 The documents in here. Yeah, so there were Four sheets the notes on the bottom of some of the Yeah, I think I noticed All right, we about ready to go Okay, folks good evening we could settle on in I appreciate it Welcome to the town of Williston Development Review Board for Tuesday March 27th 2018 We start tonight off with a public forum. Is there anybody in the audience? That has any public comments before we start the formal meeting Hearing done. We'll enter the public hearing Tonight's our annual growth management review and allocation for residential development proposals that completed pre-application review during the calendar year 2017 There are six applications before us tonight In three different categories in the projects within the growth center, there's Mansfield Park apartments In the projects outside of the growth center, but inside of the sewer service area There's one project for consideration Creeks Edge and then the final category There's projects outside of the sewer service area and there's four projects being considered northern holdings The Spencer residents handy Quinlan development and brown ale Lamar tonight's format is Is I'm going to turn things over to staff for an overview of the growth management Process and then one by one each applicant will come up and present or rather hear staffs scoring of the proposed Proposed scoring and have a chance to Provide comments to that scoring that's being proposed by staff And have a and have an interaction that way And then once we've gone through the six different applications Then we will the board will go into deliberations to Finalize the allocations that are going to be granted during this cycle So with that I'll turn it over to staff for an overview of the growth management. Great. Thanks, Pete So as Pete mentioned, this is an annual event happens just once a year and In our the town's development regulations any time you Propose a residential development you you need to get growth management allocation And we collect all the applications that went through the first stage of review what we call Pre-application in the previous calendar year and they are reviewed together And we do this every year in March Back at the end of January there were letters that were sent out to all of the applicants Notifying them of the dates associated with this meeting tonight as well as instructions For them to follow what materials to submit the etc. If they wanted to participate in growth management and so the six Projects that all made submittals those were all of the projects that were Received invitations so all the projects that were that received invitations from the town made a submittal and And then staff goes through them Looking at them against the story the scoring criteria and as Pete mentioned we come up with with a proposed score I know I've had a couple of conversations with a couple of you and You know the way it works is You're gonna have an opportunity to comment and at the end of the night the DRB is going to decide so Every year there's some Score that staff is proposed that the DRB will change Generally they tend to be fairly consistent, but the DRB will change one or more scores That's generally how it works and then the DRB makes the decision on the allocation So Pete's already mentioned that we have three allocation areas There's our growth center There's an area that is Where we do provide municipal water and sewer that's outside of the growth center And then there's most of the town and if you were to look at that That map over there on the wall behind the camera guy and you see there's a big big area That's all in that kind of pale green and that's all of The part of the town that doesn't have municipal water and sewer and so projects in each of those areas They only compete against other projects in that area and the scoring criteria are a little bit different Depending upon which of those three areas your proposed development happens to to be in In the so the amount of allocation that's available we have a big giant spreadsheet Two pages bring your magnifying glasses to read it And that's kind of how we keep track of it. There's a finite amount of allocation. That's available And we keep track of how much has been given out We keep track of how much is still Available and so the DRB has to make their decisions tonight in terms of a warning allocation Not just on scores, but based also on how much allocation is available in the scoring process There is a minimum score of 30 points that's required in order for a project to get allocation Generally speaking the projects that score the highest go to the top and get first in line Sometimes there may just be one project in an area that project would still need to get that reach that 30 point Threshold or higher with the exception of four units of allocation the board can award up to four units of allocation each year regardless of score and The reason why there is that? Safety valve as it were in the bylaw is that we know from experience that small projects tend to not score well in our system and it was it was a mechanism that was put in place to Try to relieve some of that pressure for some of those small projects so And there are in our first round of scoring there are two projects that come in under 30 points So that will represent somewhat of a decision point for the for the board in making their decisions later on tonight That's that's what I have Pete for the front end of it and then after that it's just a matter of going through Each of the proposed developments, and then going through the proposed Alice gate allocation schedule now. I would add that There were there were a couple of errors. I would there was a couple errors were pointed out to me In the original report and a revised report has been prepared to correct some of those We had the number of units For the handy Quinlan project. We had them Listed as four in one place and three in another place, and so we had to resolve that internal consistency And then the other is in if you for those of you that looked at the report In The table for proposed allocation we originally had some units of allocation proposed for northern holdings and In an earlier draft that was what the staff proposal was going to be As I'll get to later on the staff has there's two projects that score less than 30 points and We are not prepared to make a recommendation that either of those two projects get points Both of those projects score so closely And there's not enough allocation to go around so ultimately it's going to be up to the DRB to decide so It's always up to the DRB to decide anyways, but it's it's corrected in the report. So that's that's what I got Pete Okay, thank you Ken Okay, we will move into applicant number one DP 18-01 Mansfield Park Apartments If you would please Come on up Brett if you would say your name and address for the record, please Brett Grubowski with the Village Associates 32 Seymour Street, Williston Thank you Ken walk us through the scoring system, please. So the first thing I should mention For those of you that looked at the staff notes, you'll see So it's requesting 14 and a half units allocation and so you might go well, what's up with that? so in our bylaw for the purposes of calculating density and the purposes of growth management a Unit a dwelling unit or what we call a dwelling unit equivalent is a two-bedroom dwelling or greater And if you if you build a one-bedroom dwelling or a studio apartment that counts as one half of a dwelling unit equivalent so in this case Mansfield Park Apartments is proposing to build 31 dwelling units so You only need you don't need allocation for all the units you need allocation for all the units minus one So every property always has an inherent right to one unit of allocation So you say 31 minus one leaves 30 Actually, did I do that right is it 30 units 31? It's is it 31. Well theoretically it's 31, but they're all halves. They're all halves. So you end up with So should it be 15 30 point five and it should be 15 point five 15 point five So it should be 15 point five. Yeah 15.5 minus one For 14.5. Okay, I got it right. I just didn't explain it right my apologies So that's how we get that that's how we get to 14 I thought I understood it, but I'm not confused, but that's The important thing is I got it right when I wrote it So 14 and a half units of allocation So that's you know, that's sort of you know a complicating part of this Now the other thing this project is a little bit unusual in that it's in the growth center and When we've seen projects in the growth center, they've typically been these large mixed use projects Finney crossing cottonwood crossing Those are those are the things that come to mind. So here we have a property Originally developed as part of Mansfield investments and has an office slash commercial Use on it and there was a portion of the property that was left undeveloped So the lot itself was created at the time that the subdivision was created and all the streets That go around the lot were all created. So so it's not you know, we don't get this kind of situation all the time And so what what the applicant is proposing is just is literally one apartment building on this lot that already has a commercial Use as well, and it's also it's not necessarily what we consider to be a Virgin site. So that's part of the context of the project and then so looking through it Based on the applicants responses to the questionnaire they are proposing to To meet the energy efficiency requirement. So we've proposed them getting all of the points for that There's no pledge to Build affordable housing is defined in our bylaw. So we did not propose any points for that So housing diversity so they're proposing 31 multi-family units so how Does the board? Score housing choice on this dimension. So in the project itself. It's only one singular type of housing In the context of the housing mix of the entire town. It does represent in our view a mix of Providing a mix of housing types within the town. So on this on this item. It's double-weighted so So first you score it from one to ten and then you multiply it times two So in our proposed score, it's four points, which is two points So a couple of points for the reasons that I just mentioned and then it's double-weighted So you multiply times two so our proposed score is four and that's how we got to four on that dimension On the on the scoring sheet Never quite quite followed so the so for housing choices. There's provided is weight of two and not provided as a weight of two Why is there a number next to not provide it? Well, that's just the weight but it wouldn't not provide it be zero, right? Well, it'd be two times zero We could probably take it out I see yeah So So anyway, so that's how we got to that score So provide neighborhood space so, you know The questionnaire says will provide neighbor will propose subdivision provide permanent neighborhood recreation space Such as urban or neighborhood parks the applicant says they're going to provide exterior gathering place with grills and eating areas And if you look on the proposed site plan, you'll see there is a small area. That's next to that We didn't as a staff didn't feel that really met the definition of What you would