So far, seeing no raised hands in the room and no raised hands on Zoom. A quick reminder to folks who are on Zoom, if you'd like to provide comment during the meeting, you can let us know in the chat or use the raise hand button on the toolbar. Message me or Melinda if you have any Zoom issues. Thanks so much. Okay, let's review the minutes from September 19. But a thing that I forgot to link to a version of them. So I recommend moving the minutes to next meeting. Good call. Okay. Let's see. Plan flow chart. Yeah, so before you guys open the public hearing on the blazer specific plan. I wanted to give a quick overview on where we are. This is a process that comes out of the bylaw where other municipalities might have a planned unit development or planned residential development standard. We have specific plan. All the steps in this process are codified in chapter nine and visualized here in the flow chart. So this specific application began back in September 2022 and application was filed. The planning commission had their initial review and a community meeting through November and December and advisory committee was established in January. And they worked January through May, including a site visit. They, the advisory committee worked with staff and the applicant on developing the specific plan presented it to the commission on June six. And the commission decided to move it forward tonight to a formal public hearing. So what we are having tonight is a hearing on town plan and bylaw amendments that would ultimately need to go to the select board for final approval and adoption. Before any development activity would go through local and state permitting processes. And with that, you guys can move to open a hearing. Yeah. And a little bit of help with the room stuff too. Since I can't see filters and things, but I'm happy to call this hearing to open it. Cool. Thanks Jill. So I will give a brief overview of the process and then I'll turn it over to the applicant. So we are having a public hearing tonight on town plan and bylaw amendments for the Glaser specific plan. So this is a proposal for residential development in the residential zoning district. And our specific plan chapter says that a substantial benefit must be provided. And I'm going to switch screens over to a PDF to show the site plan. So chapter five or chapter nine lays out five options for substantial benefit open space housing infrastructure town center or jobs. In this instance, the applicant has chosen open space donating land to the town. There's two main areas, 15 acres plus or minus a view shed along Mountain View Road. And then 38 acres of woodland wetlands and pasture on the southeastern end of the property. The specific plan is amending the town plan to say that this view which is mentioned in the town plan specifically this view is moving from the unprotected category to the protected category. And then the bylaw amendments are mainly to give this project its own phasing schedule in terms of allocation where it limits the number of administrative permits that can be issued to build new new homes on the proposal. So that's the broad overview. There's a lot of detail that if anyone has questions we can go through during the hearing portion. What the commission is voting on is a list of findings of fact. I did pass out some of those sheets in the back of the room. That calls out what specific plan is that it's where a substantial benefit is provided the benefit that's being provided. What the town plan says about view sheds working landscapes open space. It calls out a summary of the process that we've been through in terms of community meetings advisory committee and it lists those verbatim. Amendments to the town plan chapter and the bylaw chapters with a proposed motion that the planning commission moved this forward to the select board. With two additions to the site plan that there be a building envelope designated in that you should open space for future town park amenities. And that a much more nuanced one that the easement for the path be a floating easement because we don't know where if it's a trail work to connect over some of the open space where it would go. So floating easement is a better tool in that instance. Very quick and brief overview with that I will turn it over to the applicant team to provide more detail about their proposal. Thanks Emily. My name is Jacob or Jack laser. I've lived in Williston with my wife for more than 40 years. We purchased this land in that is currently being used by the windswept farm about 20 years ago. And you know the my wife and I have gotten older got a little bit more gray hair than I did 20 years ago. And it's really time for us to move on and transfer the ownership of this land. We have a lot of ties to the community or kids went to school in Williston. We have a lot of friends. So when we were thinking about what do we want to do with this land what do we want to what do we see for it in the future. We thought we wanted to do something that was not a traditional development. We really thought that the best thing was to convey a large portion of the land to the town so that the town could see what they wanted to do throughout time. So not just 10 years from now 20 years from now but 100 years from now. So in doing that we learned about the specific plan option that was in the town bylaws. And we started doing our own research about what would be the best thing for us to do with this land. And it turns out I think what we did was we came up with a pretty good idea. The idea was we're not going to fully develop the land. We want to allow the horse farm to continue by having ample use of all of the fields and we wanted to preserve the view shed. So what we you know what we decided to do was to basically create a plan which you're looking at now and that plan would be not to fully develop the land but to give a substantial portion to the town. We didn't know it at the time but we recently learned that the town conducted an appraisal of it based on independent land appraiser and it turns out that that land that we want to convey is worth almost $2 million. So $1.9 million. We think that's a substantial amount of money but we also think that it is really the best thing to do for the town. You know since the initial proposal the planning commission created this committee. We worked with the committee for more than five months and it was actually a really good process. We learned that what we think is best is not what everyone else in the town thinks is best. And we actually had a very productive change of plans and adjustment to what we were originally thinking throughout the entire process. And frankly I was really proud with what we came up with at the end of that meeting, that whole session of meetings. And that's what we're going to be looking at today. Since that time I know that the conservation commission also looked at the plan and they thought it was a good plan. Our neighbors who are abutting the property on Mountain View Road have communicated to me that they're happy with the plan. And that they were even making the portion of their land available to use as a bike connector if that would be something that the town wanted to do. So I don't want to belabor this. I do think it is really great and a long-term benefit for the town. And with that I'm looking forward to what the public has to say today. And I do thank you for your time and for your consideration. I'm Ken Belevo. I'm helping Jack with representing the project. And I'm not going to go down the list of all the factual things. They're all listed in the findings of facts. And I think for at least most of the members of the commission, they've heard the recitation a number of times. A couple of points that I would just say we'd like to offer in emphasis. So number one, the View Shed. The View Shed is identified in the town plan in Chapter 13 as an important asset. And one that under the standard operation of the bylaw is not afforded a strong level of protection. Which has been a big part of this application and looking at this as a potential substantial public benefit. Because it's a piece of land that would not be protected in this way to this extent if it just went through the typical DRB driven process. As Jack has mentioned, we've also learned that the estimated value of the land being offered to the town is approaching $2 million. It's unusual when the town is able to acquire land for free. Most of the major open space assets that the town has acquired, there has been an exchange of funds. Catamount Family Outdoor Center being perhaps the most recent. You know, the McCullis had a long history of being good stewards of the land, but at the end of the day, that land was purchased by the town. There's lots of other examples that are like that. But in almost all cases with maybe one or two exceptions, when the town has acquired land, it's been that it purchased it. Or there's a dedication for a roadway, something like that. But certainly for open space, it's been purchased. So that makes this unusual in that regard. The other thing I would mention is that the big 38 acre parcel, which we know is largely constrained by wetlands and in the appraisal doesn't have a really high value. But its value goes far beyond dollar signs. The operation of the windswept farm largely takes place on this land. And the glazers who have allowed the mazes to operate this on their land for a token sum over the last 20 years, this provides the potential for that to be able to continue. And what we've heard in previous meetings is that windswept farm is considered by many to be an important community aspect. So I would just, you know, highlight those things. And we thank you for your time. We ask for your consideration and hope that you will vote for this to move on for consideration by the select board. Brian, do you have anything you want to add? Thank you for giving us that introduction and overview and sharing those details. So before we open it up to public comment, I want to do a slightly deeper dive into what you're actually voting on the town plan and bylaw amendments. And also highlight some of the testimony that we have received hard copies of. So our bylaw has 46 chapters covers administrative procedures, all different zoning districts and all the design and access standards. So density, roads, setbacks, landscaping, lighting. Excuse me, could you expand the view of that a little bit? Yes, thank you. So we're only touching one chapter substantially with a change to the standards and then the other bylaw amendments are more procedural. So the main change is to chapter 11 growth management that this project must uphold a growth management score of 50 points. Currently, a conventional project must achieve a minimum score of 30 points to be able to move forward. And the planning commission felt that if this chapter were to be touched for this project that it be held to a higher standard, thus 50 points. What it would require the project to do is have a discrete allocation schedule of no more than 18 administrative permits for fiscal year. And this is a more predictable allocation schedule than what comes out of our conventional process because the conventional allocation schedule is done between concept review and discretionary permit. But when units actually start digging in the ground under that process is very unpredictable. It depends on the size of the project. So many factors beyond just zoning. This is a very discrete schedule where once a project gets an administrative permit, it's highly likely that they're digging in the dirt building that house within a couple months of that action. Street trees. This is in our street trees chapter. The DRB has the ability to wave street trees along existing and proposed roads in order to protect a scenic view. This would mean that street trees would not be required along that view or old stage road that existing stand of trees that's along the northern end of old stage road. There's no developments proposed there, so those wouldn't be touched. But this is to ensure that that view along Mountain View Road is preserved to the mountains. And then the amendment to Chapter 39 is procedural. It codifies the existence of the Glazer specific plan and its substantial benefit. If the DRB moves forward to reviewing the application that that 53 acres of open space is explicitly mentioned here and then it provides how the offer to the town would happen. So they would provide an irrevocable offer of dedication that the town can then accept to take ownership of that land as well as the floating easements and multi use path connections that are required as part of the bylaw. We're also adding appendix K. So every document that came out of the process through the advisory committee, various memos from me, state agencies, all of the minutes from the advisory committee, the planning commission, all of that will be bundled up. So if this moves forward to the development review board, if there's a question in that review process, and I'm not in this seat anymore with the institutional knowledge, it's all buttoned up there for their reference. The town plan chapter is to Chapter 13, where we're talking about the view shed that this view would be shifted from the unprotected category and moved up to that protected category and then once again mentioning the number of acres in that proposed open space. In terms of public comment that we've already seen so we did receive that memo from the town manager Eric about the appraisal where the view shed was listed at $1.85 million and then that wetland parcel at about $35,000 in appraisal value. We did receive, Jack mentioned that neighbor and support Scott Batdorf next door, as well as Ruben Escorpiso who was on the advisory committee, Eric Van Buren. And throughout this process, you know, beginning all the way back in February 2022 before we even had a formal application received a lot of letters from the public. So all of that is bundled up in this package as well. So I turn it over to the Planning Commission to ask any questions, discuss, and turn it over to public testimony. And Shayla's here. Okay, planning commissioners, do you want to start? Anyone have anything that they want to offer? And Shayla, I'm happy to turn things over to you since you're in the room. Can you turn on the second so I can catch up to where we are? Yes. Yeah, no worries. Welcome Shayla. I've just given an overview of the process with the specific plan by law amendments are and the applicant has given a statement. So I'm turning it over to the Planning Commission wants to do your own questions first before public comment or do public comment first. It's, it's up to you guys. No question for me. No question for me. So they're a random question. More informational. And I think it might go to our engineer. But maybe all of you in the applicant group. One of the things our energy plan suggests is that we should be moving away from construction of development that is dependent on fossil fuels for its energy. And I wondered what kinds of plans you may have in in the site plan along those lines. So in regards to this, I think we're energy. I think where the energy conservation shows up mostly in our meetings with the specific plan is through the growth management process. There's a scoring system that's kind of an all or nothing type category. And we've chosen like