 The man with the perfect timing Follow me to order and the First business is early minutes of March 19 and 2019. Is there a motion move? We accept the minutes subject to modification So your second I'll second One minor thing under number nine, which is a sewer Allocation ordinance amendment. I wonder if the last sentence Actually the only sentence Would the latter part of it would be more accurate if it read noting the numbers indicate the town Currently so insert the word currently has adequate sewer allocation capacity Thank you. That's it for me age Corrections all those in favor of approving the minutes of March 19th 2019 say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed to no abstentions? Moving on to public comment. Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to make any comment on On the agenda or not on the agenda see no hands raised. Don't move on to I don't bless you. I don't know for the Southwest Chittenden County Conservation Partnership Record and Melinda I think you're going to be talking about this one a few more to Partnership between neighboring towns This idea came up Because South Burlington recently conserved a 300 plus acre Parcel right on along the border Williston and Shelburne and you know, he kind of looked at a map of a lot of conserved land around the area and you know thought that the Partnership would be a great idea To for the towns to kind of try to work together and collaborate on Conservation issues in that area It started out being just You know he proposed South Burlington partner with Williston and Shelburne and then it kind of morphed into a few more towns who expressed interest Shelburne or rather St. George Hinesburg and Charlotte So since that issue was raised Representatives of the different towns have been meeting I guess it met about three times To kind of discuss this idea and try to flesh out the idea a little bit more and included in your packet is a Draft partnership accord which the group Kind of developed That expresses a mission and vision and and partnership goals and priorities So Um Regional conservation partnerships have been around for a long time and there's a number of them Across New England and across Vermont And the idea really being that you know Natural resources are not constrained by municipal boundaries. They cross municipal boundaries. Therefore it kind of makes sense to approach natural resource conservation with a more regional perspective and That also Neighboring towns that partner together can often achieve more than individual towns can on the on their own and you know if nothing else just Discussing how they approach conservation and you can you know learn a few new things and and and just You know having a better idea of what the neighboring towns are doing as far as conservation goes so the Williston Conservation Commission Has discussed this and they support The idea of Williston participating in in this regional conservation partnership It is also supported by the Williston comp plan And it really would be one of many partnerships at the town Is currently engaged in I mentioned a few in my memo the Regional Planning Commission for one who who also supports this You know indicated that they're willing to Support this partnership and and are providing some services such as mapping for the group so The question before you tonight is really just you know, we wanted to kind of Inform you of this initiative let you know kind of what's been going on and You know requesting feedback on how you feel about Williston participating in this and and more specifically just The language that's in this draft accord Members of the board Your comments or questions regarding the possibility of persuading proceeding with this well, I'm Support the idea hundred percent. However, I should put that just a couple Comments you look for input on a little bit I was a little surprised and I think not right, so I completely strike that I wonder if maybe There are other partners who might want to be Mentioned or somehow involved over the concept of partnering with other partners I'm thinking we mentioned one the Chittin and County Regional Planning Commission. You could see where they would be a Useful player if you will the other one might be some of the state agencies that are looking to do things. Yeah, okay, absolutely Yeah, and that's that's Intended as to reach out to other partners like Lantrust and other Agencies and organizations the other part I picked up on and I don't have necessarily a Good suggestion about how to deal with this, but I picked up on it doesn't mention funding at all Which is of course one of the big? Obstacles so I wonder if maybe that should be worked in somehow the wording there Yeah, I mean I think um as it stands There's no request for if there's no fiduciary commitment On the part of any of the towns participating in this but you're you know, you're correct that you know it often Almost always takes money to get to accomplish conservation aims and goals. So Yeah, okay Thank you enough said More global question than that Two questions, I guess What what is not being done now that this partnership would allow us to do and Secondly, you know what you give me an example of the nuts and bolts of what at this would actually How it would run and a result that it would actually achieve. Yeah and I think To be honest It's not fully like formed yet, you know, what exactly it would do or accomplish But there have definitely been ideas floated around and I think as far as what it can do That we aren't that we can't do right now is is really Really examining region-wide the the connections and the possible connections and opportunities for conservation just kind of stepping back and looking at it from a landscape perspective rather than just a like within your own municipal boundaries and I think that there really is some some power to that and so that's one just being able to kind of examine that and and Identify opportunities for connection at a more broad scale, but then the When you partner With you know, when you have a partnership like this It one generates more excitement like just broadly, you know people Take notice. Oh, there's this new, you know conservation partnership and they might they might you know It might spur interest to You know among private landowners to conserve their land If they know that there's like this sort of broad coalition of groups It also can attract other resources and funding to conservation efforts if you know if There's a broad coalition, so it could in the end. I don't know it achieved the conservation of As it's understood at this early stage, is this something you would be staffing I don't I don't think it's a Given that you know that any staff members necessarily have to You know right now there are staff members involved, but I don't think it has to be that way. I think it could just as easily be You know Interested citizens from the towns Other questions Certainly objection to proceeding with the Exploration of this if not then that is care of this one work tonight and Forward the scenes on the back to sign off on it. I'm sure or give permission to sign off on Next them is the Catamont Forest land lease agreement and Melinda. I think you're taking us from to so Herald de Graff is a local resident who Has a farm and he's been Leasing the McCullis land for like the last five years been mowing it for hay and In the development of the management plan the There is a Section on just the maintenance of the meadows and Basically the management plan states that the mowing can continue but but Provided that there's some I Guess effort to Reserve some portion of the fields for grassland bird habitat and so there's there were management recommendations made As to how to do that how best to do that and those are incorporated in this lease agreement Basically, it's 35 acres of Meadowland That is located south of Governor Chittenden Road It's currently used for mountain biking and recreation would continue to be and The idea being that the farmer would come in and mow, you know two or three cuts during the season and he has seen this lease the most recent version and Has sort of given his verbal okay on it, so I'm asking you to consider it and Understand is that we're looking to see whether we can agree with this and have staff take take it to council, I believe To hopefully quick one similar to this is all okay under our recent easements that Conservation or other easements on the land Then the other one it's kind of more of a wording question The first sentence reads in consideration of ten or more dollars. I'm not really sure what that means I may understand what the words mean, but is it ten dollars? Is it ten thousand dollars? Any any Property right that is Any any document that exchanges property rights, whether you buy the property or lease it or whatever has to be for consideration The magic phrase whether it's no money is actually exchanged or not is ten or more dollars. Oh, okay, so it's like that's all It's you do magic words. Okay Just be one or more. That's interesting You know, this is great. I learned something. Yeah, I'll bet your deed says that I think mine says one or more The further questions for yard in this I only had two quick things And I don't know who to address this to but I'm for whoever talks to legal counsel I Would say generally this kind of thing would have a description Going back into the land records like being part of the property You know volume 38 page 29 of the Williston land records or something like that So it should I recommend that the other thing is I didn't see this actually Excludes other uses So my thought is if this is really just for hanging maybe it should probably say, you know, the other uses are not allowed because otherwise there could be you know In pasturing or something and that might interfere with our Use of the property, but that's technical stuff anything else If not, then we'll see this come back to us after it's been reviewed by counsel Next on is the Conant land lease So the the conants have leased the property on the form may him pot parcel across from the fire station for I think Five or six years now for agricultural use this boards being asses renewal of this land lease agreement Conants have planted corn on the parcel over that time We've taken the lease agreement. I've had the conants review it. They're an acceptance of this agreement We didn't change much. We Linda looked at it And we checked with the state agency of agriculture food and markets if they needed to review it and they said There was a need for them to review it So now there's six-year agreement We're asking the board if they will authorize town manager to entrance this contract for the lease agreement here So questions or comments regarding the proposed lease Maybe the same the same thing about a meets and I'm sorry a Volume and page number back reference So then the motion would be in order to prove the lease I'd moved authorize the town manager to enter into a land lease agreement with Conant Riverside Farms for Agricultural use on an 18 acres on 18 acres of town land across from the Williston fire station That's your second I'll second Sorry discussion on the motion Hearing none. I was in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Any opposed and no abstentions We'll move on to the management plan update on the lion property and well into that's you again So last fall town staff worked with the Wilson conservation Commission to draft an update to The former lion property management plan for your consideration This property is the 24-acre property behind the town hall It's under a conservation easement held by Vermont housing conservation board and Consistent with the requirements for that easement. There's Is the requirement for the management plan? and So the currently drafted plan updates the previously approved 2012 plan So there were Some changes We noted the need for a proper Property boundary survey I noted some discrepancies between our parcel database and what Appears to be the boundary. There's quite a substantial difference and so I think that that should be reconciled and a survey done and then Plan was updated to reflect the town's purchase of the solar array which is on the property There the Section on invasive species was expanded last summer we had a An intern from the US Fish and Wildlife Service do an inventory of the invasives on the property So there's a lot of information about that in the plan as well as recommendations for managing invasives and then There's we also had Vermont Audubon do a assessment of Bird habitat and there's some information included in the plan related to that And then we changed the update schedule from five to ten years just to reflect the reality that Due to lots of other things that we have to do We're not really able to update plans every five years So and that's I that's fine with VHCB And then there's a action schedule at the end of the plan that has Aspirational list of things to do on the property Series of maps that go along with the plan that are available on the website you have any questions So questioners or comments from board members I don't know if this is a question or comment probably somewhere in between. I'm on page three and I'm second bullet down talks about a Provisions were added to the easement that severely restricts structures in order to protect the scenic character of the property But then it goes on to talk about how I guess v. Trans is interest For some reason are no longer in place So I I guess my my question would be is is that something we want to pursue to get those restrictions removed So it says The provisions essentially limit any structures on the property to benches or playground equipment I it's my understanding that under the the VHCB conservation easement that we wouldn't be allowed to Put other structures. The other thing about that property is it's Primarily wetland. So, you know, there's not really a I mean, I don't I don't know. I don't think it would be desirable to like develop it in any way, but To me it's kind of that and I'm not saying I know the answer But it's also that question of do we want to just keep our options open? I don't know for instance if additional solar Tracker-type systems or solar panels in general would be Structure that would be limited and would that be in our best interest to have that there and part of the reason why I pick up on that is now I'm on page I'm on page one and and the goal of the management plans and Interesting or not interesting it states one of the goals is maintaining the view from the I-89 quarter not that I have any objections to having Not having a nice view from the I-89 quarter. It is kind of low on my priorities in terms of what this ought to be doing and but yet one of the restrictions On the property is directly related to that. So I don't know exactly where that's going. It's just something I picked up on and Yeah, I mean I think if we were yeah if we were to decide that we wanted to pursue that obviously would be a Conversation with BHCB and something we could do down the road in other words We don't need to do it right now or in the near future. We can wait If we ever feel we want to do something that might be in violation of those provisions Okay, good enough Any further questions or comments? Motion to adopt would be in order We can find it first Move to adopt the former lion property management plan as presented. It's your second. I'll second Any discussion on the motion and just the the other thing I want to pick up on the conservation commission is good with this Very no further discussion then all those in favor of the motion say aye Any opposed no abstentions So we're way ahead of schedule And I think we're expecting more people to come to Take part in the Northridge appeal so let's move And the community development policy updates The board was awarded a Vermont community development Implementation grant for the Old North Bank Community Center in Burlington Offer programs to serve the greater region and the realty at St. Joseph's school So the town has managed grants like this in the past for example the COTS project in Burlington a couple years ago So as a pastor grant, it's required the funds flow for the Miss Pally for this and As one of the grant requirements We have to make sure our policies are up-to-date with the current requirements set by the federal agency of housing and urban development HUD as a condition the grant award So what the exercise I looked at was they provided me with a packet of the policy language Here and I went through our town policies and made sure that the federal language was reflected accurately in our policies So the board and in its packet has red-lined version of these policies where I found upon cross-referencing We needed to update the language to be in federal compliance. I can't go through each one or Select ones however the board would like to proceed at this point Well, let's start at the the top where the ones I have in my top and work down through them And there's any questions Regarding though we can deal with those as we do the first one I have is a drug-free workplace policy so there there are few updates on this one so we can start on Page three you'll see in those two sections. It was some changing of language relating to