consider to be open space within this context So we've we have not proposed any points on that design for context. This is one. It's weighted at one and a half so We have proposed giving it all of the points so 10 points times one and a half would be 15 points It's in an area that is intended and designed to be as Williston standards go urban And this would be an urban building built right up to the property line along the street and So we felt it was worthy of score of points there the other one that I I glossed over was build paths and trails so So the criteria is you get points if you're building Pazzer trails that are called for as part of the town's pedestrian system and The the greater the length you provide the more points you would get So here's a situation where the lot has already been created and there are sidewalks that are there along I think it's three sides of the lot Those were put in place as part of the original development so We've proposed giving it two points because the It's a it's a relatively small section however It's it is important to get those sections in an urban area And and they were built previously as part of the original development, but we do feel the the project should get some points As part of that so if you add all that up our proposed score is 31 Okay. Thank you Ken Any thoughts or comments on the proposed scoring? No, I don't I I agree with staff in their proposal and comments to the board and And I think this is a what we're proposing here is is a great use of Neglected area it within the growth center the foundations that we're replacing with this building. I've been there for probably about 10 years And so I think this is a great use of of the property and it's bringing density to to where density is supposed to be within the growth center and So no, I don't have any other comments Questions that the board may have Any questions from the board which sidewalks going to get dug up when you connect the sewers We actually We wouldn't the sewers are already extended into the lock. Oh, yeah But but we actually during construction will end up replacing all the sidewalks that are already there It's just because the way as staff commented because of the frontage of the building as close to the right away as possible To the boundary line as possible We're going to dig down 10 feet. So you're not going to keep sidewalks that are already there. So we'll end up replacing them. Yep They need to be replaced anyway, so they've moved around quite a bit over the course of the last 10 years It just you know, it's above 30 so it's kind of a move point, but the neighborhood space I mean the fact that there is a kind of a patio with a grill being provided It feels like that would be worth a couple points. I'm curious if Was that not considered to be neighborhood space. Well, so my original, you know Comments about the types of projects we see in the zoning district. So if you think about other projects We've seen like cottonwood and any crossing. So You know, you've got I don't know a swimming pool a tennis court. They're you know, there's a lot, you know It's a different It's qualitatively a different amount of open space. I understand this is an infill But certainly something for the board to consider if you wanted to, you know, give it, you know, a small number of points We wouldn't be opposed to it It seems like that was a not a necessary thing and it's a nice thing to have on I think what is going to happen in Intas corners going forward. I think the board is going to see more of this Because the large parcels are already been spoken for have been developed But I know just driving through the task corners area I can see a lot of other areas where this type of infill is very appropriate Because a lot of the uses that have that have they were already permitted in these areas markets change, you know demand changes and and and thus The good thing with the zoning in the in the growth center areas is extremely flexible And accommodate the changing changing environment, and so I I think you're really going to see a lot more of this The other thing I would add is So there is enough available allocation For this project to receive all of its allocation in fiscal year 19 There's also Fiscal year 19 starts July 1st just a few months away There's also enough allocation available for this project to get all of its allocation in fiscal year 20 that I think becomes sort of a question for the applicant in terms of How quickly do you think you are going to want to and going to be able to move forward because sometimes? People like to buy more time on the back end rather than hurrying up in the future So we've proposed giving it allocation Starting this coming fiscal year I would agree with staff construction costs only go up So the longer we wait the more expensive the product becomes Okay, is are there any questions from the audience on this application? Okay, hearing none. I'm going to close DP 18-01 at 725. Thank you very much That's 18-04. Thank you Okay, next up DP 15-02 Creeks Edge North Wilson Road press You would State your name and address for the record please for Snyder Snyder Holmes children Thank you Ken Okay, so This project should be familiar to the DRB This is what the third time for allocation for this For the first time I got it in 2006 I believe okay, it's before my time so So the project and its current iteration It received allocation in 2015 When the project got its allocation back in 2015 the allocation schedule it got spanned a number of years and This is a case where the applicant was interested in in seeing if the allocation schedule could be moved up closer into the present It helps with being able to pay off all the infrastructure costs that have to be paid early on to build the roads water sewer, etc so in 2016 there was a request for a revised allocation schedule that was granted by the board there was also another request in 2014 that was revised Granted by the board 2017 17. Thank you And so, you know here we are back again In terms of the scoring I Will I will make a confession so So last year when staff looked at the scoring We looked at the scoring brand new and didn't look at the scoring from the previous year Then we compared the two scoring's to see how They were very very similar. I don't remember how close they were but they were within a Point or two so this year. We just decided to rely on our wisdom from the previous years and So what you see for the scoring? This is the same scoring that you saw last year because the project hasn't changed And then, you know, our thinking there was that we had already gone through it a couple of times And so we had there was a certain amount of internal consistency So but in terms of walking you through it the project It's proposed to get all the points for energy efficiency no points for affordable housing is defined in our bylaw for housing choice It's a double weighted item. So two times ten a maximum score would be 20 so we proposed giving it two times three So some points but not the maximum of points Because there is a mix types within the project We also proposed a score of four for neighborhood space on the basis of a small urban park There are paths and trails connecting to the town's path system Including a bridge over the Allen Brook and then also to the town's multi-use path on North Wollstone Road So we've proposed seven points for paths and trails of a maximum ten Designed for context. This is a half-weighted item in this in this allocation area So scored one through ten and then given half weight So the maximum score you could get would essentially be five and we've proposed giving it four It it fits in in our view with a lot of the other developments that that we've seen in recent years on North Wollstone Road There's a criteria in this district. It's very formulaic about being close to services and based on that measurement in terms of proximity to the intersection of Williston Road and North Williston Road It would garner a score of five at half-weight which would be equal two and a half points Then in terms of neighborhood design also half-weighted a maximum score of five We've proposed giving it a score of two and a half or really right in the middle When you add up all those points that comes up to 31 points in the proposed scoring Okay, thank you Ken Chris do you have any comments on the proposed scoring seen it last year? Any any questions from the board on the proposed scoring Actually on the primitive trail is there an existing primitive trail or you show it on your planet now or no? Um There's a existing primitive trail on the Western boundary line. It's but it's actually not on our property It's just on the in the tree line there. That's and it connects Through to some catamels Adam Woods and there's a beaver pond and All sorts of trails back there and then it also connects over to the school property So are you gonna do anything with what you show on your plan for the primitive trail any kind of markers? Oh, yeah, there'll be some markers for the primitive trails that we'll have that's correct So like 8.5 you answered no for trails and stuff like that say again We'll propose subdivision provide a portion of segments and paths for our trails called for a on the town Trail Yes, I'm not sure where you see that. Oh, it's on 8.5 Question on the questionnaire did I Yeah, I would think it should be yes. It should be yes. Oh, yeah, you're right. You should be yes we because we've already scored this thing a couple of times and we know the plans and In fact the final plans have already been signed and I know there's a primitive There's a primitive path that's going to connect to the path that you mentioned and so but Yeah, technically The applicant should probably Change his his answer to that question. We'll see in a year the one after you come back with a new document then Any other questions clarifications Any questions from the audience So the other thing I would add is in terms of the allocation schedule. So what we've proposed is So under what the applicant has currently been awarded There are four units of allocation that don't become effective until fiscal year 21 There are three remaining units of allocation available in fiscal year 19 and one year of allocation available in fiscal year 20 So we've proposed is moving three units into fiscal year 19 moving one unit in the fiscal year 20 And then that puts those four units from fiscal year 21 back into the system So those would be available for somebody else to to pursue at a later date Which we that proposal I mean it's great. It's certainly meets the needs and helps us accelerate the velocity to essentially get the neighborhood done earlier and in a timely fashion and The other the reason why we won't be coming back is there are no other allocations for 2019 And so we know that and so we'll be we're tapped out basically by doing the shift so I would appreciate that in Acknowledgement and I think the homeowners who live there We will end up living there will appreciate us getting out of there sooner Okay, the last call for comments from the audience Okay hearing none I'm going to close DP 15-02 creaks edge at 735 Thank you Next up is DP 17-29 northern holdings Good evening if you would name state your