welcome to the town of willesden development review board for tuesday march twenty seventh two thousand and eighteen and we start tonight off with a public forum is there anybody in the audience that has any public comments before we start the formal meeting hearing done well into the public hearing tonight ari and will grow from management review an allocation for residential development proposals that completed pre application review during the calendar year two thousand and seventeen there are sept six applications before us tonight in three different categories in the projects within the growth center there's mansfield park  sewer service area and there's four projects being considered northern holdings the spencer residence and the quinlan development and brian now the marsh tonight's format is is i'm going to turn things over to staff for an overview of the growth management process and then one by one each applicant will come up  in present or rather hear staff's scoring of the proposed proposed goring and have a chance to provide comments to that scoring this being proposed by staff and have a and have and interaction that way and then once we've gone through the six different applications then we will the board will go into deliberations to finalize the allocations that are going to be granted during this cycle so without all to turn it over to stuff for an overview of the growth management right thanks pete so is pete mentioned this is an annual event happens just once a year and in our towns development regulations any time you propose a residential development you need to get growth management allocation and we collect all the applications that went through the first stage of review what we call pre application in the previous calendar year and they are reviewed together  and we do this every year in march back at the end of january there were letters that were sent out to all of the applicants notifying them of the dates associated with this meeting were all of the projects that were received invitations so all the projects that wrist that received him in patients from the town made its middle and and then staff goes through them looking at them against the story the scoring criteria is pete mentioned we come up with with a proposed score i know it had a couple of conversations with a couple of you and you know the way it works is you're going to have an opportunity to comment and at the end of the night the dear p is going to decide so every year there's some score that staff has proposed at the d r p will change generally they tend to be fairly consistent but the d or b will change one or more scores that's generally how it works and then the d r p makes the decision on the allocation so pete's already mentioned that we have three allocation areas there is our growth center there's an area that is where we do provide minas bill water and sewer that's outside of the growth center and then there's most of the town and if you were to look at that that map over there on the wall behind the camera guy and you see there's a big big area that's all in that kind of pale green and that's all of the part of the town that doesn't have municipal water and sewer and so projects in each of those areas they only compete against other projects in that area and the scoring criteria are a little bit different depending upon which of those three areas your proposed development happens to  be in the so the amount of allocation that's available we have a big giant spreadsheet two pages bring in magnifying glasses to read it and that's kind of how we keep track of it there's a finite amount of allocation that's available and we keep track of how much is being given out we keep track  much is still available and so the b has to make their decisions tonight in terms of awarding allocation not just on scores but based also on how much allocation is available in the scoring process there is a minimum score of thirty points that's required in order for a project to get allocation generally speaking the projects that score the highest go to the top and get first in line  sometimes there may just be one project in an area that project would still need to get that reach that thirty point threshold or higher with the exception of four units of allocation the board can award up to four units of allocation each year regardless of score and the reason why there is that safety valve as it were in the byelaws is that we know from experience that small projects tend to not score well in our system and it was it was a mechanism that was put in place to try to relieve some of that pressure for some of those small projects so and there are in our first round of scoring there are two projects that came in under thirty points so that will represent somewhat of a decision point for the for the board in making their decisions later on tonight  that's that's what i have paid for the front end of it and then after that it's just a matter of going through each of the proposed developments and then going through the proposed allocation schedule now i would add that  there were there were a couple of errors there was a couple errors were pointed out to me in the original report and a revised report has been prepared to correct some of those we had the number of units for the handy quinlan project we had them listed as forum one place and three in another place and so we had to resolve that internal consistency and then the other is in if you for those of you that looked at the report in the table for proposed allocation we originally had some units of allocation proposed for nor their holding and in an earlier draft that was what the staff polls it was going to be as i'll get to later on the staff has there's two projects that score less than thirty points and we are not prepared to make a recommendation that either of those two projects get points both of those projects score so closely and there's not enough allocation to go around so ultimately it's going to be up to the t r p to decide so it's always  decide anyways but it's corrected in the report so that's that's what i got ok i think you can ok we will move into applicant number one  and if you if you build a one bedroom dwelling or a studio apartment that counts as one half of a dwelling unit equivalent so so in this case  mansfield park apartments is proposing to tilt thirty one twelve in units so you only need you don't need allocation for all the units you need allocation for all the units minus one so every property always has an inherent