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


Ryefyd, ond i'n munaidd yn Llandon cyffredinol, cyntaf yng Ngysyllt Wrthgaredd yn F announcement ond y ffordd cymdeithasol rhan. Rhefyd, mae'n bwysig iawn i gyd. Er rhaid i'n bwysig iawn i ddigonnod dwi'n gweld iawn i gynnwys ac i gyd ar gyfer y cyf erbyn cynnwys cydafol y gallu bwysig iawnu, ac ond hwnnaw'n bwysig iawn, yn gwyb gjwysig iawn, mae hi'n gwyb gwyb. I thank my colleagues for their support in enabling me to table this motion for debate in the Parliament tonight, and to comment that there are constituents who are very interested in the fact that we would be debating this issue tonight. It is important that we raise awareness of what needs to be done to tackle the conditions that led to 1,129 Bangladeshi garment workers who lost their lives and 2,500 who were injured in their Rana Plaza building collapse. 24 April was the first anniversary of this tragic disaster, in which an eight-story building collapsed in Savar near Dhaka in Bangladesh. I want to use my speech tonight to highlight what happened, why we should be concerned, what happened after the disaster and what are the wider lessons that need to be learned and action that still needs to be taken. The building that collapsed was not fit for purpose, it was not built to house the weight of machinery that was in it and there had already been a warning about safety which went unheeded. The workers were paid a pittons for their work and that is the case in many, many factories in Bangladesh where garments are produced. We should be concerned because some of those garments find their way into the chains that are experienced in Scotland and the rest of the UK. I want to highlight the fact that there were two key initiatives that happened in Bangladesh after that incident. Firstly was the Accord, which was signed by the Bangladesh Government, the key industries, the trade unions and the NGOs. In the immediate aftermath of the event it was estimated that 90 per cent of Bangladesh buildings do not meet their local building codes, never mind international building standards. In a country that is prone to earthquakes, that is a major challenge for the Bangladesh Government and local government to address. The Bangladesh Accord on safety in relation to fire and building has been a big step forward and Oxfam record that there will now be more than 1,500 factories that will be inspected in Bangladesh. We have to regard that as key progress. On the other major initiative that brought together the Government, the industry, trade unions and NGOs, there is much more that needs to be done. The Rana Plasad agreement, which is strongly welcomed by people, has led to a challenge because although some companies have made donations and some people have been able to be compensated for their loss, for the health implications where they need support afterwards and for people whose capacity to work has now been removed. Although some people have been compensated, there simply is nowhere near enough in the funds to enable the second set of compensation agreements to be made and to be debated and to be handed out to thousands of people whose lives have been ruined by that experience and the distress that has come from that experience. There has been some organisations and some donors that include well-known names such as the Gap, Asda and Debonams and some of the companies that have paid into the fund were not connected to the Rasa plan a disaster. Campaigns have sprung up to highlight the lack of contribution for some of the biggest retail companies whose names would be known to all of us. Only 40 per cent of the target set has been reached and there are many well-known companies still not just to make contributions but to make significant contributions. It has been suggested that although no Scottish company sourced clothes from the Rana Plaza, Alison Johnstone, who is not here tonight, proposed a motion welcoming the fact that the Edinburgh woolen mill, which sourced clothes from the Tazrin factory, where 100 people died in another incident. Alison Johnstone and Seed have suggested that there is still more that needs to be done in establishing accountability and contributions for that factory incident. Seed also wants responsibility chains to be established for companies involved in sourcing garments for the commonwealth games. He would particularly like the minister to respond to that issue. I believe that there are issues about compensation and building safety. There are also issues about asking questions about the pay and the terms and conditions that Bangladeshi workers experience when they produce garments that we want to import to developed nations. In the future, the day on which the Rana Plaza disaster took place will be commemorated by the fashion revolution day. That campaign aims to highlight the rights of garment workers so that we have an annual focus and we never forget the experience of the loss of life. It has been reported that Bangladeshi workers are some of the lowest paid in the world with workers taking home 62 per cent less than the living wage. Nearly 40 per cent of the garment factories in Dhaka fail to pay the minimum wage, and the international labour organisation and Oxfam highlight that problem. They challenge us to ask questions