name and your address for the record, please Dennis Borbo said Alvin's Vermont George McCain waterberry Vermont Eric Lovie, North Europe, mom Thank you Ken So this is a project Five dwellings needing four units of allocation on old creamery Road Part of the project includes a a Duplex structure with two dwellings and then there's an I think there would there would be three single family dwellings So that gives you your total of five dwellings in the project This so we've now we're in the ag world zoning district, so we're outside of the sewer service area In working through the proposal the applicants proposal the applicant has proposed to Meet the energy efficiency standard, so we've proposed giving it the ten points None of the units were We're pledged to be affordable as defined in our bylaw So no points were proposed as part of that There are no paths or trails that are called for in the town plan the applicant Is that's not proposing to build any so so zero points were proposed on that criteria Design for context in this part of town This is probably the Arguably the most liberally scored criteria in growth management If you build something that's going to be Relatively low density. That's kind of just like whatever else is on the street It's hard to argue that you shouldn't get the points for design for context And that's certainly the case In this time around So we've proposed giving it the ten points So open space so this is what we would consider to be an open space subdivision meaning the base lot area is Ten and a half acres or greater So in this zoning district if you have a lot that's ten and a half acres or greater You have to set aside a minimum 75% of the lot area as permanently protected open space That's a that's a minimum bylaw requirement and So meeting that requirement does not earn you points in growth management what earns you points in growth management on this dimension is if The land is deeded to the town or there's a conservation easement that's placed on it That is held by a non-profit like the Vermont land trust or something like that But if the open space is controlled by the homeowners Association, it doesn't earn any points With the applicant said in their and their questionnaire. It says conservation easement of the proposed Owners Association, which I take that to mean It's going to be open space controlled by the homeowners Association unless the applicant has other information We have not proposed giving it any points on that dimension based on what I just I just said So visual impact in this zoning district, there's a premium placed on whether a project is going to be visible from the street or not and So in this particular case, it's double-weighted. So you have a maximum score of 20 points We've proposed giving it two points. So a few points Some of the homes will be minimally visible from public roads. It's quite frankly because of the wetlands that are present on the lot the the The dwellings really need to be pretty close to the street and that makes it hard to obscure them from view If they're going to be right up really close to the street So so we've proposed giving it a couple of points not a lot of points on that score And then when you add those up that brings you to 22 points. So as I said earlier a project scoring less than 30 points The only way that it can receive allocation is the DRB would have to give it allocation from the four exempt units that you have and You know, you have a lot of control and discretion over how you give those out or not as the case may be So there is another project that's going to come in with a low score So there will be a decision there for you to make So we haven't made a recommendation on allocation for either those two projects because We'd make enemies either way so we decided to let you do that Okay, thank you Ken Thoughts and comments on the proposed scoring Sure I'd like to just run through some of the criteria where we didn't score points and just kind of Give you an idea of some of the efforts we've been through to try to have meet those as much as possible even though we ended up Unsuccessful in the initial draft here. So regarding the affordable housing the applicant went through quite a process they're trying to find a way to make us Make that criteria applicable met and had several conversations with the Champlain housing trust And unfortunately, there just wasn't an avenue that the the housing trust would be able to Accept one of those criteria. I'm sorry conditions No, were they aware of anywhere else we could go to really that would Meet the goals of the project as well as provide affordable housing per definition of the Williston bylaws There was again, this doesn't really help us tonight, but just an item for future consideration Knowing that by their nature these smaller rural projects are difficult to score in areas like affordable housing and in other areas providing some kind of avenues such as a Maybe a monetary donation or some donation in kind to a housing trust In lieu of perpetually affordable housing and some point allocation to go through there Maybe something just for the board to consider for the the town to consider in future iterations of this management process But obviously nothing for tonight If I can come as well we're speaking with the director of home ownership program at The CHT and basically he said that what could be done is Put in a covenant and record it in with the with the town that restricts the future sale price of the home And it looks like based on the CHT spreadsheet and calculations They do that some of these homes would in fact be at least 120 percent medium-income affordable housing Unfortunately, that is not Acceptable as per the Wilson bylaws But we did look into that as much as possible and in general the CHT looks at homes that are about a hundred and fifty Okay to get involved in so that's quite a bit lower But we did, you know exhaust all possibilities Regarding paths and trails again, we we would be willing to provide you know an easement or constructive portion of trail there Unfortunately, there's nothing in the town plan really called for in this area And obviously along old premium road in the Sunset Hill Road There are no sidewalks for us to throw up So that was something we would have been willing to do and wanted to try to do but there's Nothing in the town plan that really allowed us to score points there Again design for context, I think we've covered that one Can I just ask you a question on that one? Sure Are there other a charge trying to drive down in my head down here? Are there other duplexes along the section of Jason to this I believe there's a mix of housing going through there Doing a drive-by-through. I couldn't tell if any were duplexes or not It's a pretty good mix there, but And I believe part of what we've been trying to do there, too Is if you look at the the layout of the lots in the aerial imagery, we've got one standalone home on Sunset Hill Road Two lots that are relatively close to each other for single-family homes on Creamery Road And then the duplex or townhouse style that's on its own lot further down So it's really instead of just cookie cutter five lots right in a row with the same house It's kind of an it will look a lot like the other growth that has gone on along old Creamery Road That's that's broken up into different different styles and spacing etc Just curious if that duplex will the scale of it or the mass of it or just the fact that there's two in front doors is Not too big of a deal I can go open space sure We reached out to the Vermont land trust Generally, they only look at parcels that are 50 acres or larger unless there's some specific Value value whether it's habitat or whatever So we looked at we look at the map and look at the overview project doesn't work for them It doesn't fit into their model same CHC same as with the CHT We did also think about the riparian zone that's around supper Brook there Maybe some kind of a river trust would would would be interested, but again, it's just not valuable enough Space there or land there so then what we did was we proposed to Dedicated to the town to the town and we met with the conservation department. We had discussions with them It was a good discussion I think in the end they saw the value of it, but they also their conclusion was that under the current by-laws It's impossible for anybody to develop this further and they felt that it was not worth the headache for them That this would be in their opinion. It would be conserved as is as open space As I understand this board has the power to accept To weigh in on this this debate as well Specifically accepting a deed of this open space to the town so that it may be you know protected in perpetuity So the board doesn't have the authority to accept anything The only body that can make a decision to accept a piece of land for the town is the select board So anything involving ownership has to go to the select board even though it may be just it's going to be donated Still the town has to be willing to accept it. So the DRB The DRB can't they don't have the ability to make that decision I think what the DRB has the ability to decide is Whether or not to give you allocation or not and that's that's within that's within their purview So but just to clarify that the DRB doesn't have the authority to say whether the town will accept ownership of anything Only the select board can do that And just another avenue we did briefly discuss as we preparing the application was the idea of An open space agreement between the town and the homeowners association which wouldn't necessarily Convey or dedicate that land via an easement to the town But it would dictate how that land was managed the areas that weren't wildlife corridor or wetland and be you know more of a binding document that would Detail how how that land was to be managed what could and could not occur there and how that was going That's probably also a you know select board agreement if there's a legally binding contract going on But it is an avenue that we have used in other towns to protect open space in areas of high public value Such as these large wetlands or wildlife corridors that we've conserved in our 10 and a half acre open space One question I have here is in your open space. You got a sewer line running from the one house over to your Field Yes, all right. Is that kind of is that going to be horizontal board or are you going to dig down and Generally our experience with open space is that it's you can put things such as underground utilities and whatnot through it I don't know what i'm asking is is that if it has to be revisited someone's going to be coming through the open space So effectively you got you have to have you got an easement in this open space for this guy's sewer line to be in there If it was taken over by the town, we would have to put a right away or an easement through there. Yes That's all I wanted to ask so so paul what I would add to that is so The the applicants engineer is correct You are allowed to put leach fields and things like that in open space. So remember This um, they don't have a permit yet. They don't have a subdivision plot yet They would need to get allocation tonight in order to come