Conviction of crime under criminal drug statute. They reworded a couple pieces in there For section 1.3.2 and 1.3.3 Do you mind a question as yeah, yeah, as we go. That's good. Would you As I read through these proposed changes to those two sections I Got the sense that the new language is a little bit more Strict a little less lenient than the previous language Would you agree with that? Yeah, that's the impression I got and as we look at all these this one was the more complex one to take a look at on both of You know federal requirement level and then Rick and I took a look at it from I don't think it's been looked at a number of years I'd agree that's the image of that I don't know if we should have this conversation now or later. I mean, are we okay with you know with that making it more strict or less lenient I Kind of liked that the previous language where it sounded like the town would more take a Would more look at each situation and and decide what was the appropriate course of action Where this seems to be a little bit more like nope. There's an offense You're you know, you're going to be terminated And I guess I kind of mixed feelings about that Yeah, I'm looking at I Guess before language is up to and including dismissal and then kind of some of the newer languages may be considered grounds for a human termination of employment I guess the Trying to make sure we're at a level of the federal government which was the kind of the subjective piece here Okay, are we at that bar or just below that bar? So I Guess if I can repeat what I just heard you say is yeah, it's a little bit more strict But not so much so that you're concerned about it that address that it significantly changes how the town would for lack of better words deal with Deal with Drugs in the workplace Yeah, I was my telling you I'll turn the Rick to I don't have any further connection Okay, any others have thoughts on that as long as it says may I think that Leaves the door open for for me. Anyway, I was more concerned about the The next one on page four that number 1.3.5 1.3.7 To deliver the nexus to the to the job Yep, and and this is the one This wasn't that wasn't called out in the federal requirements, but as Rick and I reviewed this last week We were proposing that this might be something to consider striking in our policy talking about You know if an employee is convicted of a drug crime If there's a connection to their job or not Our feeling was again this this change is made We would have requested this had we been just reviewing it around because I think it gives us as management a little more flexibility Then because that's a much higher level if we have to also prove a nexus Yes, that may be part of our consideration When we're looking at a situation, but to require it I think it's a higher bar that I'd prefer not to see at least in this The proposed language changing changes for 1.3.5 and 1.3.7 You feel give the town more flexibility if you will, okay And Not a felony that's where other discipline including dismissal may be imposed On the other hand, you know Overreflects the seriousness of what they did but that being said as I was understanding all this if we don't adopt these things Then we lose the grant It's nice that we're going through it That's the corresponding other piece of it is we cannot Apply for certain grants if I remember correctly or pass those grants to the others that we want to help Anything else on this policy well just one Under 1.3.3 as I was reading through it it The statement is is if an employee who is convicted of violating any criminal Drug statute works in a federally funded program And I was trying to figure out what is a federally funded program. It does go on to talk down below about The Vermont community development program, I wonder if there are other ones were aware of what that means Something where the money is passed through that are changed at the federal level Maybe it's a grant funded position at some point the town may hold or something. It has a federal dollar connection Okay, so I'm still trying to figure that one out a little bit Gonna be federal money that comes through to a state agency that then gives us a grant with that money so for instance if let's say Forest Parks and Recreation we get a grant from them and The employee who's convicted is doing something that's associated with that grant We need to let Forest Parks and Recreation know because they're passing federal dollars through to us They'd have to be their position would have to be funded through the federal dollars But that part doesn't actually change what was originally in the policy the change is I got a convicted of drug felony And I'm not laughing at it. I mean it's just yep. That is a bad week. Yeah, that's that's Any further questions on the in drug free workplace policy Now we'll move on to the fair housing policy I took a look at this you'll see I Just struck what was in there before I'm just inserted all of their new language because it might take on this It it's more comprehensive than was in there before You'll see some of the bullet points. I think I feel it expands on most of these Issues that it that were in there before and subject matter of the policy and using using the HUD standard language It's it's much more comprehensive. It looks like Notice it says it. There's no discrimination on the basis of a whole bunch of things and the last it's a Race color national origin religion or sex, but it doesn't say sexual orientation What's that too? I Think that should be added I Think that there's another part in this where it would Need to add that an English tool like maybe a maybe it's a different Must be a different policy Any other comments regarding the fair housing policy that what should be added Eric just point out subsection B your paragraph the reference to Various grounds. Oh, yeah So we may in the appropriate motion to Adopt probably would be good to say that as amended for this particular policy Are there any other questions regarding their housing policy document? If not, we'll go on to the sub grant recipient oversight and monetary policy Yep, and what I could find this was a new one. So it's looking to adopt a new policy and The person that would be tasked with this work would be the finance director It's a role the finance director has filled in the past for any grants of this type So this is just establishing a policy talking about how we're going to monitor these grant dollars and various steps We're going to take internally internal controls single audit practices the town's already doing but looking to have this formal policy This is the one that actually concerned me also because it sounded like even though we might be Acting on somebody else's behalf in terms of being the municipality to receive the grant and then we pass it on to let's say a great non-profit Doing a great project, but it comes with all these requirements So that that's how I looked at it as all these requirements, but what I'm hearing you say is these aren't And these are not in it There are no additional requirements to those that we've already done for those grants that we played We've played this role for already and those aren't own overly onerous primarily the staff Rick you've been The burden is on the grant the actual agency receiving the grant to certify that these things are all done And then we sign off on that after they certify that it's been done Okay So you're not concerned about now having this as a policy Goes back to We read all the terms and conditions You know we do our best to Okay Okay Problems that is the same one in the future, but we do our best to fulfill the requirements of the grants The further questions regarding this one Moving on to use of excessive force policy This was new language introduced here regarding excessive force the police department I pulled the changes that the hunt requirements had to up to what we had in place under the policy section. I had a comment and that question first of all it's Kind of interesting that we only prohibit the use of excessive force by law enforcement who are against individuals Engaging in non-violent civil rights demonstrations. I guess if you're doing something else Maybe excessive force is okay. I don't Doesn't doesn't say But the other thing more seriously is that That the second section prohibits its law enforcement agencies from physically barring entrance to or exit from a Facility or location that is the subject of a non-violent civil rights demonstration The term facility isn't defined. What if it's private property? What if what if protesters have taken over a? You know area of maple tree place to protest you know Animal abuse or a war and there's a actually that did happen in 2007 I think there was a protest of a national guard or army recruiting station and Williston maple tree place somewhere What What if what if I would this my concern is it on its face? This would say if there are if there are protesters protesting You know before we had the Vermont gas location It'll be something else in the future and it's private property and they are on the private property Disrupting what the landowner has a right to do on the property. This would say well I'm sorry sir. We we as the police we cannot bar them from entering Your facility or location because they're engaged in a non-violent civil rights demonstration If maybe We can set this one aside for tonight and not be part of the motion. We do have a policy in place already on this Because we do have a deadline on this way. Yeah, I have to be submitted by May 1st So we give me a spot the next select board meeting And the last one is the whistleblower policy section seven protections against retaliation In this policy when I reviewed it we we allude to retaliation And define it early on but this language that I've entered in section seven was was coming from the federal requirements and Talks about it more specifically. So I've I've inserted that to to reflect the federal requirement Questions or comments regarding this policy We'll still read it or is there any just no kind of other people still reading this or just no Okay, so then it looks like we need two motions one that would exclude the use of excessive worst policy and one that would amend the Fair housing policy Move to amend the equal employment opportunity policy the fair housing policy has amended the whistleblower policy and drug-free Workplace policies as presented this evening. So second the motion I'll second the motion Yes, sure. We actually omitted the equal opportunity I would I would amend to my motion Yes, I will second that now Any discussion on the motion I just want to make sure we're comfortable with or How do folks feel are they comfortable with the changes that the benefit of being able to either get grants ourselves or pass through grants to good non-profits doing good projects is worth the Changes to our policy if you will some of which I'm Would would prefer not to make but I don't have a strong opposition to it I Have not heard negative comments, so If there's no further discussion then all those in favor of the motion say aye, aye, aye opposed We need to do the Subrecipient oversight Monitoring I'd move to adopt the subrecipient oversight monitoring policy is presented. Is there a second? I'll second There's any discussion on the motion No, I just hate the word subrecipient No choice there There are no where as at least Thank you Yeah, it does get Positive marks for that If there are no further no further discussion, then all those in favor of the motion say aye, aye, aye any opposed Okay so we're still running a little bit ahead of time and Perhaps we can At least start the sidewalk monitor at winter maintenance policy review Which is just to take a look at what we have and if there's any feedback to give staff at this point for Doing something different, but Eric you want to talk a little bit about it? Sure last December when the board had the annual requests from Citizens to add sections of sidewalk for for winter maintenance as part of that discussion the board brought up They'd like take a look at the sidewalk winter maintenance policy This is why I bring this item back before the board tonight And another question that was raised during that meeting was how much would it cost for the town to? Plow the additional sidewalks and pasts that it's not plowing right now and public works I made an estimate on that The startup capital cost for that addition would be a hundred and forty three thousand dollars to add the additional equipment necessary Then there would be an added forty three thousand dollar annual operation I bring that up to answer that question that was raised that board meeting in December and then Thought for tonight was for the board to take a look at this policy Staff areas you like further information research on Recommendations for some policy language that we can do some research on in preparation and bring it back to you if you have any policy edits at this point First going to the cost question So the hundred forty three thousand I assume would be a new sidewalk plow Yep, that would be a hundred and twenty three thousand of it and then I Forgot to ask Bruce for I left today, but there he listed another twenty thousand dollar piece of equipment Okay, I'll get that information You can email it Okay, it's not a big deal and then an additional forty three thousand would be I assume staff time to Actually operate the equipment. Yep operational cost and it included with You know replacement value for that equipment over time or okay placement each year kind of that would be the added And this would be to do all sidewalks that are I Don't know what the right word is but municipally owned or municipally maintained. Yep along with paths that the town plows I know along by the post office area. For example, we have a pickup truck that plows there because it's wide enough I mean, I don't mean to belittle a hundred and you know a hundred and eighty thousand dollars worth of cost On the other hand, it does seem like that That gets a lot in terms of all sidewalks being plowed, I mean I look at that as a real benefit To the town. I'm throwing that out there to see if there's any concurrence or I Eric your thoughts on that Okay What true would that be a policy decision we should be making sometime in the near future or should we wait for the next budget season? It's it's the size of us all money. So yeah, it would have to be in the budget season for I've realized it had to be Fiscal year 2021 right, but is the type thing we're let's say sometime this summer We work through this and are like, you know, that's our policy all town sidewalks are plowed And then you know, obviously we'll have to deal with that next budget season because And there's multiple ways the board could approach it if you are considering adding this in the budget one way to be to just include in the budget and Have the town people vote on the button right the second would be Similar to what the board did a few years back when we decided to essentially double the amount of money We're putting in towards our repaying Budget and that was a separate article Yeah, and I should I should point out I'm exploring the concept. I'm not made a decision So that actually I know you just asked us and you answered it, but it's $43,000 a year for operating expenses to plow every sidewalk in Welleson additional So include the all of development sidewalks $43,000 All right Do we know how much it means with the numbers we came up with based on what's happening right now The number of storms and all those and the amount of sidewalks we're doing How much it would add to the budget if we had if we plowed every sidewalk that was every public sidewalk Well, it'd be it'd be probably that number again Ted We're at 30 miles of sidewalk and paths I know the plan now says 33 we were Correcting some of that through GIS and everything. We're really at about 30 miles of sidewalk and path in the town of Welleson right now We're doing almost 15 miles So we're on to we're doing almost half at this point so if you know the the issue once again to remember is that about three miles of that is four-foot wide sidewalk Which is not impossible for us to do but where the plows are set up to do five-foot wide sidewalks I don't know anybody that sells a four-foot wide plow You know so the v-plow that you Probably go on four feet without doing too much damage, but when we go to the blower or Straight edge pile It's five feet wide. So just just something else food for thought Clarify for me then does this include all of the developments that we have in town that have sidewalks that I Think want their town that would be all that's all the public sidewalks So that would include those 30 miles right and we're doing about half and now Since we're just exploring ideas. I wonder if this might be something that would be brought up The actual town meeting It could be It can be voted on at the actual meeting because it's a financial It certainly can be discussed Yep I said I have to be voted on by Australian ballot Okay And so to Do all that was the increased price that would probably cost another Penning on the tax rate. I was like somewhere that neighborhood Sorry, I didn't understand the question The regular opera if you just looking at operational costs 43,000 