about the clothings that we buy. The issue was addressed in a motion by Kez Dugdale recently, so there has been interest across the chamber on making sure that we highlight those issues. I think that it is an act of international solidarity, it is an act of social justice and it is something that we as individuals, as MSPs, can promote but we can also work with organisations and NGOs in our communities. The clean clothes campaign was set up to particularly highlight known brands who have not made any or sufficient contributions to date. Those new campaigns, the fashion revolution day and the clean clothes campaign will sit alongside the work of established organisations such as Seed and Oxfam, who have long worked to lobby for justice for workers and to lobby for action by major companies to take responsibility for tackling poverty pay. No workers' life should be put at risk due to a lack of an appropriate safety measure and the first-year anniversary is a day that we need to commemorate in the future. We need to acknowledge that those who died died in tragic circumstances and we need to use those deaths to serve as a reminder of the importance of health and safety at work abroad and at home and to campaign for the rigorous protection of workers' rights for all. In the workers memorial day that I know that many of us celebrated this year, there was a campaign for workers across the world to agree that we would stand in solidarity to remember the dead, fight for the living and ensure that lessons are learned that tragedies are not repeated in the future. There are issues that we need to be taking up in our own communities. There is a challenge to make sure that Scottish consumers and companies operating in Scotland support stronger accountability from companies who source clothes from factories across the world for sale here. There is a chain of responsibility. We need to highlight that chain of responsibility and encourage our constituents and organisations and companies that are active in Scotland to look at that chain of responsibility in terms of their own procurement policies and in terms of their sourcing policies. Today, in the Scottish Parliament, we can add our voices for justice for government workers so that they receive fair pay and decent and safe working conditions. It is an act of solidarity with some of the lowest-paid workers who experience working conditions that would simply not be acceptable here and in the rest of the developed world. Let us use our political influence to support them. I thank you for having the opportunity to raise that motion. I hope that, in his closing remarks, the minister will be able to think of issues where the Scottish Government can help to highlight those campaigns and to look at issues where the Scottish Government can help that train of accountability and support corporate social responsibility for our Scottish companies. John Mason, to be followed by Patricia Ferguson. Four minutes or thereby, please, Mr Mason. First of all, I want to thank Sarah Boyack for bringing forward this debate. It is one of the subjects that we wish we were not having to speak about, but which we most certainly do have a duty to speak about in this Parliament. There is clearly quite a lot of ground covered in the motion and Ms Boyack has covered quite a lot in her speech. I am very happy to associate myself with all that. Clearly, the focus of the motion and the debate today is on Bangladesh and the particular Rana Plaza disaster. I am more than happy that we support the call for contributions to the compensation fund. However, the next main theme is to reduce the risk of such disasters happening again. In their briefing, Amnesty International emphasised human rights and the relationship there is between Government and business in Bangladesh, which seems to be unhealthily close in some instances. In Oxfam's briefing, they talk about our responsibilities as consumers to be responsible for the clothes that we buy, and Sarah Boyack mentioned that as well. At the very least to question why is something so cheap, I am myself and probably all of us here like to get a good bargain, but there has to be a reason why a shirt or a pair of jeans are incredibly cheap. That reason might be that the wages are far too low or that there are virtually no health and safety standards in wherever it was produced. That brings us on to the whole topic of fair trade. We have made real progress on food and drink. From years ago, the tea was pretty poor, the coffee was pretty poor, and we have moved on to good-quality products, tea and coffee, other fair trade products such as chocolate, sugar and wine, which many of us buy. I know that, when we go out to buy those kind of food products, we regularly choose fair trade products, because at least we have some assurance that the workers have a decent wage and there will be some kind of health and safety standards in there. However, it seems to me that we have not made the same progress with clothing products and that concerns me. Perhaps it is more difficult to change that kind of product from the grass roots, because clearly tea and coffee can be sold at a small stall, a school fair or a church, and that is not possible with a range of clothing. However, somehow we have to address and tackle this