in for that later phase At that later phase Exactly what you're talking about be something that we would be looking for them to do which would be there would be an easement so that You know at some point somebody may need to to dig up the pipe or whatever some kind of maintenance And yeah, they'd have to make sure that they had some kind of legal access to get to it. So thank you So you're you're absolutely right. That would be necessary The last item here is the visual impact in the screening Uh, Ken's absolutely right. We are a little handcuffed keeping these buildings and units up close to old premium road But that also kind of gives us a great opportunity to utilize some of the natural vegetation that exists along there to provide screening If you're going through there's a lot of uh, younger growth and and thicker especially in the summertime growth right along old premium road and if you look at the Engineering plan that paul was just mentioning we've got the hatched lines there that we're going to be preserving The existing vegetation we would agree to do that in perpetuity in order to Both break up the project from itself and provide screening from public roads We have proposed street trees to be planted Each unit to break up the massing of the buildings and the facades there So that we are really mitigating the visual impact as much as we possibly can we'd be happy to discuss You know Types of plantings or hedgerows or what's going on in front of those units to provide the most screening possible but I think We've kept a significant amount of that existing vegetation around there to protect views from public highways And that's one where I think we we would like to argue that we might have a couple points hiding in there that The you know the the criteria is minimally visible from public roads except those serving the site So obviously old primary road is the one directly serving the primary four units And that is one that we've got we're maintaining existing vegetation planting street trees And everything shown on this plan and in our in our narrative to minimize that visual impact absolutely You'd mentioned the the houses are kind of penned in by the topography But it it seems like the center of the lot is the lattice portion It seems like the the lots westerly the two It seems like you've got steeps. You've got steeper slopes closer to the corner sunset hill and and old creamer The house is back Is this just not a full topo survey? Is that we're missing some of the contours or no, you're correct It drops off about 10 feet from the edge of Old creamy road out to the center of the site. So there is a significant low point in the middle there There's also an old dug drainage ditch from when this was an old quarry Going back. So it's That's really not an ideal spot for development from a Realistic house site kind of way. It is a nice big flat area, but it wouldn't be conducive to a home You really want to keep those tucked up against old creamy road To protect, you know to provide drainage Positive drainage away from the home. So we don't get any witness in basements We do have the wetland in the corner that we've got to protect from as well as a smaller class 3 That's in the center of that 10 and a half acre open space So we'd love to push them back and provide more screening and plant additional stuff so that you couldn't see these things from anywhere But again, we're really constrained to keep these up closer For logistical and feasibility reasons All right, this was a borough pit right and I they and this was a borough pit back in the 70s So they didn't you know think they didn't have much foresight when they were cleaning up so there's a bunch of of land that's or a bunch of Material fill that's up on one side that could be distributed But it's First of all, the fact that it was a borough pit meant that there's now a wetland there which provides real habitat So there are benefits and there are you know, that's right now This makes a lot of sense. It's a feasible way to make it happen Versus trucking in a bunch of velvet. Yeah, because then then we've got the open space that right now. We know we had the conservator Was the habitat assessment done? Yeah, we did with the part of the Pre-application materials was a meeting in a habitat disturbance assessment with the bullets and conservation commission So we've got really all our prime wetland and habitat areas in that which is also Towards the southern and back into that parcel. So keeping everything pulled up towards the roads Also provides maximum buffer distances to there to maximize the value of that open space Any other questions from the board any other comments from the applicant? Comments from the audience Okay, thank you We're going to close TP 17-29 As 755 Thank you. Thank you Okay, next up is dp 17-30 spencer 635 clunken hill road Good evening If you would state to your name and address for the record, please Spencer 1171 lechwood drive wilson In william spencer Same address Thank you Ken you're next Okay, uh, we seem to have one of these almost every year This is the much dreaded We had a unit of allocation and it expired So this subdivision goes back to I don't know 2007 2008 It was a three lot subdivision that was plotted Pumpkin hill road comes off of of south road It's the southern part of south road and There's One house has been built There's another house that has the unexpiring unit of allocation and this one has the expired unit of allocation So the allocation expired In order to be able to build on the lot they need to reestablish allocation. So they have to go through the process So here they are So we walk through the scoring criteria Um, uh, they have pledged to meet the energy efficiency criteria. So we've proposed 10 points the points available Uh, affordable housing no units pledged. So no points Paths and trails. There are no paths and trails as part of this. So no points Um, so designed for context. This is Arguably um the lowest density Of anything built in williston Um, so in terms of what we're looking for for context of this area We've proposed giving it the 10 points because it seems to fit that criteria Um, so there is a large amount of open space that was created as part of the subdivision because it was a really really big lot Really really big subdivision that was divided but but none of it was you know conserved. It's just you know Either held by the individual homeowners or in uh with an association. So no points based on our criteria Um, so visual impact so the the gold standard For this zoning district for visual impact is that the unit's not going to be visible from the street So, um, there is a big big lot Uh on the front end of What pumpkin hill comes off of? South road and then this lot is buried in a wooded Area behind that So it's hard to imagine that anybody is ever going to see this lot leaf on or leaf off So, um, this criteria is weighted is double weighted So we've proposed giving it the 10 points times 2 is 20 So even though it's just a single lot It with the proposed score between the design for context and the the invisibility It scores a lot of points So, uh, it exceeds the 30 point minimum necessary Yep There is allocation available the other not that the board is bound by this in any way But the past practice of the board has been pretty consistently year in and year out On these units of expired allocation of I think in all cases the allocation has been Reestablished with the lot so that the property owner can build the house and and then move on so And there is there is allocation available So we recommended that the allocation be available as early as As this current fiscal year or it could be delayed if If that's what the applicant wants they want to get the allocation in later years to extend the life But I don't know what their priority is. We assume they would want to go right away Okay, uh, any comments on the proposed scoring Okay Good answer Any comments questions from the board Yeah, one question What is it the note down here says this is a request for a resubmission of one unit of expired allocation for a lot in a three lot open space now There's like two other lots up there or is this all this one house going to acquire all three lots Just one So just one so there's two more lots up there that One house has been built And then there's another lot that has allocation and it doesn't need allocation So it's just this one of three that has the expired allocation Anything else paul? Yeah, what's the the other thing is what's the proper time limit that we make them Ring their hands before we move on What's the the load how long is the? um allocation the allocation is valid for for five years Five years, so if they are if they if they're true to their word and they're looking to get going soon They shouldn't have any problems with the allocation expiring Not much of a weapon Are you saying you don't want to see us again? No Any comments from the audience, okay, um, we're going to close Dp 17-30 at eight o'clock. Thank you. Thank you Next up is dp 18-0 a handi quinland good evening If you would state your name and address for the record, please I'm david Burke of oliri Burke and andrew antel from oliri Burke's also here s extension Sean handy 30 20 south room old stuff can um So this is a request for four units of allocation as part of a rural open space development On old stage row um You know I note in my notes that um the applicant is proposing to dedicate and build a portion of a primitive The town's primitive path network Which helps it to score points Um And I'll just walk through the scoring sheet So in terms of energy energy efficiency Like all like all applicants they're proposing to meet the energy efficiency requirements. So we propose 10 points No units of a portable housing are have been pledged. So zero points for that Um paths and trails So the um the applicants are proposing to uh Dedicate a section Of the uh Almost 1500 feet of a length of trail um That some of which would be um within the velco easement It is it will be important to make sure that because of the way the lot is configured That that easement is going to run all the way to old stage road So we're eyeballing the plot here the plan and we can see that it's Potentially possible, but we did want to reiterate that It's assuming that this thing is going to go all the way to old stage road So um, you may want to uh address that when uh with your comments to the to the drb Um, but we've proposed giving it the 10 points on that uh dimension Um open space so the the open space is not proposed to be placed in a conservation easement Or deeded to the town so no points are proposed And then visual impact. So we've got four units seeking out allocation Um, two of the lots are going to be in our view Visible from the street, but two of them Two of them won't so we've proposed to score three points double weighted two times three is six Um So that would if you add all those up that yields a proposed score of 36 points Thank you. Ken. Uh, do you want to talk about the uh Notional Allocation phasing and then we propose two units fiscal year 19 and two in fiscal year 20 Okay, you would start by addressing the issue raised by ken on the paths and trails, please We do yes, we were