which No, no, it would not be but if you took the total of 123,000 plus the operating costs It would come close to a penny in the first year 123,000 unless I'm misunderstanding is the upfront cost for the machine. Well, it's just one-time cost Yeah, and that number that number then it goes into that 42,000 dollars Place the machine to be out over the course of its life cycle. I think that the last time we looked at this we were looking at part 5.2 which listed all of the The checkoffs that would apply and we kind of we were told at that time that almost nobody would Apply would it be available for these categories except for the first one And the last one I guess that was where some of our consideration was Looking to see if we could modify those or Maybe not Well, they're just their criteria. They're not the criteria You don't have to check off every single one of these to get the sidewalk cloud in front of your house, right? I think that's correct, but But all the ones we've seen so far. I think you've only had like two of them that have Qualified if I remember correctly when we last went through this that's what happened There was like a group that met like at least three or four and they seem to be in then there was a group that Met two of the criteria. They were the ones that dropped out. So our feeling was is You know, this is there's a common thread here. So why don't we have that common thread reflected in the policy? What would that look like then well It might be more prescriptive You have to at least achieve three or four Or it might be You achieve any of we might be able to reduce the list criteria and then If you do meet one or more of those criteria then you're you're in if we use the old evaluation system I think I think Refraising that slightly is I think we found the criteria system I don't want to say it wasn't working. That's not the right word, but it had kind of quirks in it and we wanted to fix those quirks because Nobody was getting certain of the criteria And we couldn't think of examples where somebody would so maybe they ought to be deleted Go through the criteria with that kind of an eye But on the other hand, that's all going to be Sidewalk it's part of the it's part of the plan Relative to these criteria, it's not like you really have to hit. There's nothing in the policy that says you have Right, any of them or two or three right? So I think that's what we struggled with a little bit Why are these you know? What should we decide? What should be our cream what what gets somebody above the line versus somebody who's still below the line? being Added to the policy and their sidewalks and I think we struggled with that last time and that's what we wanted to fix We wanted it to be more prescriptive. So it was less Subjective and more objective. I think that's a worthy goal The only thing I'd say is like that one of these in particular jumps out of me that are there special safety concerns It distinguished this section from others in town that that could be that could be that could be very weighty And so if somebody has that and one more but other people have you know, right? Well, I've got three it's like well this senior citizens complex has two and you know one of them is very important I wouldn't I wouldn't want to Get three or more you win or something You're gonna celebrate when you get home You can get really fancy with these things Often it really doesn't work. We would like it to work. I mean you could assign points Teach category two and some might have more points than others like the safety one might may have five points And all you need is five points, right But but and I don't mean to prolong this discussion But you know safety has a high number of points But only one person is really impacted by the safety issue versus another project where there's hundreds of people using it But it's I think that's what we struggled with was making sure we're making decisions consistently, you know from across projects and also hopefully from year-to-year When we're asked to do this So with with I'm good at identifying the problem We're looking for feedback tonight, not necessarily a song. That's my feedback. That's what Just if I could something that When it comes to the sidewalk policy certainly One of the things To remember or to think about also at least we're we're gonna think about it is With the addition of Finney and the Hamlet we're gonna have over three miles of sidewalk added Right away to the list and then the question is do we do the sidewalk on both sides of the road? Some of these some of these have Sidewalks on both sides of the road. Where do we think about we just do one side and Not the other from a cost standpoint and from the amount that it adds to it adding three miles of sidewalk You know we're doing about nine now, so that's about a third so that adds Two more hours If we take on all the other sidewalks also we're getting we're getting close I mean a sidewalk machine can we do them after the storm so they can be They don't have to be in the necessarily the four-hour time frame that we try to make a plow route It could be out there for the whole day both machines Let me ask the question in a different light Would be is if if a decision was made that all sidewalks are plowed both sides of the street and It was you know all sidewalks at the town is accepted the sidewalks would that require additional staff Not initially I would say because we are getting the buildings and grounds Person that's going to be a full-time year-round position that could Probably be worked into that plow routine Not initially but possibly down the road this could be a factor that causes you add more as we add more That's just like everything else. I mean They further countless tonight next steps Staff will has listened to our feedback. I'm not sure where we're going to go but possibility during course of budget discussions. We may get into Doing this and making some kind of our proposal to the citizens so It is the last rate and will go to The request to participate in an active 50 appeal on Northridge and we have at least one or two people I think to present your case tonight. Why don't you come up to the the table? introduce yourselves and We'll also have the opportunity to hear from the developer and this attorney So my name is Laurie Marino I live at 160 Heart Circle in Williston I have an adjacent property Development Brian, you know, I'm at 144 Heart Circle. I live next to Lori And Pete Watson 126 coyote lane, which is on the west side of the North Street the proposed Northridge project so We are here to ask the support of a select board on the appeal of The act 250 land use permit for C1315 Did an appeal and a statement of questions to be determined and just for the record Statement of questions. I know they were forwarded to you as a board by Joanne emotion Previously, but I feel like for the record just to clarify where we're coming from So number one on our statement of questions whether the development and construction of Northridge property will increase The damaging impact of stormwater drainage from Northridge property causing soil erosion Chemical and bacterial runoff and increasing water pollution of the Allenbrook that is likely caused by development as per the 2017 La Rosa organizational support grant report Which currently funds the cleanup of the Allenbrook as cited in the 2018 Williston town report Question number two whether the application document 27a plan she 23 post development stormwater plan Allows for sufficient drainage using the existing 36 inch cmp cross culvert pipe at both the entry point and exit point Where both s slash and zero zero one and S slash and zero zero two will drain the entire new development Number three Whether the downstream side of the area listed in question two where both s slash and zero zero one and s slash and zero zero two Will drain the entire new development would erode Causing adjacent property issues and sediment loading where the runoff will drain into the impaired Allenbrook near this entrance to Southridge neighborhood Question number four if the existing drainage in the area of this cross culvert where both s n zero zero one and s n zero zero two Will drain the entire new development is in fact too small to handle additional runoff Whether additional sediment loading into the Allenbrook, which is already designated as a stormwater impaired watershed From the section below the culvert could create an issue with the existing storm Allenbrook stormwater impairment plan Number five Whether the current plans for the proposed development and construction on Northridge property will increase the damaging impact of stormwater drainage from Northridge property increasing current neighborhood flooding of residential basements streets bike path and sidewalks along Metcalfe Drive Number six Whether the proposed development of Northridge property will alter or damage the new stormwater retention Recently completed by Northridge or excuse me completed by Southridge neighborhood and turned over to the town of Williston Number seven whether the construction and development will eradicate existing wildlife habitats and high priority protected birds insects and mammals as per the 2015 Vermont Fish and Wildlife Action Plan and officials with Vermont Department of Fish and Wildlife Question number eight whether the stormwater runoff from construction and proposed water roadways and buildings will damage Classified wetlands riparian buffer zones and distressed waterways such as the Allenbrook Whether further impact number nine whether further impact studies are needed to assess the extent of the damaging impact of a traffic egress onto Metcalfe Drive Running over and through protected classified wetlands and riparian buffer zones Number ten whether further impact studies are needed regarding impending stormwater runoff into tributaries of the Allenbrook Given the increase in phosphorus in the Allenbrook last summer Which was thought to be caused by the creeks edge construction and new stormwater ponds see this article in the March 7th observer Question number 11 whether further studies can be done on the impact of construction traffic within the Southridge neighborhood Question number 12 whether Southridge residents are insured that the Williston bike path along Metcalfe Drive is safe for children pedestrians Cyclists and pets as per Williston town ordinance 1a given the proposed increase of commercial and residential traffic Question number 13 whether further more thorough impact studies can be done around the increased volume of daily traffic flow in the Southridge neighborhood from the proposed Northridge neighborhood via the only egress from Northridge onto Metcalfe Drive Question number 14 whether the Southridge HO a vial laws were violated When imposing an egress from Northridge onto Metcalfe Drive through a buffer zone of a Southridge residents property Question number 15 whether further studies can be done around the initial proposed egress out the north side of the Northridge property Question number 16 whether further impact studies of invasive species such as poison parsnip being spread throughout the Southridge neighborhood can be done Number 17 whether more thorough research can and or should be done about the potential for toxic gases like radon in Basements as a result of blasting Question number 18 whether further consideration and alignment can be implemented Given the proposed adjoining higher density living Proposed in Northridge project that connects via Metcalfe Drive to Southridge, which is a lower density living Question number 19 whether further consideration can be taken and realigned Regarding the negative and or neutral impact of the proposed development on the monetary value of homes in Southridge So that completes our statement of questions Other neighbors that Are included should we State that there are other neighbors involved in the appeal And or residents On March 25th We Posted a survey on front porch forum and next door And it was a survey monkey survey the question number one being a group of Williston residents is conducting an anonymous one-question survey To determine public opinion regarding the proposed development of the Northridge project Please choose the phrase that best matches your opinion and please submit your response By March 29th. Thank you So in that four-day period we received about 216 responses Over 50 percent of the responses about 51 percent of the responses a little greater than that Were against the development of the project That being 33 percent Were for and the rest 15 about 15 percent were neutral I just gathered some data because we thought it would be interesting to see What a wider reach of Opinions were on the project albeit that the permitting process was concluded We did as a group And actually individually at that point Try to participate and with respect to the process in the development review board meetings like board meetings and attending Informational sessions and kind of voicing our opinion and concerns as the process was ongoing Your first piece of evidence in the folder that I handed to you is a copy of a letter from Watson And Pete maybe you would speak to that let me speak to that I actually just talked to Melinda Scott about it because one of the things that we felt was just I Want to say that we're inappropriate But we never even received the response back from the conservation committee and Melinda said that she would bring this up Because we felt that the habitat assessment that was done was inaccurate now I've lived at Coyote Lane for just almost 20 years And and I've read through the habitat assessment and basically thought it was incorrect And I never received feedback from the DRV Other than that they had received this so you know a lot kind of my frustration with this is is why do we do a habitat assessment where we know we're impacting the environment of Endangered species, you know or species that are are you know in a Client and yet There was really no reply other than that the habitat assessment was accepted as is And I really felt that there was no like what do you do with these things? You know if you're you're going to conduct one But first of all make sure it's accurate and then to what do we do if they're truly is a negative impact Because any of our future projects? I think this is a requirement that has to go through and so we're going to be seeing more of these So let's just take an action with here's a great example of where where I truly felt that the assessment was wrong Attach photos and you know whatever But but you know the bottom line is We've been trying to speak up and we don't feel we'd be nerdy And so by that we have now that now Appeal back to the state with that act to fit the permitting process because we think there's some some Things that need to be addressed Or potentially stopped And I know Brian and I are neighbors and Brian you want to speak to the wildlife in in your backyard I know that sure so I work out of the house So I have a window facing the back, you know, I'm on a lot of conference calls So I have a lot of time to throw out the window I see a lot of bobcats a lot of deer We have a family of red-haired red-tailed hawks that come through regularly foxes All kinds of larger wildlife who you know wander through the that wonder through the backyard Usually coming from the general area of where Northridge will be and usually exiting back towards that same way And I'm neighboring to Brian more in towards the wetlands themselves I've seen an actual bald eagle sitting on the tree tops And I think you'd said the same thing at one point But I too have had a black bear sitting in my driveway There was no reference to any of these bigger mammals On the report that was submitted and that was where I I actually spoke I walk it through the act 250 Commission walk so I walk the land and Question the gentleman that did the survey at that point and then I also spoke at the hearing the act 250 Commission hearing and brought up the point of the Missing bear and deer And other mammals that we had seen on the properties And was kind of given a doubtful, you know a Response as to their existence I have since spoken with David Mears who's the executive director at the Audubon Society Margaret Fowler And I have a communication going back forth back and forth and she's offered to Have a bird or come out and assess. I know bobble links or a concern and the golden warblers in those kinds of Ecosystems so she's offered to send a bird her out and help to assess that for us She's also Offered to possibly send a representative from the Audubon Society out to assess the property itself At the time there were no postings on the property as of the 26th of March. There's now private property Signs that have appeared So I don't know if that inhibits her ability to do an assessment given the appeal process Being active. I don't know if there's allowance for that or not But I've also spoke to Chris Bernier of the Fish and Wildlife Department He's currently doing studies on various mammals more mostly in the Northeast Kingdom But I spent about two hours on the phone with him Discussing the difficulties of protecting the wetlands and the areas that are of concern So I just ask that that be taken into consideration and that we've we've