 on Zoom. All members of the Board and the public can communicate in real time. Planning staff will provide Zoom instructions for public participation before the hearings are opened. All votes taken in the meeting will be done by roll call vote in accordance with the law. If Zoom crashes, the meeting will be continued to April 12, 2022. Let's start the meeting by taking a roll call attendance of DRB members participating in the meeting. Paul Christensen. Present. John Hemmelgarn. Present. Nate Andrews. Here. Scott Riley, are you on yet? He's just in the waiting room. All right, we'll just wait for him to enter. Mr. Riley, we're doing roll call. If you would acknowledge your presence, please. My presence is acknowledged. I'm sorry I was late. We're having home Wi-Fi issues. Great. And let me guess when your kids fixed it. No. Although pretty close. David Saladino. Present. David Turner. And I'm Pete Kelly, the chair. Present. So. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven. In attendance. We will have some. Some members of the DRB there will be recruit recusing themselves. But we still will have a quorum. Okay, so tonight is a growth management. So we have a full agenda. First up, Simon, will you walk us through zoom instructions, please? Right. So welcome to the development view board. Please take a moment just to rename yourself so that your name is accurate. You can do this by clicking on the participants button on your toolbar. Now bring up a panel on the right-hand side of your screen. You can then hover over your name and rename yourself. Alternatively, you can just message me in the chat and I'll rename you. There are a range of features on the toolbar on your zoom screen. Firstly, on the right, there's the mute button that turns your mic on and off. Secondly, there's the stop and start video button that is optional. There's also the chat button, which you can use to message me if you need technical assistance during the meeting. Please note that any testimony or comment on the items must be given verbally to the DRB. We also have the reactions button, which you can use to raise your hand if you want to speak or to react to what's being said. And lastly, if you're on your telephone, you can use star 9 to raise your hand if you want to speak and star 6 to mute and unmute. We will be using screen share this evening. This is so that everyone can look at the same documents. You can then use the side by side mode that allows you to see both the volume and the video of the person speaking. Normally zoom does default side by side mode, but if not, you can click on the view options tab, which will be at the very top of your screen next to the green rectangle scrolling down to side by side mode and clicking on it. And then click and drag the vertical sliders between the video and the shared screen to adjust respective sizes. And then lastly, if you are having a bad internet connection, you can try a number of things you can try turning off your video. You can try closing other browser tabs and computer programs that you may be running or you can use your telephone for your speaker and microphone. And you do this by clicking the power next to the new button, clicking leave computer and then dialing back into the meeting using the meeting ID. That's it. Okay, thank you, Simon. Okay, tonight's agenda. So this is the sequence in which we'll be going in. We'll start out with a public forum. That's an opportunity for anyone to comment on things that are not on tonight's agenda. We'll circle back to that in a minute. The next item is under other business. And that's an appeal of a certificate of compliance. And we're going to, that should be brief. We're going to do that before we go into the growth management actual review of a number of projects. Then staff is going to give us a growth management overview to for the benefit of all on tonight's call. We're going to go into individual hearings for each project. The staff report board questions, applicant comments and public comments on the scoring. It's on the scoring of the project. And Emily will give an overview of kind of the limits of what we want to talk about in tonight's hearing when she provides a growth management overview. Individual hearings tonight we've got two applications within the growth center. We've got two projects outside of the growth center but inside the sewer service area. And then we have one project that is outside of the sewer service area. And then after, after all the hearings, we will go into deliberations, then we'll come back in an open session, and we will do an open vote in a, in a written decision on each of the hearing applications. And we'll approve the minutes of March 8, 2022, and finally adjourn. So with that we'll go to agenda item number one, which is the public forum. This is an opportunity for anyone participating who would like to make comments on anything that's not on tonight's agenda. You can raise your hand, your virtual hand, and staff will acknowledge you. Any raised hands, video, or otherwise. Okay. Thank you, Simon. Okay, let's go into other business. This is the appeal of the certificate of compliance 22-09 at 1505 Old Stage Road if staff would provide an overview please. Sure. So at the last meeting that we discussed this, Mr. Phelan had presented his landscape plan as you had requested for your view. And it seemed that there were still some questions about the landscape plan and some need for further clarification. In regard to the size of plantings and the plantings that were that are existing on site, and the plantings that are proposed for the spring. So, Mr. Phelan has indicated the proposed plantings as the colored circles. He's also made some awesome fur and red wig dogwood. He's also made some notations about not using heavy equipment to remove invasives. He's just going to hand cut the invasives and use herbicide to avoid impacting the buffer. Yeah, that's really it. Just wanted, if anybody had any further questions about this to ask the questions and get clarification now. Yeah. Okay, thank you Melinda. Okay. So DRB members, you've had an opportunity to take a look at this updated plan. I was involved in some communication through staff and helped guide this. These modifications to what we have today. Thank you Keith for doing those. I'll open it up for questions from DRB members on on the updated plans. Pete, I would just a clarification on the where it says key to plant symbols. It talks about existing trees being circumference larger than 12 to 16 inches. I'm just looking for a little clarification on what does that mean? Does that mean all those trees are bigger than 16 inches? They're bigger than 12 inches? How big are those trees? Why aren't they all identified by what size they are? Are some of them bigger than 16 inches? Are all of them bigger than 16 inches? It's a funny phrase. It doesn't. Or do all of them fall into that range between 12 and 16. But it says that they're larger than 12 to 16 inches, which is an odd statement. That is Keith, can you please provide clarification on intent of that statement, please? There are more than what you see on the plan in the buffer zone. There's so many that she just their landscape designer. Yeah, the wording isn't perfect. Let's say they're 12 inches or larger. The ones that she indicated on the plan, the circumference of the trunk. The trees that are smaller than that, that aren't even indicated on the plan. So all the trees that are bigger than 12 inches are indicated on the plan. Yes. So that really should just say circumference is larger than 12 inches. Agreed. All right. Any other questions, John? I guess I would just ask. Why all the new plantings that are being shown are shown on the. Is that the. West side of