situation. One suggestion that I would make, and I know that it has had success in the past, is through pension funds. Local authority pension funds, among others, have huge investments in a range of companies around the world. When I was a councillor, I served on the Committee for Strathclyde Pension Fund, and one of the things that we felt we could do was to be ask the fund managers to bring reports to us on corporate social responsibility and whether companies, big companies like BP and Shell and others, were they paying proper local wages, were the conditions locally healthy and good? That, at least, was some kind of pressure on some of those companies that they knew they had to report back on those things. To be fair, corporate social responsibility has moved forward. I think, too, we have to be clear that it is not just rich nations, rich western nations trying to impose their standards on the developing world. This is about having decent wages and health and safety all over the world. We get it wrong, too, quite frankly. On 28 April this year, I was at Glasgow Green commemorating workers memorial day, which Sarah Boyack also mentioned. From memory, I think that Patricia Ferguson was there and I think Drew Smith was there that day. Patricia Ferguson was talking about her proposed bill and there was also a real focus on the stock line tragedy that happened in our very store step in Glasgow. I hope that we can put the emphasis on working with countries like Bangladesh and not talking down to them as I fear that western countries have sometimes done in the past. Finally, if we are going to be idealistic, I would like to move towards things like a worldwide minimum wage, albeit at appropriate local levels. I was trying to remember the singer who mentioned that in one of his songs. I think that it was somebody called Ian Davidson, but I am not entirely sure on that. I accept that some of that may be a long way off, but at least we need to talk about those things. We need to keep our focus on this. We should not just think about those who are struggling in Scotland much as we should in the UK and in Europe, but really on people who are struggling all around the world, because each person is of equal value. I now call Patricia Ferguson to be followed by Cameron McAnon. Thank you, Presiding Officer. May I offer my congratulations to my colleague Sena Boyack for securing this debate about one of the world's worst industrial accidents, and can I offer my apologies to myself and to the chamber, Presiding Officer, as I will have to leave when I have concluded my speech. As we have heard, over 1,100 people lost their lives and a further 2,500 were injured when the Rana Plaza complex collapsed on 24 April 2013. Having witnessed the effect on my local communities of an industrial disaster where nine people lost their lives, I can only begin to imagine the effects such a devastating event had on the Sabar district of Dhaka where the plaza was located. We know that many of the survivors are still struggling with injuries that affect their ability to work and that many families have lost their breadwinner and are experiencing brutal hardship to this day, which is why the Rana Plaza agreement and the compensation process attached to it is so important, but, as we have heard from Sena Boyack, it is woefully inadequate. Of course, what happened at Rana Plaza was not the first large-scale disaster in the ready-made garment industry in Bangladesh. Months earlier, in November 2012, 112 people were killed in a fire at Tazrin fashions. Between 2006 and 2009, 414 garment workers were killed in 213 separate factory fires. In the five months following the fire at Tazrin fashions, a further 28 factory fires were reported, with eight workers killed and at least 591 injured. What is it about the garment industry in Bangladesh that makes it so vulnerable to tragedies of this kind? First, it is worth noting that this industry is a key driving force of the Bangladesh economy and that it is highly politicised. In 2011-12, Bangladesh was the second largest exporter of apparel in the world and the industry accounted for 13 per cent of the country's GDP and provided employment for an estimated 3.6 million people. Although Bangladesh has improved its economic outlook significantly in recent years, issues such as workers' rights, transparency and building regulations have not kept pace. Within the garment industry, buyers demand low prices that are achieved by rival companies, constantly undercutting one another, paying low wages and having scant regard for the health and safety of their workers. When you consider that Bangladesh has the lowest early wage rate in the world and that many garment workers work long hours without extra pay just to meet targets, you begin to get a feel for a sector in an industry where workers have little value. Rana Plaza exemplifies that disregard for safety, as on 23 April, the day before the collapse, cracks appeared in its walls. It was reported in the media that the country's industrial police had recommended that the factory owner suspend production until the situation could be investigated by independent inspectors. Indeed, the bank and shops on the ground floor were still closed when the collapse took place, but the upper floors where the garment