tried to go through due process to voice our concern about these issues I think it's fair to say that, you know, okay the habitat assessment aside You know, we're far more concerned about the Act 250 And the things that you know, what's going to be impacting our environment and you know, whether it's the increased traffic flow through our residential areas Whether it's the additional pollution that's going to be occurring in the Allen Brook Which we're spending money on as a town to try to make better But then the other side of it were were were potentially causing other impacts So I think we really have to step back and say wait a minute There's the balance here either stop spending money on the Allen Brook which feeds into Lake Champlain is our drinking water that we all drink So, you know, it's like wait a minute. We've got to improve it But yet, you know, we're putting in additional projects like this and so that's where I think is We've got something that's getting out of alignment Yes, and so adding to that and speaking to the next piece of evidence that I submitted our paperwork, I guess is federal study and assessment of pedestrian and the rise in pedestrian Fatalities actually Due to increased traffic I know We all have children in the neighborhood a lot of the comments and I would be willing to share the Stream of comments that were submitted as well on that survey. There were about 50 comments from Williston residents One of the number one concerns in those comments was the single egress on to Metcalf Drive our development was created with an outlet onto route to an outlet onto old stage appropriate to the size of our neighborhood and Originally North Ridge was proposed with two northern egresses Or egresses on the north side of that North Ridge property Somehow and I believe it has something to do with lands that are owned and not owned in combination with wetlands Now we're down to one egress coming and flowing out through the South Ridge neighborhood The impact of that I know is mitigated and that's the other piece of information I have from the state You know it highlights basically Allowances the fees the impact fee funding And I know that impact fee funding will go towards mitigations in the future If there's an impact on the traffic that in the future, you know warrants a light being put in This fee will cover that But if if there's already impact fees being allowed for then You know there is obviously a concern as highlighted in the second paragraph That says that the projects additional traffic will cause Minimal traffic delay, so there's an admitted delay by the state already This is a letter from Christopher Clow Transportation engineer for the state and So they're admitting that there's going to be an impact We know that they're going from a higher density housing development to a lower density housing development like South Ridge The impact is going to be significant And I just submit that It's it's not I don't think it's sufficient You know at least that there be further studies and I feel like this is a significant part of the appeal which could be supported by the town as a Concern for the residents and the Bike path currently is only the sidewalks going both to Allenbrook and the Williston school district So the bike path is a venue for children And adults to travel to both schools, you know in the mornings. We have construction traffic That's going to be starting and we'll be coming through. I know kids go through on their bikes. We're aware of it But large construction vehicles and some of the federal Stats that I've included for you can cite the incidences and the the impact of larger vehicles and Lower site vision and then obviously the increase in volume of traffic We're just trying to Keep it in alignment, I guess with the neighborhood as it was constructed and I don't think that this was a Resolved issue. I don't think it was thoughtfully resolved So I submit that that's a legal issue that could be Supported by the town as needing further investigation and Then the other information is in regard to the stormwater Runoff and the impact that that will have on the Allenbrook The first piece that the letter from the EPA The solution community solutions for stormwater management a guide for voluntary long-term planning I've highlighted this sentence is communities cannot afford to wait to address the flooding and public health hazard of Stormwater the curb and gutter gray infrastructure in parentheses Approach alone to managing stormwater is not enough to address these risks and then below that Comprehensive long-term planning for stormwater management integrating stormwater with economic development transportation recreation and other planning Supports smart investments and new funding sources. So moving on to statewide There's there's a ton of information on the impaired waterway, especially Allenbrook. I just highlighted this from a 303 website Basically, it's the total phosphorus Output on to do from developed properties And so the impact if you look at the pie chart highlighted in blue Here's the baseline annual load of the Total phosphorus load from low density low density residential areas the green is high density residential areas The black is medium density residential areas and the the orange is industrial or commercial Areas and if you flip the page it just gives another pie graph and That's the total phosphorus load and runoff from paved roads in blue Driveways in black and unpaid roads in green speaking to You know with an additional Development on the north side of the south ridge property Running down into the severely or more severely impaired Allenbrook on the south ridge end the south ridge road and of the neighborhood of the south ridge neighborhood The more impaired waterway is down on the south side So you're asking to put in a neighborhood a full development a high density housing Development north of the most impaired part of that Allenbrook waterway So all of the runoff is flowing into that more impaired Part of the waterway that we're trying to clean up The last piece of evidence you have in your folder is from the townwide watershed improvement plan The areas in green highlight areas being addressed on the second page Highlighted says the land use changes in the basin have increased phosphorus levels in Lake Champlain especially The conversion of agricultural areas and forests to develop uses Down below restoring the health of the Allenbrook and muddy brook to the point where these waters can be removed from the state's 303d list of impaired waters if you turn the page They're talking about goals for Allenbrook Which is to be considered a stormwater impaired the approach will be to include development of a flow restoration plan as required by the MS for permit and Then next highlighted green area says the purpose of the flow The flow restoration plan is to identify stormwater treatment practices including retrofits to existing practices That will be recommended for implementation in an effort to achieve established total maximum daily load Flow targets and eventually to allow the impact at stream to be removed from the state's list of impaired waters in pink Because the pollutant of concern in waters designated as stormwater impaired is stormwater runoff volume the practices identified in a Flow restoration plan are specifically targeted towards reducing peak stormwater flows that enter a stream So this is within our own Townwide watershed improvement plan if you turn the page It speaks to the Winooski River Basin and the water quality management plan highlighted in pink identifying and implementing stormwater management opportunities that reduce bacteria loads to receiving streams and Then to the green increasing the establishment and enhance enhancement of woody Reparion corridors unstable outreaches of the Allenbrook as a priority strategy for an enhancing stream stability So the Northridge development In addition to class 2 wetlands Is an area where there are already existing riparian buffer zones that We're talking about here in this impact plan and we're constantly planting trees to recreate those riparian buffer zones Well, here we have one that's helping to mitigate the issue in the Allenbrook And we're thinking of tearing it up and or impacting it with with further development Down at the bottom. It says the municipal separate stormwater source sewer system Permit issued on December 5th, 2012 requires the development and implementation of a flow restoration plan for each of Vermont's stormwater impaired watersheds as per the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation on The flip side it says Allenbrook exceeded the water quality standards for equal E-coli and turbidity in the majority of samples collected Allenbrook did not exceed the federal standards for chlorine Numerical standards do not yet exist I believe that's total nitrogen and total phosphorus levels in the streams and rivers But the total phosphorus concentrations observed and generally above in the lake Standard established for phosphorus in segment of Lake Champlain to which Allenbrook ultimately discharges So then it just speaks to the restoration the Allenbrook restoration project down below And I'll let you read that so I'm not reading too much. I apologize for the run-on But I do think it's vital Allenbrook. It says under 3.1 point 7 at 3.1 point 1.7 Allenbrook is Listed as impaired because the diminished biological integrity due to excessive stormwater flows a Total maximum daily load for excess stormwater in Allenbrook has been developed by the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation and subsequently approved by the EPA Region 1 because the pollutant of concern is stormwater runoff volume The loading capacity is the greatest volume of stormwater runoff Allenbrook can receive without violating the streams aquatic life criteria So I really think that speaks to You know why it's so important that we really reassess what we're doing with With destroying you know certain areas that are vital to the health of that Waterway that we're trying to restore and we're spending you know, we're asking for grants and Clean up monies from the state and other Services and groups And and then we're kind of contradicting it's a little bit of an irony that's going on I see it as and then the sediment load is on the last or the next page and it just says that The objective of the plan was to develop an alternative approach to restore Allenbrook and more generally Determine a cost-effective means of restoring waters impaired to non-point store resources So and then it just gives a couple of pictures of Interment areas think it's fair to say when you've talked to alternative means, you know a project like Northridge Yes, it has retention ponds or detention ponds bottom line is you're increasing a surface area of human Materials, you know called pavement concrete Asphalt moves that kind of thing Construction where you're stepping away from you know the realities of what mother nature does to filter water So, okay. Yeah a retention pond or a detention pond serves a purpose During peak stormwater runoffs. They can overflow. We've seen it, you know Coyote run we had a storm a few years back where the entire road was filled with water It was a flooding that resulted in a lot of basements in the Southridge Metcalfe So hopefully some of those things are being been addressed by the Cleanup of some of the ponds there at the bottom line is we're stepping away from what mother nature has put in place to help filter out these waters and and and we're spending money to go clean the Allen Brook and yet we're going to add another Housing project of higher density that really counters what we're trying to accomplish So I think that's why we come down and ask the town Yeah, you know to to be involved with the active 250 permitting process Just because you know the bottom line is I Think having having asked that you know doing that simple survey You know over a four-day period and having over 50% of the 216 respondents say that it's a negative to our town that that says it actually is worth coming before you to raise this issue When you only see 33% of the people that are for it and another 9% was it 12% you know That were neutral to it So I think I you know if you look at the feedback of the comments the two hundred six What was it out of the two hundred sixty respondents? 50 or 45 50 50 over 51 percent. No, but how many had comments actual feedback comments 50 comments and included in those comments Commonly a commonly was You know I'm against it, but I can't do anything about it And we actually can't so there are many residents that are throwing their hands up and you know, why are you bothering? It's not going to get anywhere and we feel like With the town coming on board addressing concerns that affect the town itself In light of the fact that the development review board Has put some permitting through I think that We're putting together a Case on our own That With the town it could be even stronger just investigating further and Acknowledging the voice of the residents of Williston That you know, there's their feeling unheard We're trying to speak for them For those that are concerned and feel that they're not being heard And and feel it's worth it. It's impacting our Environment and our town and the residents and So we asked with all due respect and with respect to the process you Know for any support that you can give us and ultimately to be a part of this appeal with us We're willing to help navigate whatever way we can Legally and To work with the process to make that happen I guess Again, it's unexplored territory. So is there questions of us that we can yes the answer for you Where did we go from here? That's a good question because we've never done this before and never been asked to Participate in the act 250 appeal. So I presume that Since you have acknowledged that you did not appeal the DRB's decision and then that all went to act 250 And act 250 while we haven't seen the decision. I presume that They did not they took all of the Information that was given to them by the town by the DRB and the other Participants and made their decision which now you want you are going to appeal And this is not the homeowners association. I think that's appealing. This was just individual citizens in Southridge I think the homeowners Association was approached And Not by us specifically I don't know if you spoke to them Pete or not, but I think other residents did but so no, we are independent of the homeowners Association I can't remember there was a reply back as to There's some legality involved I believe with the easement on the egress on to Metcalf and the homeowners Association I'm not a lawyer. So we're you know going on the information that we have I don't know if that was why the homeowners Association couldn't get involved Because there was What I remember what I remember them saying in one of the homeowners meetings that we had that the HOA meeting was that Because the the driveway of the house which sold portion of the land to be able to allow the egress to happen Because that house is not a new part of Northridge. It's no longer part of Southridge. So it's essentially out of their jurisdiction Couldn't join an appeal That was is that what they said that wasn't for the appeal specifically that was to join in the earlier process correct Yeah, that was but did did you talk to them about joining an appeal of either the DRB decision or the active 50 panel? I had asked them to be part of Neighborhood-wide mailing email kind of thing when we've started asking questions And they said that they could not be part of that. So we had so then we did not pursue their support any further Kind of felt like there was a closed door there. I know there was a member on the development review board That's also on the HOA Again, I think there may be Yeah, they both for cues themselves Coyote run is not part of that Southridge So the question that I think they were all interested in is if the town were to Join in the suit What do you think our obligation would be since you're looking to? Get questions answered. Would you be hiring? Independent Experts to deal with the questions you're asking and would you expect the town to share an expense? Certainly would it be appreciated. Yes and We do have experts that we have been speaking with You know the Audubon Society is obviously a for-non-profit kind of organization. We've been resourcing as many Free resources as we can So that would be up for discussion, but certainly would appreciate yes any financial support that you could give as far as legal support legal counsel But that's not the whole basis of requesting support I think part of it is is having the town become part of that appeal process says wait a minute We're stepping back and we re-evaluating Where this is going, you know, so if we're there's a financial impact at some point then we you know I think everybody would want to reassess But the bottom line is by having the town as part of that appeal process Says that we actually do want to step back and look at this a little bit further because there's some things that aren't making sense for the questions Just sort of the history of it. So the DRB issued its decision Was that decision or the permit? I'm not sure if