the driveway. And none of them on the right hand side because. That would actually be on this. That would be on the south side of the driveway. Yeah, on the south side. There we go. And why none of them are being planted on the north side where the only planting so far are these. The little. What do you call them? The big ones. The big ones. The big ones. The big ones. The big ones. The big pigs or. Live steaks that are that we all know are quite small. And they're not going to. You know, it's going to take a little while to grow. It seems like it might be better to put some of the bigger ones. On that side of the driveway. To start with. The right side of the driveway is extremely wet. So there is very little plant material that can be put in there. And I've planted essentially a willow hedge. The only way to get the willows, like I mentioned in the last meeting, was to get them via live state. They're very quick growers. And that's going to effectively create a full hedge right along the driveway. Right along the road. Any other questions, John? No. DRB members. Any. Any further questions. I'm good. I'm all set Pete. Yeah, I'm, I'm good too. I guess. Yeah, but one quick question though. Are you able to tell if the cutting survived the winter yet? Or will you be able to monitor, monitor them at all? So when I went. So when I presented the plan to Matt, the zoning administrator. I had requested. That I wait until the spring to plant them. And he said that I could not. I'm going to put them in the ground right before winter. So if they don't, I mean, obviously there's going to be no growth from October to now. So I can't tell if they've taken or not. But certainly if they don't take them, I'm going to replace. To make sure. And when, and when the administrator comes out to provide the certificate, they're going to verify that all these plants have taken. Okay. Staff, any raised hands from the public. Raise hands. Okay. Okay. Okay. All right. Very good. Nobody has any, any other questions we're going to, we're going to move on on the agenda. We will. Take this under advisement and deliver in deliberative session. Okay. Next up is a growth management overview. From the staff. Emily. Everybody. So I'm going to begin tonight by giving a little brief overview of the role of the development review board. The development review board is responsible for administering the rules known as the unified development bylaws or zoning bylaws. These rules are written by the planning commission and they're approved by the slack board. The DRB's role is to interpret and enforce the zoning bylaw rules. Development goes through many phases of review. Before getting its final permits. It begins with pre-application. Pre-application is required for a project to a residential project to proceed to growth management. After a residential project receives growth management. Then it proceeds to discretionary permit. Discretionary permit is the phase of review where full site engineering is required. And the details of street design, water sewer lines, landscaping, stormwater. Architectural design where applicable. That all happens at discretionary permit phase. Pre-application and growth management are based on concept plans. And the applicants completed questionnaire document. Growth management is a competitive process. It's required for new residential units to be created in Williston. And the pre-application recommendations were based on concept plans. Growth management is based on the applicant's questionnaire. And it is common for projects to change slightly between these three phases as more detail is brought to the table. And the recommendations made at growth management by the applicant are binding and they must be fulfilled at discretionary permit. If changes are proposed at discretionary permit that significantly alter the score, the project may not be approvable. For example, if they pledge affordable housing, but then fail to provide it at discretionary permit, they would need to begin the process again with pre-application. That's why we send out the questionnaires to applicants early in January. We go back and forth with them about what these criteria mean. What the commitments would mean to their project as they move forward so that everybody goes into growth management eyes wide or open about how this will influence their discretionary permit application. I will note in the bylaw for the purposes of growth management and density, we use a dwelling unit equivalent. You will see the DOE abbreviation throughout these documents. A dwelling unit equivalent is a two bedroom or greater bedroom unit. And a half dwelling unit equivalent is a studio or one bedroom unit. There are some highlights to note for this year in 2022. New we are providing a staff scoring matrix and an explanation that shows how staff has come to provide a proposed score to provide more transparency to the DRB about the proposed score. The DRB also has the option this year to shift units to the growth center. The statement in the bylaw is the DRB may shift available units from areas outside of the growth center to propose residential and mixed use developments within the growth center. There is no other rules or guidance provided in the bylaw. However, staff recommends shifting the fiscal year 2023 units from the ag role from the outside the sewer service area into the growth center. We don't recommend shifting any from the sewer service area outside the growth area. Basically the residential zoning district because that area is highly competitive this year. The DRB hasn't had to shift units to the growth center the past several years because it's been fairly quiet. Finney crossing has received all its allocation. I believe cotton wood crossing has also received all its allocation. So it's only this year with the new project that this requirement comes back into play. And new this year is a highlighted focus on the competitive ranking. So growth management is only competitive when two or more projects within the same area are seeking allocation. And it's very competitive when they're seeking more units than are available in that area. What the bylaw says is the DRB may make partial allocations to create an equitable division when subdivisions have a score that is equal or essentially equal. This year the proposed score for summer field is higher than the Trinity score. And that's why there's a different distribution of units for those projects. The review process so staff does most of the heavy lifting. There's a lot of allocation rules in chapter 11 about the number of units in each growth area. Both affordable and market. So we set up this table every year to follow the rules of growth management. We set up this table every year to follow the rules of growth management. You'll notice that there are some cells that are shaded dark gray. That means that those units are frozen. They don't become available until there are a certain number of years out. And you'll also notice that some cells are white but they're not allocated to a specific project. That's because no more than 75% of those units are available. And those notes are highlighted below. The DRB has this table printed out on pink paper. I know it's very hard to read on the screen share. It is posted on our website as well. There are some exemptions to growth management. Tonight one of those exemptions can be used where a project scored below the 30 point minimum. And qualifies as a minor subdivision. And the following tables are the allocation request and the allocation that's proposed by staff. We'll go through the proposed scores and the proposed allocation schedules during each project's hearings. Before I wrap up, I do want to remind the DRB about some of those evaluation and ranking rules. That following the public hearing, the DRB's evaluate and ranks the criteria for each of those exemptions. And then we'll go through some of the decisions using those criteria established in chapter 11. So there's specific criteria for each of the three zones. Staff proposes a score based on those criteria. And then the project projects are ranked based on that score. Where there's two or more projects competing in an area. The allocation schedule has been awarded to favor. And for folks who are in attendance tonight, public comment that is focused on. The applicants questionnaire. The scoring criteria or why staff recommended a proposed score is most useful. Comments about school impact, traffic, road design. Those questions are more appropriate for the discretionary permit hearing. That will follow in the coming months. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Emily. Okay. So the rhythm that we're going to follow. Is that staff is going to. Provide an overview of. Of each application. The methodology used within their scoring. The proposed allocation. And then. The applicant will have an opportunity to comment. On staff's proposal. The DRB. Will ask questions. And then we will go into a. A public, an open public. Comment time. And I actually had those questions. I had that slightly backwards. Staff report, then board questions, then applicant comment. And then public comment. So we're going to do the same rhythm for. Each of the applications tonight. And then. Post that we will go into the deliberations. So. With that up first is DP 21-12. Great birch LLC. I believe Curtis. The applicant is in the audience tonight. Yeah. If so, if the. Applicant could identify themselves, please. Anyone representing the. Applicant. Please identify yourself and state your. Your name and address for the record, please. Yes, this is a Curtis Truesdale. I'm on the call. Only by myself. And do you want the address of the project or personal address. Personal address, please. Okay. 41 country club drive South Burlington, Vermont. Thank you. Okay, staff. Okay. So this is DP number 21 dash 12 gray birch LLC. They are requesting half a unit of allocation. For a one bedroom apartment at 147 night lane. Located in the taft corners zoning district. The mixed use property has one existing one bedroom unit that will remain. And for existing commercial units. And existing commercial unit will be converted to the apartment unit. Staff is recommending a score of 33 points. 10 points for offer housing choices. 10 points for neighborhood space. Three points for build paths and trails. And 10 points for design for context. We chose a full points for provide neighborhood space because. It's a very minor change. Given the scale. Of the project and the prox proportionality of the project. So this unit. Already exists. It already has a kitchen. It's just instead of being an office, it'll be an apartment. It's a very minor change. What they were doing. Adding. I believe it's a picnic table, a grill, and a kitchen. So it's a very minor change. And it's just a quick fit for the overall scale of the project. Adding a one bedroom unit for housing choice adds a diversity of housing types within Williston. And doing what they can with an existing building. And design for context. It's located in an area that has commercial buildings. Apartment buildings and condos. And this will create no discernible exterior change. It's a very minor change. Nor can the town require that given the proportionality of the proposed change. We're still proposing three points because they are going to provide a sidewalk easement. A long night lane for a future sidewalk. And we're recommending. Half of a dwelling unit equivalent in the upcoming year fiscal year 2023. So they could build this unit. And that would be great. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. DRB members questions, please. Pete Scott. I guess my only comment. Well, two comments. Emily mentioned that. We're allocating. Points for a sidewalk. Wouldn't we, wouldn't we, wouldn't the town have the rights to a sidewalk anyways? Without, without this. This one falls into that category of whether it scores high or low, or, you know, doesn't make the number, although the way it's scored right now at 33, it does, but it seems to me that this, this one falls into that category of. One of the four dwelling units that were, and we have the right to give out to a project that doesn't, isn't competitive. So just thought I'd throw that out there. Okay. Staff, if you could address the sidewalk question, please. Yeah. So our bylaw generally pulls for. Requiring sidewalks when a major change is proposed. Because the change they're making is on paper and they're not constructing anything new. I don't think the town through the discretionary permit process can request to sidewalk be built. When the discretionary permit happens, we might find out that there is enough space in existing public right of way for a sidewalk, but that doesn't stop them from providing an easement to give a little bit more wiggle room. If the town were to build a sidewalk on Night Lane, and they can't fit in an existing right of way, they'd have a little bit more space. Thank you. Any other questions from the DRB? Okay. Hearing none. The applicant, do you have any questions or concerns or comments, Harry? No, I don't. It's a very simple project. It's a no construction whatsoever, just a simple change of views from commercial to, to an apartment with no construction whatsoever. Okay. Great. Thank you. Members of the public. Any questions or comments? I'm not seeing any raised hands. I haven't received any chat requests to speak. Okay. Thank you, Simon. Okay. Last chance for DRB questions. Okay. Hearing none. We're going to close DP 21 dash 12. At seven 34. Okay. Next up. Is DP 21 dash 18 Snyder group. Chris, are you present? Yes. Would you please identify yourself and your address and anyone that you also have participating tonight on your, from your, from your team, I think Andy's there as well, right? Yes. So my name is Chris Snyder with Snyder homes. My address is 4076 Shelburne road Shelburne. Okay. And Andy row is going to now some self as well. Andy row, Lamar on Dickinson 14 Morse drive Essex. Okay. Welcome gentlemen. Staff is up first. Pete, I need to recuse myself. Thank you, Scott. All right. This is discretionary permit number 21 dash 18 Essex Alliance church property located Alpine drive and Baudry lane. The applicant is requesting 243 dwelling unit equivalents for a 279 unit mixed use subdivision on approximately 54 acres. This property is located in the Taft corner zoning district. The applicant proposes 208 units with two or more bedrooms and 70 units with one bedroom. Subject parcels were created in 1995 and there is an existing house with two or more bedrooms on the site. The project also includes a 65 unit senior housing facility, which does not require allocation because it's considered a commercial use. And reminder that the number of units and types of units may change between growth management discretionary permit and subsequent phases or amendments. Staff is recommending 54 points. The applicant is not pledging any energy efficiency levels. The state of Vermont through the active 50 process does require that it meet building energy stretch code. However, the high performance level is a step above that. And that's not being provided here. The applicant will score four points for affordable housing. That's a numerical calculation based on the percentages of the total number of units. Staff is recommending 20 out of 20 points for offer housing choices. There's a wide variety being proposed here. Single carriage homes, duplexes, town homes, and some apartment buildings. So