ken's talking about if you follow the existing velko easement the south side of the velko easement is More or less consistent with a little jut out of the abutting lot that's Just south of lot four so what we'll have to do is to Jut an easement around that jut out so that it does get all the way out to old stage road and and that's that's not a problem so we would just Provide an easement that's to the south of the velko Transmission easement in that area any other Comments on the proposed scoring No, the scoring is fine. It was towards the beginning of the year So just as a quick summary that you've got it in front of you, but this is on the North side of the mountain view that section of old stage road it's um 90 6.4 96.28 acres And one lot is existing as ken said so there's four proposed lots two New lots are right off of old stage road. No argument that those will be visible the other two are set back in the southwest corner parcel does have the 75% Open space, but it's not being conveyed to a third party. So the the scoring seems appropriate But I don't know if there's any ability in a perfect world If if there's the availability for three units in 2019 and one in 2020 that would work better, but I think I think there's the units available So that would be a The only change that we would request consideration of right so so You know as uh as dav mentioned there there are units available Our proposal was simply Two this year this coming year and then two the following year um, and the thinking was that especially with a Project like this where you're going to have standalone lots It might give the applicant more time Um in the event that not all the lots develop all at once which tends to be common in these type of developments um So but on the other hand, we don't have any objections in all four units getting allocation in f y 19 um But as we've already seen in one case, you know the clock can expire and so sometimes having the allocation later on We might be doing you a favor that you don't even know yet Depending on what happens with market forces, etc. So something to think about One of the lots lot one is for shan And lot two may not be built on for quite some time, but The other The other two lots we think will sell pretty quickly on that section of old stage road So we'd prefer the three and one or even the the four But probably the three and one that I originally requested. Okay Okay, so noted Any other comments Any questions comments from the board? If just out of curiosity have you talked to that existing lot owner to see whether or not you just punch the drill right through We can ask That might be a no then Any questions from the audience Yeah, I'll go first Okay. Now, uh, so the rules of engagement if you would please stand and state your name and your address for the record and And have your questions to the board, please Ben Ellsworth 1449 old stage road So the uh, a little shout out that there's you know, that is my property And it's actually part of my mountain system for the septic So currently the trail when I looked at the map it goes right through as we talked about the easement the belco easement But it goes right through my land as I say my mountain system and I just wanted to be able to hear that the trail Again, we spoke about another using it that goes around my little jet out I just want to make sure that that Doesn't interfere with our septic and our mountain system There's a lot of tracking specifically walking or driving vehicles on as we all know probably could affect a septic This is his thing or any other request, but this is what he's talking about right there So I just want to make sure you get any records Was a petition that was sent to you It was signed by 19 residents on old state road. You're at the end of old state road In the opposition of that trail system going to develop alliance Hopefully you guys won't be that If you don't I have a comment for you. Was that part of the application previously Was that submitted as part of the pre application when they came in for the preliminary review That's something that came in a couple weeks ago Okay, I don't I don't recall seeing it. So we didn't we didn't Submit that to the to the board Appropriate to have that submitted as evidence at the stage um So if if the applicant is going to get points for the trail system You got to make a decision on that now um so My recollection is that this this path system is called for in the town plan So You know the the neighbor can submit the petition Ultimately, the board's got to decide as to whether or not that's it's going to be acceptable to create this an easement For this section of path We are in between In between so pre-applic you need to go pre-application to get here tonight And then you need to get allocation to tonight to be able to come for discretionary permit so There's the applicant doesn't get a permit until they get a discretionary permit approved however When the applicant comes in for discretionary permit, they're going to be held to everything that they pledged as part of growth management Lowest buy points So I would ask that that Partition be submitted for our consideration, please Thank you. High points at one of the what's the concern of the bell? mislead um Basically, it's a trail that ends at full-stage road and there's traffic We don't want people parking in front of our dry boys We don't want people parking on the side of the road as you know as you approach the dead end the road narrows We just don't want traffic one back and forth It causes other problems other concerns that you can read in this petition Love uh, it's traffic. It's people. It's privacy. Thank you sir I don't know where it is, but it was dropped off here So yeah, I go signature. So I don't know where it is, but I dropped it off and I can Test it like that. I think that you know the other thing And I don't know well one question I have is on the other end. Does this go all the way to um Out the other end to um ledger of states does it does that open space? Is that public access? Does it have access to that? Much what it does does because of the open access doesn't mean open doesn't mean open Yeah, space and get the ties to the velcro Yeah, so that means I I don't know what open space means, but it means public access is permitted We anyone who go out there and bark around on that that would be very Is that correct? Can if you don't understand me too It's a very steep section of open space between I believe there's trellis There's also a game near the velcro Destructed after they put a stonework down it when they're doing power line work It suggests this isn't a very highly desirable open space Section and I would agree with the neighbors that You don't want people parking out there But I guess I disagree that people don't want to park out there just because it's not it's not that desirable of a section of The velcro line to walk along But again, it's just the easement that's being provided And if the path ever were to occur that would be part of future process Maybe I'm not There was a discussion maybe some other trails in the the rest of the bulk of the open space Is that not I'm sure Does this require velcro approval for something to go on We're getting it right away over mr. Handy's property, right? It's yeah, but velcro. Velcro owns the right away The main is the trees on it That practice velcro john and I the The buckle on the other side that goes right through our backyards And I know my property when we bought it was on that market for a long time And the reason we were told is because the buckle probably So now you're gonna have you know, it's in the town plan To think about coming on the other side. You just want to reduce the property value over there And that's kind of all in your calculations Visual impact I'll take Answer your question, David. No, it was there wasn't any other proposed trails As far as the velcro. I can tell you from 30 years of experience mr. Handy's land So he's Title to walk through there if he allows it things like Even though it's your land you then need permission Um on that mound system if we haven't located it We will locate it because we need to make sure that if anything happens there that we have proper isolation You know from that system Can I'd like to ask a little clarification from you guys On the building paths and trails for um Residential subdivisions outside the sewer service area. It says the same as wdb 7.7.5 Which is I look at it here. So the majority of the proposed dwelling units are served by the town's path and trail system But the developer building all onsite segments to get five to ten points So that means that this pledge here is that they're going to build a path The one that they've proposed yes So it's not just an easement, but it's actually building a path Well in some cases, you know the conservation commission which kind of oversees all of this um Sometimes we like to be in control of that and we may want to defer that so Um, it's with the understanding that the applicant may be required to build it Um, or for our own self-serving purposes, we may say we'd rather defer it for some reason or another Um, what I would point out is I did pull up from the town plan. And so when you look in um, the the map Uh, it's map 17 parkland and primitive trails And it shows this alignment of this trail and it goes Essentially it goes across on both sides of old stage road And it leaves the the subject property to the west and connects through Ledgewood and it makes connections to the west connections to the north It also extends eastward and makes other proposed connections. So It's part of a proposed network of paths and trails um, I don't know that it's that it's um Intended or that it's likely to end up where this is going to become a destination that people are going to Drive to to get to this path and trail what it means is That somebody who might be out walking along it like let's say somebody that lived on old stage road Or perhaps somebody that lived on ledgewood road Um, they would be able to walk continuously across this path Even though they wouldn't be on their own property and they would be going on the lands of other neighborhoods, whatever They would have an entitlement to be able to do that Yeah, I I mean, I don't know that That's not like the expert opinion, you know, that's just opinion It's there's a North Wilson road This thing goes Easy connection provides And you know, I don't you know, it's I just don't think the whole thing's personally a good idea It goes right through our backyard in addition to looking at power poles We're gonna have to look at people walking through our backyard So, I mean, I I think you know, I like to show him get his permits And the other question I have is why why the impacts for us so much? because it seems You know, it seems to me, you know, it is open space but You will have a yurt to go on our road and that's not the most attractive thing So this zoning district is not subject to design review So if somebody wants to build an ugly house They can get a permit to build an ugly house. So we we don't have I don't have the authority You're the one that raised the yurt sir, I'm just going to answer that question So that lot had an entitlement to build on