factories were located were opened as a result of the factory owner having an inspection organised by his own contractor who declared it safe, probably not much surprise there. It is alleged that some of the workers were threatened with dismissal if they did not return to work and that many of them returned to their machines just an hour before the building collapsed. What can and should be done to improve safety and conditions in Bangladesh? It is clear that a complex set of relationships are at play in Bangladesh, and I have to say that I was very impressed by the report produced by the Bangladesh All Party parliamentary group at Westminster. They have produced a raft of recommendations based on conversations that they have had both here and in Bangladesh, and many of them seem to me to be eminently sensible. I will single out just a few of those, and I will also paraphrase them for speed. They suggest that Western Governments should use their influence to encourage Bangladesh to address labour rights, minimum wage levels and enforcement, and that the Bangladesh Government should establish a disaster relief and fire emergency plan with adequate funding and ministerial responsibility, and that there should be support for the minimum wage board that has been established in Bangladesh. They also suggest that there has to be greater worker participation and representation in the running of companies, and that a system of building controls with appropriate training and record keeping should also be established. One of their other ideas that I thought was very interesting was that there should be a kite mark for ethically produced garments. Given the hundreds of items that they can now buy that are fair trade marked and given that many of those are made with cotton and other fabric producing materials, I wonder whether you need a separate kite mark for ethically traded garments and ethically produced garments, but I think that it is something that is worth looking at. It seems to me that we must also consider whether the west's insatiable appetite for low-cost garments also plays a part in this story, and I believe that it does. In previous debates about the stockline tragedy that John Mason mentioned earlier, I have often suggested that no one should die just because they go to work. In my view, that applies just as much in Bangladesh as it does in Scotland. Like many members, I will remember the pictures from the immediate aftermath of the collapse of the factory at Rana Plasar. The aspect that sticks most in my mind was the look of sheer confusion and the general chaos that seemed to characterise the immediate response. Obviously, the scale of the tragedy quickly became apparent, and shortly after the broader issues with the garment industry came to light. However, since then, Rana Plasar slipped from the front pages, and that is why I am very pleased that we have got this debate this evening. Indeed, whilst the discussions on the safety of the factories and the conditions within them have continued and the role of the garment industry, the attention that this issue has received has been a good deal less than would perhaps expect from a tragedy on this scale had it been anywhere and in other countries. I would like to congratulate Sarah Boyack and indeed the many other people who are determined not to let this Rana Plasar disaster fade into history, and are determined to ensure that whatever else the lives of the thousands or so workers which were lost were not lost in vain. In this instance, we cannot stress the importance of all our individual responsibilities in terms of this issue. Of course, the UK Government should and has taken action on this matter, which is most welcome. The provision of the £1.8 million funding towards the trade and global value chains initiative is one such development, which should strengthen the relationship between buyers and factory workers. This coming on top are the responsible accountable garment sector challenge fund, which works with some of our top retailers in order to improve conditions for workers in the industry. However, of course, there is another link in the chain, and that is ourselves as consumers with garment marketing rules relaxed, thanks mainly to the EU regulations, where it is no longer compulsory, which, due to the lobbying of the Spanish, were keen that both Mango and Zara did not want to disclose whether garments were manufactured. It has been nigh and impossible to say if the clothing is made in a foreign sweatshop or not, so I think that this kite mark idea is a very sound one. As someone who has worked in the textile industry for a long, long number of years, I always take a keen interest in whether garments I buy are manufactured. I have to say that I find many people make assumptions also about high prices being a marker for quality, which is not the case. Put frankly, we cannot make such assumptions, and really, if we are to put pressure on retailers and drive up workers' conditions, we must start better informing ourselves over the origin of our clothing. And I don't just mean country of origin, as in all countries there are factories that are safe to work in and provide safe and reliable employment, and we shouldn't really use sight of that. In relation to that, I'm pleased to see that