right to thirty one but they're all halves they're all halves so you end up with so should be fifteen thirty thirty point five it should be fifteen point five fifteen point five so it should be that's how we get the forth i thought i understood about computers but your point thing as i got it right when i wrote it so fourteen or a half units of allocation so that's you know that's sort of you know a complicating part of this and the other thing this project is a little bit unusual in that it's in the growth center and when we've seen projects in the growth center they've typically been these large mixed use projects phinney crossing cottonwood crossing those are those are the things that come to mind so here we have a property rachel a develop this part of mansfield investments and has an office slash commercial use on it and there was a portion of the property that was left and developed so the lot itself was created at the time that the subdivision was created and all the streets that go around the lot were all created so senate you know we have we don't get this kind of situation all the time and so what the outlook is posing is just literally one apartment building on this lot that already has a commercial use as well and it's also it's not necessarily that we consider to be a virgin site so that's part of the context of the project and that's so looking through it based on the applicant's responses to the questionnaire they are proposing to to meet the energy efficiency requirement so we've proposed them getting all of the points for that there is no pledge to build  defined in our byelaw so we did not propose any points for that so housing diversity so they're proposing thirty one multi family unit so how does the board score housing choice on this dimension so in the project itself it's only one singular type of housing in the context of the housing mix of the entire town it does represent and in our view a mix of providing a mix of housing types within the town so and this and this item it's double weighted so first you score from one to ten and then you multiply it times two so in our proposed score it's four points which is two points or a couple of points for the reasons that i just mentioned and then it's double weighted so you multiply times two so i propose course four and that's how we got to four on that dimension on the on the scoring she'd never quite followed so know the question here says will provide neighbor the proposed subdivision provide permanent neighborhood recreation space such as urban or neighborhood parks the applicant says they're going to provide exterior gathering place with grills and eating areas and if you look on the proposed site plan you'll see there is a small area that's next to that we didn't as a staff didn't feel that really met the definition of what you would consider to be open space within this context so we we have not proposed any points on design for context this is one its way to that one and a half so we have proposed giving it all of the points attempt points times one and a half would be fifteen points it's in an area that is intended and designed to be as well as standards go urban and this would be an urban building built right up to the property line along the street and so we felt that was worthy of scores of points or the other one that i lost over was billed pads and trails so so the criteria is you get points if you're building pads or trails that are called for as part of the town's pedestrian system and that the greater the length you provide the more points you are get so here's a situation where the lot has already been created and there are sidewalks that are there on i think it's three sides of the lot those were put in place as part of the original development so we've proposed giving it two points because the it's a relatively small section however it's it is important to get those sections in an urban area and they were built previously as part of the original development but we do feel that the project should get some points as part of that so  all that up our proposed scores thirty one but but we actually during construction will end up replacing all the sidewalks that are already there it's just because because the way it has staff commented because of the front edge of the building as close to the right away as possible the boundary line is possible we're go was that not considered to be able to be well so my rate you know you now comments about the types of projects we see in the zone in district so if you think about other projects we've seen like cottonwood and crossing so you know you've got i don't know a swimming pool a tennis court there you know there's a lot you know that's it's a different it's qualitatively a different amount of open space i understand this is an infidel but certainly some for the board to consider if you wanted to you know give it you know a small number of points we would be opposed to that was not a necessary thing it's a nice thing to have on i think what is going to happen  in in task corners going forward i think the board is going to see more of this because the large parcels are already been spoken for have been developed but i know just driving to the task corners area i can see a lot of other areas where this type of infill is very appropriate because a lot of the uses that every bit of there were already permit in these areas markets change you know demand changes and and  thousand starts july first just a few months away there's also a not valid cation available for this project to get all of its allocation in disco here twenty that i think becomes sort of a question for the applicant in terms of how quickly do you think you are going to want to and going to be able to move forward because sometimes people like to buy more time on the back end rather than hurrying up in the future so we propose giving ok is are there any questions from the audience on this application ok hearing done i'm going to close d p eight hundred dash zero one seven twenty five thank you very much project in its current iteration it received allocation in two thousand and fifteen when the project got its allocation back in two thousand and fifteen the allocation schedule a tie spanned a number of years and this is a case where the applicant was interested in seeing if the allocation schedule could be moved up closer into the present it helps with being able to pay off all the infrastructure costs that have to be paid early on to build the roads water sewer so in two thousand