landing on the operational front kind of my long-winded summary here is being thoughtful with ARPA as operational assistance for inflation and strategically expanding services the challenge here is this money can help offset impact for a couple years as we have it but it's going to go away so it's going to have to be picked up by the general fund at some point so it's being mindful of thinking downstream how it's used as well so I'll look at that right now but it's all factors into the financial equation here and continuing our town energy plan goals with boards allocated about $30,000 towards the charging station project I've tasked Melinda with working on and I think we'll probably move that forward I don't think we'll hit it this construction season but probably by next spring we'll have that ironed out the board could consider allocating some more funds towards energy goals could potentially task the energy committee with making a proposal with a dollar amount of some priority projects to use some of this funding for if an amount is designated then I'll mention our ongoing capital needs in town for careers we look at the general fund we want to assign fund balance to help with the ongoing capital needs they're there, they're increasing the cost of things are going up as well for trucks, police cruisers pieces of equipment you name it additional building improvements so the board factor that into the FY23 allocations there certainly exists a lot of capital needs to in our existing capital plan we look forward to some of the offsets there are decreasing general fund use for those one time expenses or capital savings accounts expenses for equipment replacement I mentioned leveraging the state ARPA dollars as well I'm on the I guess I'm the vice president of the Vermont and the Andrews Association part of what we do is plan the conferences which is a nice plan our meeting in October we're going to have some folks from the state there try to explain more about the state's ARPA funding program and give us some insights about where those opportunities may be for municipalities to try to use some ARPA's match for us to really understand what that looks like what that horizon looks like that's a thing about as well here and prioritize that a bit then I've included in your packet the town hasn't solicited any formal requests for any groups or other organizations but with ARPA in the news received over the past 5-6 months a handful requests from organizations in town asking about some projects they have and asking if the board may consider their request so I've included those for reference at this point as we go through this process at the board we'd like to hear from any of those groups so I can work to get them scheduled to present that at a future select board meeting so really trying to think about next steps and say it's a good problem to have certainly if the federal government wants to give our town $3 million we'll gladly accept those funds but then the question is how do you use them and what's the right and that's public impact and that's a policy question for the select board to think about the next couple of months and ultimately direct the staff of how you want to move forward with those decisions really the best practice we've talked about to give them feedback on the use of these funds some ideas I have for the board to think about we could create some listening sessions it could even be an agenda item it could be myself and maybe other staff members being here and available a number of meetings in the town hall for residents to come by and chat with us and I could make a summary report of what I hear for the board we can have a survey mechanism there's some ways to gather some public engagement piece of it and it's challenging because you can't try to focus that a bit too where it's a very many ways this funding could be used so we could look at that coming up as a short term piece in this I would look for the board eventually to give me some kind of high level goals to help me if you'd like me to draft a potential spending plan where you see your priorities for this fund these funds especially with a larger capital investment because that's the larger price tag here we talk about those levels of projects the board said X amount of dollars we want to use towards capital and these are our priorities here that would help carve up the rest of the allocation pie at that point and thinking about those other elements there's a lot of different ways we could go with it we could do whatever the board would like the manager to assist with proposing something or direction you have for me at the beginning kind of weighing all these different options let's see how I did it from memory here engagement how to prioritize I think it's really a question of what are the board's large incentives and goals for this funding weighing all these other factors things with the economy a lot of this it's a response to COVID so I think something for the board to think about is how does this help Wilson respond to COVID both from a short term fiscal standpoint to help soften the blow of what we're seeing as the global impact of it and also how can we strategically look at some of our town goals and how it can impact the town for the good moving forward it's a lot to chew on how where we are chatted with Terry can certainly have room on the agendas to continue this dialogue and any feedback you have for me or guidance on how to structure that I welcome it as we go comments oh boy well the first thing I'll focus on is the concept of public input and very much think you know we need that it's ARPA dollars that come into the community we need to hear from the community we have our ideas, we have priorities we have plenty we could spend the money on legitimately so it becomes a question of what are the priority uses of those ARPA dollars and I feel comfortable making those decisions but I would prefer not without having the opportunity for basically the public to bed my year can I jump in I agree with Jeff my concern about the structure of the public input is that if we did something like a poll I think that might be a better test of who's organized in town versus the merits of the project and you know that so I mean I don't know that that would be the thing my thought would be that it be not married to this but it's like forward listening to people directly but possibly with some structure of like these are these are the choices that we are looking at now kind of meetings more than one meeting on it and again to make sure that we don't have like free for all and I'm not saying that judging the people who would come in and make the request it's just that I mean I haven't seen the request for a dog park yet but I'll bet it would it's out there hoping that my daughter doesn't see this on cable access what are the odds of that so let me just move on but I do so that would be how I would structure the public input that would be my recommendation for it the only other thing I'd add is that I think with these once in a lifetime type infusions of cash that I'm I'm and again this is just I'm not committed to this but my initial preference would be that we look at things that are needed that we otherwise would postpone as opposed to leveling out the cost of things that are going to go for two or three years because that's all well leveling out things that are going to continue on that we're going to have to keep paying for but we've got this money for another two or three years so let's spend it for that to keep prices and keep tax prices low I'd be more inclined to do things like weatherization global