many developers in Williston, I don't think actually anyone's chosen to meet the highest level of energy efficiency standards that are prescribed by efficiency Vermont. We feel it's an unattainable standard for essentially production level housing. When it's been used previously, it's been used on custom builds. You know, and I think only one developer has or one person is chosen to build to that standard and they haven't pulled the building permit yet. So we chose the score points through the growth management system and other ways. So I wondered Emily, if you would put could we get an overview of the growth management scoring. Yeah, I feel like that would be helpful. Great idea. So I'm going to share the advisory committee memo. This is the transmittal memo from the advisory committee to you guys. And it does highlight a couple points in growth management. So the planning commission said at least 50 points. The categories of growth management are energy efficiency affordable housing, housing choice provide neighborhood space, build paths and trails neighborhood design and lastly sustainable transportation. So in the growth management process, the applicants can pick and choose which categories growth management incentivizes but not does not outright require any one of these categories. Energy efficiency is going above and beyond stretch code that so the state of Vermont through active 50 is going to require this project to go above the base energy code and do stretch code. And what growth management is incentivizing is efficiency Vermont's high performance level, which is now I believe called net zero ready and it's a much higher bar that is designed to kind of push the envelope on energy resilience and home design. This was discussed with the committee, but they felt that, you know, those challenges of this code and knowing that the project is going to meet state energy code was sufficient. I will note that the unit design also changed so there's more multi family there's inherent net energy savings when you go from a single family home to sharing a demising wall. And then the duplexes and some of the units that are proposed are smaller footprint overall so more sharing walls helps with energy efficiency smaller units helps with energy efficiency. And they felt that that kind of came more out of the housing choice growth management category but it has that energy relationship. Things could change they're required to achieve a 50 point growth management score. So when they get to the DRB, they could choose to achieve some of those 50 points in that category. But it's highly likely they'll move forward with their questionnaire as it was reviewed during this process. Jill, do you have any comments or questions before we move? All right. So we'd like to open it up to public comment or testimony. Thank you very much to the applicants. The microphone is on up there for them to stand up. Great. We'd ask that you please keep your comments just in the beginning to two minutes so that we make sure we can hear from everyone who wants to speak. And then if we have more time we can go back to folks. Say your name. Your name would be great. Do we have anybody online? We do have a couple of folks online and we can alternate between in person and online. So if you'd like to give comment online, let us know in the chat or press the raise hand button on your toolbar. Anybody in the room. Both either. So just touching on the energy efficiency part of what would be the source. I don't believe we determined that. It's possible. You can come back to you too. Is there anybody online? Oh, sorry. No, go ahead. No raise hands online. I'm going to do it as fast as I can. You see your name. My name is Terry and I'm a Williston resident. And I'm also a member of the conservation commission, but I'm not here speaking for them tonight. I'm here. I'm a concerned citizen. So I'm here in support of the Glazier specific project tonight. And if you asked me five years ago if I would have been supported this project, I would have said no. I would have said definitely not. I think that this parcel should be conserved. I think it was in 2019, a small group of us got together in this room. Because of this parcel, there was rumor that there was going to be this huge development. And it got a lot of people in town interested and concerned about growth in Williston. And I think that generated in the end like 70 pages of comments. So people are concerned about growth here. But I did during this specific plan process, I was at a lot of the meetings via Zoom. And I watched a lot of the recordings later. And I learned so much about the specific plan and what was being proposed on this piece of land. And I came to realize that this is probably the best outcome for this particular piece of land. Where there's going to be a lot of conserved land that's going along with this project. And if we wait till the next developer comes along, there will be 200 houses or more on this piece of land. As opposed to 100, which is proposed now. I think that's going to, you know, that will not have as much of an influence or an impact on the roads, road situation, traffic, schools, police file, all that kind of thing. So I think this definitely is the best possible outcome. There's two very important benefits. You know, just sitting in on all these meetings, I learned that there's much more. But the first is the view shed. The view of Camelsump when you come down Mansfield and all the other mountains or mountain view road. Right. And then the other is maintaining that working landscape. Windswept farm has been there for many years. I've only been here 25 years, but I've seen a lot of change in Williston in that 25 years. Just by preserving that land for a farmer to use and keeping it open is very, I think it's very important. We're losing a lot of agricultural lands. As we've seen in taps corners, this used to be an agricultural community. And then other benefits by going through with this project would be protecting wildlife habitat and wildlife corridor, even though that's not on the top of the list. Or because of the density of housing over in that area, animals still use it. And there's not only coyotes and bears and bobcats. There's salamanders and frogs and turtles and all that kind of thing. Water quality. And then the future potential uses on this land, open space and wetlands could be educational for the school, for outings. Water quality. That's a wetlands that helps with water quality and potential trails. So in closing, I'm just going to put it out there as what are the residents of Williston going to be saying in 2050 about this project? And are they going to be saying, why didn't the town vote to go ahead with this project and save that view? Why are we looking at houses and houses all in the view shed? And that the farming, there's houses where there should have been, could have been farming. And then yeah, if we go through with this, people are going to say, wow. It's such a great thing that the town and the planning commission went through and went ahead with this proposal. And we have less houses. We have the view shed. We have the working farm, whether it be windswept or another farm or something. But anyway, once it's gone, you can't think. Thank you very much. Anybody online? So far, no raised hands online. Hi. I'm Pam Allen. I am a proud Williston and windswept resident. And along with my daughter, she has her pony and I have my horse and we have a lot of fun riding and driving. And I just want to say, you know, this is this lady was saying earlier, you know, five years ago, I would have said, oh, what a terrible thing to build houses on this. But I do think that this is probably the best of everything, you know, preserving the landscape winds, being able to preserve windswept as a community. You know, we have a ton of people there every, every day. Parking life is usually pretty full. But it's a huge asset to the community and many, many people of all ages and skill levels come there. And it's just so nice to be able to interact with normal people to passing because we get so wrapped up in our horses. It's nice to go for a walk along the sidewalk and have some little kid come along and pet your horse and be like, yeah, this is magical. This is so cool. Yeah, so just I think this is a wonderful opportunity as long as windswept gets to be a part of it. And yeah, thank you. Thank you very much. We do have a raised hand online. Hi. My name is Taja. I am not a Wilson resident, but I have been part of the windswept community for many years. And I just want to add my voice to how important windswept is to the community and that space is critical for them to continue operating. I also agree with the previous speaker about the conservation of the wetlands and how important that is. Yeah, and I think if this plan conserves as much as it plans to, that is something we should be excited about. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Affordable housing, how many units of affordable housing is being required in this? As part of our 50 point growth management score, we've proposed 10%. 10%, so roughly 10 homes. And is there a timeframe to say once 10 regular homes is built, one affordable home has to be built so that we don't get to the end of the project and no affordable homes have been built? How is that being worked into this plan? So we're at the planning commission right now. If the plan moves forward, it has to be considered and voted on by the select board. After that, it then has to go to the DRB. And so all the details of that that you're asking about, those would be determined as part of what's called the discretionary permit, which is what needs to be approved by the DRB before the project is considered to be fully approved. Okay. And at that point, would there be more input from the public as to how that's going to be? The DRB has to make their decisions that, you know, in, they have to have a public hearing. So there would be a public hearing every step of the way. There's a public hearing. So there would be an opportunity for you or anyone else to speak, make comments, etc. All right. Has there been studies on like traffic and the impacts on school and everything else done for this project? That'll also happen at the development review board phase. So this project will be required to do a traffic study. The schools will get a butter notifications during that process as well. To your question about the phasing of affordable units in concert with the market rate units, our bylaw doesn't have this explicit requirement. I do want to be clear right now that there's a set of bylaw amendments going through the slack word right now that is talking about that. So just to keep people's minds, there's a lot going on with the bylaw right now with specific plan and this package that's going to the slack word later this month. But those are two separate things. So right now for this project, as the bylaw stands today, it doesn't require that those affordables move in tandem in terms of their construction phasing. Okay. And let's just say, for example, the builder doesn't end up building the affordable homes. Is there a fine involved with that? How much is that fine? So if the builder didn't do that, it would be a zoning violation. They wouldn't be able to close out their permits and they would either go through a legal process through the zoning violation or trying to work an amendment out with the DRB. Yeah, zoning violations, the maximum fine is $200 per violation with each day that the violation occurs considered a separate violation. So given the timeframe, most of them take to resolve that can, you know, rack up and be significant. But generally the enforcement power the town has if somebody commits to a condition of approval and then fails to meet it, they're going to have challenges selling homes in the project. They're going to have challenges turning proposed public streets over to the town for maintenance and ownership. There are other things that cloud titles and complicate ownership that become much more compelling to the applicant than necessarily, you know, getting a violation letter and a fine. So our experience where we have required performance in this, in this way, you know, required somebody to build affordable homes as a component of a project is that they do comply with that. There's there's sometimes some back and forth about exactly how they're going to do that given the lifespan of projects, the amount of time it takes for them to build out. But we not only do we ensure as part of, you know, managing compliance, the bylaw that those affordable units are built, we actually monitor that they're kept affordable because the standard in Williston is for perpetual affordability. So we do have an active monitoring program and for ownership units, a required covenant indeed restriction that rides along with the unit to maintain that affordability. Is there a set amount on what is considered affordable home. Yes. The town has a couple different levels of affordability but the standard one is that the home would be affordable to somebody who can who makes 100% of the area median income of the Burlington south Burlington metropolitan statistical area you can tell I've been asked this question before. Affordable means. So it's affordable to the middle household. As far as income is concerned in that area and affordable means on an ownership unit that mortgage tax and insurance costs them no more than 30% of that income. Okay. Thank you. Anybody else online. Any comments from training commission. You can count on me to talk and it's no surprise to people that I don't favor this specific plan. Chapter nine, our specific plan bylaw says that. The plan must help realize the town plan goals. And the way that this proposal is doing that is by preserving a view shed that's listed in the town plan is the desirable view shed. And that's very true. But that's the give the take is to bypass growth management and slowing growth in the residential district is in fact part of the town plans objectives. And it's why we have growth management. And so to me, we're meeting one goal of down plan and taking away another one. I don't see that the give is equal to the take. When we had our hearings at the beginning of this process, most of the comments we heard where people did not hear that much about preserving the view shed. But they did care a lot about limiting new children in schools and having to have more schools and more traffic. And so our public input was in that direction. I also want to say that I admire Mr. Glazer's history of preserving the land. I admire the Moss farm and want the Moss farm to continue. But this specific plan can't guarantee that and that's not having a farm in an aggregate in a residential district is not part of our town plan. So I can't say that it's officially a benefit that we should be weighing as a planning commission. I would like to see that continue but I in other ways rather than through this process. So to me it's the view shed and I do not think if it went through growth management that we would see 200 homes. And I do not think the view show would be completely blocked. I like the way Emily characterized it at one point that it's more likely that the Moss farm can continue. It's more likely the view shed would be more it's more likely that there will be fewer homes. It's they're