and sixteen there was a and so you know here we are back again in terms of the scoring i will i will make a confession so so last year when staff looked at the scoring we looked at the scoring brand new and didn't look at the scoring from the previous year and we compared it to scoring to see house and they were very very similar i don't remember how close they were but they were within a point or two so this year we just decided to rely on our wisdom from the previous years and so what you see scoring this is the same scoring that you saw last year because the project hasn't changed and you know our thinking there was that we had already gone through it a couple of times and so we had there was a certain amount of internal consistency so but in terms of walking you through it the project is proposed to get all the points for energy efficiency no points for affordable housing as defined in our for housing choice i double weighted item so two times ten a maximum score with b twenty so we propose giving it two times three so some points but not the maximum of points because there is a mix in this in this allocation area so scored one through ten and then given half way so the maximum square you could get would centrally be five and we've proposed giving it four it  fits in in our view with a lot of the other developments that that we've seen in recent years on north will list and road there's a criteria in this district it's very formulaic about being close to services and based on points and in terms of neighborhood design also half weighted a maximum score of five we propose giving it a score of two and a half or really right in the middle and you add up all those points that comes up to thirty one points in the post scoring i think you can christy have any comments on the proposed scor last year same as last year any any questions from the board on the proposed co industry line there that's and it connects through to some cattle woods and woods and there's a beaver pond in all sorts of trails back there and then it five and you answered no for trail and stuff like that again i'm not sure where you see that oh it's an eight point five question question on the questionnaire did i i think it should be yes it should be yes so yeah you're right it should be yes we because we've already scored this thing a couple of times and we know the plans and in fact the final plans of our you can sign and i know there's a primitive there's a primitive path that's going to connect to the path that you mentioned and so that it technically the applicant should probably change his his answer to that question will see the year the one after you come back with a new document th i think i would add is in terms of the allocation schedule so what we've proposed is so under what the can is currently been awarded there are four units of allocation that don't become effective until fiscal year twenty one there are three remaining units of allocation available and fiscal year nineteen and one year of allocation available in fiscal year twenty so we've proposed is moving three in its into fiscal y which we that proposal i mean it's it's great it certainly meets the needs and helps us accelerate the velocity time essentially get the neighborhood done earlier in in a timely fashion and  the other the reason why we won't be coming back is there are no other allocations are two thousand and nineteen and so we know that in so we'll be dow basically by do we shift so i would next up is d p seventeen dash twenty nine northern holdings five welling's in the project is so we've now or in the aggregate zoning district so we're outside of the sewer service area in working through the proposal the applicant's proposal  a law so no points were proposed as part of that there are no paths or trails that are called for in the town plan the applicant is thus not proposing to build any criteria in growth management if you build something that's going to be relatively low density that's kind of just like whatever else is on the street it's hard to argue that you shouldn't get the points for design for cont t and that's certainly the case in this time around so we've proposed giving it the ten points so open space so this is what we would consider to be an open space subdivision meaning th baseline area is ten and a half acres are great so in this only district if you have a lot that's ten have acres or greater you have to set aside a minimum seventy five percent of the lot area as a permanent protected open space that's a that's a minimum by law requirement and so meeting that requirement does not earn you points in growth management what earns you points in growth management on this dimension is if  the land is deeded to the town or there's a conservation easement that's placed on it that is held by a nonprofit like a mild land trust or something like that but if the open space is controlled by the be open space controlled by the homeowners association unless the applicant has other information we have not proposed giving it any points on that dimension based on what i just i just said so the visual impact in this zoning district there's a premium placed on whether a project is going to be visible from the street or not and so in this particular case it's double weighted so you have a maximum score of twenty points we've proposed giving it two point so a few points some of the homes will be minimally visible from public roads it's quite frankly because of the wetlands that are present on the lot the the twelve things really need to be pretty close to the street and that makes it hard to obscure them from view if they're going to be right up really close to the street so so we've proposed giving it a couple of points not a lot of points on that score and then when you add those up that brings you to twenty two points so as i said earlier a project scoring less than thirty points the only way that it can receive allocation is the d r p would have to give it allocation from the for example units that you have and you know you have a lot of control and discretion over how you give those out or not as the case may be so there is another project that's going to come in with a low score so there will be a decision there for you to make so we haven't made a recommendation on allocation for either those two projects because this for points i'm just going to give you notice of the efforts we've been through to try to meet those as much as possible even though we ended up and successful in the initial draft here so regarding