there's a little bit of everything. We're recommending eight points for neighborhood space. We didn't go the full 10 because there's not a dedicated community building or a pool, that type of thing that was provided in similar projects in this part of town. And we are recommending the full 10 out of 10 points for build paths and trails. This project will complete the segment of bike path that terminates at Dunmore lane near Chelsea place. We're also going to connect through to the pedestrian bridge and the path that runs north along route two way. This project is not eligible for points for conserve open space because the open space that's being provided is going to be managed by a homeowners association. It's not going to be conveyed to the town or a land trust. And lastly, they score two points for sustainable transportation. We're also a numeric calculation. Based on this, we're recommending an allocation schedule of 171.5 units, including some affordable and some market. They will be available in fiscal years 2023 through 2032. And this means the project would need to return to growth in the future. And we're also recommending an allocation schedule of 171.5 units. And we're also recommending an adjustment in subsequent years for the remaining. I forgot to note on the last project that no comment letters were received. With this application for Snyder, EAC, there were three comment letters received at the time of mail out from Carol Laws, Donald boss and read Parker. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Emily. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Any questions. From DRB members. This is Nathan Andrews. I'm curious, are, are we able to, do we know how many stories these are at this point? The multifamily. In concept, I think they'll probably be three stories. I think they're proposed to meet the maximum building height allowed under our current bylaw. Okay. If there are questions, do you want me to answer them, Emily? I'm sure what the protocol was. No, thanks. Thanks for asking, Chris. Yeah, go ahead and ask and answer that place. Okay. So yes, they would be three story buildings would be the maximum height based upon the current land development regulations and zoning heights. And there'd be a mix of one story, two story and three story buildings on the property. Audit. So. All right. Can you walk us through our carriage homes, one story duplexes to. Yes. Okay. Yeah. Pretty much. That's a good rule of thumb. And then there's some town homes. That'll be three story because there'll be garage underneath the living spaces. Okay. Thanks. Yeah. A question for Emily. Sorry if I, if I missed this, but can you explain how you got to the 171 number? Yeah. So on the allocation table. There are 50 dwelling unit equivalents per year in. The growth center. 13 are reserved as affordable. I'm 37. Our market rate. Making sure that in each column, Snyder got no more than 75% of the cells that are white. We were able to fill out this table. We were able to fill out this table. They are proposing 28. Dwelling unit equivalents as affordable. And those are what's provided in fiscal years 23 through 27. You'll note in the first column for FY 23, there are units with stars next to them instead of a number. That's where we're proposing that shift to the growth center. And we're moving those in the ag growth. Section on page two. That say shift to growth center and we're moving those to. Say Snyder EAC. And then we make sure no more than 75% in each column. Add it all up and we get 171.5. Got it. And just thank you, Emily. And so just number 22 in FY 23, that note you have there. And we're moving those to the growth center. And we're moving those to the growth center. And we're moving those to the growth center. And we're moving those to the growth center. That's the two half units added together. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Other questions from the board. I just have a quick question. For Chris. On the units. I know it's not anything to do with this, but I'm just curious what kind of eating system. You are proposing in all these units. In the homes, the four sale homes. We'll have a forced hot air furnace. That would be, you know, meet the current. Efficiency ratings or necessary efficiency ratings. So force hot air in those. And then in the apartment buildings, we typically use a boiler system with the backup, mini splits for air conditioning. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Any other questions. On the board. Okay. Chris and Andy. Any. Comments on. What's been proposed by staff. I, I just a couple of quick little comments and, and responses to a couple of items that have come up. So, So, Chris, Chris, if I could, if I could enter Jack, please. Yep. So I'd like to, I'd like to tonight. Avoid. Conversations. About the comment letters. Okay. And the reason for that is. They're, they're just not applicable at this point. In the process. Tonight is solely about. Allocation. And the comment letters will be. Will be part of the process at the DP at the next. At the next hearing. At the discretionary permit hearing. And so I would ask you not to address those please because. I'm going to ask the public not to raise them. Because of the, what we're here to do tonight. No problem. Thank you. I have no comments. No comments about how the staff has. Reviewed or scored the overall neighborhood. Okay. Great. Okay. Open it up to the public for comments on. On the scoring or the methodology used. For the growth management process. You have comments, please raise your hand. Staff will acknowledge you and let you in. I see. I see. I haven't raised. And if. If you could unmute yourself and state your name and address for the record. Hello. Chakan caner. 77. Penny Lane and Williston. And I just want to make a comment, which Mr. Snyder has heard me make in planning commission meetings. About, but it's related to the scoring on paths and trails. If you look at the last page of the. Questionnaire form from Mr. Snyder. And the layout. The way that the. Rec path that currently comes from. The more new ski river down and across Allen. Brooke. The way that's connected to the part of it. That's already built in the. Finney crossing section. Up to Dunsmore or Chelsea place. So basically from the upper left to the lower right. Is. They were given credit for connecting that path. But I want to point out that. That path's entire length from the new ski river to the start of this development. And from the end of this development to root two. Is a separate rec path. And what's been shown here is that it joins into a pedestrian pass system and goes over a winding. Spot. A winding park that includes a pedestrian bridge. And then goes on to the street system. It appears to be on the sidewalk of the street system between the street and the buildings. And there are curb cuts through those through that section. And so to me, this is a significant interruption of the existing and planned path system. In that somebody who's traveling from Essex Junction to. Taft corners on this path is taken through this residential area at a much lower. Velocity and much. A much different type of path than what was envisaged. By the town when it supported having a single use separate rec path going from Essex Junction to root two. That's my comment. So I would not have scored it the way it was scored. Thank you. Thank you. Any other raised hands, Simon. We've got no other raised hands and no chat requests to speak. Okay. Okay, Chris and Andy. Could you, could you comment on the. Rec path. On the rec path location. Please. I would. Argue that the, if Emily can pull back up the map. And I don't know if the pink lines are still on. Your map or if you three raised them, but I understand that it's