all pretty much gray areas. And I feel as though our commitment to growth management and how much we've required are developing and landowners to go through growth management for years shouldn't be bypassed for one view shed. And that's it. I would say to I've walked the wetlands in there and they're heavily infested with invasive plants. It's not somewhere that I can see doing a lot with in terms of the forested weather. Emily, I do have a question just in an acknowledgement of Chapin's concerns. I believe at one point staff had looked at how many buildings the applicant is proposing to build a year versus how many. It would be projected they could potentially get through growth management if you could just refresh my memory on that. Yeah, those numbers. And if you need a minute we can move on and you can. I've got it queued up. Okay. I figured this question would come up. So we do make it easier to read so comparing specific plan to what would happen on this property under a conventional process. So under the forest and the wetland. I don't know why it's jumping around the forest and the wetland would be protected in either circumstance under conventional development we would have more land that's developed with houses roads neighborhood common lands and we wouldn't get that dedication to the town. The bylaw allows three to five dwelling units per acre. This calculates out constrained land so overall this parcel is 97 acres. Brian how many is the unconstrained it's like 40 something. Yep, 47. Yeah so there's you factor out the wetlands in the density analysis so there's 109 units being proposed and the maximum the density would allow is 218. There's also public versus private so when land is subdivided through the conventional process. There's no requirement that it be given to the town or have a public easement on it can remain a private ownership. An example would be something like Southridge where we do have an easement that for a trail that runs on an east west but there's more walking trails that are mowed by the HOA and that's all private it's not accessible to the public. In terms of the substantial benefit so for windswept farm in terms of having pasture land and hayfield there's more certainty because they would be initiating a lease agreement with the town rather than seeking a lease agreement with a private HOA. And more certainty for other agricultural uses so if windswept farm is no longer the town could still release this to other agricultural uses so the primary goal right now is we have a user on the land windswept farm. But things can change in the future this land would still be available the town could lease it out for act. So a brief summary of growth management incentivizes affordable homes they're required if you're doing that five units per acre you have to for that density bonus. They're complying with the number of units on a dead end road so earlier on in the discussion there was discussing about maybe changing something in the access chapter that part went away they comply with the number of units on the dead end. So bylaw standards for open space. That's faster than we can read. Yeah I know I'm trying to jump to the right slides and zoom is getting in my way. So the residential zoning district this district includes Wilson suburban neighborhoods where we're encouraging a compact walkable pedestrian friendly pattern while also protecting open space. It's a quantitative minimum requirement for open space in this district. And what's allowed in the open space agriculture and forestry neighborhood parks limited road or utility crossings trails. And our bylaw categorizes things when the bylaw says must you must protect watershed buffers streams and wetlands must protect slopes and 30% must protect rare or endangered species areas. That is a rock solid bylaw standard. Then the bylaw says things that you should protect like unique natural communities have a wildlife habitat areas and those medium slopes is 15 and 29%. Where it gets even weaker is in the view shed and what chapter 39 says verbatim is scenic view sheds partial protection of a view may be combined with development through good site planning. People should expect to have views that include residential neighborhoods in the RZD. And the DRB could require many mitigating measures of good site planning to protect a view. Those mitigating measures are typically geared towards if you have a big ridge line and you're going to put a house on top that it be nestled in the hillside and not silhouetted against the sky which wouldn't really be a helpful standard for this property where the land slopes down and the view is in the distance. And lastly what the RZD says is protecting farmland is not a primary goal of the RZD. The town plan talks more broadly about the entire town not just the Stoning District and has desires to protect working landscape has desires to protect wetlands and habitat areas and has desires to protect open space. The town plan discussion of open space is quite broad quote from neighborhood parks to working farms protecting open space resources and protect providing outdoor recreation opportunities. Recreation can be anything from cross country skiing to riding a horse. Conservation areas are publicly owned open spaces that are managed to conserve a natural ecosystem so the town does have some open spaces where we discourage public access because of these unique ecosystems. But there are also community parks or public open spaces where they're developed for intense recreational uses so playgrounds tennis and ball courts. And then we do talk about view shed mentioning this view and fee based outdoor recreation. So the town plan and the bylaw it doesn't have a one size fits all definition of open space and throughout this process we have been focusing on the view but the definition of the town plan is broad ranging. And the Glazer specific plan proposes different kinds of open space. When the conservation commission reviewed this they recognize that the view should probably has some higher value whereas that forested land through a conventional process might be protected just by the base standards of the bylaw. So they and I think that kind of plays out in that appraisal as well that the view shed land is appraised higher than the forested impasture land. Thank you. Emily and I let me ask my question differently that was very good information but I was thinking I think somebody told us under this specific plan. The approximate number of units you all worth considering building a year versus what we could expect a builder to get in the conventional growth management strategy. I don't know if we have that or if the applicant can tell us how many you think to plan and you plan to build a year. Our proposal is no more than 18 per year. That's what our proposal is originally it was 25 is our call and it was it was ratcheted down to 18. Most likely what would happen is you wouldn't see 18 units each consecutive year. There there might be a year where there could be 18. There could be two years that they're 18. There are all kinds of factors which would affect what the build out would be including what interest rates are doing what the market is doing and all those sorts of things but it would be no more than 18. Thank you. When the town manager commissioned the appraisal. The appraiser asked me questions about our bylaw and I did a. It looks official but it's a very napkin sketch of trying to compare the specific plan to a conventional project of my best prediction of how it would play out in conventional growth management. For 109 units if say they begin construction under specific plan in 2026 they would wrap up if they did that full 18 units a year they would wrap up in 2033. The conventional process they would get allocation between 2026 and 2032 probably wouldn't begin construction until 2018 but I would see them wrapping up in like 2035. So only a few years difference in terms of when you finish your build out. And then I tried to do an analysis of well what if this would build out at 130 units that would be maximizing the full base density of three units per acre. And I predicted about 2036 for build out. And then if it was the full 218 units about 241 and this is a very 2041 sorry. And this is a very aggressive timeline because they're probably not going to pull APs and build 18 units a year. That's even faster than a project like Creek's Edge or Northridge built out and just factoring in all the constraints that go into construction. It probably would take longer but I don't see there being probably more than five to eight years difference between the Glazer specific plan and that conventional growth management. And the way growth management works is that you get you kind of stack up some allocation before you start building in the ground. And so there's often this lag where a project gets all its allocation. They have enough allocation where they feel confident they can move forward and they start putting units in the ground. But growth management doesn't have that constraint on when administrative permits are folded it green lights like a spectrum. Yeah. Yeah. Other questions from. Yeah. So given Chapin your concern for overwhelming like the schools things like that from the spreadsheet that you had pulled up it looked like the difference between units that could be expected to get allocated under growth management to allocated under this you know the specific plan where maybe five to 10 units per year is that outright like that's many units would be built in like difference between the specific plan and in general growth management. What I was understanding correctly from there. Um, so sort of I was I was estimating that their build out would be at 18 units a year which I think is high five to 10 might be better in terms of the schools. That was something that the advisory committee looked at the school district Champlain Valley school district. Had a demographic study done that looked at what is the the growth projection for the entire district and it looked at with projected growth and as is and it projected that by 2032 about a 40 unit difference between the new development and what's being proposed. I'll pull up another quick slide. I'm not sure if I hit on that quite properly then. But for me it seemed like the difference between like the units that would be built under growth management like this the schedule of when they'd be built would be the difference would maybe be five to 10 units per year and I guess I don't see that as something that would overwhelm. It would also start a couple years later probably. It probably would start a couple years later with growth management but I would see them wrapping up within. No more than 10 years time difference probably more like that five to eight. Looking at the school number so. Full screen. Yeah, I'll be full screen it again. Oh, sorry. Good. So, the number of houses is the green dash line and I'm trying to get it to full screen but it's not wanting to. Control plus. I'll zoom in on the graph part. The school population peaked around 2002 with roughly 1200 students. This is K through eight. This is K through eight. Williston only Williston only Allenbrook School and Williston Central School. And between 2002 and today, you know, they added trailers they took trailers away Williston Central School went through a really big renovation. The population around 2020 was 917 students. By 2023 this year they proposed adding temporary classrooms back. The end of this line is a lighter blue and that's where that school district projection comes in where by 2030 they're predicting 1080 students so a few fewer than that peak in the early 2000s. Despite despite the school population, roughly flatlining throughout this timeline, we see the number of homes increasing. And the types of homes that are being built in Williston are smaller one in two bedrooms, more apartment units. We're also seeing a demographic shift where there's an aging population. So we have a demand for more housing, even though the people that need this housing might not have school age told you. We're also seeing a shrinking household size, which plays into this a little bit as well. So, you know, take away purple line on the bottom is the timeline of some things that you might have read about in schools over the year. Blue line in the middle is the K-8 population in Williston and the green line up top is new dwellings added to Williston over that timeframe. And they're all just bare numbers. I don't like having back and forth about these things, but I just feel like it has to be pointed out that when the school population was increasing is when Southridge and Brennan Woods and the other residential subdivisions were happening. The line where it's flat is when we're getting more at tap corners, more apartments, condos, and this is more false, more in the category of people with children wanting to live in these homes than in some of the ones in tap corners. And so I'm saying this just because I'm neither here nor there on the school thing. What I was reflecting is that the input we got was people were worried about the effect on school and worried about the roads, not that I have any particular argument about them. And so in terms of being true to what people were concerned about, they were less concerned about the view than they were about the effect on the town of accelerating. And I have one other thing. It might be a question. We've just been making some changes related to affordable housing inclusionary zoning. And we may make changes in the future to require higher standards of energy efficiency. How would those changes affect this project if we approve it now or does it get grandfathered into the current zone. So projects typically vest in the version of the bylaw in existence at the time that they file a complete application for discretionary permit at the development review board. In a typical residential subdivision that happens after the pre application and growth management phase. This this project would still go through pre application would not go through growth management. If there was any sort of special identification of this project in the bylaw amendment that changed that besting for this project that would be honored going forward. That's not in the bylaw draft currently right the bylaw draft currently reads the DRB mess make findings that the discretionary permit application. Upholds a growth management score of at least 50 points based on the criteria of chapter 11 as amended October 4 2022. So the current version of the bylaw as it stands today. So that's an important point for me and that I feel so we are an inflection point and some of the changes we're making in our zoning to catch up with climate change and with goals of the town. And you know the inclusionary zoning and the energy in particular. And so projects that have the advantage of today's regulations don't meet the standards we may want them to meet five years from now. And it's a good you know to me bypassing growth management. My view is it probably allows this project to start a couple years sooner than it would otherwise. And that may be a couple of important years in terms of our bylaws. Save no raised hands on zoom but if any folks on zoom want to make comment. Raise your hand or comment in the toolbar. Or Jill. I just want to make sure Jill. Too many comments. It is a