the affordable housing the applicant went through quite a process there trying to find a way to make us think that criteria clickable met and had several conversations with the champlain housing trust and unfortunately there just wasn't an avenue that the housing trust would be able accept one of those criteria and search conditions nor were they aware of anywhere else we could go to really that would meet the goals of the project as well as provide portable definition of the boston but there was again this doesn't really help us tonight but just an item for future consideration knowing that by their nature these smaller rural projects are difficult to score in areas like affordable housing and and other areas providing some good avenue such as you know maybe a monetary donation or some donation in kind to a housing trust in lieu of perpetually affordable housing and some point allocation to go through there and maybe something just for the board to consider for the town to consider in the future iterations of this management process but obviously nothing for tonight if i can come as well as we're speaking with the director of home ownership program a d the c h p and basically he said that what could be done is put in a covenant and recorded in with the with the town that restricts the future sale price of the home and it looks like based on  p spreadsheet the calculations the you get some of these homes would in fact be at least one hundred twenty percent medium income portable housing fortunately that is not acceptable as per the wilson part but we did  look into that as much as possible and in general c h p looks at homes that are about one hundred fifty k to get involved so that's quite a bit more but we did you know exhaust all possibilities speed  regarding peasant trails again we would be willing to provide an easement or construct a portion of a trail there unfortunately there's nothing in that town planning really called for in this area and obviously a long old pretty road since that hill road there are no sidewalks for us to grow up so that was something we would have been willing to do and wanted to try to do but there's nothing in the town plan that really allowed us to score points there again design for context i think we've covered that one  doing a drive by through i couldn't tell if any were duplexes or not it's a pretty good mix there but and i believe part of what we've been trying to do there too is if you look at the got one stand alone home on sunset hill road two lots that are relatively close to each other for single family homes and pretty road and then the duplex or townhouse style that's on it's own lot further down so it's really nice that it is cookie cutter five watts right in a row with the same house it's kind of and it will look a lot like the other growth that has gone on along the road that's that's broken up into different different styles and then  and we had discussions with them it was a good discussion i think in the end they saw the value of it but they also their conclusion was that under the current bylaws it's impossible for anybody to develop this further and they felt that it was not worth the headache for them that this would be in their opinion it would be conserved as is as open space for the future and there was an issue for them to address as i understand this board has the power to accept or attempted to weigh in on this this debate as well specifically accepting the deed of this open space to do so that maybe you know project in perpetuity so the board doesn't have the authority to accept anything the only body that can make a decision to accept a piece of land for the town is the select board so anything involving ownership has to go to the select board even though it may be just got it's going to be down a bit still the town has to be willing to accept it so th they don't have the ability to make that decision i think what the dear b has the ability to decide is whether or not to give you allocation or not and that's that's within that's within their purview but just to clarify that the d managed that the areas that were wildlife court or wetland be more of a binding document that would detail how how that land was to manage what could and could not occur there and how that was going that's probably also a you know select board agreement if there's a legally binding contract going on but it is an avenue that we have used in other towns to protect open space in areas of high public value such as these large wetlands or wildlife corridors that we've conserved in our ten and half acre open horizontal border are going to dig down and generally our experience with open space is that it's you can put things such as underground utilities and whatnot through it but of what i'm asking is that if it has to be revisited someone's going to be coming through the that is so the the applicants engineer is correct you are allowed to put leach fields and things like that in open space so remember this they don't have a permit yet they don't have a subdivision plat yet they would need to get allocation tonight in order to come in for that later face at that later phase exactly what you're talking about something that we would be looking for them to do which would be there would be an  that you know some point somebody may need to pick up the pipe or whatever some kind of maintenance and yeah they'd have to make sure that they had some kind of legal access to get to it so thank you so you're absolutely right that would be necessary the last item here is the visual impact on the screen can see absolutely right we are a little handcuffed keeping these buildings and units up close to all the premier road but that also kind of gives us a great opportunity to utilize some of the natural vegetation that exists along there to provide screening if you're going through there's a lot of younger growth and thicker especially in the summertime growth right along with premier road and if you look at the engineering plan that paul was just mentioning we've got the hatch lines there that we're going to be preserving the existing vegetation to do that in perpetuity in order to both break up the project from itself and provide screening from public roads we have proposed street trees to be planted between it to break up the massing of the buildings and the facades there so that we are really mitigating the visual impact as much as we possibly can we'd be happy to discuss you know types of plant ings or head rows or what's going on in front of