it's called a permit that was issued. Was that appealed? No, this would be I assume before act 250 Okay, so so the actual DRB's decision was not appealed and please don't read anything into my So yes, it was not appealed And is there a reason for that so I can I'll speak for myself anyway When I felt that when when I get gave some rather convincing evidence I felt about the habitat assessment and when that was Basically brushed off. I felt I wasn't being listened to and it's unfortunate Scott Riley's a friend of mine. You know, I don't hold anything against the DRB. I just felt that wait a minute You know if we're going to blindly accept these these types of assessments one Why are we doing them and two if we're going to do them? Let's let's make sure they're done, right? Wouldn't that be a reason why you'd appeal it to the environmental court? Well, that's Why we're here for the act 250. I may have missed the way to 50 is completely different than the environmental I may have missed the window on on doing an appeal at the state level So I have to accept my my missing a calendar date so and Yeah, I I have a different personal reason and So I was trying to stay very low profile in this whole issue With respect to people that I'm related to So it took me a while to speak up and get to a point where I felt like a more assertive voice needed to be used so I was Trying to listen and assert myself at meetings without Being on the official side of the record And I think we've kind of reversed that but you know, we were at least in a place where The state is listening now. Yes, I was encouraged once I started to speak up and it and it was Yeah, something that was was okay for me to approach in a more vocal way personally I Got in I Wouldn't say encouragement, but I was certainly supported very heavily by the Act 250 Commission members To our conversations on the phone Supporting all that we were doing because we were acting independently at that point in time And and so I got a ton of support and encouragement to stick with the process that we were We were And you know going down So I apologize that I didn't speak up and I regret possibly not speaking up earlier, but there was a personal Decision in there again. This next question is do not read anything in Exploring so you provided a slew of environmental safety quality So my question is is is there a project on that piece of land that you would support I Think Residential I guess right. Yes. So I think that it was originally zoned. I believe back in 87 or 89 for Development just like Southridge and they kind of put it on the back burner So I know that that was always in the works and it's always been on that development map and We've have Southridge and then now 25 years later. Well probably Earlier than that coyotee run. I already started started the actual houses Yet 1998 I think was when that project was right either 98 or 97 when the coyotee run project started Right five houses went in what went on hold for four or five years and then the rest of the development Yeah, so the process when you know Southridge my house I think was the last one built in 94 and then 98 was coyotee run or 97 Now we're 25 years later Right and the idea of Northridge Started with the with an egress or two egresses out the north side of the property So that would have looked a lot different Had that gone through but now you've got a Development that's been there for 25 years You've got habitat that's developed on wetlands that are now vital because I don't know how impaired Allenbrook was at the time of the idea of oh Southridge Northridge, right? So now you've got a vitally impaired Waterway in Allenbrook and Northridge will impact it And and then all of a sudden those two egresses out the north side of the property have become one down into The low-density house ring did I say miss state that okay down into Southridge yep And So everything is has changed. I think in you know from 1987 on to now And the one egress is is one of the bigger Issues as well as the environmental impact. So would I approve of any? Residential properties up there You know I Don't know what as a group. We haven't really discussed that I literally would have to see what would be proposed What's what the proposal is because I think circumstances have changed right right? I think I think you said are correct Laurie, you know, and you know we look at let's mitigate some of the problems that we have before We create additional ones And so I'm saying a pause button is not a bad thing right now Let's make sure we're spending our money and our time in the right way You know if there's better solutions out there on how to handle these kinds of developments I mean, it's a bigger question for the town, you know that we have to look at it as we develop you know, are we truly worried about our Allenbrook or or or Residential walkways or you know, whatever it might be, you know as we as we further grow our town Where where do we say no this isn't we've got to we've got to slow down our growth in this particular in the town Or not, you know, but I think right now we're asking for a pause button And let's make sure that we're doing things correctly Especially on this particular piece of property that we see as an environmentally vital and And it didn't work. You don't own land to have the two northern egresses I'm sorry. You don't own that land and if that's you know the issue Well, you're impacting a whole neighborhood Because you don't own land well it you may have to say that's not going to work Because another way to look at it also is the north end of the Northridge project. There's a Negras point. Well, that is the potential for even additional Expansion at some point maybe and that's where I say wait a minute question mark. Where do we stop all this? I have a question. I just want to reach it back I'm gonna borrow Jeff's words as well. I'm just trying to understand the scope of kind of the history where this is coming from Your concerns and obviously the evidence that you've put forth this evening is a little overwhelming. I'm out of chance to look at all Sorry, no, but that's a good thing information is always a good thing Were yourselves or anybody else in the community following this through the preliminary permitting process of the DRB as this was Going forward we were we attended several meetings that you can see that the sign-in sheets and submitted evidence and spoke I Attended the active 50 Commission hearing itself and spoke at the hearing in front of the board I went to the active 50 Commission walk-through, but at the town level. Yes Pete was there. I've seen and other neighbors speaking up. There was a slew of neighbors in the beginning That attended and they've all given up So they're no longer following just because they got frustrated with the process I We talked about this a little bit on the phone Sympathies are definitely with you and to some degree with myself because this is going to impact traffic in front of my house pretty significantly But let me let me Say and ask a couple of things that one of one of the Difficulties that I'm having is that you know is one of process that Which which is important? Because you know if we if we're not a nation of laws, I know that sounds grandiose But it's actually true even even at this level if we don't if we don't follow our own laws and procedures Then you know, what's the point? The the town has adopted a storm water ordinance It has as I understand it the development review board has to assess Stormwater is one of the issues in granting a permit or not I'm assuming that was done Doesn't sound like it was done to your satisfaction, but it sounds like they did apply that criteria or else, you know Really messed up Then there's an act 250 Hearing where where at least some of the criteria overlap So an entity of the town of Williston Following the procedures that the select board through ordinances and policies have adopted Applied those policies and ordinances and came up with a result and then there's a state procedure that does the same thing and And what's being asked is that on behalf of all of the people of the town that the select board say, you know what? That's neat that our town this other board approved all this stuff with the policies that we that we adopted when they applied them That wasn't appealed to the environmental court now there's an act 250 things so we're gonna run around over here and try to stop the project Even though our own policies and procedures were applied and the policy was it was approved So, you know, I don't I don't know if this is a question, but if you have insight into that I mean this that's a huge. That's a huge problem for me Because again, it's it's important that we follow, you know, our own rules. Absolutely. We want to make sure that this is respected and done in the Following the process in every legal respect. We are doing our best to do that The one thing that came to mind when you said that was a development review board meeting that both Pete and I were at It two things came to mind. So Pete submitted this letter to the development review board And receive no reply, right? So in those instances, I feel like the development review board was not Hearing our voice and or responding and participating in the process in support of Residents we attended one development review board together a meeting together just by chance and That morning at about six thirty seven o'clock we I heard drilling out my window I heard this noise loud noise So I I went over walked over because I'm two houses three houses down and There's a big drill on the property already Well, the Act 250 permit had not been granted at that point So there shouldn't have been any activity on the Northridge property, but there was a commercial driller Huge drill in someone's backyard at six thirty seven o'clock in the morning I made video of it because it woke me. I was like what's going on Pete spoke up at the development review board meeting Nobody knew what was going on and he said something and asked about it and There was and you know the black rock was addressed and asked about it and Knew nothing of it. So then I had taken a physical picture So I had brought the picture with me and stood up and showed the picture And the reply to that was and I and I said, you know, here's a picture of the driller It it's their property. They should have awareness of who's drilling on it So it didn't seem to make a lot of sense that they didn't have knowledge of that And then the Person on the development review board I questioned and I said are you you know supporting the residents or the developer and I said it feels like you're not supporting the residents and hearing our voice in our concerns And then I was told In a not-so-kind way that the he was in fact Responsible for supporting the developers as well and I sat down So we feel like we've been part of the process in the town and at that level maybe weren't heard And that's why I guess we're concerned that things were not addressed thoroughly enough the habitat assessment You know the first You look at it. Yeah, as an example if you look at the initial assessment, you know, the gentleman checked squirrels and birds and you know possible deer and that was pretty much it and You know, I I asked what time of day the assessment was made and did they come through at multiple times of day? And there was no investment there So yes, there was a process I'm not sure that it was Felt those more of a check the box Process or a respectful process and also called out to that the appeal is also part of the process You're doing an active 50 appeal, right? Yeah, but there was a there was a chance to appeal the development review Yes, exactly. Yeah, that was not done That's probably shame on us for not having spoken up Like now to give an opportunity for representatives from Black Rock to Give a short rebuttal and I don't think we're going to be making a decision tonight, but But thank you very much One of you Well, good evening Chris Roy and I represent Black Rock construction This is Ben Avery who's been involved with this project and why I would like to start our short presentation out by pointing out that we agree with a lot that was just said about The issues in this particular project in particular All the issues that were cited Have always been Treated as being very important and that's why over the course of the last three years Black Rock has gone through Multiple layers of review with the town with the state with consultants and with active 50 All In the pursuit of Making sure that this project is as responsible as possible and it conforms with all of the town's requirements the state's requirements and so on The first submission for pre application review happened back in the summer of 2016 So we're talking almost three years ago and in September of 2016 The pre application Review was approved by the DRB and some of you may know how that works you go on used to be called sketch plan review You'd go in with a conceptual design and the purpose In in Willis-Ton is to get some feedback as to ways that the Project might be modified to address some concerns or points made by members of the public and the DRB And it also allows you to then move forward to the growth management allocation process so that process took place and Then Over the course of the next several months the project was modified based upon input from the DRB and members of the public in December of 2017 Public works submitted what was quoted as an extensive list of comments in the minutes In January of 2018 the conservation Commission submitted its thorough review of the project and then three hearings were conducted in early 2018 before the DRB with respect to the discretionary permit in January February and March and if you look at those minutes Which Matt Appended to the materials that you were provided with you'll notice that Ms. Marino and Mr. Yono did not Participate in any of those three hearings There were some members of the public who did they were not among the members of public that did ultimately a Discretionary permit was granted as part of that The recommendations of the conservation Commission were included as conditions as part of that the comments from DPW were taken into account So in March of 2018 The towns DRB applying the towns zoning bylaws and the towns plan and other policies Approved the discretionary permit No appeal followed so at that point black rock move forward with a town permit in hand And on the basis of that started to pull together The additional Applications and so on that are needed with respect to act 250 the act 250 application was filed in September of last year The state wastewater and portable water supply Permit was issued later in September In October the state stormwater permit dealing with all the stormwater issues that you've heard about was issued by the agency of natural resources Later in October the state wetland permit dealing with all the wetland issues that you've heard about was issued and On November 8th 2018 the act 250 hearing was heard by the district commission Meanwhile in November of 2018 the way the town permit process works you then submit after your discretionary permit All of the follow-up paperwork permits and final plans that are required those final plans were approved on November 27 And in January of this year The act 250 permit was issued. I would note that None of the permits were appealed Leading up to this act 250 permit. I would note that every decision by a board or commission to hear this project has been unanimous and So I think that that is reflective of the process to to build on what Ted was saying the process that is built into Our system of regulating land use to ensure that projects are done responsibly and as a result of that process Substantial changes were made to this project the number of units the configuration of the units the design of the units the road network There were four visits by the agency of natural resources on site to address Habitat and wetland issues More than half of the property is set aside as part of this project As I mentioned the conservation Commission's recommendations were included as conditions and accepted freely by Black Rock so that's the process and You know ultimately and and just to be procedurally precise Right now there isn't pending an act 250 permit We found out today from the environmental court that's being sent back to the district Commission to deal with motions to alter that were filed I will say that Mr. Watson Was not granted party status in the act 250 proceeding below So will not be able to participate as an appellant with respect to act 250 I'll also state that the notice of appeal that was previously filed by Ms. Merino on behalf of a number of other residents named residents who did not authorize their names to be used as appellants And they've had to withdraw their names from those proceedings Well, you can ask mr. Bates if that's true or not he filed it with the district Commission Chris that doesn't really that that fact is kind of inflammatory and doesn't move the ball short No, I understand but it has wish you had not said it No, I hear you but the point being here is that This hasn't been a situation where concerned citizens have been actively involved every step of the way And have been