not the. You know, the, I think that there is a pretty good connection. And in terms of path. Going through. And that. Although there, the path is. Throughout. The town certainly does have a couple of locations in which there are crossings. And in this particular instance, there's. I think three. Driveway crossings in total over the length. So I think, you know, That I understand that and I certainly understand the safety component of that, but it is a pretty minimal. Crossings for such a length. Of bike path. So that would just be my one comment about that. So, so excuse my ignorance on this. What, what would be, you know, Alternative to that. To that location. That we were just looking at. Do you want me to. Respond? Sure. I was expecting something similar to what is coming in from the Northwest and what is leaving from the Southeast. Which is a. Not a dual use with pedestrian path. I mean, granted pedestrians can use the rec path, but we don't have the winding nature or bridges. I think in talking with Mr. Snyder, I think some of what's in the left side on the west side of the diagram there that's pedestrian has in that sort of wetland park. Is probably going to be boardwalk kind of bridge or bridges. Bridges over the water. You can see one place that's going over a pond. It's not. I was just expecting it to be similar to what's up to the Northwest and to the Southeast. And so I actually thought it would be a feature that would be either going around to this development. Or through it in a much less integrated way and much less curvilinear way. Thanks. Okay. Any board questions on this topic? No. Okay. Thank you. Okay. No raised hands for public comments. Still not raised hands. Okay. Okay. Andy or Chris. Any. Final words. No, I think thank you very much. And thank you for the staff. You know, there was one piece that I thought. Should be acknowledged as one of the items that was required as part of our application is that we actually met with staff prior to. Our submission. And I have to say that that was a very positive. Work session. And it was very helpful. To understand the rationale and thought process. So I just wanted to comment that there were some positive things about some of the changes. That we've seen through growth management. Great. Thank you, Chris. Any last questions from board members? Okay. Hearing none. 7. 53. I'm going to close DP 21 dash 18. Thank you. Okay. Next up is DP 20 dash 18. And that is. Summer field. Also known as cat amount golf. Who is present? Representing the applicant. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Who is present? Representing the applicant. I am Pete. I can. If you could state your name. And address for the record, please. Sure. Ken Belivow. 683 maple street. Waterbury center of Vermont. 05677. I would also note that. Chris Sennesack, who's the applicant is also here. And he may answer questions that. He's better able to address than I. Great Chris. Welcome. If you would. State your address for the record, please. Christopher Sennesack for Pearl street. As extension Vermont. Okay. Staff goes next. I'm, I'm, I'm going to need to recuse myself. From this hearing as I'm in a budding. Landowner. And to the end, and to the, to the extent that these are competing projects, I feel I should recuse myself from the, the other projects that have storage, but are not within the growth center. So I'll be recusing myself from the next two. Okay. So. You're going to recuse yourself from. Dp 22-01 as well. Yes, that's correct. And, uh, so cat amount and training Baptist. Yes. Okay. Got it. Okay. Staff. All right. This is Dp 20-18 summer field. Formerly known as cat amount golf located at 1400 mountain view road. This is a request for 63 dwelling unit equivalents. For a 148 unit project. That's going to be a total of 130 dwelling unit equivalents. That's going to be a total of 120 dwelling units. That's going to be a total of 120 dwelling units. And the parcel of land about 30 acres. Located in the residential zoning district. The applicant proposes 112 units with two or more bedrooms. And 36 units with one bedroom. I will note that this project did receive 60 units of allocation last year in 2021. So that's how we came up with the number of 63 units that still need allocation. We're proposing a score of 68 points. This is one point higher than their score last year. 12 points for affordable housing, which is a numeric calculation. 17 points for offer housing choices. Last year they got 16 points. And it's just how the cards fell when considering how each staff person scored the project. 10 points for provide neighborhood space. This is full points. They're providing. Community building a pool. A play area and community gardens. As well as 10 points for build paths and trails. Five points for design for context. I'll note on their site plan, they do put large, larger lots, single family homes against the existing houses on Raven circle to match the existing. Lot size and acreage of the existing neighborhood. Zero points for build close to services. Four points for neighborhood design. And they do get 10 points for sustainable transportation. I want to note on the sustainable transportation calculation. The semantics of that standard are written in such a way that it could require six transit shelters, which would be a large number for a project of this area. And staff interprets this as one shelter that could hold six or more people. Usually a transit shelter would be a place. Along mountain V road, where the bus route might go again. Or a place for school. Children to wait for the bus, the school bus. But we interpret that as one shelter for six people, not six shelters throughout a relatively small area. We are recommending. A mix of affordable and market on the allocation schedule and fiscal years. FY 23, 24 and 32. For a total of. Six. Yeah, six. Affordable and 13. No, three affordable and 13. Market rate. For a total of 16 dwelling unit equivalents. On this table. And they'll need to return in future fiscal years. For 47 dwelling unit equivalents, one affordable and then 46 market. Thank you, Emily. DRB members questions. Okay. Hearing none. Mr. Bellaboo. Do you have any comments? I do have a couple of Pete. Thank you. We certainly appreciate the staff giving us one extra point in the scoring this year than last year. On a slightly more serious note. The consistency and scoring from year to year. And I did talk to Matt and said that they scored it fresh. They didn't look at the old score prior to doing the scoring. Is quite striking. And so, you know, kudos for that. I would note a couple of. A couple of points. One point that I made last year. Which is that. This project. Represents the greatest amount of housing choice of any project that's ever been proposed in the residential zoning district. And so it sort of begs the question as to why it wouldn't get more points. On the housing choice criteria. Given the statement that I just made. Now in the long run, it may not make any difference in terms of what allocation we might get. But I would just make the comment. If, you know, the scoring is going to be done on some sort of a technical basis. That it seems to me that's something that should be noted for the record. And so I would note that. Not so much in terms of the scoring, but I would like to make the point relative to the proposed allocation. I'm earlier in the meeting. Emily made a comment about. The difference in the amount of allocation. For this project. And Trinity Baptist church. As being attributed to the difference in the proposed scoring. So this project has a proposed scoring that's. Almost twice as high as the proposed scoring for Trinity Baptist. If you do the math, which I did a little bit earlier. The percentage of units being requested. And the number of units getting allocation are. Virtually the same. So roughly about 25% of units. So I would just sort of note that, that in this project. The applicant has. Taking great pains to. Really try to address. As many of the items that are heavily incentivized under the town's growth management system. And. And yet a project that scores significantly less. Is getting. Relative. Same proportion of, of allocation. So I would just sort of. Make that comment. I understand the board. Wants to try to be fair to all applicants. And. Understanding that growth management is a. Is a significant hurdle for an applicant to clear, but I would just. I would. I would. I would. Point that out. Otherwise. Those, those are, those are my comments. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Ken. Next up are any public comments that. People may have. About this. About this. Growth management allocation for this project. Are there any raised hand, Simon? There are no raised hands and no chat requests to speak. Okay. DRB members. Any. Any last questions. Ken or Chris. Any last comments. No comments. Okay. Thank you. I would like to know on the way the allocation table was done. We did give cat amount, the full amount of allocation it could receive based on the allocation rules, which is no more than 75%. Of the units available in a given fiscal year. And in three allocation areas may go to any one project. So cat amount. Couldn't get any of that. Okay. Thank you. I would like to know on the way the allocation table was done. So cat amount. Couldn't get any of those units in FY 29, 30, or 31. 75% of seven is 5.25. So you'd round down to five. So cat amount already has. Five in those fiscal years. So they would either sit empty or go to Trinity. You'll notice that there are a couple of affordable units available in the fiscal year. And then they also couldn't go to cat amount because then they would have 100% of the available allocation allocated to them. So I did make sure that. When doing this table, cat amount gets the maximum. Loud under the rules. And then filling in Trinity. Underneath that. Thank you, Emily. Any comments on that. Ken or. Are you satisfied with that? No, I'm not. I'm not. I'm not. I'm not. I'm not. I think that's. Technically, I think are accurate. And I understand that. And I know that some of this is beyond the control of the board. I just sort of make the comment for the record. That here's a project that is trying to do all of the things the town says. It wants it to do. And yet it struggles to be able to. Get allocation. It's not going to make a difference. It's not going to be proportional. To how the project scores against other projects. You know what, if you were to spin that out, you could say, well, why should we bother to do all those things? If it's not going to make a difference in the allocation. And so that's just my little soapbox speech. I understand. I understand how the process works. And I understand there's limits as to what the board could do. I understand that. I understand that. I understand that. I don't know if there's any members of the planning commission that are listening. That's something that they might want to file away for some future work that they might take up. Relative to the growth management system. So that, that's all my only comment. I understand the limitations. I. I just, I felt like I had to make the comment. That's all. Yeah. That's, that's fair. It's a, I mean, you were, you were trying to draw a linear conclusion. I understand. Yeah. We're entering a new era with growth management. So the past several years in my time, you know, churning out these staff reports, it's been fairly quiet. The larger developments like Finney crossing and cotton would have already gotten their massive amounts of allocation. RZD was fairly quiet. Before my time. When the 10 year cycle was fixed as opposed to rolling, there was a log jam in the rural part of town. So, you know, mom and pop who wanted to do a small subdivision for their retirement fund couldn't even do that. And it was a different issue with growth management this year strikes a new challenge where. Larger subdivisions in the residential zoning district are competing for. 20 dwelling unit equivalents. They're competing for those. I kind of ran the math. Just roughly today to wrap my mind around it and next year. 20 more dwelling units will become available online. And assuming only cat amount and Trinity are competing for those and no other projects. It would take cat amount. Four more cycles. And I think Trinity seven or eight cycles. To get all the allocation they need. And that's assuming no other competitors enter this process. But that's giving you a new phase of competitiveness and growth management. Thank you. So I think the, I think the takeaway from that. Is that this needs to be. Revisited. From by the, by the planning commission. But again, the DRB does not make the rules. All we do is. Is implement rules that are given to us by others. Absolutely identified something that needs to be needs to have further discussion. No question about it. Okay, any other, any other comments by anyone. Okay, hearing none. We're going to close DP 20 dash 18 at eight oh eight. Thank you can Chris. Thank you. Okay, next up is DP 22 dash 01 Trinity Baptist church. Who is present from that for the for the applicant. David Burke is can you unmute him. Great. Name and address please for the record. Oh David looks like you're talking and you're unmuted but we can't hear you. Yeah, you might have a quick arrow next to the microphone. That's okay you can just comment in the chat it looks like Brian courier is also here is he representing this application to Emily yes I can represent as well as Dave. Okay, Brian if you could identify yourself and who you're with and your address please for the record thank you. Brian courier, Larry Burke civil associates 13 corporate drive Essex Vermont. I'm here with David Burke. Same address. Also Stacy Barton and Randy Boardman. I'll let them give their addresses. I'll go first Randy boardman 115 Webster Road, Shelburne Vermont Stacy. Stacy is unmuted but no sound is coming out. Okay, that's okay we will. We will continue. Staff goes next please. All right this is DP 22 dash 01 Trinity Baptist church, located at 300 Trinity Drive. We have a request for 57 units of allocation for 58 unit residential subdivision on approximately 19 acres in the residential zoning district. All units will be two or more bedrooms and there will be no one bedroom units of the parcel does retain its right to one inherent unit of allocation so that's why they need 57 instead of 58. The parcel was created in the mid 1980s before growth management began. Staff is recommending a score of 35 points. They receive four points for affordable housing. That's a numerical calculation. 