the UK aid is providing money towards factory inspections in Bangladesh, which I understand will number 2,000 next year. But, of course, we can always do more. The problem is also because we do these factory inspections and then we put money into the fund, but it's the bosses that keep half the money and still pay the workers the minimum wage, and it's very difficult to control that. As consumers, we should be asking questions as to who it is that is producing our clothes, what conditions they're working under, and whether the retailer is doing all it can to support better standards. Indeed, I hope that this increased publicity over the efforts of some of the companies involved with the compensation of workers will shame them into becoming more generous and proactive. The fact that so many companies who had goods manufactured at Rana Plaza failed even to attend the first meeting on compensation is really shameful, and that's a mild word for it. These companies must do more, and we must keep up the pressure on them to do so, and that goes beyond the issue of compensation, which at least seems to be moving forward with the Rana Plaza arrangement. But to the broader issue of welfare and conditions for workers, particularly in the developing world, we need to be confident that the cost of our clothes is at the expense of the consumer and not the welfare of those making them. We now move to the closing speech from the minister, Hansa Yousaf. The minister is seven minutes or thereby. Thank you, Presiding Officer. My thanks to Sarah Boyack for bringing this motion forward. She has a long history and notable history in this chamber of bringing forward issues of importance across the world. I commend her for doing that once again with this motion and for all the other members who have signed it and indeed spoken on it today. As we all know and has been mentioned, 24 April 2014 marked that first anniversary of the tragic Rana Plaza disaster, which at least claimed the lives of 1,129 garment factory workers, potentially even more than that, and left many more injured. As Patricia Ferguson was saying, that disaster came only a few months after the Tizrin fashion fire in Dhaka, which killed 112 workers. Those tragedies, and like many others like them, are a stark reminder of the human cost of our demand for cheap, fast clothing, and of the horrendous working conditions of those who produce them. John Mason was correct to say that some element and some respect, probably all of us at one time or another, have been guilty of being part of the problems indirectly, perhaps without the knowledge that we had of the consequences of those actions, because we wanted demand for cheap and fast clothing. I think that it is important that we recognise that the garment sector in Bangladesh is a complex issue. It is not as simple as perhaps being or has been portrayed previously. The industry is worth more than £13 billion, providing jobs for more than £4 million. Bangladesh is the vast majority of whom are women. On one hand, the industry is absolutely vital to poverty reduction and to the economic empowerment of people, and in particular of women in Bangladesh. It gives women opportunities to work outside the home to earn their own money to help support their families. It also offers an alternative to early marriage. However, there is, of course, the flipside of that, which many members have mentioned. If those conditions are exploitative, there is no excuse for the appalling working conditions, which led to the tragic Rana Plaza factory collapse. It is imperative that those who were affected by the disaster, the child who lost his mother, and the women who have been left disabled, are now unable to support their families. It is vital that they are properly compensated. Sarah Boyack asked what the Scottish Government can do in that regard. We urge companies, of course, to stick by the agreements that have signed, which I will go into in more detail. I can certainly commit to raising the issue with both the honorary consul of Bangladesh and when I next meet the ambassador of Bangladesh to raise the issue. I might be happy to do that and take the collective voice of the Parliament in that matter. One year on, many members here have mentioned some of the progress that has been made in terms of improving building safety conditions and, also, very importantly, inspections, but the work that has been done to urge buyers to take responsibility for their supply chain. I welcome the introduction of the Rana Plaza agreement of compensation, which will support the victims. However, it is vital, as I said, that the compensation scheme adequately compensates all those who were affected. I reiterate the calls of every single member of the chamber for companies operating across the Lothian region, Scotland and the UK, especially those companies that sold clothing that were produced around the plaza to make sufficient and appropriate contributions to ensure that that £24 million target is reached by the minister and the Government. We do not have the legislative power to force them to do that, but the Parliament should send a strong message to those UK companies and Scottish companies to ensure that they are living up to their important responsibilities.  