little interesting. And you know we need housing so that's another thing too. I'm feeling a little bit more complicated by this whole idea of you should after the summer we had where you look out and you can't see the views because there's smoke in Canada and I think. I don't know. Turning all these things over so I'm just hearing what's being said and. I've kind of been back and forth on this each time we've had it presented to us. Because I agree that. You know growth management is in a perfect system we've talked about that. And is there a rush. Just because there's this potential alternative that we don't know for sure that it would be 200 houses right there's. I don't know. First up in terms of. And this might be too complicated but I think she does ask a question. In terms of what we are contemplating in the bylaw changes right now. I know some of the energy they want to not even. But the. At least the inclusionary zoning. How would the proposed. Land differ under new. The new. Bylaw as contemplated. Currently which is not through. Any full process. So I want to be clear there's a bylaw amendment. Under consideration right now by the select board they're holding a hearing on that amendment on October 17. We're holding an informational session right here in this room. About that bylaw amendment on October 12 for anybody who wants to learn a lot more about it. That amendment is primarily about encouraging the inclusion of perpetually affordable homes in new residential projects in Williston. And strengthening that requirement beyond the current incentive system that exists in the town's growth management system. And at a very basic level what that bylaw amendment would do if adopted is it would provide applicants with a choice of two paths particularly for a project of this size. One path would be to not build the required number of affordable units. They were talking about 15% of units affordable at 100% median or 10% of units affordable at 80% median or some combination that has the same effect. They could an applicant could choose not to build that required number of units. If that was their choice they would compete for allocation under the growth management system with the same caps on unit creation as it currently has. They would also pay a fee in lieu of building those required affordable units into the town's affordable housing trust fund as a it's a graduated fee. There's quite a bit that goes into it but as an example a 60 unit project would pay a little over $200,000 in pay in lieu fees if it was an entirely market rate project. The other path that the bylaw amendment creates is the path of complying with the inclusionary zoning providing that minimum number of perpetually affordable homes as a component of the project. And the trade off in trade for doing that is that project would not have to go through the competitive growth management process and would not have to obtain allocation on that limited table. So we're providing in that bylaw amendment two possible paths forward for large size residential subdivisions. Both of them come with trade offs probably both of those paths add a little bit more friction to the system than exists today, but they in one path remove the outright unit limit unit per year limit, and may offer some greater certainty and predictability lower risk of appeals because of subsequent hearings to come back to growth management over and over again and things like that. So that's what's under consideration right now because it speaks to growth management. It removes the affordable housing incentive from the growth management track says look if you're doing that. I know we want you in the inclusionary path. That means some of the other scoring is adjusted for the remaining categories. It changes the proportion of a score in the growth management path that would be afforded under some of the energy efficiency rules but the next part, you know I think shape and what you're alluding to would be following the town's energy plan to start considering some bylaw amendments that require higher standards for energy efficiency energy storage and production in new developments of all types and that's a that's an amendment we've not begun work on yet and isn't under consideration by anybody yet but certainly could be in the future. Other towns in Chittenden County are saying that you can't have fossil fuel. He had heated homes in new construction of large project, more than 5. And I feel like we may reach that point before this project proceeded if it were going through growth management. Because once you put a furnace in a home connected to gas, the economic tradeoffs of alternatives become much tougher. Yes. Please. My name is Mike Mos Tina and I operate windswept farm. And I wanted to mention not we obviously we have a vested interest because we'd like to stay in business but I actually want to deal with another aspect. Then simply the fact that I would like to stay in business. In so far as I don't believe that we can build for future standards at the present moment I think we need to build the best way possible in the time frame in which we exist. I don't think we can project what's going to happen. Four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten years from now. All of us want to have do something to fight climate change. We all want to make improvements. But I don't think we can base our judgments on what might happen. We have to base our judgments on what is possible in a given time frame, which will allow us to make the best decision possible within that time frame. The other thing that I wanted to bring up was the recent appraisal on this piece of property. The town is being given a very valuable piece of property. I don't know that this is going to happen again. What my fear is that if a major developer takes that land over, there will be a large increase in the number of houses. It will increase traffic. It will increase the effect on the schools. I think we have an opportunity to now to actually limit growth because you're talking about 100 houses as opposed to what could be there. And I think those things, so I think we have to deal with the present and do the best we possibly can in the present time frame and not try and focus on what might happen years from now. I think all of us agree we need to make vast changes to save our planet, but I think we also have to live within the present and do the best we possibly can in our own time frame. Thank you. Thank you. I just wanted to follow up on something that Mike said. I've had a discussion with him in the past and he knows this well. My wife and I are not land developers. We're trying to do something that we think we can help the town for now and for the future. And if this doesn't work, our role is going to be we need to transfer the land to someone else. And as evidenced by the $1.85 million of the viewshed, that's a very valuable land. A developer is likely want to get their money's worth and build a lot of homes there. So what I'm saying is that this is not going to be a give and take that my wife and I have with the town. Our involvement will end if the specific plan isn't approved. And the town will be working with a developer whose objective is to maximize profit. And maximizing profit means building most houses, maybe not giving the town what my personal belief is is a really good set of conditions that will keep the land open and benefit the town, not just the developers benefiting financially, but the town people benefiting for our generation and for future generations. Thank you. Right. Yep. Oh, go ahead. No, you're good. Hello, my name is John Hemmelgarn. I live in Brennan Woods. I am a, I wear a number of hats around here. First off, I'm a horse dad. And so I'll just leave that at that. But I also am an architect. And I design schools. And I've watched enrollment go up and down in the past. You know, at first it was more and more and more students and everyone thought that enrollment was going to go through the roof and never stop and we built new schools. Then it started going down. Everyone said, Oh my gosh, you know, we're going to have to close all the schools. Well, we've closed very few schools and everywhere it's starting to go back up. It's a cyclical thing.  They go down. They don't go really fast usually. I don't think and it is rarely a direct relationship with the number of housing units are being built in any given town. So I just wanted to say that I think that that's kind of a false argument there. The other hat that I wear around here is I am on the DRV. So I am fairly familiar with the growth management system. I think there's a couple of other false arguments being put forth here. One that the idea that yes, with the specific plan, we may be building houses sooner, but we're not going to be approving them much faster. It might be a year or so. But if these guys moved ahead with the regular growth management system, we could have a proposal is very fairly quickly. And the rules that are in place at that time will be the ones that that they're complying with. So I don't think that there's a lot of not the way that suggested motion is. I think that every every every project that we review. It's kind of at the time that it's approved. We don't get to change the rules after five years. The whole project is approved when it's approved. And the rules that are in place when it's approved are the ones that count. So I think we have to be careful about that. That is true. The way the amendment to growth management is written is that it freezes the chapter in time as it exists today. So if the DRB is approving a discretionary permit one, two, three years from now, you're looking at the set of growth management criteria as they exist today. Other standards of the bylaw to your point could change. So we could change what our access standards are or our landscape standards are or building height or something. We're not freezing that part of the bylaw and amber for this project. So they will still be required to comply with other parts. And what John is talking about is a project is not vested in a bylaw until that complete discretionary permit is filed because of their ask of growth management. I felt that it was best to base it on the criteria as it exists today in exchange for the substantial benefit. I also want to note and sorry for interrupting you, John, but that the DRB, unless unless a representation was made to them at growth management about meeting an energy incentive in growth management, does not typically review or rule on things like power source or fuel source for heating, et cetera. The bylaw does not typically touch that again unless somebody said in growth management, I'm committing to meeting a high energy standard. My point is that the project is reviewed at the time of discretionary permit is applied for. And I don't think there'd be a huge difference in when that happens in this case. That's correct. I mean, we're we're in pre application season right now. We often get pre applications for subdivisions during this time of year as people try to meet the hearing deadline by the end of the year. Some of those, you know, should they proceed through growth management come back and show up as discretionary permits in the summertime. That's that's typical for the first phase of subdivisions. So and then just a couple other quick points is that as we've heard, it's almost certain that approval of this plan will mean there'll be fewer units built on this site, which regardless what happens means if it does mean that there's there's a greater pressure on the school system. There'll be fewer students there because there's two units built on this piece of land. And finally, from a growth management standpoint, these guys are proposing 50 points. Typically, you would only need 30, I believe that's a huge difference. And whatever happens, that's a public benefit. Is those extra 20 points, however it's counted, however it's accounted for, that's a public benefit. Thank you. Thank you. All right, I do want to just have a time check. Pull up my. Yes. Okay. Um, so in that and Emily looks like we also want to go over the. Is that true? Right. Yeah, I think I hit the high points. If you have any questions about chapters 1126 or 39, I can go into more detail. Okay, but you. We hadn't over you just before. Okay. Yeah. And so I guess I want to then make sure I feel like we've only talked about Glazer. Does anybody, yeah, go ahead. No, not yet. You're welcome to, to make a comment. Robin Young, the resident of Wilson. I must disclose that I am a windswept groupie, but I'm not here to comment about windswept. I wanted to be on the record that I value that you shed. I drive down Mountain View Road almost every day. And I take a big breath and I am so glad that it's there and I can see it. And I think that the people who came forward in the past and turned about traffic, sidewalks, they're concerned about their immediate impact on them. Oh no, I'm not going to be able to get out of my neighborhood. There's too many, too many cars. I think that they don't know yet that they value that you shed. They won't know that they value it until it's gone. And I think that you have a unique opportunity to preserve that for everyone who just take it for granted. Also, this is a unique, this plans a unique opportunity for more open space, especially close to the village. I've lived here several years. I make great use of the recreation paths around town. And year after year I see the open space fill in, fill in, fill in. Now I know this is a zoning area where growth is encouraged, but having those few parcels of open space is just so important. You know, it's really important for the mental health of this community. To have, to be able to walk by and see some open spaces. And, you know, this is a wonderful thing about this plan. Finally, I want to echo what some other speakers have said. I don't think it's appropriate to hold this project hostage to what may happen in the future. What the laws may be. I apologize against the same language in the beginning, but I did just want to make sure that there's nobody in the room here. Thank you. I did just want to make sure there's no one in the room or online who had other comments that it's not on the Glazer project, but on the other parts of the meeting. So I think now is our time to discuss next steps. Unless there's anyone else. Last call for public comment please. Yeah, go ahead. Yep. I just wanted to follow up on the school information, which was great. I didn't know all the ups and downs. But I was remembering that I attended a meeting in the past about the kind of a thoughtful development that was happening, several, you know, getting going. And I remember the comment was made that with schools, with school children and enrollment, they put it that the schools react to what's happening in town. The town doesn't react to the school, you know, if they don't have enough room or whatever like that. The town doesn't say, oh, we can't have any more development because we don't have any more room in school. It's the other way around. I just wanted to remember them saying that to me and I was surprised that the point, say that the school is going to react to the town. Thank you. Okay. So now I believe our choice in front of us is to continue the public hearing on to another meeting or to vote to move it to the select board. Is