12 points for offer housing choices. They're proposing a mix of single and duplex units. We have a number of units that are being proposed. We are proposing 10 out of 10 points for provide neighborhood space. They're providing a gazebo and some community gardens. However, staff felt that the scale of neighborhood space that's called for by this criteria like a community building a pool of tennis courts that type of thing. We have a number of units that are being proposed. They do. We are proposing 10 out of 10 points for paths and trails. They are proposing a trailhead with parking lot to access land to the north that's owned by the town as a desired trail network facility. Three out of five points for design for context. We have a number of units that are being proposed. We have a total of the arrangement with the existing homes around and the church facility on one side of the parcel and then residential on the other. As well as three out of five points for neighborhood space for a total of 35 points. It is proposing six dwelling unit equivalents as affordable. We have a total of 120% of the area median income. This project did exceed the minimum score of 30 points, but it scored far lower than summer field of 68 points. And so we gave its allocation second on the table. We have a number of units that are being proposed. The unit gets roughly the same number of units given those allocation rules that we just talked about. And they will need to return to growth management in subsequent years for the remaining 43 dwelling unit equivalents. We're proposing a mix of market. And then we have the allocation table. Thank you. Oh wait, I do want to note one thing for Trinity Baptist. In past years before growth management was amended in 2017, you could only build units in the fiscal year they come available. Now you can construct any unit that's on the table on the table in the first year it becomes available. So if they get a discretionary permit and FY 23. They can construct the six affordable and eight market. That are on this table. Thank you. So that would be effective. July one assuming that they've gone through discretionary permit. Correct. But they wouldn't be waiting out to FY 23 or FY 30 for those market units. Right. Okay, DRB members questions, please. Okay, questions or comments by the applicant. Brian or David. We don't have anything that we have reviewed the staff scoring system and it looks good to us. So we're here to answer any questions the board may have. Okay, great. Thank you. Okay, members of the public. Any questions. If you do have a question, please raise your hand or send me a message in the chat. No, I don't raise hands. I've not had any chat messages requesting speak. Okay, hearing none we're going to close DP 22-01 at 817. Thank you. Okay, next up is DP 22-02 also Trinity Baptist Church. This is for projects outside of the sewer service area. Same group representing the applicant as the previous application. Correct. That's correct. Okay. So we'll forego that formality. Staff goes next. Okay. Thank you. This is discretionary permit number 22-02 also Trinity Baptist Church. However, it is a different parcel located at 425 Mountain View Road. This is a request for two units of allocation for three unit residential subdivision on an eight and a half eight plus or minus acre parcel in the agricultural rural residential zoning district. They are currently developed with one dwelling and they propose two new dwellings. Staff recommends a score of 20 points, which is below the 30 point threshold. 10 points, full 10 out of 10 for design for context. The surroundings are single family homes on multi acre properties. And that's what they are proposing for the two new units. And 10 points for minimize visual impact because those new units will be minimally visible from Mountain View Road. There's no topography or trees to fully buffer them to get a full 20 points. However, we didn't feel zero points was valid either because they're not prominent along Mountain View Road, they're going to be set back several hundred feet. So we ended on the middle score for that category. And we are recommending the DRB give its exemptions. This project does is eligible for the exemptions because the base lot area is less than 10 acres, and they're requesting no more than two units of allocation. And they would receive these two units in the upcoming fiscal year 2023. Thank you. Thank you, Emily. DRB members questions. Pete, I guess I would ask a couple of questions. This this project did not meet the minimum score. But I know in the past we really ask people to demonstrate why they weren't able to get any more points or get closer to the minimum score. And I look at that chart and I see at least two areas where I think additional points are potentially available. And I'd like to hear why this these projects are not pursuing either the conserve energy or affordable housing. So if the applicant would address that question, please. Okay. So as far as the conservation of energy, we are under active 50 jurisdiction, we will be building to the required residential stretch code. However, we don't feel that meeting the efficiency of a lot energy guidelines make this a feasible project for the church. So we're going above and beyond the typical residential building standards energy standards to the stretch code that's required by active 50. We're just not taking that extra step to meet the energy efficiency regulations. And then as far as affordable affordable housing. We're only proposing two new lots due to the scale of the project. Making one of the lots affordable, you know, going through the permanent process direct to 50. We just, we didn't feel that it would make the project feasible to provide affordable housing for these lots. I guess I guess I don't understand that answer. I mean, you're, you're, you're providing affordable housing on the adjacent lot, which is separated from this one simply because of the dividing line between the zoning districts. So is it not possible to make at least one of these units affordable. Projects need to be feasible on a standalone nature rather than them being combined. There are two applications they're going to follow separate tracks. You know, like Emily said the other side of the project could be in the growth management section for, you know, the other seven eight years. You know this project has the ability to move forward right out of the get go. And it's a long trail ahead of us as far as active 50 permitting, you know, all the requirements that come along with that. And at this time we just don't feel that an affordability component is something we want to consider at this time. And with the conserve energy conservation piece, can you be more specific about what it is that you would have to do that you feel is unreasonable. I'm not sure why you're, you're needing to comply with the stretch code. Unless it's a concept that your active 50 application was put in prior to September when the new energy code was put into place, at which time there is no longer a stretch code. Okay, we'll be subject to the energy code that's required by active 50, but at the time we submit. And I'd like to know the specifics of why you're not feeling that the, you're not able to achieve a single point for energy conservation. So it looks as if the two categories are well 75% or more of the estimated energy demand be generated through on site renewable resources, and will at least four days worth of typical energy demand be stored on site. So two questions as far as, you know, 75% of the energy demand generate on site require solar field, you know, there's one nearby. We don't want to include a solar field as part of part of the project. There's only two new lots, or less than 10 acres requirement to conserve, you know, large portion of our land. Well at least four acres worth of energy demand be stored on site. Again, you know that's we feel that that's outside of the scope of a two lot submission. The first the first portion of this is how many units will meet the efficiency Vermont high performance level. And you're saying it's not possible to meet the high performance level. I'm not, I'm not a builder, I'm a civil engineer from talking to other developers in the area we feel that meeting the efficiency Vermont high performance level. At this scale is in fees, not feasible for the price point we're looking for. You know, I can't give you specific details on what components of the buildings that make it infeasible. So what scale project would it be feasible for. I mean, this is one building or two buildings and any house could be made to meet the high