doing things in earnest in an effort to Provide information to the process And I just wanted that to be clear here There have been any sorts of things that haven't taken place or have taken place Which have put this in an unnecessary posture where it stands right now So where are we at as far as this goes? The select board isn't being asked to weigh in and the merit sort of decide a permit issue That's not your role here you're being asked whether to take the unprecedented step of weighing in as a party When the town board previously approved this project and that approval was not approved and it does not take a Lively imagination to imagine scenarios Going forward where if this request is granted that you're going to find those agenda items on Your for your meetings more frequently in the future for instance I live in Brennan Woods right now Adams construction has a subdivision next door that some of the members of my neighborhood have been participating in Objecting to some of the issues because of connections between that proposed subdivision and Brennan Woods subdivision if the DRB grants That permit and it's not appealed and then there's an act to 50 decision and it's granted a permit What would be the distinction then between the members of my neighborhood coming here not as the association but individual neighborhood members and asking for the same thing the process People rarely complain that Vermont's process is not thorough enough with respect to the types of review that went on here It is thorough and it ought to be thorough I mean and we've had discussions about this and how important it is for our way of life in Wilston in Vermont to be thorough about this stuff and that's why every step of the way It has been thorough the agency of natural resources fully participate in the act to 50 proceeding and Evaluated the habitat assessment that was the subject of a great deal of discussion And in no uncertain terms was supportive of that habitat assessment The agency of transportation participated in the act to 50 proceedings much as public works did with the town proceedings and Addressed all of these traffic issues The wetland issues have been addressed thoroughly by way of the permitting storm water likewise and storm water permitting is not easy but that permit was issued so all of those things have been done with respect to this project and BlackRock understands that If folks have the right to appeal They can appeal and they're prepared to deal with that appeal on the merits and ultimately feel that they'll prevail Given what has happened to date and their ability to persuade other folks to date But what they do ask this particular slight board to do is is keep in mind What the Conservation Commission has done with respect to this project what the DRB has done with respect to this project and Think long and hard before Investing town funds energy and resources to take an active role in an appeal Where the town boards themselves have already approved without any appeal on this particular project So that's sort of where BlackRock is coming from And Ben has been I only recently got involved I you know thankfully and I and I don't like to get involved early on in the in these kinds of cases Ben was involved from day one. I only got involved very recently once the prospect of an act to 50 appeal Emerged so I'm available to answer any questions about Where things stand currently and Ben certainly can answer any questions about the process today So questions from the ward To either one Of course I have a question And maybe I miss heard I didn't hear you correctly So I just I'm going to repeat what I thought I heard and then then I'll come up my question I think we were making the point that there the public chose or maybe not chose did not participate in the process by that I mean appeal the DRB decision and Maybe you even made reference to how the act to 50 permit process was going So did I get that correct? Yeah, there was and in the minutes that were attached to Matt's memo show that there was extensive Participation during the DRB hearings. Yeah when that decision ultimately was issued There then nobody appealed that decision, right? I guess my question and again don't read anything into this I'm exploring but my question is along the lines of well Is it not is it for some reason too late for folks to get involved? I mean sometimes for a group or an individual to figure out what really is What the impact might be to them, you know, that doesn't happen, you know Doesn't happen in a timely manner. So is it too late for? For these types of Questions to be raised about the project well and The act to 50 statutes and rules establish Who can appeal and who can participate in an appeal and there are individuals who? Participated and were granted party status before the district commission and they had or would have had rights To appeal which they then decide whether or not to pursue and the scope of that appeal and what issues? They can be heard on an appeal are Determined by by statute and the rules. Okay, would would the town even have the ability to be a party? Yes, okay the town because it's a project in the municipality has the ability to participate Thank you Further questions I'm not quite sure who to direct this to it might actually be more for Matt, but what What was the what? What does the project entail for stormwater mitigation? That would really be an engineering question. I'm not a civil engineer. I Can You know, we worked with O'Leary and Burke who is a reputable firm who has I Think a number of major stormwater projects here in Williston You know, we went through a normal stormwater planning process Again, there was extensive feedback from the town and I do know there were material changes to the structure of the storm pond using tier 2 and tier 3 Structure gravel wetlands things like that which have become more popular in In recent years and I know the state does like to see a variety of stormwater practices as opposed to the the old-fashioned big storm pond so those were addressed at the town level and and you know, I would note that we were issued a State stormwater permit early on in the process. So we again satisfied both town and state regulations As they stand today any sort of technical input You know, we need to come from our sub engineer So was James charade involved in this Bruce? Had some concerns or questions about some of the stormwater treatment practices that were being Proposed and just as Ben said Express those concerns and some of those changes were made We we the town don't have you know, we have a stormwater utility We don't do stormwater permit. So all they have to do is meet the stormwater requirements of the state of Vermont That doesn't mean that we can't look at a project and say here's a big pond Can these other treatments go in instead that we like it will work better and those were addressed and changes made The town's the town's recommendations were adopted Yes, one of the Issues that was raised was egress. Can you give a sort of a? Summary of why the egress is the way it is and it sounded like a Northern Lee option was determined I don't know if it was not to be feasible or for some reason was abandoned So the quick history on that Quickest first point the egress from Metcalfe was always meant to be these 60 foot right away was set aside when Southridge was created That right of way and this board actually we had to come before this board as The manner in which it was dedicated at that time required a multi-step process But but but long and short that 60 foot right of way. It was always meant to be one point of egress Originally we plan the project the initial pre-app was for 56 units and represented a northernly connection through Some open space that the coyote run Association had set aside and we We originally plan to to skirt the northerly edge of that and Substantially increased the size of that park With a contribution of of Northridge lands We actually got through the pre application process with that and through Ironically an offline meeting with the martels. It was uncovered that it had actually been that parcel had been dedicated to the town The town was unaware of it. It wasn't Listed as such so that that caused some distress at the town level sorting out who actually owned the parcel But in the end the parcel that is referenced as Martel Park has been dedicated to the town therefore northerly option Went away. So we did not own the land correct and the town is not an entity in which We it would be a long road to apply to put a road through a park So we at no Insignificant hardship to ourselves reduce the size of the project by from 56 to 39 units to accommodate the You know the zoning rules capping 40 units at the you know on a closed-loop system and That's that's how we got to where we are Property And there was an allowance of extra property that was purchased Somehow through the town and sold back to black rock There are wetlands and waterways there as well going on that egress so I'm not Real estate lawyer not sure of all the speak but there was a little bit of a I'm gonna say dance to make All that happen legally if it looks like on paper There were a number of exchange of hands of properties and adjustment of property lines in order to make that happen. So it wasn't a clear pathway to In the diamond property would be on the south with the south side Jason to that that cat egress or what would be Egress there is a waterway right there Wetlands as well, okay You know all of that story that's certainly and you know finding out more It just addressing the the wetlands Issued the runoff There is also runoff that occurs currently on to Metcalf With untouched properties to the extent that there's a stream that runs down those properties And the sidewalk is collapsed because there's so much water that comes off of that property already And so there's concern a major concern with the digging and the removal of trees the altering of the lands You're gonna impact that the basements already flood and the sidewalk is already collapsed So I just wanted to just follow up a little bit on the egress Is it fair and I'm throwing this out to everyone is it fair to say that When South Ridge was developed and egress to the property north of South Ridge was not only in vision But it was provided for that is correct It had to be modified if I might address that the setback rules in 1987 were different than they are today So we have to meet a higher burden of setback from that top of bank. So We acquired the property and There was nothing nefarious it was very open book and in fact that boundary line adjustment Well, we own the property was approved as part of the project as a whole And the town went to great lengths to make sure that that that was part of the very public process Technically a boundary line adjustment between two property owners can be done administratively and where we did request that that was denied and it was It all took place in full light of day as a part of our DRB process Actually to Make a correction The transaction was as such we acquired the property at 749 Metcalf drive. We then came before this board Following legal review this board to acquire the right of way because it was the preference of the town that We have ownership of the right of way until the roadway is completed in the town is ready to take it back So at the time that the recording of the actual boundary line adjustment occurred we owned both parcels So it wasn't a there was no exchange of money between parties to move a boundary line We went through the process to a get this approved and then be Through a private sale on the home side and through public process with this board acquire Full title to both parcels and then execute the boundary line adjustment Little nervous about asking this one, but so this is for everyone to chime in on if the town were to decide to Participate in the appeal of the act 250 permit What would be the impact on what would be potential impacts on? the DRB process Does that does that question make sense sure? So DRB and active processes Have some similar interests They have some connection to one another, but they're essentially independent of one another in that DRB review happens at the town level It Results in approval at the town level that approval has a period for appeal and other Processing deadlines for the filing of final plans issuance of local permits, etc none of what The town does or or I ultimately do a zoning administrator is Dependent upon somebody showing me that they've cleared act 250 review In other words once somebody has a discretionary permit from the development review board if that's what they need Signed final plans if that's what they need and other Instruments in place as necessary Local permits administrative permits effectively the town's building permits can be filed for and approved by the administrator There's a disclaimer that takes up a half page of our four page permit If if said a paraphrasing if you need a permit from any other entity, this is not that permit and You know it's statutorily required that we warn people that there may be other permit processes In play that they may also need to get through in order to actually Accomplish their project So I guess what I would say is in Vermont many times an applicant can obtain their permit locally from the town But that may not be everything they need to move forward and in that way if you need active 50 approval, and you can't get it Your DRB approval by itself isn't isn't worth much That's the connection. Yeah, okay that being said in this instance where Individually for different reasons regret not appealing the DRB decision I feel like that we all Feel that the DRB was a bit unapproachable in a sense Having the developers on that word that it does and having been treated the way we were individually in different meetings So I'm not sure that that venue had it been on my radar I probably Comfortable at that point would have gone through with it But but it would have been I don't know how much Ground we would have gained in that appeal. It just seems like that there's not a much approach ability or flexibility with that board And and we did receive legal support and advice to seek the town support From a former active 50 Commission member who's also where To seek your support on this appeal for the land So it wasn't without legal advice that we are asking so we do have professional opinion kind of invested in Seeking of your support if I can say one thing is that I think we you know Jeff you might think you had asked, you know, is there a point that you don't appeal? I'd say you can appeal at any point in the process until it's approved You know, whether it's at the ERB level at that at the stormwater land level at the act to 50 level There's never a point that you you cannot suddenly say wait a minute. So it's not right and I think that's you know, this is where we are today and And it does make sense to hit the pause button on this An educator, I know we always look at past practice and we Look back if you look forward and how is this going to affect, you know things in the future So I Myself respect that perspective, but in each appeal and or case and or development project is unique So I wouldn't necessarily say that I'm going to set the president and or a practice of asking the town to Hop on to every active 50 land use appeal of her permit appeal I just don't see that every case is gonna warrant that like this one does If I can respond briefly to that Jeff I do think that the select board has heard this evening though that the effectiveness And and quality frankly of the review of both the DRB and the conservation commission have been brought into question by the appellants And again with respect to a permit that ultimately was not appealed So I do think it's important to take that into account And I also would like to highlight the reference on a few occasions to A pause we should put a pause on this What that essentially means is they are requesting retroactive interim zoning after a permits granted and That can't be the way this process works The process is supposed to say you follow the rules if you don't follow the rules You don't get your permit if you follow the rules You might get a permit or you might not it depends on whether you meet the standards If you meet the standards and you follow the rules You should get a permit and that's the way the whole process is set up and again. I think that Black Rock has as been over backwards over the course of the last three years to do that process Which and absolutely there are rights to appeal citizens have the right to appeal under the law But the question here is whether it's appropriate for the town to step in and to breakfast that effort under the Circumstances that you've been presented with this evening So we're going down to the last comments I have tried to speak up when I don't receive Even an acknowledgement or proceed from the conservation committee when I don't receive a Feedback from the DRB in a way of a formal letter that says Mr. Watson We've received your input. However, we have ruled it in such a such a way. I don't think I'd be enlisted And that's unfortunate, and I'm sorry I didn't speak up sooner and louder You know the conservation Chris Mr. Roy here spoke to has