those units to provide the most screening possible but i think we've kept a significant amount of that existing vegetation around there to protect the views from public highways and that's one where i think we we would like to argue that we might have a couple points hiding in there that you know the criteria is minimally visible from public roads except those serving the site so obviously old premier road is the one directly serving  kind of way it is a nice big flat area but it wouldn't be conducive to a home if you want to keep those tucked up against old primly road to protect you know to provide drainage positive drainage away from the home so we don't do any witness in basements we do have the wetland in the corner that we've got to protect from as well as a smaller class three that's in the center of that ten and a half acre open space so we'd love to push them back and provide more screening and plan to dish and stuff so that you couldn't see these things from anywhere but again we're really constrained to keep these up closer for logistical and feasibility reasons is this was a borel writing a and this was a horrific act in the seventies so they didn't you know  think they'd have much more say when they were cleaning up so there's a bunch of of land that's her bunch of material feel that's up on one side that could be distributed but it's first of all the fact that it wasn't meant that there's now a white line there which provides real habitat commission so we've got really our prime wetland and habitat areas in that which is also towards the southern and back into that parcel so keeping everything up towards the roads also provides maximum buffer distances to there to maximize the value of that open space the other comments from the applicant thank you thank you so this subdivision goes back to i don't know two thousand and seven two thousand and eight there was a three lot subdivision that was plotted pumpkin hill road comes off of south road allocation so the allocation expired in order to be able to build on the lot they need to reestablish allocation so they have to go through the process so here they are so we walk through the scoring criteria  they have pledged to meet the energy efficiency criteria so we've proposed ten points the points available affordable housing no units place so no points has been trails there are no paths and trails as part of this so no points so design for context this is arguably the lowest density of anything built in  stand so in terms of what we're looking for for context of this area we've proposed giving it the ten points because it seems to fit that criteria so there is a large amount of open space that was created as part of the subdivision as was a really really big lot of really really big subdivision that was divided by that but none of it was you know conservatives just you know either held by the individual homeowners or in with an association so no points based on our criteria so visual impact so the the gold standard for this is owning district for visual impact is that the unit's not going to be visible from the street so there is a big big wotte on the front and of pumpkin hill comes off of south road and then this lot is buried in a wooded area behind that so it's hard to imagine that anybody is allocation available the other not that the board is bound by this in any way but the past practice of the board has been pretty consistently it year in and year out on these units of expired allocation of i think in all cases the allocation has been reestablished with the law so that the property owner can build the house and and then move on so and there is there is allocation available so we recommended that the allocation be available as early as as this current fiscal year or could be delayed if if that's what the african wants they want to get the allocation in later years to extend the life but i don't know what their r ok good answer any comments questions from the board room question what is it the note down here says this is a request for reception five years so if they are if they if they're true to their word and they're looking to get going soon they shouldn't have any problems with the allocation expiring no matter what you say you don't want to  any comments from the audience eighteen dash zero eight handy god so this is a request for four units of allocation as part of a rural open space development on old stage road you know d just walk through the scoring sheet so in terms of energy and energy efficient c like like all applicants they're proposing to meet the energy efficiency requirements so we proposed applicants are proposing to dedicate a section of the almost fifteen hundred feet of a length of trail that some of which would be within the veliko easement it is it will be important to make sure that because of the way the lot is configured th is going to run all the way to old stage road so we're eyeballing the plot here the plan and we can see that it's potentially possible but we did want to reiterate that it's assuming that this thing is going to go all the way to old stage road so you may want to address that wind with your comments to the to the g o p but we propose giving it the ten points on that  dimension open space so the the open space is not proposed to be placed in a conservation easement or to to the town so no points are proposed and then visual impact so we've got four units seeking out allocation to the watts are going to be in our view visible from the street but two of them two of them won't so we've posed to score three points double weighted two times  any other comments on the proposed scoring no this goring is find it was towards the beginning of the year so just as a quick summary if you've got it in front of you but this is on the north side of the mountain view that section of old stager road it's ninety six point four ninety six point two eight acres and one l existing as ken said so there's four proposed lots two new lots are right off of old stager road no argument that those will be visible the other two are set back in the southwest corner parcel does have the seventy five percent open space but it's not being conveyed to a third party so the scoring seems appropriate i don't know if there's any ability in a perfect  world if if there's the availability for three units in twenty nineteen and one in twenty twenty that would work better but i think i think there's the unit  that would be the only change that we would request consideration of so so you know as as