Patricia Ferguson made that very poignant reminder to John Mason about the stock line factory. Whether it is in Scotland or Bangladesh, everybody should have the right to work in safety and to be expecting to go back home after a hard day's work. As consumers, we all have a responsibility to think a little bit harder about what we are buying. There is no such thing sometimes as a good bargain. As a Government, we have a responsibility to be a good global citizen. Our achievement of fair trade nation status last year, and it particularly gives us more leverage to do more on that issue. The Scottish Government, for example, and its recent passing of the public procurement bill included an amendment that came from the Government in terms of guidelines for public contracts regarding ethical and fair trade policy. That is a step in the right direction from where we have influence on public contracts to ensure that those who are exploiting workers will be made to answer for that in the procurement of public contracts. On top of our fair trade nation status, which we can do more on and more with as a Government in this particular issue, we are very proud of the work that we do in Bangladesh through international development priorities. Currently, we are funding four projects that are just shy of £1 million over three years between 2013 and 2016, and they work on food security and also working with marginalised communities in mitigating the effects of climate change. On what more the Scottish Government can do, many of us will know the UN guiding principles on business and human rights, which was endorsed by the UN Human Rights Council in 2011. The UK launched its implementation plan in September 2013. The Scottish Government has been liaising closely with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in that process. In Scotland, we have a national action plan on human rights, which was facilitated and drafted by the Scottish Human Rights Commission, which was launched on 10 December 2013. It contains a commitment to develop a co-ordinated plan of action in Scotland to give effect to those UN guiding principles, which are also known as the roggy principles. Many members across the chamber will know that the roggy principles are there to provide respect for human rights in the context of business activities. States, those who are in the United Nations, have a positive duty to take all the necessary steps to prevent business-related human rights violations. We, as a Scottish Government, are in the context, but even if Scotland votes for independence, we will be an advocate of those principles. I note, as others have done, that 28 April 2014 marked workers memorial day. The purpose of that day is to remember all those killed through work, but at the same time to ensure that such tragedies are not repeated. I completely share the sentiment. I believe that the work of Scotland's national action plan on human rights has an essential role to play in improving business practices, but we need collective action from the globe and for the community of nations to pull together. I think that the roggy principles are certainly one way of doing that. I thank once again Serab Boyack for keeping this issue in the spotlight and I am sure that the message will be loud and clear from this Parliament that we must never ever see another tragedy like that of Ranna Plaza. Thank you. Many thanks.


This is a simple and visual guide on how to prepare a chlorine solution to disinfect surfaces, floors, toilets and other objects. What you need. A ventilated space. A pair of gloves. A pair of goggles. A mask. And protective clothing such as an apron to protect your skin. Then you need some tools. Plastic buckets and plastic spoons. And the products. You can either use powder or granular chlorine such as calcium hypochlorite also called high-test hypochlorite, HTH, ideally with a concentration of 70% of active chlorine. In absence of HTH, you can also use chlorine tablets such as aquatabs or liquid solutions of chlorine such as sodium hypochlorite, bleach or chlorox. Finally, you will need clean water for the dilution. Whatever the choice of the product above, the goal is to produce a solution with 0.5 of active chlorine which will disinfect floors, toilets and other objects. We are going to show you the process to prepare this 0.5 chlorine solution from the HTH 70%. First, get dressed in your protective clothing and go to a ventilated place. The process to prepare the solution is very easy and is done in three steps. Step 1. Pour 1 liter of water in a plastic bucket. Step 2. Add 1 tablespoon of HTH, the equivalent of 15 grams, into the bucket. Step 3. Add 1 more liter of water and stir well. You now have 2 liters cleaning solution with 0.5 active chlorine in it. You can use it for cleaning floors, toilets and surfaces. Be careful, this solution is very strong and efficient. Therefore, you must wear protective clothing to prepare and as well when you use it. If you need to store it, make sure it is kept in a dark place and for no longer than four days, otherwise the efficiency of the solution will rapidly diminish. During epidemics or pandemics, we recommend disinfecting with such solution. Hospital wards at least three times per day. Office floors and surfaces at least once per day and toilets at least twice per day.