that correct? Well, you need to decide if you want to close the public hearing. If you, if you, you should probably take a vote to close the public hearing. And, you know, at that time, the planning commission would still be in a public session, but they would not be taking testimony from anybody anymore. If commission members wanted to come, come back into a public hearing, you'd want to sort of formalize that. Otherwise, you're, you're deliberating in an open session over the decision of whether or not to move the specific plan forward to the select board for consideration and possibly discussing. If you do make that transmittal any recommendations or considerations, you'd want to transmit along with it. Looking for a motion to close the public. So moving. No, you're not, are you not ready? I'm just trying to figure out if I should say anything in response to any of the things that have been said. Oh, okay. No, no, I want to give you time. I'm not trying to rush anybody. It pains me to disagree with John Hemmelgarten on anything. And I'm in support of all the people who are speaking. And so I just want to really clarify that I have not had an issue about school. I was reflecting what the comments were that we have heard. And my interpretation of it is that the way a lot of the town viewed this is that by bypassing growth management, you're going to the front of the line. And you're not having to go through the waiting period and apply that I have interpreted to be roughly two years probably delay. That's the way I look at it. We act, we have actual amendments to the bylaws that just aren't in place yet. So I'm not like trying to predict what's going to happen. So I just want to say I think I'm pretty grounded in where I'm standing. And it just has to do with bypassing growth management, which is part of our town plan that we should be supporting as a plan. Whereas I also support preserving a view shed, which is part of the plan. And so I'm seeing them as being offsetting and not going in one direction. Thank you. And I have a lot of respect for everybody who spoke. Yep. So I know that better recent action, the room chain or any place that had town water town sewer. You can basically build three units. Five now. So this has this, this project has town water town sewer. Correct. So is there anything saying that some of those proposed single families couldn't be five units after this. So the people, people are going to refer to what changed in state laws, either s 100 or act 47. And part of the act were some changes to portions of state law that say what towns are and are not allowed to regulate and how. One of the changes was to require towns to adopt zoning bylaws that allow a minimum of five dwelling units per acre density. In any area served by water and sewer and there's there's some language about allowing towns to choose the boundaries of those service areas and some other things like that built into that. So if you have an area of your town that is served by water and sewer that currently only allows a lower residential density and for example we're sitting in Williston Village right now where the density is two units per acre. That density metric has been preempted per July one of this year under the change of that law and now sits at five. So if you were reviewing a project that proposed that higher density, you know, ultimately the mandate is for the towns to go in and correct their bylaws very few have had time to completely do that yet. So we're, we're, we just have to treat those things as if they have already modified our bylaws. So there's, there's a couple of other things going on in s 100 that's all about units per acre density in the overall project. There's a requirement that anywhere you allow single family home, you also allow dwelling unit types up to a four plex. What we have been advised, however, is you cannot combine those two things. In other words, you can't go five per acre single family and then turn each one into a four plex. So there's, there's some complexity to it. It's not all figured out yet. All of the towns and planners and their attorneys are figuring that out. But anywhere that you have water and sewer in a Vermont town now, you generally need to allow residential densities up to five dwelling units per acre. And I guess that was where I was going with that is that going to be somehow a lack of a better term backdoor way of increasing the density of this project. So the name of the process we're in is specific plan. And that's really important because if something is approved here, Emily's reviewed sort of the, the edits that get made to the town bylaws to acknowledge the approval of the specific plan. But a specific plan is just that it's a it's a specific plan. So when you see a picture of this development, more or less, that's what that development needs to look like when you see a discussion in the staff report of approximately this number of units. That's the number of units we're talking about. And that's a land use approval decision that in this case does take the form of a bylaw amendment. And it's binding on everybody. What it doesn't mean, applicants can pursue multiple approvals for things. It does not preclude somebody, even if they have an approval under this plan from moving forward with an application to do something else that's allowed under the law. Your options don't really start to narrow until you start to build something. So somebody could say, well, I've got this specific plan approval and these are my terms and conditions and, and, you know, that I agree in the town agree that that I can go and do it this way. But there's nothing that says that that applicant is precluded from starting another application on the same piece of land and saying, but, but under this other system, I can, I can do something else. So I'm going to apply for that. That's, you know, and you can, you can literally have approvals for two very different things on the same piece of land. And, you know, you haven't really decided until you start building one. Does that answer your question? Sort of. So, you know, if, so if the specific plan that they're proposing is as it is, then that's all that can be done. That's what can be done under that approval. But you could possibly someone can always abandon their approval and decide to pursue a different one. Yeah. So under the town's current zoning, not considering act 47 that has alluded to, and there are questions as to whether or not Williston zoning is currently in compliance with act 47. The current zoning in this district is three dwelling units per acre. And you take three dwelling units per acre and you multiply it by the available acreage that comes to 130 dwelling units. Part of our proposal has been to limit the build out to 109 dwelling units. So we didn't dwell on this earlier. It's been raised in other meetings, but that's part of from the applicants proposal is to not just limit it to what the zoning allows today, but to limit it to less than what the zoning allows today at full, at full build up. And that's our intention is to build it out at a maximum of 109 units. That's our intention. Okay. I'm checking again. If I need commission, are you guys ready to close the public hearing? So moved. I'll take a second. I'll second. Okay. All right. Close the public hearing. Okay. So then I don't miss up again, Matt. Next, we're going to decide whether to. Did you want us to vote? Oh, and we have to vote. Oh, yeah. Vote on closing the hearing. Yeah. All those in favor. Aye. Aye. Okay. And Jill. I can see Jill. Yeah. Okay. All right. So the question is now whether we're going to. Continue deliberation tonight or. So yeah, what, what might provide some. Structure for you is Emily prepared a potential motion. And a set of findings. That's, you know, a staff work product. Imagining what we think the commission might want to include. If it were to transmit something to the select board. So, you know, it's. 805. You've been here since 630. The, the next step is to discuss whether to move something on to the select board. You can, you can begin that discussion. Now you can decide to begin it at a later date. You can end that discussion tonight. You can decide not to end it until a later date. It's, it's up to you all. How you want to do that. So my proposal is because this. Everyone on this commission, but many of us in this commission have heard a lot about this project for a long period of times that we have the discussion this evening. If folks are willing and, and see if we can come to a conclusion. Is that. Okay. Jill, is that acceptable to you? Could you go to side by side with us so we can see document and zoom. Attendees. It sounds good. There we go. Great. Okay. Does anybody want to discuss further? I mean, I don't want to, I don't want to start. I'm going to vote against it. With some regret. And, but I wondered if, if someone's, if it does pass whether there's anything about the best thing. That could be added to the motion. I understand that things are vested at the time of their. DRB hearing for. I'm going to say the right word. What's the right stuff. Discretionary permit. What I don't want is this process to short circuit that in any way. There is, I feel like it already moves it up a year or two. And rules may change, but I also don't want it to short circuit any future changes and bylaws that would apply. I guess I'm not. Maybe it's a non-issue. So can I, can I. Restate what I think you, what I think we're hearing is. That you, the, the vesting date. May also be affected. May make this project. It may be affected by inclusionary zoning. Amendments that are currently under consideration. Is that one of your thoughts. And then potentially energy amendments, which we haven't even started yet. That doesn't seem feasible, but. I just don't want this process to short change any of that. Any more than it already does by moving it up. Did not go through growth. So one, one thing I would say about the calendar. I think that's going to take a little bit of time. I think that's going to happen. Around the pending bylaw amendment. And the calendar. Around. This project is. It would need to go through pre-application and, and then file for a discretionary permit. Those things do take a little bit of time. I think. We are going to know one way or another. After October 17th, whether the inclusionary zoning. Is going to happen or not. I think that's going to happen. Faster than. This project could be in for a discretionary permit. Just, just given the way DRB filing deadlines and dockets work. If you. If you want to say something about that here, I think we could help you craft something. You know. It's set a date. You could say by, you know, by January one, something like that. It's just an unfortunate reality that sometimes we have bylaw amendments going and we have specific plans going at the same time. And there's a mechanical issue of what version of the bylaws will apply. If you're silent on it. We're going to pick up the bylaw the day a complete application for discretionary permit is submitted. We're going to say the bylaw as it exists on the, you know, the date we stamped those plans in is the bylaw that will control the review of that project. And the, you know, the reason we set it at discretionary permit and not pre applications because pre applications, a concept level review with a relatively low bar in terms of the kinds of plans that need to be prepared. Whereas discretionary permit review requires a very expensive set of plans to be created and a lot of effort goes into them. So you, you know, if someone's going to invest all of that, you give them the benefit of the law in its state when they submit. So as, as it sits, the day we stamp it in as a discretionary permit is the, is the version of the bylaw we apply to it. So given, given that they're skipping growth management anyway, and given that they have 10% right now, and that those pieces are part of their actual specific plan. How would the new bylaw like legally, would they be able to choose the no affordable housing route? And still skip growth management and pay it a fee in lieu? I don't, oh gosh, so. Like I just like, I'm sorry. I'm going to leave that as a theoretical and you can think about it. My, my, the reason I'm asking is because you know how I feel about our inclusionary zoning. I feel very strongly about them. I want them to pass. Okay. So my concern is that given the stipulations that we are already making in this specific plan, unless they abandoned the specific plan and used our new version, it would be hard to marry this specific plan with the new amendments. Does that make sense? I am sure that the new is saying it have to be 15%, the 10%, and the, or 10% of 80% of the median income. So I like things to follow whatever our plan, our regulations are. And so I. So the way the bylaw amendment reads, the DRB must make findings that the discretionary permit upholds a growth management score of 50 points based on the criteria as they exist today. So if inclusionary goes through and is approved, if they're still moving forward with their approval on the growth management track, when it gets to the DRB, we're looking at their growth management questionnaire based on the criteria that went through the process with the advisory committee through this specific plan process. If they're going into that inclusionary zoning world, I think that goes against the specific plan because we're approving this overall unit design, 109 units, this road layout, the open space in these chunks as it's planned to be, and along with that is the growth management criteria as it exists today. So the criteria as they exist today become an element of the specific plan, an element of that site plan package. Even if you adopt inclusionary zoning, get rid of phasing entirely in the future. If that happens, Glazer still held to 18 permits because it's in the specific plan and we felt that freezing it as it exists today creates a clear path forward for them to receive a discretionary permit approval with the DRB, avoid these vesting challenges, and keep it very clear what score criteria they're being held to and what their phasing schedule is going to be, regardless of what happens in the conventional development review through the bylaw. So the task that they are new. So I don't think we can, I don't think we can do anything about that. And the one thing I would say is on the score, does it still include by blockers? Yes, so like blockers make no sense as a part of the story for this project. There's no public transportation, et cetera, et cetera. They're expensive and they're not very useful. And honestly, I've done some research on this, not regarding you folks at all, but bike lockers are approximate. They're over $2,000 apiece. You would, it would be so much better to put a power wall in 20 of the basements than spend that same amount of money on bike lockers. I'm totally in agreement with Chapin. You know, the charge from the planning commission was to see if you could score 50 points in growth management, the growth management criteria, as it existed back then, not what the criteria you might want it to be next month or next year, whatever. So that's what we had to work with. I don't necessarily disagree with you, Megan, but when you look at how the bylaw is written as an applicant, that's what you got to, you got to see what's written. And we wouldn't as an applicant have the freedom to say, well, we want to get these points, but we, you know, but we don't think the bike lockers make any sense. And let's just have a conversation with Matt and Emily and we'll convince them. I've got all this great research that this is what makes sense. It doesn't work that way. It's like this is the criteria. It's very formula driven. And that, you know, that's, you know, what we what we had to deal with in terms of our application, putting a solar battery in a building isn't going to score us any more points for energy efficiency. That's the other part of it. So, you know, there are things that you might be able to do an applicant might be able to do. They may or may not score you points in growth management.  