gone through that conservation process I really don't think it has So I'm not I don't hear that we're in a Position to make a decision tonight And if we aren't then we can move on to the next agenda item put the sauna or agenda for Perhaps two weeks from tonight and make a decision At that time if there's information that we need to have from either Party, this would be the time to Ask for it or certainly through emails for the next two days so hearing No requests tonight Well So we would we would ask for information from the town manager who would communicate with either party Thank you. Thank you So I'll move on to the Essex Alliance Church sidewalk Another We do a presentation it's like a one from the Computer so And I think we have mr. Schoenberg. Is that right? Yes, my name is Steve Schoenberg I am a long-time member of Essex Alliance Church And I want to first thank all of you for taking the time at this late hour to Hear something that I know was attended to Some time ago So So So as I said first of all, I'm appreciative of this time. I will try to be brief. I Presumed that you all have probably had a chance to look at the information I presented So I'll try not to belabor The points that I bought that are in there The I have not been directly involved with this process over the years But it became clear After sometime last fall that we had come that the Essex Alliance and The town of Williston had kind of gotten from our perspective. We were kind of stuck What do we do next? I went to the church leadership and offered to Try to put together a presentation To do some research talk to people at least on that were involved in the process from our side and Do my best at presenting that to you I Am not an engineer My back. I'm a CPA. So I deal with the number side of it not with the map side of it that much and I also Managed commercial real estate So with that as a starting point what I would like to do is Just to kind of refresh one one thing and then Get to the Point of some items This is a hand sketch, but and it shows This is the Bodrie lane this little segment right there is the north end of the wreck path that was that first appeared in the Plans that were approved Across Bodrie lane it extends for quite a ways to the far to the south end of the property and that terminus happened to be at the 150 foot Buffer from the stream bank and it also happened to be at approximately or very near to the top of the embankment After that was drawn there were plans that the that were developed by the By by the Department of Public Works and for a bridge that ultimately was built right there Essex Alliance then modified its plans as I believe it was supposed to do to Because there was a connection needed to be made to the bridge and so this was done and That that particular plan was presented in January 2015 I believe as amendment 5 it was a final plan that was approved But as we as the process unfolded The the situation Required or suggested that maybe there was a better way to do it Because that extension a was in a environmentally sensitive area Not environmentally. I mean archaeologically sensitive area along the top of the stream bank and ultimately extension B was then designed and built So that's the that is the overall picture reading and Under the under the terms of the approved Plans the final plans original plans That showed the northern terminus Where it where it is there The There were there was no obligation on the part of Essex Alliance Church to begin construction Until it was part and parcel of the rest of our site plan that was being developed Unfortunately that has been delayed the bridge got built and There was certainly some pressure that I'm sure the town of Williston felt and certainly we felt to Have that bridge go somewhere and That would have been what what prompted The recent set of activity which was Essex Alliance agreed to contribute its share of Funds that it thought it would have needed to build it according to the original plan And that some was estimated to be thirty thousand dollars to this project Then the question is before us tonight is the town of Williston does it have any obligation to To fund the balance of the balance of it So I thought this with that is sort of the overview I thought maybe the best way to get at this and might what might get us to the nub of it the quickest is as I read the report That town manager presented on this It's what jumped out at me is there is one kind of critical element Which is what was the original intent? In the plans that were approved by the development review board and with that I'm going to focus One condition number 11 That was in the October 23rd 2012 minutes This was this is in the minutes that town managers response contains So the development review board This was this was at the time when we still had that short stub Going across Baudry Lane And what it says is the applicant shall provide a ten foot wide bicycle path across the subject property Connecting the Chelsea Place subdivision that's on the south side to the crossing Missing a word or two here the top of the south embankment of the Allen Brook At a location to be determined by the scoping study currently being completed by the Department of Public Works and Coordinated with the proposed residential units So that is a condition that was Of our permit Well understood that well agreed to it now. The question is what exactly does that mean? I Would propose to you that if what was really meant was the bridge above meant It would have said that Or if what was really meant was the high water mark of The river It would have said that Instead what it says that it what it says is the top of the embankment now I want to go to You have this in bits and parts I do have Clean Much better copies of this which if you care to look at I will Bring over to you Otherwise This is I get from our engine here. It's the same thing that was photocopied in your packet. There's a truth However it that was a pretty Fuzzy Thank you. This gives you something better to look at but I will be looking at on the screen Okay, if you look So this Okay, this is Baudry Lane Here is the original path Went to this line This was the extension that was then presented in this final drawing that was approved in January of 2015 Now what I'd like you to do is take a look at and this is the stream this This dotted line is a hundred and fifty foot setback and So the the language saying to the top of the embankment I use when I hike I use topographical maps I love having the USGS Map on my phone and when I'm hiking in the mountains. I look at these lines all the time I would submit to you That when some in it's not a defined term, but when they're in plain English it says that our Responsibility our condition Was to build the path to the top of the Allen Brook embankment on the south side that this That this stretch is the embankment That is the the fundamental point at which I would say everything hinges on then along with this along with this Presentation which was in the final plans they have This stated something when I said this was an agreement by the Town of Wallaston, but it certainly But this Section right here is the end of the plan of the of the rec path that is off the map on the top so this is the inset and If you look Right along this edge, there is about a 90-foot retaining wall and Railing at the top of it in our In our in this set of final plans, we have a little box there that says new retaining wall and railing By Williston Department of Public Works Now it is my belief that that was not slipped in as a little gotcha to make a case but rather the retaining wall and the railing was the the costly part of building from the from the top of the Embankment, which is our responsibility Down to the bridge abutment So this was simply put in here To be consistent. So even though we were showing this full drawing This was put in here to be complete to be consistent with the Language and the condition of the development review review board in our in our final approval so and That if you look at the at the topo lines Each of those lines represents a foot Each of the topo lines represents a foot from the top of the grade To the bottom There's about 40 feet This in in elevation from here to here is 150 so where the embankment starts in earnest We've got about approximately 100 feet with a 40 foot drop from the top of the embankment to the river the river flows from right to left or the brook and The bridge is Approximately between 15 and 20 feet above the water level. So we're really looking at approximately a 20 Foot more or less dropped by my calculation that we that needed to be addressed So our contention then is that this this That what we were obligated to do Is to go to the top of the bank and then we spelled out more in more particular when it came to this The cost that was the principal cost of going down the hill and dealing with that embankment then the next thing of Significance in this sequence Was the administrative permit? That was issued after this and along well actually the next thing that was significant was the Drawing that modified this path to the the final drawing. I showed you previously I put those on one page just because otherwise it's easy to get lost and all those detail on these things then after that there was An administrative permit and this is also in the material that you've got I'm not going to put it up here and in that administrative permit was The new revised drawing and it included Substantially the same or exactly the same inset at the bottom with the same language the the DRB had approved this and now the I guess as zoning administrator that was signed That was in 2016 so Then And and there was certainly had was discussion regarding this This the obviously the cost of it Essex Alliance had agreed to ahead of schedule Contribute $30,000 to this Which is what we thought building to the top of the bank would be The There was in there was a meeting in In 2017 that was sort of the all hands-on deck meeting To determine, you know button down the process and that meeting There was the Director and assistant directors of public works the director of planning and zoning at the time the chabalbo There was the Essex Alliance representative Essex Alliance's contractor and civil engineer and in that meeting All the final details as I understand it were pinned down and then obviously the top topic of cost came up As it was related to me the the reason Why this was done under one contract instead of two was that it was a request by DPW because Essex Alliance had been using that contractor already had Contract, you know the all the forms in place and and Essex Alliance was requested to use to do it under one contract and The reimbursement would happen afterwards. I have spoken to each of the three Members present at that meeting who were from or representing Essex Alliance Church And all of them have specifically told me their understanding when the meeting was over that the costs were being shared So it came as a very large surprise to us and when that $30,000 was approved by the church governing board. It was approved with the Understanding that have been given to it by the representative of Essex Alliance that this was the full amount that we would be paying for the for this project so That is our under that is my understanding of the events that have happened and Why I believe that It is appropriate Although certainly not welcome I'm sure from your standpoint That those that the rest of the costs be covered by By the town of Williston So I'm open for questions there's a lot I've zipped through a bunch of stuff realizing the time that we've got and I hope I didn't leave out something that was germane But I'm willing to try to address any questions from a layperson standpoint not from a technical standpoint Questions I guess and similar to before please don't read anything into this but my question is is Often when two parties come to an agreement like you were just talking about It's documented somehow. I know this does not appear to have been the documentation it in terms of the specific agreement Saying that Williston would contribute X amount of dollars that is not documented in writing the wording that's on the On the plans. Yes Do you know why that was added or what its intent was by adding it the wording saying that retaining wall and railing by That that was simply the understanding of the engineer The civil engineer who was drunk who drew these based on all the discussions And so I mean this is not something Essex Alliance was trying to hide It was simply our understanding Based on what our obligation was under the final plans approved by the development review board and the conditions there, too and also based on our understanding of Conversations even at that point That had been going on regarding it What's the questions is it for me so who put this wording on? That would have been by Champlain consulting our civil engineer because they are the firm that prepared the plans that were submitted to the town of Williston How would they have known to put that on pardon? How would they have known to place that on the plat? It would have been based on conversations with the representative of Essex Alliance and consistent with in with the Development review board approval where Essex's obligation was to build to the top of the embankment And with the possibility that the exact location what might be moved depending upon Where the bridge would ultimately be built because at that point we did not know We had some I think relocation with a bridge didn't we at one point because we have a problem with the residents and the Development nearby The study had to be done. It's too. Yeah, the best alignment for the bridge Now if you were to look at the first slide that I put up here From where the on our plans went in 2012 or whenever it was that they were approved We we just ran it to here and stopped it and it would have been a straight shot across 150 feet to the to the brook It was understood that that was not a final location it turned out that it was built at a location where this this segment of about 420 feet in length Needed to be built instead Because of the location of the bridge The retaining wall is about 90 feet of it And actually it might be worth just for the sake of Looking at it. This is was also in your package the bridge The bridge ends right there, this is the retaining wall and Obviously, we've got the steep bank coming down on the side and This is simply included to show the Sort of the scope of it the steepness of the bank really started right about here shortly before that retaining wall And so here we see it looking towards the bridge again So that was the that was the scope What we needed to do the costs of the retaining wall itself not counting any of the prep work underneath it was about $35,000 according to the item is itemized List that you also have from our contractor Questions I might Jeff it says something about documentation I do know that there there was a Question of emails of like back and forth and yes Yes My understanding is that there's an email from There's horror October 29th. I've pulled it up on my computer Responding to a Email from earlier in that same day from Jeff Colak. Yes Are the full of two questions there? Are there any other emails that talk about The town agreeing to pay for costs. I am not aware of any other than that one And then obviously the email where it was it from mr. Horror also later Last year where he declined to pay for it. So those are the only ones I'm aware of that addressed it now I don't know if there's others that address it either way But those were the only ones that were cited for me And I just it seems like the email from Jeff Colak October 29th to 59 p.m To Lisa shelter a C seeing Bruce or It's about an engineering study apparently we can certainly see if we can get this underway We would do so as follows Essex Alliance Church will select a consultant to perform the proposed scope of study upon Wilson's assurance that it will pay for Or reimburse EAC for the entire cost of that study The alternative will listen to me retain consultants of its choice directly Jeff responds. I'm sorry Bruce responds. Hi Jeff Almost exactly an hour later This is not what I asked for it is clear that we are willing to split this cost for the whole portion of Path that was in dispute to be built. This means whatever has to be done to make this connection It seems like the reference to this cost would be engineering costs This is does well in that specific context. Well, it was the archaeological cost Okay, I'm sorry We were dealing with This section of the path We had had the archaeological studies done as far as our original site had as original drawing had Had gone and That that item right there became the stumbling block that caused us all to say there's got to be something better because That was archaeologically sensitive now whether those costs are If you read that the immediate context where it was the archaeological cost But I believe it would not be a is not a stretch at all to say To say we're willing to split the cost of whatever it is that we need to do to get this done and that and He's referring there to the entire path so But that is that is the extent to my knowledge of not reviewed Jeff's Email file, but