warming related stuff infrastructure and capital project type stuff than anything that would be kind of mitigating mitigating the impact the shorter even midterm impact that's my two cents you know originally we talked about being able to do things that we would never be able to do without this kind of money and it's obvious that we're going to need to spend some of it on the more mundane stuff but I think we have the opportunity to make good inroads into other things that are needed in town I'm thinking about input from the public when it was a couple of years ago we did the large meeting on drug abuse I think and I think we had Paul Dickon as the moderator of that he did a wonderful job on that maybe something that we could do again drew a good crowd and it was pretty well moderated, worked well and so I think that's where we go whatever things we come up with we need to take a look at the cost benefit analysis on whatever it is that we are starting to recommend and see what what that brings about other thoughts I think there's going to be a lot of either by individuals or groups of certain things on a wish list that people are going to want to be very difficult to wean down my mind goes to things during COVID that either got cut somewhat or disappeared some of those opportunities that are not there anymore I know the edge was a huge one that's been brought up a lot by various age people not just those in their senior years but I think about that population I also think about our youth and how we target getting that information and how we do an analysis of where what the biggest need is maybe not the biggest want the biggest need So very much in agreement I think community input is the crux of the ARPA spending and I think that this money as Ted said should ideally go towards things that are going to benefit our community in a greater way in a whole but maybe things that wouldn't have otherwise been specifically allotted for or might have been put on the back burner but I really see this as money that is meant to really invigorate our community and again to do that we need the community input I think it's going to be really important that we're very clear about the parameters of advertising for any kind of community engagement event because I'm not sure that everybody's has a full understanding of how and when the money has to be spent so I think it's 2026 that the dollars actually have to be used by so some of these larger massive scale projects that we all love the money would have to physically be spent prior to them so you know the dollars could go towards pieces of certain things potentially but again just making it really clear in any advertising that's the case I'll create feedback I appreciate it I'm hearing a potential like a community forum type of engagement as one as one option to the points made by several board members trying to work on how that's focused and what potential areas there are so I could come back with trying to gauge what those areas may be maybe have another dialogue with the board to help solidify you know there's half dozen or less major areas to help focus the conversation to avoid just the lots of ideas going in many different direction without putting the boundaries of the court here of the playing field to talk about I'm just trying to think how we get there and what would be helpful for the board to help get there we don't have to answer it tonight but just a rhetorical question right now wherever it's Jeff or Ted who said it but I do think it's that I think we as a select board would be nice if we were involved in the process rather than having if there was a community forum that folks could speak directly to us or engage directly with us dealing with we'll be talking about this again yeah I'll put my forum thinking cap to my next conversation I appreciate the board's feedback it's an important decision to make coming up here thanks for putting together that memo so we're down to the managers report a few things going on I'll speak to a couple of my written reports we're going to be doing our first town volunteer appreciation event coming up on Thursday the 15th there's a little iffy right now so we're going to make a call by next Tuesday we may need to delay that but certainly invite the select board to join there's a link to RSVP to Aaron in the managers office we have some light refreshments so we're just trying to get an idea of what we need I think Terry you were playing you rave will make some remarks I'll be there we'll have a brief speaking program so hopefully build off of it it's a good networking for volunteers and we're we've got a lot of volunteer positions open and we're trying to really want to support our current volunteers and help find people who want to join our volunteer with the town so that event's coming up we're also having our staff appreciation ice cream on Thursday this week we waited to check the weather today before solidifying that so I'll be scooping ice cream with some additional staff members between the buildings between 2 and 3 for staff so certainly remember the board's free and wants to stop by say hi to staff and thank them for their work get some ice cream for me stop by this Thursday what time 2 o'clock between 2 and 3 I like ice cream I think we're getting some sprinklers too by popular so that's coming up the select board retreat so every typically every fall the select board holds their retreat on a topic or a few topics and I've spoken with Terry topic this year to look at diversity equity inclusion training and discussion for the select board I had a discussion with the firm the firm Abundant Sun to see what they may be able to offer and they've done training for a number of communities so far they've mentioned a training on identifying and unpacking bias and thinking about that also from a policy making lens I spoke with Terry about that and I wanted to bring it up on the full board it's first for the board to be interested in that training for a retreat and then we need to meet the retreat I can send out a few but one that comes to mind is there's five Tuesdays in November so potentially the last Tuesday in November would be an evening probably a two hour training from what they told me on the Zoom call I had with them last week so some question for the board if that's a topic you'd like for your retreat and then we could figure out logistics from there absolutely so we'll work on that other business I think we have a kid read permit for the Isham farm on the 17th wedding on the 17th at the Isham barn two to ten p.m. they have a site plan approval staff has no objections any questions for your on that we need a motion to approve so moved is there a second only discussion on the motion well was it favor of the motion to say aye aye aye any opposed and we have a nominating form for an award the Vermont City Manager's Association and gearing up for our fall conference we give a distinguished service award to members who have exemplified public service and I'd like to nominate Retired Town Manager for this award I've prepared an application for consideration for this award for Rick requires the signature of the chief elected officer of the town Terry asked to bring this up during other business for a motion from the board to support this application absolutely it would probably be nice to have a motion to support the nomination motion to support the nomination is there a second I think we all would be happy to send that one any discussion on the motion all those in favor of the motion say aye aye aye any opposed alright any other business to bring forward tonight hearing none for adjourned