I mean, it's, it does accomplish some things, but it's an imperfect tool. And, you know, the various people have tried to tweak it over the years to achieve various ends with some success and, but, but that's, that's how it works. I have, I have a wild idea. Okay. I hope I can explain it clearly. So there's eight criteria of growth management and we're freezing them in time in the bylaw as they exist today. What if we give the flexibility and the option that they can choose the energy efficiency category and that one's not frozen in time, that it could look to today or it could be as it is in the future. So if those incentive do become better in the future, they can't have the option to choose them. We would still then be holding them. They would be able to score points in the affordable housing category because I think that's one of the other things with inclusionary zoning. You would be losing points in that category. So it would give them flexibility to achieve points in that category in the future if that category changes. So seven of the categories are frozen in time, energy efficiency. It can be as it exists today or in the future. My clock comes out of sustainable transportation. That does come out of sustainable transportation, but a lot of discussion about wanting to recognize changing in energy efficiency requirements. And I think that was part of the discussion we had with the committee. The way that energy criteria is structured today, it's kind of all or nothing. It's this really high bar for either 050 or 100% of the units and what's going forward to the select board gives a lot more options, a lot more nuance. And then it would give the applicant the option to select either of those at the future. I was just going to add one. We gained two points for proposing the bike stores lockers and we scored a 52 overall. So if you take away the bikes, we're still up. Okay, fair enough. That's good. I just didn't want us to be saying you had to put bike doctors in as part of what we're voting on. When you do want to look at our mission it's almost the attitude that we try and shoot up. So we kind of cover our bases where we can. Regardless of the bike lockers, I kind of like this idea. Yeah, I like that a lot too. Jill, do you have a strong opinion about this concept of providing flexibility in the space of the energy part of the growth management score, but not the rest of it? Yeah, I think it's creative. I think it kind of allows us to, because I think we do have an applicant who really wants to help the town. You know, they're committed to this town, they've shown that, they've demonstrated that. I like what Jack said about 50 being a really high bar and it's higher than, you know, the 20 that most folks have to get. So I think it's a great idea. We'll get a little walkie for the applicant, but I think that that looking fully on add flexibility and get us in our sort of modernized version of the energy. I like that a lot. So mechanically how that would work, you know, thinking back to form-based code where we had 10 topic areas and we meant to metered and you gave us a task list. We have this as a task list and we'll work on that language for what goes forward to the select board. We'll probably want to run it by legal counsel to make sure that our language is clear. Okay, correct. Is that something that would be, if we did choose to make a motion tonight, is that something that would be acknowledged in the motion? Yeah. A language of that. Yeah. When input from legal counsel. Yeah. Okay. Other, so let's, let's pause on that topic, but other comment, generally, let's do subtraction. I'll just say that, you know, at this point I'm definitely in support. It's been a long year and a half that the applicant has gone through with us and we've seen the plan evolve. It looks very different today than I looked back in March of 2022 when we first heard about it. We heard a lot of support and concern from the community and some of the concerns that I heard was that the speed of growth in response to the applicant took it from 25 years and four years to 18 years and six years. In response to that, we've also heard that the growth management allocation is routinely not hit each year showing that there are other levers in town that slow growth, that it's not just this one that we're taking out of the way. We have acknowledged that, well, we don't know if there'll be 18 units or 130 in an alternative plan. It'll be more than what's being proposed today. We've heard concern about the traffic on Old Stage Road and in response, the applicant shifted the design so that the half of the units pour out onto Mountain View instead. We've heard concern about how it would impact schools and we've heard a lot of other arguments kind of saying that might not be our biggest most compelling concern. We heard the community was concerned about a lack of affordable units and in response, now there's 10%. We've heard considerable community support for the substantial public benefit of the viewshed and the farm and we've had all of the wind-swept groupies at each one of the hearings in mass communicating how much of a value this farm is and under this plan, while we can't predict the future, it is more likely than an alternative plan that the operations can continue. Throughout this time, we also evaluated the town's housing needs assessment, which has shown that our town has a significant need for more housing. Given all of that, the whole process that we've all been through for the last year and a half, I think that the applicant has really made their case and earned the ability to bring it forward to our town's elected officials and present it to the select board. So that's why I'm in favor of moving it forward tonight. I'll say that I am in favor of moving forward with the specific plan. There are things that I wish it did differently, as I'm sure a lot of people do, and particularly around energy goals, but I recognize the constraints that we are under, and I find it very compelling that to contemplate what else might happen, if we don't go forward with this specific plan, I am concerned about that, and I am trying to take that 20-50 view that Terri mentioned, and that we are all supposed to be thinking about all the time, according to Emily. So I will be voting in favor of it. Gell, do you want to say anything? No, I think there's been some really good arguments. Some things are sticking with me, and Ken's opening remarks about how the town really doesn't see this kind of gift, and that strikes me just what it's been appraised at, but also the clear value it has both with Winsworth, but also the views that folks take in. I think I'm going to be in support. I have appreciated with the back and forth the applicants have been really mindful of the community, and I can kind of sense that both with their actions, but also the intention is there, so I think that's a developer I want to work with. I'm also going to be in support of this project. I think that the public benefit of this view shed of the land, even if a different developer got the project, maybe they preserved it, maybe they don't, but it would still be privately owned and privately owned trails. You can't always access them. They're not a public benefit to the town, and I think that that has significant, that's really significant, and yeah, we've seen this plan change and iterate over time based on the needs, based on the feedback, and I think that that has a lot of merit. Finally, I want to add something a little bit lateral to this. I'm a relatively new member, actually a very new member of the committee mission, and I've watched the process as much as I've seen it here advance over time. A lot of you have probably heard the expression that a camel is forced designed by a committee. Well, that's not the case here. I've been extraordinarily impressed with the level of professionalism of the people I'm working with. I mean this very serious, the level of knowledge that the town staff have about this stuff and the measured way that they approach these kinds of things is quite impressive. And I too will be voting in favor of this. No plan is perfect. They don't exist. But given the pros and cons that we're looking at here and that the folks that have been here far longer than me have considered, all of them, I like where we landed. I think it's actually going to be a good thing, and I too will be voting in favor. All right. I would then contain complicated motion. Maybe not so complicated. Okay, so in the background I did a little playing around what the amendments to chapter 11 to the select board would say the DRB must make finding that the discretionary permit upholds a growth management score of at least 50 points based on the criteria of chapter 11 as amended October 22 except 1171 and 1179 which can be based on the bylaw of October 22 or any future version of the energy efficiency or sustainable transportation criteria. So they have flexibility there. Resumably our sustainable transportation criteria and energy criteria are only going to be in challenging to climate change rather than regressive. That is up to us. Yeah, I'm all in. I understand what was just said. The intent here is that the applicant could choose to do some other things to score growth management points or not. But presumably there would be flexibility so maybe we could do more of the things that you would really like us to do and fewer of the things that you don't think are quite as beneficial. Am I understanding it correctly? The idea would be to say if we change these two areas in the future and you decide you don't want to do by blockers and now there's the option to do something different that you would have that flexibility today. Not only in the areas of sustainable transportation and energy efficiency. And I think importantly not in the area of affordable housing which would be the other place where you guys scored a lot of points. Which will change completely under this proposed bylaw. Okay. All right, so not such a complicated motion. So you've changed the language in the Chapter 11 notes. Are there any other changes that would need to happen for that motion? No. Do you want to make the complicated motion? I'm happy to read it out for me. Okay. So as authorized by WDB 8.2 and 24 VSA section 4441 I, Megan Cope, are about the proposed plan for future town plan and bylaw amendments to select board for consideration with the following modifications to site plan. 1 designate a 2.5 sorry. 2 to 5 acre building envelope at the northwest corner of the view shed. Excluding proposed road right of way for future town park amenities easement along the entirety of the multi-use path between the path and 38 acres of open space. All right, all those in favor? Okay, well, not yet. Ask if anyone's opposed. All those opposed. Yes, let's do it. Thank you. Okay, that moves forward to the select board. All right. Thank you, guys. Thank you for your work. Oh, you want me to... Check in on door knocking and outreach. I can start that. I don't need to read it.  I'm trying to get a computer. So we probably can get out of here pretty quick. We just wanted to touch base briefly on Williston 2050. One there. Yeah, we'll let him. Give him a minute. You guys, I'm just bringing your conversation into the hallway. We're going to keep meeting. Thank you very much. So yeah, hopefully a little more fun, but more work for all of you. You know, we're really entering the most critical period now for public engagement on this town plan rewrite effort for Williston 2050. We have scheduled all of our round table events. We are taking signups for those. We have a substantial number of people signed up for the first one on the 19th already and some signup spread throughout the others. So people are asking to come. We have some names on those signup sheets we've never seen before, which we're really, really thrilled about. We're working with our consultant on the program and script for that evening and all of the logistics that are going to go into getting the staff, the supplies and everything we need out there. So we can really give people a lot of good value for the time they're willing to spend with us. And the two big asks of the planning commission, one you've heard a bunch before, which is around door knocking and outreach to neighborhoods, spending some shoe weather. Let us know what we can do to help support you in that. We're doing some of it at a staff level as well. Emily's bringing the hack out to do it. That's going to be really, it's good planning. It's good process. And it's also something that builds a really solid foundation for this plan. So when we get to the end and there's something in this plan that's maybe a little bit innovative or a little bit up for debate, and someone says, well, nobody told me about this or I didn't hear about this or my voice wasn't heard. We want to say, you know, we're sorry and we really tried. So, you know, and we really are. And so that just helping us with the promotion will really help. We had a, we had a good size ad in the observer this week. We'll have a full page ad in the observer next week and then smaller ads after that. So that's going, you know, into everybody's mailbox. We've got flyers, we've got posters, we're handing out cards. We've got the bumper stickers if people want them, all that good stuff. And H away, we have email addresses for and I'm mining front porch form for their contacts too. So they can help disseminate info to their residents. So and podcast podcast. And we have a local drone operator providing us with some amazing fall foliage footage of Williston and we're actually, I think we're, I've got Andrew trying to cut that up and lay the podcast over it so we can put it on YouTube. And the podcast is Steve interviewing myself and Emily Melinda just talking about the town plan, why it's important for people to come out. So that'll be a shareable likeable and all of those things as well. The other ask I want to make is we're really looking for help at those events with what we're calling table captains. So, you know, these around table conversations, we're going to divide people up. It's an easy job. We'll give you a script for it. It's mostly helping the people at the table keep time. We're going to work through five subject areas at about 15 minutes a piece. And this is sort of a spoiler alert. But for each category, for example, one is homes and people and the big sheet of paper on the table is going to have some facts about homes and people in Williston. It's going to have space for people to take notes. You want to get the marker out, put a mark on the