that was the one that he had very clearly in mind and brought to my attention and the conversations that Where the church is saying that the town verbally agreed to this where they before or after October 29, 2015 There may have been some before the the one that was the clearest That and maybe it's clear is because it was the most recent which is always better when you're dealing with with Conversations was the one in 2017 Shortly before Essex Alliance started the work in 2000 early 2018 and that was the one that there was a group of Six and then and then five people that were at that meeting What was said at that meeting? Pardon, what exactly was said about cost at that meeting and Williston paying it that is the meeting That was sort of the all hands-on deck. Let's make sure we got everything. We have a plan for everything And there was a contractor from that did the work there was our engineer civil engineer there was mr. Kolak and The director and assistant director of the Department of Public Works and For the first part of the meeting. I'm not sure he was there. He was not there for all of that. Mr. Ken bellow Oh, and in that meeting Was when the decision was made and the request was made by DPW that the entire cost Be instead of a separate contract being drawn up with Our contractor that the entire contract since we already had a relationship had a contractual Agreement with our contractor that we would put it all on one bill and invoice Williston for the balance above the 30,000 we had agreed to contribute Thank you Yeah, so this leads to a question. I haven't could you pull back up if you don't mind the sheet C9? There's two things I want It's what I think might be a discrepancy See there's an answer for which are you going to focus on this Part that was down there. Yeah, okay, of course and be focused any better this is the No on the sheet that talks about The containing wall and railing by Wilson Do you know what this note up here says? Yeah, I figured it out. I can see some words as Wilson DDW, but I can't read the rest of it. Okay, let me Ten foot wide recreation path Something with a coordinate with Wilson department public works So that is identifying the end of it, which is right there at the bridge I don't know if there's an arrow to it or not which I don't see if that's what it says What I'm wondering is a discrepancy is the note there that talks about DP New retaining wall and railing by Williston Department of Public Works Which indicates? If you just read the note itself Wilson would do public works would do the retaining wall and railing, but when I look at the invoice from the church It's not about the retaining one in railing. It's about the balance of the whole project from I Guess from I don't know if it's from Bodrie Lane to the bridge So that to me is a discrepancy One of them is saying it's the retaining wall and the railing that Williston is responsible for But the invoice is for something different The invoice is for the balance of the project and they aren't the same They are not the same although they the dollars amount to something that's pretty close and That is something that I have From my conversations with the parties that from Essex that were involved their Initial and consistent communication was that we were to pay $30,000 When I looked at but but What seemed to me to be a stronger argument than simply that Was the evidence in In the conditions that the DRB approved plus the language on the on these two on the plans and on the Administrative permit that said The retaining wall and the railing by Department of Public Works the dollar amounts get very close When you approach it that way 35,000 plus for those two items plus there would have to be some allocation of additional costs in prepping the place So I can't recreate that conversation that happened then nor can you so I I have that and that's part of what is and that's what we used the church used when it created the invoice for To the town of Williston because that's what have been represented to us as I go through the information There's to me evidence that in the doc in the documentation That really pins down this using Different items that approximate the same amount. So I don't I don't really know Since I wasn't at the meeting I don't I can't speak to exactly what went down other than what I've been told and the the individuals that were there All had clearly a cost-sharing there was a cost-sharing understanding When that when that meeting was done Beyond that I can't I can't go farther. It's but it is That part I'm certain of so we're being asked to Figure out how to proceed from here And I'm not sure we have any good answer tonight Go ahead now I There's one point I want to I'm not going to repeat what I put in my memo, but there is one other factor Here when the developer review board approves a set of plans, they're approving what's to be done not reproving who's going to do the work and Typically when they approve a sidewalk, they're approving it from one end of the property the other and that's those with the plan show So when they have a condition to the top of the bank, that's not consistent with that Concepts So and I struggled with this when I looked at that Conditioned loving to I didn't quite understand what it meant But as I thought about it and talked to Bruce when he said oh well it is the sidewalk The bridge was brought to the top of the bank That's where it occurred to me that there was a different concept of what the top of the bank was but The DRB approval condition 11 Really doesn't make sense if it's to the top of the bank far away from where the bridge connects because they're approving the project from end to end They're not approving You know Partway through the and because if they did then you'd have a sidewalk to nowhere and that's Makes no sense so I think that's Looking at that way, I think I came to the conclusion that the Intent was for it to be built from end to end and Again, the DRB does not determine who does that That's a whole separate discussion And I would simply say that was not our understanding and there was lots of communication that would would have been inconsistent with that and the person from the DRB who happened to be the same person from the Planning Commission that approved both the Both the administrative permit and also signed on the Schedule C9 Where there was very little change other than in this part of the property from the previous one So we simply were trying to accommodate What the town of Williston had requested? Paid many many thousands of dollars in the engineering to get this in the plans get it through Act 250 get it so we could actually fulfill our The obligation and what we felt was important to do and we also built agreed to build it way ahead of schedule because that was It seemed the right thing to do so that's So if there is an inconsistency in between Between the planning You know what was approved by the DRB and what was and The concept of end to end on the property I don't believe that that is should really be Construed against us when we have the plain language of the DRB approval So I mean that's and that's where we are we appreciate the town of Williston and appreciate very much the Cooperative approach that we have felt and have also tried to take with the town of Williston in the development of this property And we certainly hope that While we have a disagreement or a Difference of understanding of this Initially, we hope that that does not change our overall Approach and relationship together because that's very important to us Yep Maybe mad or Bruce. I'm not sure The sheet C9 which is labeled the permit set, you know, and it gives the application number. I Don't know exactly how to ask this. I'm a little bit tired. So I guess maybe I'll be a little bit blunt Should I read anything into that it was I assume it was approved or somehow accepted with that note on it and that note being New retaining wall and railing by Williston I've already stated that the DRB approves what's going to be not done not who I Mean, I get that but I guess We also we the town would have had the opportunity to say, you know, we move that, you know It either doesn't make sense or it's not what we agreed to or whatever But we I don't want to say we chose not to we may not have even known it was or Recognize that it was there. I'm just wondering if there's If there's something I should know about this is the permit set with that note on it First one is obvious. They express what permission is being given for what what activity are you allowed to take? You can build what's on the plan The other thing they sometimes do is they show things that you have to build if you want to build what you want to build in other words You can build what's on this plan or what's identified on this plan, but you have to build it in this way You can build that street, but you have to have a stop sign to it and that needs to be showed on the plan so The the approval is You know binding on the town to honor it going forward once it becomes an unappealed permit The plan set that comes with a permit may also show things that need to be done in order for the applicant to do what they really Want to you submit a permit to build a house you happen to show on that permit Planset also that you're going to build a driveway to that house And it's going to be in conformance with public work standards for a haircut If you build that house without a driveway or with a different driveway You have to follow your plan and you you could create complications for yourself down the road but as as Riggs advised you a couple times that's that's as close as it ever gets to saying who's going to do it Who's who's going to do it is important if there's something that needs to be done in order for The rest of the permit to be able to be acted on in other words I'm going to finish this bike path so I can Do the rest of my project But who it's not really about who's going to do it It's that who has the benefit of this permit and under what conditions need to build the things that are required In order to build the things that you want to build. I hope I'm not complicating You're reinforcing that the note on there the town's position. It's a note on there has no bearing on I Can't as well as sense responsibilities sitting in zoning administrator for the town today I Don't have the power to obligate a certain person to build something I have the power to say certain things need to happen in order for the permanent work to go Any thoughts on how we proceed I'll give you this it's it's not going to be a helpful thought, but it is the truth that is I read one We have two two documents that were to read one from the church one from the town I'm not going to say which one I read first or which one this place it but I read the first one And I'm like it seems pretty clear cut to me. I know what to do Then I read the other one Same exact conclusion. So I'm You know, it's kind of one of these odd situations where It's both appear to be have defensible positions But they're different positions. So how do we choose between the two? So would this qualify for an executive session at some other time to discuss this I think so Because it's potential contract and I suppose even potential litigation that doesn't seem it But yeah, I think it's an executive session thing So we can put this on the agenda for another Night to talk about it in the executive session and see what conclusions we can accomplish So thank you very much. We appreciate your thank you So let's do a quick manager's report In your package you have a financial report The first financial report of our new finance director At the end of February thing to note is that Continue to lag behind in some expenditures particularly in the police department staffing and We just learned that the situation is going to get worse We have one officer who is resigning Soon and weeks we are anticipating a second officer We'll be resigning which will leave us three down Yeah Okay, I had one quick question. It's under expenditure highlights the third bullet. It says Transportation to GMT for bus service have been for the fiscal year and is $16,000 over budget, which is a timing issue and I didn't understand the connection between over budget due to a timing issue I don't know exactly what that meant other than When things are received and posted may not necessarily coincide with the percent of the year that we're through And I but I that's just a general statement. I don't know specifically I can Yeah, we can check on that specific item or if you would just have Email me would be great. Well, you'll email the full board. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Thank you All right moving along Let's see You'll recall a while back January you received a letter from Emma rather from Bob Mets chair of the Recreation Committee concerning Disparity about how much the town pays Facilities I Recently met with James Emerson who's the operations officer from the school district and she is currently working on Trying to develop a key schedule that would be applicable to all this town within the district. I Believe that once she does that there'll be a Time where we will have a discussion with the school district about some of the services that we provide the district Some fields which we generally don't use what they do Like Babe roof leak I think may use there's some softball field those fields are used more run school and very little by the town yet We do all the mowing and lighting and everything else, which is fine, but you know, we we're gonna have to work out How much consideration we should be given for doing those kinds of things and and then they do some things So, you know, we just have to sort through the various issues. So this will be Once they come out with the great schedule that would be the start of the discussion rather than the end of it, I think We did have the closing on the property for the catamalic community forest March 25th There's going to be a celebration on May 11th. We are looking for a town official to speak at that event and There'll be other details coming out in the coming weeks As a final reminder, we have our substance abuse and prevention community discussion and forum week from tomorrow night April 10th starting its Dinner at six is Eric. Yep. There's six we have programs been finalized and we as of Just last day or so we have about a hundred people who signed up for it And we're expecting more so that's that's a good sign Not at all You know, I think having a good turnout is a really important This is such an important topic And I think that hopefully I'm confident the program we've Develop will be People find interesting and thought provoking and that's really what the goal is Is to educate but also provoke some thoughts and ideas on what we can do better what we can do to prevent Substant use amongst the young people in our community Another item I want to touch on we had a legal case decided in the town's favor. This is a lawsuit that involved an incident Happened in which happened in 2013 the suit was filed in 2016 and We went through a process. This involves suit against several of our police officers we Thought there were some errors in the logic Against the people who are filing the appeal and so we submitted a motion for summary judgment that would dismiss all the charges and the judge granted so Now there's still a chance of this at this point, but We're optimistic that this may be close to the end of that process and Got rid of it. Oh one item that we I did not put on here just slipped our minds was the issue about trapping and I will give you the After tonight the Email we had from our legal counsel In that email though he basically confirmed what staff had already said that the town does not have jurisdiction The question I have for you is I Have a reporter that has asked for this legal opinion Typically legal opinions are the property of the select board and do not have to be released But the judge the select board can't at your discretion release them So the question is Should I just go ahead and release it or do you want to look at it first and then I release it? What's your preference on that? I would say release it. I think I know what it says. I haven't read it But I agree with the release it Okay, all right, well that makes sense. I would hate to get a call saying I read it And I'm like I haven't even I haven't seen it yet, or I didn't have time to Know we had intended to include it here and it putting everything that it would just slept themselves So then if you send it out tomorrow Within 24 hours we need to read it so it can be released. Okay, okay That's all I have for the season Other business I just have one quick one and that is the bill has been introduced for the charter changes It's h540 they heard it in governor or government operations committee This morning with it. They now have a different process. They're doing a subcommittee and the subcommittee met and Reviewed five charter changes one of them was ours The information I get is that they the full committee will probably look at these on Friday of this week and hopefully Voted out and it should be on the floor of the house the following week So is there any other business that we need to talk about tonight? Appeal use the most yeah