dave mentioned there are there are units available our proposal was simply to this year this coming year and then to the following year and the thinking was that especially with a project like this where you're going to have standalone lots it might give the applicant more time in the event that not all of the lots develop all at once which tends to be common in these type of developments so but on the other hand we don't have any objections in all four units getting allocation in f y nineteen  but as we have already seen in one case you know the clock can expire and so sometimes having the allocation later on we might be doing you a favor that you don't even know yet  depending on what happens with market forces it's satirise so something to think about one of the last lot one is for shah and a lot to may not be built on for quite some time but the other the other two lots we think will sell pretty quickly in that section of the old stager road so we'd prefer the three in one or even before but probably the three and one that i originally requested  ok i don't recall seeing it so we didn't we didn't submit that to the to the board the stage so if if the applicant is going to get points for the trail system you've got to make a decision on that now  we are in between in between so pre op what you need to go pre application to get here tonight and then you need to get allocation to tonight to be able to come for discretionary permit  so there's the applicant doesn't get a permit until they get a discretionary permit approved however went to the applicant comes in but discretionary permit they're going to be held to everything that they pledged as part of growth management buried even though it's your land you then need permission on that mound system if we haven't located it we will locate it because we need to make sure that if anything happens there that we have proper isolation  sometimes we'd like to be in control of that and we may want to defer that so it's with the understanding that the applicant may be required to build it or for our own self serving purposes we may say we'd rather defer it for some reason or another what i would point out is i did pull up from the town plan and so when you look in that map it's map seventeen parkland in primitive trail and it shows this alignment of this trail and it goes sensually it goes across on both sides of the old stage road and it leaves the subject property to the west and connects through ledge wood and it makes connections to the west connections to the north and also extends eastward and makes other proposed connections so it's part of a proposed network of paths and trails and i don't know that it's that it's intended or that it's likely to end up where this is going to become a destination that people are going to drive to to get to this path and trail what it means is that somebody who might be out walking along it like let's say somebody that lived on a state road or perhaps somebody that lived on the ledge would road they would be able to walk continuously across this path even though they would be on their own property and they would be going that's what she decided to do have no authority to prevent her from building that based on the fact that it may not be the most attractive structure in the world so this project needs growth management allocation it's not exempt like that was so it's subject to the scoring criteria that's contained in the bible one of which is you get more points or less points depending on how visible things are from the street well that's the criteria so you could get some points if it's minimally visible you could get all the points if you may have heard earlier there was one where it's going to be way back in the woods no one's ever going to see it they got all the points and our proposal because it was totally invisible that was based on how we evaluate you all the points for design for contacts for the very reason that you just stated that's not this ability it's different from visibility so those are two different scoring criteria so you could get points for design for contacts but not get points think there's flexibility and what staff suggested that any scenario would keep those above the thirty points guess just it's a very quiet road and they can't imagine having a public trio through that private residential area just in the city to make sense the other comments from the bor an application for a permit discretionary permit the discretionary permit stage they would need to show any easements any existing easements any proposed easements those would all need to shown on the property so to the extent that there are people that have east ments for whatever right whether it's water or other the applicant would be required to show all that information on that plot not only show it all but we would have to honor isolation distances so it's the state wastewater permit that's going to control that that's you have some of the units would be accessed from south brownell road and some of them would be access from roads would drive so in looking through the questionnaire that the applicant submitted the application has pledged that all the units would be energy efficiency so we've proposed a score of ten points which is all the points available not at the housing units were pledged to be affordable so no points have been proposed on that criteria so the applicant has stated in their narrative that they're go build approximately forty three hundred linear feet of trails that exist thought it's not proposed to be connected to the pounds trail system and i get some commentary from a lend based on her commentary from the conservation commission and in their review or pre application there was there was no inclination that these trails would become part of the system so based on that we have not proposed that receiving any points on this particular criteria under designed for context so again this is kind of a split project you've got some units that would be accessed off of rose wo rosemont rosewood which comes out of shelburne and then some would be accessed off of south brownell row the board may recall when we went aft pre application there were the existing property owners on south brownell road who all have these rather large lots and part of the commentary on the testimony of the board heard a lot that are proposed right to the west of those existing lots are  there rather small in comparison to the watts the existing lots that are on south brownell road so based on that staff is