performance standards. We need to start improving the energy efficiency of all the houses that are built around here. Okay, I appreciate your comments, and we'll meet the standards that are required by activity. Alright, we'll talk about this later guys. How are we proposed tonight. Pete. Yes. David Burke has just messaged me in the chat because I think he's still having problems with microphone. So maybe I'll just read what he said to me. Yes, please. It's just really verbatim it says, it's a separate parcel and active 50 costs are significant for two new laws. It's a minor project qualifying for exemption was supported by staff. And lastly, we have been informed by many developers that a higher level. Sorry, the higher level is not feasible. That's it. And, you know, I'm not, I'm not really looking to advance this debate further. I think, I think we understand where, where you're coming from Brian and I think I understand where you're coming from john so. So I think we're out of, I think we're at a good place without prolonging this. Any other questions from the DRV. Any other questions or comments from the public. Any raised hand Simon. No guys hands and no chance. Okay. Any last words, Brian. Oh, I'll note as a staff perspective on the conserve energy. I did have some conversations with Steve Spatz from efficiency Vermont and he does both efficiency Vermont and the state RBS. The, the high performance level is designed to look at the state stretch code and take it a step further and push the envelope for energy efficiency. And it is more feasible for projects that are custom build. Where the owner is, is building their own home. And it is challenging for speculative build, where you're trying to market an individual lot. You might sell a lot to a different owner who builds their own home. And that creates challenges with, you know, permit enforcement in the future. In the state, there's only been one project that received a full 10 points in this category. And it's an individual homeowner and Williston who's proposing to build their dream home. Or I think some of the cost associated with it is less of a concern. I think there are some challenges with the conserve energy standard being feasible for more speculative build projects that we see in traditional subdivisions. Okay, thank you, Emily. Okay. We're going to close DP 22 dash zero two at 829. Okay. So that concludes the review of the staff proposed scoring. We will now go into deliberations at 829. John Hemmelgarn. Nay. Nate Andrews. Nay. Scott Riley. Hey, Dave Saladino. Nick. Dave Turner. Pete Kelly, the chair is a yay. Two in favor. Five opposed. Motion does not carry. Is there a motion for WDB 11.8. Other sewer service area allocation. As authorized by chapter 11 of the Williston development by law, I Scott Riley moved that the Williston development review board having reviewed all of the submitted materials, including the recommendations of the town staff and having heard and duly considered the testimony presented at the public hearing of March 22, 2022, make the following allocation of dwelling units within the growth target. Within the growth growth target established by chapter five of the Williston comprehensive plan with the town's other within the town's other sewer service area, as shown in table for established by the development review board on March 22, 2022. We are, we are approving the points scored for DP 22-01 Trinity Baptist Church at a total of 35. We are also approving DP 20-18 summer field, also known as catamount golf with one change under section 11.7.3 offer of additional housing choices. The score is being changed from 17 to 20 for a final score of 71 from an originally proposed amount of 68. Thank you, Scott. Is there a second second. Thank you, Paul. Any. Any further discussion. Okay. Paul Christensen your name. Yay. John Hemmelgarten is recused. I'm a Andrews. Nay. Todd Riley. Yay. Dave Saladino. Yay. Dave Turner. Yay. The chair is a yay. I got a circle back to Nate. Nate, were you a yay or a nay? I was a nay. Okay. So I thought. Okay, five in favor. One opposed. One recused motion carries. Okay. Next up is WDB 11.7. This is the growth center allocation. Is there a motion? No. No. No. As authorized by chapter 11 of the Wilson development by law, I John Hemmelgarten. Move that the Wilson development review board, having reviewed all of the submitted materials, including the recommendations of the town staff. And having heard and duly considered the testimony presented at the public hearing of March 22nd, 2022. Make the following allocation of drawing units within the growth target established by chapter five of the Wilson comprehensive development review board. As shown in table four, established by the development review board on March 22nd, 2022. We're going to make one. One modification in that we are going to move. The two. Available market. Slots that were initially proposed from the. We're going to move those over to the growth center. Allocation allocation chart. And award those to. The. Snyder EAC project. Thank you, John. Is there a second? Second. Thank you, Paul. Any further discussion? Okay. Yay or nay. Paul Christensen. Yay. John Himmelgarn. Yay. Hey, Dan. Scott recused himself. Dave Saladino. Yeah. Dave Turner. Yeah. The chair is a yay. Five in favor. One opposed. One. Member. Okay. Yay or nay. Paul Christensen. Yay. John Himmelgarn. Yay. Okay. Thank you. Member recused himself. Motion carries. Okay. Next up. Are the meeting minutes from our previous meeting. Is there a motion to approve the meeting minutes of March 8th. 2022. I'll make a motion to approve the minutes of the meeting on March 8th, 2022 as written. Thank you, Dave. Is there a second? Okay. John Himmelgarn was first in there with a second. Any further discussion? Nope. No, we're good. Okay. Paul Christensen. Yay. John Himmelgarn. Yay. Hey, Andrews. Yay. Scott Riley. Yay. Dave Saladino. Yay. Dave Turner. Yay. Chair is a yay. Seven in favor. Opposed. Meeting minutes are approved. Is there any other business to bring forth tonight? Yes. Pete, I was looking ahead at the agenda for April 12th. It looks really, really long. There's four DPs and a master sign plan. And the meeting on the 26th. The agenda is much lighter. I'm wondering to staff whether that can at all be adjusted because that is going to be a potentially long night, especially when one of the DPs. Is the catamount. Yeah, we can do that. The two applications that were submitted last CSLB, I think that's a great solution. I think that's a great solution. Or no, SDI Ireland. Excuse me. We'll bump those two to the next agenda and we'll let them know. Right. Tomorrow. Is the, is the April 26th. Deadline already been reached. March 18th. Yes. So April 12th and April 26th with each have three items. Okay. Three each night. Okay. Thank you, Emily. Okay. Any other business spring forth. We're working on getting in person meetings back. Probably maybe the first meeting in April, maybe the second TVD, but we'll let you know. Great. We'll still have the zoom option available. Good. Emily, great, great job tonight. This. Yeah, this is, this wasn't a slam dunk one and it's only, we're barely over two and a half hours. So. So you two, Pete, thank you. Yeah. Nice. Nice. Nice job. Yep. Good job. Thank you. I want to give kudos to Simon too. I threw him in the deep end. He helped me out with the staff report. Making sure all my numbers. Added up correctly. Who knows Simon. Yeah. Simon. Is this your first growth management? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. It's lovely. Isn't it? Yeah. Okay. Anything else? Look in the park. Yeah. Special night. Yeah. Anything else? Is there a motion to adjourn? Motion to adjourn. Second. All in favor. Hi. Hi. Okay. Thank you, everybody.