sheet, get people writing and talking. But the red box at the bottom before we ring the bell when the 15 minutes are up is, what's the first thing we should do about this subject area in Williston? So we're asking that citizen group to really dig in and hopefully come to a consensus. So I'm like, what's the most important thing? What's the first thing we ought to do about this? And this drives toward the goal of creating a town plan that has organized, detailed, and prioritized implementation lists coming out of every single chapter. So we can hand the town and ourselves a really solid eight-year work plan. And you know what? If we get that implementation chapter and the first thing's not feasible, then we'll look at the second thing. The first thing costs a million dollars, and we've only got $50,000. We'll look for the first thing that costs $50,000. But that's a structure that's not been in past town plans that we'd like to bring, and we'd like to involve our citizens in that. So I don't know if we have a mechanism for sign-ups yet. Would it be helpful if we just said these are the ones we can... Yeah, just email us. We'll plug you into a schedule. Yeah, we have the sign-up genius. So if there's a couple where you're not quite sure you could say first priority, second priority, or what? Choice or whatever. And we're looking at sign-ups and attendance, so we'll get a good feel of how... We're trying to put small groups at tables to work through this so that people have lots of opportunity to talk. So far, the first one has, I think, 23 people registered. We have it capped at 40. We couldn't increase capacity on the Eventbrite if need be. And then the others are still below 10 people each. So keep getting the word out there. If you want to post a front porch forum and say, hey, this is what I think of Williston for 2050, come to these events. Let me know what you think and kind of help hype it up. If you have time to do some door knocking, I know it's like beautiful fall foliage time, but I did it last year for Stuff and Waterbury. And even where I went out for a half hour, I got a couple conversations and a lot of flyers in people's doors. So you can be effective in a very short period of time, even if you don't have, you know, even an hour, you're half hour can be effective. Yeah. So we'll be in touch with a little more of that. We're gearing up for October 19th for that first event and running a dry run. And remember that all of these engagement tools, whether it's the round tables, the survey work we're doing, the postcards from the future, all of that is being collected and we'll go into the engagement report that North Star planning is going to be producing for us. So you, whatever comes out of all this process, you will have in front of you as we start to write those town plan chapters this winter, a summary of everything that people told us, organized and, you know, in a way that you can kind of have something in your hands and say, this is everything we did, very similar to the front half of the tap corners vision plan, if you remember the document consultant did for that. So the hope is we'll all have a really great tool when we sit down and start writing. Yeah. Any questions about that? I have kind of a comment, last question. I roped my husband into doing the October 19th session with me and I also invited some friends. And so I don't know if they signed up, but we'll see. And in our conversation about that, something that I had been thinking about for a while came up again, which is how we might want to prepare for or respond to feelings that we've already told you we want this and it still hasn't happened. So the big one, the elephant in the room is a path between the village and tap corners. And so I feel like we have done a lot of these public outreach things over the, well, 12 years I've been on planning commission and then five or four more years that I've lived in Williston. Even back to that, what was it called? A wing? A wing, yeah. A wing in Williston for the next generation. Yeah, right. You were probably like a student representative at that point. I talked about it in my college interview. There you go, see. And over and over again, we hear we need a path between the village and tap corners. And I'm a little worried about going into these kinds of events at no new round with the hope for a lot of different focus elements. But with either people not showing up because, well, there's no point because I told them five years ago that the thing I really, really wanted and everybody agreed and why is nothing happening. So I feel like we could get out front of that and make it something productive or at least explain the process so that we don't get stuck in a downward spiral where people are just like, well, what's the point of sharing our time with you if nothing ever happens? Nothing changes based on what I want. Now fair enough, people make requests for suggestions that are just not feasible or are really in the wrong direction compared to the town plan or something like that. And then we could explain that. But I think the one that really stands out to me as a little bit of a store subject maybe with some residents is the connection path. Yeah, and I think part of it is helping people understand that infrastructure is hard and expensive and requires a lot of time, money, sophistication, right place, right time, a little bit of luck, all that. But I think it's also okay to validate that feeling and say, yeah, people have been saying they want that for a long time. And we've been basically blaming the state for not building that path because it's on the CERC highways alternatives list and it's out in this 20 years to never unfunded piece of the, it's a name of a project on a spreadsheet. And at some point, if I were to turn that into town plan language, I would probably write an implementation that says, stop blaming the state for not building this thing and find a way to make it happen. And one tiny step the Planning Commission took around that was when we were coming up with the project list that would justify the transportation impact fee. I called the State V-Trans Planning and Policy Director and said, if we were willing to spend some money on this, might it make it happen faster? And would we get our money back if it was built? And the answer was maybe no. So we said, we'll spend up to $100,000 of transportation impact fees to try to make this project happen. Now, we've never, we've not done that. And we've done other things with the money that we're hoping to spend on transportation like trying to get Trader Lane designed and built, which is actually finally happening. Something I was told was going to happen when I got here in 2008. And I think what I'm really also hoping to do, and when I talk about having those implementation chapters that are prioritized and that really dig into what's it really going to take to make this stuff happen, that part of the process you're part of right now is developing a comprehensive plan that unlike many plans around the state and in Williston in the past, isn't just about informing what our zoning bylaw says down the road. Because that's great, but it only works if you've got a developer who wants to build something and then your bylaw's got a list of demands. And that's how we get little pieces of multi-use path along Mountain View Road, right? And at some point you've got to have a goal that says we need to fill the gaps or, you know, we've got some things that aren't going to happen just by hoping the private sector will do it. We need to step up. And some of the exercise of that town plan that you'll all be developing will be bringing that and some feeling of commitment to that through the select board to discuss and think about. And, you know, those of you who are involved in the energy plan remember this, there are all these things in the energy plan that's left for us. Yeah, that's great, but we agree we should have electric vehicles, but we are not committing to spend any money right now.  And there are always going to be limitations.  You can say you want to do stuff and you can not have funding. B-trans wants to do stuff and the legislature decides how much money they have to do stuff with every year, right? And we're all in that world, but I think the town plan can engender much more robust community conversation and ultimately elected official conversation. But what are we really going to try to achieve here? And if you don't start somewhere, you're just going to keep saying you want to do it in your plan. Yeah, a good briefly, a parallel to that. Past three town plans have kind of been copy and paste of each other and the outreach has been, you know, one afternoon with cheese and crackers in the conference room. It's been a very minimal outreach. So we're doing this much more comprehensive, we're both robust process. So the same effort that's going into this outreach component is going to go into what Matt's talking about and like what's the real concrete to do list and not just for planning and zoning on our bylaw amendments, but public works and fire and police and all of our town departments and recreation and library that helps all these departments work together to achieve those goals. The same effort we're putting I tell folks that into these events that provide dinner and we're meeting on two Saturdays, we're going to put that same effort over the coming months writing this first draft. I guess I, you know, just to kind of close out this, this point, I think in the events themselves, it may just be helpful to have a little bit of acknowledgement of ongoing past contributions and suggestions and maybe some brief explanation of, you know, yes, the town has said again and again that this is a goal and here are a couple of the things that are kind of been holding us back from that. And here are some ideas for what we might put in this town plan to shift the playing field a little bit. A bunch of people I've talked to have mentioned that sort of dream path over and over again. And I think they see that as sort of symbolic of other things. And that's why I'm raising it now because I really, I wouldn't want that to wailay or kind of derail so much of the good stuff at, you know, at the events in particular. I mean, are there other Megan, just to strengthen what you're saying? Are there other things that we have done in the town plan and your estimation that would demonstrate like, you're right, haven't gotten the path yet. And that's a big infrastructure project and we want to keep it on the list. And it's not that we're ignoring it. And we've got to figure out new creative ways to get a jump started. And also here are a few things I would say affordable housing we're on the plan that we're doing. Yeah, I think that's the other big one that that people have been kind of clamoring about in my sort of very, you know, not looking up to any of the past documents or anything like that. I think we have made movement on affordable housing, at least, you know, in terms of scoping out inclusionary zoning. And then then, you know, by October 17th, apparently we'll know, based on that, what board meeting. I think we'll know. I don't think they're going to want to talk about it more than one meeting. Chapin, you've been. Sorry, I wanted to clarify something. When you say a path from the village to tap corners, could you describe that more? Path along route two. Because we used to talk about it as a path along route two. For me, when the state redid route two and gave us decent bike lanes, it solved my problem biking to and from the, I live in the village and biking to tap corners. The problem that has been solved for me is for kids. And the path that already links to two schools, but has a road section in the middle on Hills is the bike is the wreck. And I really tried to get the glaciers to the plan to contribute to the wreck pack. And I didn't feel like I had support from this group. And what I learned from staff is that our laws, like we have a official map, but it doesn't give us much strength. And I feel like I fought and fought and fought for that. And I didn't feel, I felt like I was alone. Is that, and is that the part that's missing, or do you still want to pass parallel to? No, I think like right along route two. And part of it is that I see people walking along there and like it's one thing to ride your bike and be moving along with traffic. It's still not super pleasant. And I do ride it. But but it's really not pleasant for walking. And, and I think, I mean, our, our big rectangle here in the, in the village, which is almost exactly 5k, which is really nice. I moved to Williston right as the piece on North Williston Road was built. And it was amazing. The I mean, people use it constantly. It's awesome. And I just feel like if we had something like that, it would make, it would make pedestrians much and children also more comfortable along that route. And, and it would sort of symbolically roll the village and tech corners together a little bit. I would love it if the town plan said all of that. Good thing we haven't on because right now that, you know, your question, well, well, does this suffice or what are we trying to accomplish here? None of that is really discussed. There's a, there's a line in chapter 13 that says path to, you know, and, and I think there are some things we've done since then in our, our planning for the village are strong desire that the village remain the civic core of the town. And I think it's great to have the village be the civic core of the town.  We gotta live, we gotta deal with the hill, but I think you ought to be able to, they are. So, you know, and I think that level of discussion about those things going into that official map and saying, well, we have things on there that are scoped. We have things on there that are not scoped. So we have things we've drawn on the map that we want. We have things that we drew on the map and we want and we paid somebody to actually create a document that assesses the feasibility and moves on. What's the next one on that map to scope? How should we amend that map? I really think there's a huge opportunity to have that level of discussion about so many aspects of the plan. Is that also where your red box thing comes into play? Well, part of that is to pressure the group to actually debate one another a little bit and say, you put one, you five of you put one thing in this box and something, you know, if you can't all agree with it, can you all live with it? And some of that exercise is to also impress upon people that there are trade-offs and there are, you know, you can't have it all. And there's lots of different planning exercises about you can't have it all because we're just mean to people that way. But I think there are some like experiential things we want people to take away from that exercise. You know, you can't have it all. It's actually really nice to sit around a table with other people and talk about this stuff. We built something together. We produced something together. And also to come away feeling like, well, yeah, a lot of stuff is possible if we just, you know, if we work together on it, if we prioritize it.  