it that woman That's what she decided to do have no authority to prevent her from building that based on the fact that it may not be the most attractive structure in the world so This project needs growth management allocation. It's not exempt like that was So it's subject to the scoring criteria that's contained in the bylaw one of which is You get more points or less points depending on how visible Things are from the street Well, that's the criteria So you could get some points if it's minimally visible You could get all the points if you may have heard earlier There was one where it's going to be way back in the woods. No one's ever going to see it They got all the points and our proposal because it was totally invisible Um In this case the recommended score gets some of the points because some of the units would be visible But some of them would be minimally visible. Ultimately the drb will have to decide What score they want to award to the project, but that was based on how we evaluate I couldn't find the criteria I think what Tim's trying to argue is the two houses on old stage road will fit You know the development of the other houses on the road already So taking that into consideration that all the other houses along the state road are visible Why take points away from that if the two lots on the road are going to fit the criteria of the rest of the road So that's criteria 11.8.4 which is designed for context And we propose giving you all the points for design for context for the very reason that you just stated That's not visibility. It's different from visibility. So those are two different scoring criteria So you could get points for design for context but not get points for invisibility It's it does happen So Right now as far as staff We stay at that wonderful if the board feels that the trail needs to go down because The pledge is the easement and it may or may not happen depending on the future process if that went down to five again, that's still 31 I think the the comment actually on visual impact And I'll defer to to your experience but two out of the four homes are not going to be visible They're set back in that southwest corner and that's you mentioned the dump point thing So perhaps that number could even Rise up to five Which is halfway and then times two the six would rise to 10 So I think there's flexibility in what staff suggested that Any scenario would keep us above the 30 points Okay, so noted Any other comments on the why we're on the Applicant comments to the scoring anything else before I go back to the to the audience Okay, ma'am To a spring that will go through Goes through the balcony through bends Land and will be in the other two lots On old state road. I just want to make sure that that's included in the plan And we're there to be a limited trail. It will also Go through that most of trail any other comments from the audience. Yes, ma'am Like Leonard 1650 old state road I also have water rates the same water rates as uh, marsha urie So I would reiterate her point and I guess just it's a very quiet road and I can't imagine Having a public trail through that private residential area just doesn't seem to make sense For all the reasons on the petition. Thank you Any other comments from the audience Any other comments from the board this water right deal Now does that come before us? Does that become before uh act 250 who is Where did where does that fall? Well at the time that the applicant were to submit An application for a permit at discretionary permit a discretionary permit stage They would need to show any easements any existing easements Any proposed easements those would all need to be shown on the property So to the extent that there are people that have easements for whatever right whether it's water or other The applicant would be required to show all that information on that plot Not only show it paul, but we would have to honor Isolation distances, so it's the state wastewater permit that's going to control that Yeah, and about distances that type of thing I wrote down both those addresses else from the board Anything else from the audience Anything else from the applicant? Okay. Thank you for coming. We're going to close dp 18-08 at 827 Thank you, sir. Let's see what the boys can do next up is dp 18-09 09 brown L. Lamarsh You would state your name and address for the record, please I'm andrea dottolo from chudel consulting in wilson welcome mr. Belevo okay, uh, so This is a project. Um, it's seeking six units of allocation as part of a rural open space development off south brown L road to the arzd You have Some of the units would be accessed from south brown L road and some of them would be accessed from rosewood drive So in looking through the questionnaire that the applicant submitted The applicant Has pledged that all the units would be energy efficiency, so we've proposed the score of 10 points, which is all the points available None of the housing units were pledged to be affordable So no points Have been proposed on that criteria So, um, the applicant has stated in their narrative that They're going to build approximately 4,300 Lineal feet of trails that exist and But it's not proposed to be connected to the town's trail system And I get some commentary from melinda Based on her commentary from the conservation commission and in their review at pre-application There was there was no inclination that these trails would become part of the town's trail system So based on that we have not proposed it receiving any points on this particular criteria Under design for context um So Again, this is kind of a split Project you've got some units that would be accessed off of rosewood Rosemont rosewood Which comes out of uh shellburn? And then some would be accessed off of south brown L road The board may recall when we went at pre-application There were the existing property owners on south brown L road Who all have these rather large lots and part of the commentary the testimony of the board heard The lots that are proposed Right to the west of those existing lots are They're rather small in comparison to the lots The existing lots that are on south brown L road So based on that So staff is proposing five points out of a possible maximum of 10 And basically the this this idea that that the context of a large portion of these lots is really It's really different from what exists within the context on south brown L road And the board may want to tinker with that a little bit, but that was you know kind of our Our assessment on that. I think it's easier to make the case that the that the lots that would come off of rosewood Would be more similar to what's there, but you basically you've got these two different distinct Development areas within this project So on the criteria for open space There's uh There's no promise to either place a conservation easement or have ownership by the town So no points have been proposed and then visual impact So this is a double weighted score. So you've got one to ten times two so a maximum of 20 So you have some of the lots some of the lots would be Minimally visible some would be more visible So we've proposed a score of three out of ten two times three is six six points You add all those up and you get to 21 points So if that score or close to that score Is what the drb awards that's once again, that's below the minimum of 30 points So the the board has four units of allocation you can give out in any which way you want If you add these six units and the four units from norther holdings you have Ten units and two projects that are seeking allocation That would essentially be competing for those four units So, um, you know the board will have at least a couple of decisions to make on that score Okay, thank you. Ken Thoughts and comments from the applicant Yeah So as far as energy conservation and affordable housing we do agree with the scores provided by the staff I would like to discuss the score for the paths and trails as well as Your understanding of how that score is given out Reading from the wilson development bylaws. It does mention directly in here That you would have proposed dwelling units served by the town's path and trail system However, this section also refers to policy 6.6 of the town plan Which more clearly states That wilson will continue to require developers to provide local streets sidewalks or multi-use paths and primitive trails That serve their projects So I am just wondering if You know, we're not in an area where the town has any proposed trails So there's no opportunity for us to connect to those Does that mean that we automatically get a zero for this score? especially when We do have 38 acres of open space that have Plan to keep and improve for this development We would also be open to the idea There's a parcel to the north that would connect to a proposed trail and You know in any situation if that parcel was to have A trail come Through their property Our applicant would be happy to connect their trails to town trails if the opportunity arose So I would like to ask that the paths and trails for Is revised if it can be As we do propose to provide trails while they won't be connected to the town plan Yeah The yellow lines that are shown on c2 2.02 those are existing trails or those are Yeah, those are existing trails. Um, and I will say that The trails do Continue back past the wetland a bit as well They just weren't mapped for the purposes of being out there, but there's plenty of of trails We did also some of those that show some of the trails on them Why such a dense network of trails? So just yourself are using well, no the neighbors use it As well. I think one of the neighbors is here. I think he's used some of our trails Um, but you know and our children and Yeah, just one the one that shows so this is a trail that kind of ends at the property line The I guess westerly property line in the gray Does that tie into it? It looks like maybe there's a trail that connects there. Do you know what I'm talking about? Back to the light gray triangle that you have The yeah, so there's a path that ends right there at the property line. Does that continue anywhere? Yeah, I walked back there when I was walking through the trails and The vegetation stops so it becomes a large open field But out there along the way walking around here as well And while I have this up, I will just point out this Area is town on land which has the primitive trail mapped on it So if this price will or whichever Allow a trails and connecting to ours Are you proposing then to get these points to actually develop or to build any trails or you're just looking for credit for trails that already exist We are looking for credit for existing trails if it would help to build More prominent trails. I think that would be something that our applicant is willing to do. Yes, my only question for you guys is Do you have experience with projects that don't connect to the town? trail system and have you ever given points to projects like ours I don't know if you have that experience or not Yeah, we're calling in the time I've been here It's one of the things that I think would be important for the board to consider If you are going to give points on this score is that so when We would get points for Whether