proposing five points out of a possible maximum of ten and basically the this idea that that the context of a large portion of these lots is really it's really different from what exists within the context on south brownell road and the board may want to tinker with that a little bit but that was you know kind of our our sassaman on that i think it's easier to make the case that the that the locks that would come off of rose would would be more similar to what's there but you basically you've got these two different distinct development areas within this project so on the criteria for open space there's there's no promise to either place a conservation easement or have ownership by the town so no points have been proposed and then visual impact so this is a double weighted score so you've got one to ten times to score maximum of twenty so you have some of the lots some of the lights would be minimally visible some would be more visible so we've proposed a score of three out of ten two times three is six six points you add all those up and you get to twenty one points so if that's score or close to that score is what the be awards that's once again that's below the minimum of thirty  points so the board has four units of allocation you can give out in any which way you want if you add the six units and the four units from nor their holdings you have ten units and two projects that are seeking allocation that would essentially be competing for those four units so you know the board will have at least a couple of decisions to make on that score projects so i am just wondering if you know we're not in an area where the town has any proposed trails so there is no opportunity for us to connect to those does not mean that we automatically we would also be open to the idea there's a parcel to the north that would connect to a proposed trail and you know in any situation if that parcel was to have a child come be as we do propose to provide trails while they will be connected to the town plan are you proposing then to get these points to actually develop or to build any trails or you're just looking for credit for tra that's my only question for you guys is do you have experience with projects that don't come back to the town track system and have you ever given points to projects like  for the board to consider if you are going to give points on this score is that so when we get points for whether it's a primitive past or any other kind of transportation infrastructure there would be an easement that would be part of that that would guarantee public access so you're proposing to provide public access to anybody that wants to walk on these trails it's a simple question it would require you to execute an easement as part of the subdivision plot that would give legally deeded access to anybody that wants to walk on that path and that's consideration it's it's different then your neighbor says can i walk across your land and you go ok something that's written in the deed that exists for all time they need houses where those trails are it would be going to fragment yeah the start of the stream of homes over here are going to basically the trailhead up this sand for the other one comes right down the guy's driveway on the other end well and you know and if that other person was to allow people to walk on it i think back to that might open it up for you know a couple parcels all over or whatever and they would just so both of the lots that we are proposing are on the larger side of the existing lots offer as we drive and i would say that they are within the same context of what's existing my opinion the lots that we are proposing are slightly smaller than what's existing but they're not extremely small or they're within the same general size you know on other projects there's lots  far under an acre being proposed i also just wanted to point out that you know northern holdings received ten points for their design for contacts when they have with the design of the surrounding area and i will also just state that we put those houses there specifically so that we could have neighborhood contacts are all off of the shared drive  and also just maintains contiguous natural areas and open space space open space carrie i do too much about it at this point once from what we heard from northern holdings so we will agree with zero points on that score for visual and we would propose a sense two of our six lots is a third of our project that those two homes alone three points over ten which would double to or six  addition to that the four homes that are closer to south road are very partially visible and we are proposing plantings along the proposed drive which should shield to get our score into the thirty point range just not sure how that process exactly works the other issue that got a question is what is your proposed outlook for allocation if you got it how would you be looking to get your six units all once over to a year to  and just curious that i would address is the issue of fordable housing so we've had applicants before who have sat here at the table across management who said yes out to affordable housing and then who choked on that pledge later on down the line and wind and screamed and kicked and did everything you could imagine to say oh well there's no way i can afford to do it you gotta let me off the hook and say you should you should understand that if you make a pledge you're going to be held to that pledge and then if you don't you not to be able to get a permit so you need to be very careful about what it is that you're pledging to do because it will be incorporated into the conditions of approval for your project so i file we're you know if i were asked my advice i would not be saying well we'll consider doing affordable housing unless you've got a plan to do that you've got a plan to do that and you've scoped out exactly how that's going to pencil out and you've scoped out who is going to manage that for you or you have some experience in that area i would probably want to tread carefully in that in that area because you could be you could be promising something and then find out later on that it may be more difficult to do than had imagined so i'm not saying it's impossible it may be possible i don't know the answer to that but if you make a pledge and you get allocation you'll be required to meet that or you won't be able to get a permit well you should have that all in place before your final plans are signed so if you get allocation tonight you get a year from now