And I want people to feel that and understand that this might be about your career. But I do think that that's an important part of like, how do we get buy-in for this stuff? Right. Like that it's still important to have the things that aren't done yet and to reinforce the things that are still important and that we need to do this. I would belong to them. In a more practical way, and like to Chapin's point about that path, like, I don't want you to feel alone in that because I'm passionate about that connection as well. But what the town plan needs to say is not just paths. It's like scoping, feasibility. Sometimes things are going to come in through private development and sometimes the town needs to be a go-getter. And here's that list. And that one is on that list of the town might need to be a go-getter here. And maybe the first step is, you know, that connection through Southridge.  Some of the arrows aren't where you want the arrows to be. So it's like, maybe the first step is doing that, improve some wayfinding, or maybe do some street painting to improve the on-street safety. And then the next phase is, let's put some real money down to scope and build that. So one reason that things have been slow is, as has been mentioned, finance. Our select board, no matter who's on it, has been very conservative financially.  It's in the town plan to make us pedestrian-friendly. We thought we should be plowing our sidewalks. The people who had the checkbook wouldn't agree. So, you know, we got all sorts of excuses why they couldn't do it. And then finally, suddenly it was okay, you know, and we need to change the expectation. We expect to spend a certain amount per mile on our class two roads. We bonded for sidewalk path connectivity about 10, 15 years ago. And am I right that there's still some funds in that? There are funds in there, and there have been past, I think, town plan goals that have said, spend that money. Yes. So I feel like we need, we have a sales job to do to the select board, or maybe for the town to do the select board, about pedestrian infrastructure. It has a value that is at least somewhere on the on the charts, not just off the chart, opposed to highways. And I think in terms of, I think in terms of like kind of combating the, like jadedness, the kind of you were talking about, we've been saying this for 10 years, we've been saying this for five years, we keep saying this, and it hasn't happened. Like really focusing on like, this town plan is attempt to codify that to like, have it written down as a true priority in that like the document that's like guiding the next eight years. And so, you know, yeah, it's a little idealistic, but it's like, this is like, yes, it mattered before, but like, it matters now, because this is what's going to guide what we do for the next eight years. So, so that reshift and focus. Looking at what the town plan says, the word budget currently owner only appears 32 times in this 127 page document. So most people's experience with the town is paying their taxes. And most of what the select board does, their biggest task is approving operating and capital budget. 8.9 has a couple of sentences and 14.2 budgets. As noted in seven town has a capital budget process. Infrastructure approvance called for this plan will be included in the capital budgets. Tax funding. But we're not, we've been normally put in a capital budget develop three, these three pinnally little sentences in the town plan for what capital budget operating budgets are millions of dollars. And these projects that we're talking about. So what Matt's talking about is, rather than these couple of paragraphs, we're going to have this prioritized list in a nice table with some, you know, estimates. But, but, but I do think, and you, and you felt for this, but I like so frustrated in the beginning, the first year I was on a commission because I didn't feel like we were included in the capital budget process. And I think we've improved that. And I think we can improve it more. And I would like to improve it more so that we are also holding the staff accountable, not just our lovely staff for the whole time. That's the wonderful staff and the other departments accountable to those pieces. So, so you know, you can think about what you might write in a town plan that might help the planning commission can do that. There's, there's, because that's the whole point of your capital budget review, right, is you're supposed to look at the capital budget and make a finding that it's in conformance with the town's comprehensive plan. And so you kind of, you kind of read that stuff, right? And then, you know, sort of intuit whether the capital projects list is, is aligned or not. But it'd be easier if we had a list of capital projects. In the town plan, right? It's made it really well. Melinda was going to say something that she doesn't have a mic. I think that it's sort of more basic than that. And that's that the select word feels a lot of pressure. It might be, I'm not sure if it's actual pressure, but they feel pressure from taxpayers. Like they've got to keep the taxes low. But where, where is that pressure coming from? Maybe it's only coming from a few people. We don't know, right? So I think that there's a basic, like, I don't know, just a backfinding mission or something like, like people, we need to ask people, like, is this, would you prioritize keeping your taxes low over, you know, like somehow get up that, like, is it really the majority of citizens who want, whose first priority is to keep their taxes low or do more, would more people want to see these capital improvements? Or just say they had to pay a little bit more. Like put it as X percent of your taxes you pay are going for highway work in town. This other teeny percent is going for pedestrian infrastructure. What would, what do you think the balance should be? Well, and, you know, we see this play out when there's a fall in vote, right? So, you know, the pool slash community center issue. And I've always said, as people said, well, we keep saying we want this and it's not happening, right? There's that same frustration and say, okay, look, where we have to get to and where we're getting to around community center is something with a price tag will go for a direct democracy, you know, one person, one vote, vote. And then you'll know. And you'll know if there's, there's will or not. And, you know, I'm a South Burlington resident. The worst left turn I have to make on my bike every day to go home is across Williston Road at Davis Parkway. And that's how I get home. And today, there is a flashing beacon with a refuge island with cones around it. It's not turned on yet that just got put in. And it got put in because South Burlington voted for a penny for pass. The bike, pet committee advanced a proposal that a penny on the tax rate would go specifically to the improvement of bike, pet infrastructure in town. And it's been quite successful. In fact, the city council had a meeting where they said, wait a minute, we're getting too much money in this fund. Now, should we change the formula the bike, pet committee had to stand up and say, no, that's the whole point. So yes, maybe the thing in the town plan to do to have something like, you know, have bought have a vote on whether, you know, on a penny for pass or just just explore dedicated funding streams for thing. That's something the town's been really avoiding. Not explore, find. Well, right. So, you know, that's the other thing is, you know, places like Burlington South, they will do a penny for this and a penny for that. Williston does not do that. And, you know, it allows more flexibility year to year in making the budget work. But it also means that there might not be the same long term priority. It means the ERF gets short change when COVID hits, even though we didn't actually need to short change it. So I'm thinking on the fly here, because we're going back and forth with our consultant about there's, it's a survey scoring that thing where it has information and then people give informed survey answers. And once we added a section that's like, straight up like, where has the town failed in a bowl before like wanting this multi use path or wanting the section near Southridge or sidewalk files. And we can probably pull up a couple examples of things in our town plan where we said we would do it, but we haven't done it yet and ask, where has there been something that you wanted that hasn't been accomplished? And tell us a little bit about that so we can acknowledge that straight up in this process in the survey and then have a section that's taxed because yes, we are talking about these five implementation things, but it all really comes down to money. And ask people like, would you be okay with your taxes going up a little bit or a lot for paths or for community center or library or public safety and maybe a couple other categories? Or is there another category we're thinking where you would want your taxes, you would be okay with your taxes going up some exchange or something or down and give people that opportunity to think about our implementation in terms of operating in capital improvements? That's a tangential, but it made me think, have we invited the select board to participate as participants? Obviously those kinds of questions seem really good in an online survey format because that way more people can respond to them and it's like very formulaic. Like obviously you can't provide as much context for them, but how much is it worth to you to have a walkable path throughout Williston? They're very formulaic in a way that doesn't involve these kinds of conversations that we're trying to have with people as they come to these events, but it's really easy for people to say it online. And maybe more people would respond, it's really formulaic data, but that's just kind of the thought that I'm hearing about as we're saying. The online survey tools, I don't know what they're used, but I teach that at UVM and they are really, you can do a lot with them and they're really, they're excellent for things, especially things like providing a little bit of information and then asking a question and then depending on how that person answers the question, it goes branched off into something else, which on paper when we sued surveys meant if you said yes, go to question 17, which was a nightmare, but now it's seamless and it really is amazing. So I don't know if you're using Qualtrics or... I'm not sure what they've got. It's embedded in a story map right now. So we're trying to do the little bit of information scrolls on the story map and then you get a question and you answer it and then you scroll. But we've been really embedded in just trying to launch the public engagement. We haven't gotten a chance to talk to all of you about what kind of plan do you want to write and I'm really excited to keep that going and we can do it while we're writing it because that's great. I think luckily I have a very perceptive staff that's been around for a while and we've got quite a lot of experience. We know where people feel like things have fallen short but when we did that rapid fire, remember when you guys ground out that Mentimeter for like two hours, it's super useful because it's like what do you need to hear? There's probably some things that you have a pretty good idea what the community preference is on and there's other things where it's like I really actually don't know what my community wants for this and you can't you can't go by who's yelling the most or yelling the loudest and it's really easy to even as staff we end up in that world where you know we're only seeing people reacting to an imminent development at a DRB meeting or we're only reading front porch forum or you know we sent out one of the email blasts that we sent out we got a response back and someone said I dislike this town I moved out of it I don't like it you people don't listen to anybody and I've moved out of state and happy round table happy round table it's like so whoa I have to go but I want to ask one question that's relevant to the timing which is all the people who were invested in the village zoning update that we did a summer a year ago may feel like well where did that go where do we stand on following I haven't forgotten it's still on my plate but so are we putting the 250 town plan stuff ahead of it I think we have to right now I think we can pick it up in as as the planning commission goes into writing the plan and we've done the engagement I think we can get back out to people in the village world yes yeah so it's not it's not gone we want to hit the right timing so we may get those questions from the people who participated right what about them what about all that village stuff that's one of the emails that I haven't sent out so all the people who participated in tax corners I sent them in and that's where the nasty one came back home but I was like hey you participated in tax corners and a lot of that we got comment was kind of beyond the scope of forebase code but the town plan said do a forebase code and we did it and now we're thinking more broadly so I'll do a similar one for village where it's like you participated we haven't forgotten it is on my plate it will happen but we can think a bit more broader about historic resources in our town plan you know as much as anything I mentioned earlier the the village is the place where we are very much the most preempted by what happened in act 47 because of the density and that just is that much more of a call to action to go in and update the development standard we were going to fix the density problem anyway right because we we were going to go to a more form-based village standard anyway so you know we say yeah we we're aware of that we're there there's a good reason to go back and put energy into that I see one more thing okay and then we're gonna and now I probably just when I raised the issue of the path I definitely did not want to make it sound like we haven't had any wins or any accomplishments yeah like we have just I feel like you guys have just done so much in the past few years it's it's been fantastic like even that little tiny path under the overpass which is amazing stressing about years I'm so happy every time I see somebody over there I am yeah that's so much important base code and we crossed over to the parking lot so much stuff so thank you but I think that's that's the point of like half the like if we do do the like you know if it is informational on a storyboard type of survey then let's also yeah acknowledge the way it sounds right yeah yeah now a lot of things like thinking about the past like what are some of the wins you're proud of where the place is that you wish something happened a little bit faster in terms of infrastructure services and kind of it doesn't have to be all the negative to be the good end of that right right absolutely why this is important it's important because now we have these things because they were right and you know I always tell people will listen to great place to do what we do because it uses its plan and that is true even even the plans we've had for the last many years Wilson has implemented them and it matters what goes in there getting people to you know understand that is just great so yep shoe leather door knocking table captaining it'll be fun by Thanksgiving it'll all be over by mid-December it'll be all yeah it'll be all it'll be all over before you pick up your turkey if you're doing such a thing all right thank you so much it's your turn so moved thanks everybody