it's a primitive path or any other kind of transportation infrastructure There would be an easement that would be part of that that would guarantee public access So you're proposing to provide public access to anybody that wants to walk on these trails It's a simple question It would require you to execute an easement as part of the subdivision plot That would give legally Deed access to anybody that wants to walk on that path And that's an important consideration. It's it's different than Your neighbor says can I walk across your land and you go okay? Something that's written in the deed That exists for all time I mean You have to you have to decide whether or not you're willing to do so. What's your position on that? There's one question regarding that would As far as the public accessing this site would there need to be provided parking to access A trail in that sense No, I would say that people could walk across our land sure So yes, we would be able to provide an easement You get some of on okay Now continue, please But I guess the one with the development if you were to build all six Lots out it seems like there would not be a logical trailhead Or a point It seems like for this to be a feasible trail that could be used by the public there would need to be some way to get to it It seems like some of those trails would go away because you'd be building houses where those trails are and it would be kind of fragmented Yeah, the the start the The string of homes over here are going to basically eat the trailhead at this end Any other one comes right down the guy's driveway on the other end The two main connection points And the other one comes out of the backyard of the house that's coming off of rosewood So how would one get access to the trails if they were I mean, I don't know how many people are going to want to come up and walk around on our land But you know if they wanted to do that they might be able to park on our road I I guess I mean, it's not like we're going to put up a sign and say here's the trailhead. I mean But I mean, I wouldn't mind if people were up there And I don't I don't know All this out there, but I mean it doesn't happen that often Do you know what I mean? It's not like it's a long trail or something It's not going to be like that Well, and you know, and if that other parcel was to allow Um people to walk on it. I suspect that that might open it up more So there might be parking You know on a couple of parcels over or whatever and they would just connect that way As a lot of trails do in Vermont Okay, uh continue please the next category was designed for context, um for which we received five of the 10 points And I would like that's going to be considered, um again as well It was mentioned that the proposed lots on our project are much smaller than those Of the surrounding area and I would just like to review that There's two lots that are off of rosewood drive. They're 2.6 and 2.5 acres in size There's another four existing lots that are off of rosewood drive So both of the lots that we are proposing are on the larger side Of the existing lots off rosewood drive and I would say that they are within the same Context of what's existing As far as the four proposed homes that are closer to south brownell They are a little bit smaller of lots. Um, there's two 1.05 acre lots proposed One acre lot and a 2.1 acre lot I will note that they are proposed back to back to Three lots that are off of south brownell drive that are slightly larger All around 1.8 acres In my opinion the lots that we are proposing are slightly smaller than what's existing But they're not extremely smaller. They're within the same general size. Um, I know on other projects There's lots that are far under an acre being proposed Um, I also just wanted to point out That, you know, northing holdings received 10 points for their design for contacts When they have 0.6 acre lots and only 13.1 acres in total for the five proposed homes We have 48.4 acres in total and are proposing seven homes and I would just Like this score to be reviewed because I don't believe that issuers receive half of the points That it could receive for Just those few homes. I think if One of those four lots was removed. It would be exactly in line with the design of The surrounding area and I will also just state that we put those houses there Specifically so that we could have that neighborhood contacts. They're all off of the shared drive Um, and it also just maintains the contiguous natural areas in our open space for the surrounding parcel Is that a curiosity lot one you say is 2.10 acres? How much of that is taken up by the driveway? Yeah, there is a good portion taking up by the driveway. Um That finger that goes out I mean that finger that finger looks like there's almost no usable land other than the driveway right So the remaining area is again just over an acre once you take off that finger open space open space Can't really do too much about it at this point once from what we heard from northern holding So we will agree with the zero points on that score For visual impact we would like this score to be reviewed as well Um As ken stated the two lots off of rosewood drive are completely Shaded and not visible from any public road And we would propose that since Two of our six lots is a third of our project that those two homes alone Three points of our ten Which would double to our six In addition to that the four homes that are closer to south bronell road are very partially visible We are proposing plantings all along the proposed drive Which should shield most of the houses from The small portion of south bronell and root 116 These proposed houses are in line The only places that you'd be able to look through is through the duke voice lots, which has existing Development and really you'd be looking head on From the line of four houses. So whether or not all four of those houses would be visible at all is a profession And again, we do have proposed planting part of the wilson All along this road Which should help in the road season shield the houses from being viewed From anywhere over here and again Not to necessarily compare Points of other projects, um, and I will just state that the handy project received the exact same score And they have two homes which are Very visible from the road, um, and then two homes which in my opinion may be partially visible from Old sage and mountain view So I would just like That score to be reelected at as well Okay, any other comments on the scoring or other components? Yeah, I guess I'm not 100 familiar with this process Others say I'm hoping that you guys are going to reevaluate our score Hopefully we would meet the minimum 30 points to get some allocation If you are not able to revise our score based on this proposal Do we have any option to Use a lot which might help We also would Consider operating affordable housing if that would be the only way to get our score into the 30-point range Just not sure how that process exactly works The other issue that I've got a question is What is your proposed outlook for allocation if you got it? How would you be looking to get your six units all at once? No over to a year to you know one up front Four down the road. What what what are we looking at here? Yeah, so we would like to up front and those would be the two rosewood lots Which they'd like to develop first the remaining four You really don't have a strict timeline. I believe what you're really looking for is the two rosewoods and they The main the main the homestead one the house that's going to be lot five. Is it or whatever it is? Um mainly just the two off rosewood the remaining also those the first two those are the two that you really want And the other the other five or Yeah, the other four down the road could come at any time. One is an existing house that the lot that's okay That's already existing here. Okay So basically that's the two you're looking for up front and four in the future. Yes. Okay. Yep Oh, the other question was how was the uh How the treasure hunt go with the The people on rosewood looking for The the buried cars I don't believe any Action has been taken towards that. Yeah, just curious. Yep. Anything else? That's it Any other questions from the board just to answer your question? I mean, I think you're kind of locked into what was proposed at the pre-application phase. I don't Right. I mean they can't really make changes now Oh, if they're if they're going to propose a change they got to do it now The other thing that I would address is the issue of affordable housing So we've had applicants before who have sat here at the table at growth management who said Yes, I'll do affordable housing and then who choked on that pledge later on down the line and whined and screamed and kicked And did everything you could imagine to say, oh, well, there's no way I can afford to do it You've got to let me off the hook And so you should you should understand that if you make a pledge You're going to be held to that pledge and then if you don't you're not going to be able to get a permit So you need to be very careful about what it is that you're pledging to do because it will be incorporated into the conditions of approval for your project so If I were, you know, if I were asked my advice, I would not be saying well We'll consider doing affordable housing unless you've got a plan to do that You got a plan to do that and you've scoped out exactly how that's going to pencil out And you've scoped out who's going to manage that for you or you have some experience in that area I would Probably want to tread carefully in that in that area because You could be you could be promising something and then find out later on that it makes me more difficult To do then you had imagined so I'm not saying it's impossible. It may be possible. I don't know the answer to that But if you make a pledge and you get allocation You will be required to meet that or you won't be able to get a permit Well, you should have that all in place before your final plans are signed So if you get allocation tonight, you got a year from now To submit an application for discretionary permit if you get approval for a discretionary permit You'll have a year from that day to submit your final plans So It's you know, there'll there'll be some time But it won't be an unlimited amount of time that you'll have to work that out All I'm saying is we have seen this happen in the past where Applicants have said that they were willing to do certain things and especially on the affordable housing front and then later on Complained that it was impossible for them to meet their pledge and tried to wiggle their way out of it And there have not been happy endings on those things so Make sure that you know what you're signing up for And I know this isn't my first growth management rodeo, but um, I do forget from year to year We're not in a position to putting conditions on these allocations. So we can't say if you eliminate a lot We'll give you this allocation We can only go on by what's you're pledging to do on the sheet which you put in front of us So which is you know Six six new rocks I don't I understand your question, but I don't think From my position we can do anything about that here. It's a