to submit an application for discretionary permit if you get approval for a discretionary permit you'll have a year from that date to submit your final plans sell it's you know their oh they'll be some time but it won't be an unlimited amount of time that you'll have to work that out all i'm saying is we have seen this happen in the past where applicants have said that they were willing to do certain things and especially on the affordable housing front and then later on complain that it was impossible for them to meet their pledge and tried to wiggle their way out of it and there have not been happy endings on those things so make sure that you know what you're signing up for don't know this isn't my first growth management rodeo but i do forget from your year we're not me in position of putting conditions on these occasions so we can say if you eliminate a lot we'll give you this allocation we can only go on by what's your pledging to do on the sheet which you put in front of us which is you know six six million i don't understand your question but i don't think so they're correct me if i'm wrong but they the applicant could get back in the queue with a new application this year and  i guess my alternatively i do believe we could meet the minimum thirty points by pledging affordable housing obviously we'd like to avoid doing that if at all possible so in order to get points in growth management for affordable housing the units would have to be perpetually affordable not just to the first owner first occupant but for all time when that person sells it it has to be sold to somebody else who can meet the income criteria and it would have to be managed by a nonprofit housing agency the housing units would have to be affordable at no more than one hundred percent of the area median income the person would have to be able to spend no more than thirty percent of their income for principal interest tax insurance so that's the that's the level of affordability that you would be promising number one and number two you you're promising that you're going to enter into an agreement with the nonprofit housing agency as defined under vermont state law that will manage the perpetual affordability going forward so just so you understand that's what the criteria is one hundred twenty percent of the area median income is an aspirational goal that the town has something that the affordable housing caste force wanted to set is something that was a pole but it doesn't get points and growth management it has to be affordable at one hundred percent of the area of median income accept where that offer does that not put it if the if if you think that's going to change the scoring so just dropping a lot i get i would beg the question as to whether or not that's going to make a scoring any lots that are over there on the on the east side so the houses proposed are up really really close to the property line that they're going to share with those existing homes so it's not just that the lot sizes are different the existing contacts so you have these houses that are situated on of large lots with a lot of space between themselves and what their necks do and what's being proposed is in my view is different than that and that's that's what the score was based on so that it was it wasn't just a calculation of acreage it was kind of a calculation of what it is that's being proposed what's this house just a development pattern and how that how that would fit with the context that's there already the points that you phrased and then in essence what you if i'm understanding and this is kind of a clarifying question if if i understand what you're saying is if after the revaluation you then the still don't need to thirty point threshold that you'd be willing to make the pledge for affordable housing to get it over for something in there pete i don't know if we can we just listen to northern holdings which is kind of you know in rural areas well talk about their inability to get a housing trust to work with them so i would caution you to consider that when you make this pled points as previously said and we can come back next year and consider that at that time or consider dedicating the open space or conservation easement i think there's definitely ways for our project to be  conversation about affordable housing you've taken the pledge and removed is there any thing further from your perspective that you would like to share with us ok is there anything else from the four on this application is there anything from the audience ok welcome back to the world's to d r p we are out of deliberation do i have a motion for the growth center allocation as authorized by chapter eleven of wilson development by david turner move the wilson development review board having reviewed all submitted growth management questionnaires in a company materials including the recommendations of the town staff and having heard and duly considered the testimony presented at the public hearing on march twenty seventh two thousand and eighteen make the following allocation of dwelling units within the growth target it established by chapter five of the williston comprehensive plan within the towns of growth center as shown in table seven below established by the development review board remarks twenty seventh two thousand and eighteen with the following amendments to d p eighteen zero four we're going to change the score on the eleven point six point four neighborhood space from development review board having reviewed all of the submitted growth management questionnaires and accompanying materials including the recommendation of the town staff and having heard and duly considered the testimony presented to the public hearing of march twenty seventh  thousand and eighteen make the following allocation of dwelling units within the growth target established by chapter five of the wilton comprehensive plan within the town's other search sewer service area as shown in table seven below established by the development review board on march twenty seventh two thousand and eighteen we have not made any changes to scores and allocation will be three in f y two thousand and nineteen one in f y two thousand and twenty and removing four out of two thousand and twenty one to be redistributed thank you is there a second all second day of seconds if any further discussion all those a favor by any opposed to hearing the motion is their second i'll second david second so that any further discussion all those in favor right and you post here and don