lot. Yield technically is not a criteria in the scoring right So if you had it Well, I think you understand what's going on Yes So they're Correct me if I'm wrong can but they the applicant could get back in the queue with a new application this year and and be reconsidered for growth management a year from now Yeah, and the applicant can do that. They can start over and it's It's what it is. It means it's starting over going back to square one So that's an option avoid doing that I guess my I mean if there's if there's absolutely no way that We could be Which is where I'm a little blurry But I think you clearly understood my request to review several portions of those scores And alternatively I do believe that we could meet the minimum 30 points by pledging affordable housing Obviously we'd like to avoid doing that if at all possible But if it was necessary It could happen. Yeah, I did the math out for the six six point option Which would for the double weight lead us to 12 extra points And we put us at a total of 33 points. It would mean that two units are at the 120 percent or below median income one lot would be at 10 percent or below I mean 80 200 percent or below and the fourth unit would be at 80 percent or less of a median income Um I will just share with you that they are hoping to give these lots off to their children and so They do think that the affordable option the Affordable income may work in that situation But obviously Condition for you guys to re-score and then re-evaluate that option So just so we all know what the criteria for affordable housing is So in order to get points in growth management for affordable housing The units would have to be perpetually affordable not just to the the first owner first occupant But for all time when that person sells it it has to be sold To somebody else who can meet The income criteria and it would have to be managed by a nonprofit housing agency The housing units would have to be affordable at no more than 100 of the area median income The person would have to be able to spend no more than 30 of their income For principal interest tax insurance So that's the that's the level of affordability that you would be promising number one and number two You you're promising that you're going to enter into an agreement With a non-profit housing agency is defined under vermont state law That will manage the perpetual affordability Going forward so just so you understand that's what the criteria is The 120 of the area median income is an aspirational goal that the town has Something that the affordable housing task force wanted to Set is something that was a goal, but it doesn't get points in growth management It has to be affordable at 100 of the area median income And when you see the area median income, I mean you got mo over there who's a you know a company owner With a fair amount of land. So is he is he can calculate it into that area? It's chitin in county Oh, it's chitin in county. So it's a value that's determined by the federal department of housing and urban development And today Minus 100 of the area median income is somewhere around I want to say around $5,000 Then you can work the math backwards from that So is it is it on the table could could they say if they wanted to say we're going to get rid of a lot So we're going to this is going to be a five lot or six total lots So that they can get the lots closer to the 1.8 acre adjacent Can they just verbally say that and we can accept that or is that often is that not But if if you think that's going to change The scoring so just dropping a lot again I would beg the question as to whether or not that's going to make the scoring any different Well, it's not in your description You are saying that in terms of the lot sizes along south for now Which sound like they're 1.8 acres if you drop one of it just pure size the size of the It'd be much closer to the 1.8 The context is much more than just lot size So I mean I expect we'll have some conversations about that as we move forward here this way Our you know what we were reacting to Dave was that So when you look at those four lots That are over there on the on the east side So the houses proposed are up really really close to the property line that they're going to share with those existing homes So it's not just that the lot sizes are different The existing context so you have these houses that are situated on Sort of large lots with a lot of space between themselves and what they're next to And what's being proposed is in in my view is different than that and that's that's what the score was based on So that it was it wasn't just a calculation of acreage It was kind of a calculation of what it is that's being proposed. What's this house? Just the development pattern and how that how that would fit with the context that's there already So this is this is tricky because We can't we can't provide you feedback right now. We have to go into deliberation and have a discussion about About the the scoring and the points that you've raised and and then in essence what you've If I am understanding and this is kind of a clarifying question If if I understand what you're saying is if after that re-evaluation You then The still don't meet the 30 point threshold then you'd be willing to Make the pledge for affordable housing Uh to get it over To or over the 30 point threshold. Am I hearing that correctly? Can I just throw something in there Pete? I don't know if we you know, we just listened to northern holdings which is kind of you know In a rural area as well talk about their inability to get a housing trust to work with them So I would caution you to consider that when you make this pledge Yeah, I think Going off that It's probably in our best interest to avoid the affordable housing pledge at this point Um, if we don't receive the 30 points as previously said that we can come back next year um and consider that at that time or consider Dedicating the open space to a conservation easement. I think there's definitely ways for our project to be reworked to get, um The minimum score moving that we can get it as is with your re-evaluation But I think for now it probably is best to Not pledge the affordable housing Who's your accountant for your group? Because I'd I'd I'd want to run that but I'd want to run that idea past your accountant before you suddenly say Right off the cuff here. We're gonna go He he or she would not be a happy camper. I don't think Well, we will remove that option Okay, so that that pledge is off the table. Yes, okay Just want to Yeah, and I I also I'm not 100 familiar so that discussion was helpful There's a lot of pieces to it Okay So we've walked through the different scoring components. We've had a conversation about affordable housing You've taken that pledge and removed it Um, is there anything further? From your perspective that you would like to share with us No, okay Is there anything else from the board on this application? Is there anything from the audience? Okay, uh having heard none. I'm going to close dp 18-09 at 9 0 5. Thank you Okay, welcome back to the wilson drb. We are out of deliberation Do I have a motion for the growth center allocation? As authorized by chapter 11 on wilson development by-law Hi, david turner moved the wilson development review board having reviewed all submitted growth management questionnaires and accompanying materials Including the recommendations of the town staff and having heard and duly considered the testimony presented at the public hearing of march 27th 2018 Make the following allocation of dwelling units within the growth targeted established by chapter 5 Of the williston comprehensive plan Within the town's growth center as shown in table seven below established by the development review board on march 27th 2018 With the following amendments To dp 1804 Um, we're going to change the score on 11.6.4 neighborhood space from zero to three And we're going to change those score on 11.6.5 Path and trails from two to five for a total score of 37 Is this where we also do proposed allocation? I think they just That was just the score. Oh, that was just the score. Yeah, so I would I would recite the allocation to yes So the allocation will be um They're basically your tune it 2019 of 14.5 units Thank you, Dave. Is there a second second Any further discussion All those in favor I Any opposed hearing none motion carries Do I have a motion for? the other sewer service area allocation I will make that motion As authorized by chapter 11 of the wilson development bylaw I court need already moved that the wilson development review board having reviewed all of the submitted growth management questionnaires and accompanying materials including the recommendation of the town staff And having heard and duly considered the testimony presented at the public hearing of march 27th 2018 Make the following allocation of dwelling units within the growth target established by chapter five of the wilson comprehensive plan Within the town's other sewer service area as shown in table seven below established by the development review board on march 27th 2018 We have not made any changes to scores And allocation will be three in f y 2019 one in f y 2020 And removing four out of 2021 to be redistributed Thank you. Is there a second I'll second it Dave seconds it any further discussion All those in favor I Any opposed hearing none motion carries Do I have a motion for outside sewer service area allocation? As authorized by chapter 11 of the wilson development bylaw I david saladino moved at the wilson development review board Having reviewed all of the submitted growth management questionnaires and accompanying materials Including the recommendations of the town staff and having heard and duly Duly considered the testimony presented at the public hearing of march 27th 2018 Make the following allocation of dwelling units within the growth target Established by chapter five of the wilson comprehensive plan Outside of the town sewer service area as shown in table seven below established by the development review board on march 27th 2018 So the scoring For the dp 17-29 northern boldings 17-30 spencer 40 points dp 18-08 Was modified to increase the 11 point 8.6 visual impact From six to 10 adding four points to that bringing the total up to 40 points 18-09 18-18.8 point six visual impact was increased by two points bringing the total up to 23 points for that application In terms of table seven approved allocation Northern holdings allocated two units in 29 fiscal year 2019 and two units in fiscal year 2020 Spencer One unit in 2018 fiscal year 2018 handy quinlan three units in 2019 and one unit in 2020 And bernel the marsh no units allocation David is there a second All second it david seconds it any further discussion All those in favor Any opposed hearing done motion carries Do I have A motion to approve the minutes of march 13th 2018 I make a motion to approve The minutes of march 13th 2018 as Submitted Thank you. Uh, is there a second I'll second that Courtney seconds it any further discussion All those in favor high high any opposed Motion carries Up david abstains Uh, thank you So that would be five to Five yeas no nays one abstention Uh, do I have a motion to adjourn? Thank you everybody