 and I'm a planning commission and I look here and come in. Woo hoo! Yay. Gary Root and I live in East Gallus. Yeah, and I'm in East Gallus too, so. He's gospel model, so. And we have one absent member, otherwise we won't be here. Yeah, Ron Shaw is not going to be here. He's also on planning and he's across almost the area, I mean, up and down the way, so. So if each of you could just introduce yourselves, tell us what your concern is. We're going to take notes and then we'll just do the brief thing and then open it up. Denise? Oh, Denise Wheeler, I'm the chair of the Select Board and I'm here to learn. I'm Allison Underhill. I live in downtown Adamant, although technically, it's not clear. And I'm, yeah, I'm going to write downtown. I'm just concerned about what possibilities might be up there. I'm Barbara Weedon and I did tour of Adamant Road from the store and I've always been concerned about keeping the village of Adamant or whatever you want to call it, a very vital, small community center, which includes residential possibilities. Robbie Porter, I live on Haggett Road. I guess I'm confused that the village minimum lot size boundaries goes so far up there. I had no idea of that and I'm wondering why that is. What do the justification for that is? That's one of the reasons why we're here. It's discussed. Janet Cloud, I have to live in the small player, but my studio is about to come up and I'm going to animate it. And I sort of want to know what the road crew is up to, but that's, maybe that's not it. I'm not a road crew. Sorry. Ken Trask, I live in East Montpilier also, but I happen to be one of the best present at the Adamant call. So I'm just here to find out how that means I'm cool. Karen Kane, I live at East Montpilier and I'm here to learn. Right. Thank you for the email. I'm Chris Andreessen and I live right up to the other end. Yeah, across the road. And I'm kind of wondering about potential changes and what that would do to you. I'm Bill Porter and I live at a road at the top of the hill. And I live near the borders of this land. We live in Ruth's Quarter. Yeah, same. Ruth's Quarter. Same. I'm Molly Porter. I'm their daughter and I own a lot of this land on the other side of this pond. And I'm wondering why the village is going to extend that way. I'm concerned about development on that whole thing. Larry? I'm Larry Bush. I live on Bliss Pond Road. I'm on the conservation commission and the lakes and streams committee. And I'm here to see what the timing commission is proposing. And what do you guys think of that? And also to get some of Karen's piece, I guess. And help yourself at any point to the goodies that are over there. What we thought we'd do is just start out with Adamant as it is today. Without what the planning commission is proposing. Did we get Karen? Pardon? Did we get Karen? Yeah. Yeah. Any questions? I'm sorry. So what we have today in this green hatch in which everybody seems to have questions about that is the actual village district for Adamant. And this is what it's been in our regulations since whenever we've had regulations with the village district which is before my time, very convenient. Oh, okay. So, and this little orange thing here is what is called the designated village center. And about in 2015, or I don't know when it was, we applied for three areas of the town of Calis to be designated village centers with the state. And what makes it a designated village center is you have a post office, a store. We have a church here. East Calis has the store. Maple Corner has the store and post office. So those were the three designated village centers. And what's important about that is if we have that designated village center, the state gives grants based on the designated village center. So if we want to have better walkways or better bikeways or anything to do with that kind of thing and we want to get grants, you use the designated village center to get the grant. The issue came about then in 2015, the state started with the Shoreland Protection Act. And before this time, Calis's shoreland regulation only affected lakes that were 20 acres or more. When the state enacted Shoreland Protection Act, they went with ponds and lakes that were 10 acres. So, Adamant Pond is a 10-acre lake. And so it became, the shoreland protection act affected Adamant Pond. And that's what you see here in the green is the 250-foot overlay. And the round around it is a 100-foot buffer. And that's what the state has as the Shoreland Protection Act. Now, the one thing about the state is they stop the shoreland protection at roads. So, if there's a road, effectively there's no buffer or anything else. So, and that's where John is pointing out where the road is and where you are. So, what happened is, we have been working on planning for years now to change the current shoreland regulations for the town of Calis. And what we decided we wanted to do is make a shoreland overlay that pretty much copies what the state has so that there's conformity to the state shoreland protection act. And we were going to do two things that were going to be a little different. One was we were not going to stop at the road. If there was a road and the 250-foot mark went beyond, we would expect best management vegetative practices to also be practiced on each side of the road. In other words, the shoreland protection would go beyond the road. The other difference with the state is the state has a 20% impervious surface mark. We were going to keep our impervious surface mark at 10%. So, when we decided to look at developing a shoreland, Calis shoreland protection or overlay, we invited some folks from conservation and lakes and streams. And one of the things that was stressed upon us was why do we have a village district so close to the edges of the lake? When the village district is made for density, it's got, as you can see in the comparison, there's no minimum acreage in village. And so, we wanted to hear from you. What do you think about having a village district on the edges of the lake? Help me out, Gary and Melanie and John, what else did we want to know? Basically, I think we wanted to hear from you what you thought. I'd also be interested in hearing how people feel about our proposed shoreland overlay actually extending into the designated village along with this 100-foot managed buffer and the maximum clearing, all occurring right in the designated village center. So, you mean in this area here, to overlap more than others? What do you think about this overlap here? I have a question specifically about that overlap. Eric has been doing beautiful work on his gardens certainly within that overlap. Is that verbulton, according to these rules? Yeah, actually. But see, they're not rules yet. Is it forbidden by the state rules? No, the state stops at the road. He's between the road and the pond? Yeah. Then actually, he's allowed to continue any current use, but there was new use that involved clearing. He'd have to get permission from the state. So, I don't know if he's been clearing, but he's been digging and building beautiful little gardens there. If he's putting in new plants, he probably doesn't have a problem because the state wants to see their 100-foot buffer as tightly vegetated as possible. But technically, yeah, he should be having these things reviewed by the state. Even if it's just to say, the state says it looks good. What's the process of reviewing by the state calling it the state bureaucracy so that somebody can help fill out forms? You got it. Yeah. They're actually easier to deal with than you made it sound. For state agencies, mostly because they're so overwhelmed that they can't spend a lot of money on the stuff. What about grandfathering for prior-existing... That's the state rags The state rags get into effect when you start something new. So, what's grandfathered is grandfathered. But if you say, oh, I want to build a depth on a house or something on the other side, or I want to add a little bit of something, you're doing something new, then you've got to go to the state. And eventually, if Callis has the same regulation, then you start out with our zoning administrator. So, you'd have to do it twice. Exactly. You'd have to get a Callis approval and you'd have to get a state approval. That's the way it is right now. That's the way it is now. Except that the proposed, surely an overlay would exempt things that are already permitted by the state. So, if you get green light from the state, you don't need to go somewhere thinking of town. Not necessarily. You've got to go with the state. You've got to go through DRB and the state review. But if we change it, then you would only have to go through the state? If we made them consistent, then what happens is if they're consistent, the town can go to the state and we say, look what we did. We're copying the state and the state can delegate to the town the responsibility of taking care of permitting. We're going to try to, for the applicant, try to make it just a one point of contact for permitting instead of going to two. So why is the town now posing different, you know, going beyond the roads and the other things that differ from the state regulations? Well, when we first were doing our shoreland, we had a couple folks on a couple organizations really don't like the state stopping at the road. Mainly because if you look at Lisbon Road, there's a lot of the road goes right next to the lake and everything stops. But if the 250-acre or the 250-foot buffer goes beyond, then we want to have that vegetative management on the other side of the road to control stormwater, to control whatever else, from the road that goes into the lake that becomes the sediment and the phosphorus and the problem. It's our understanding. So we thought we would be a little more stringent to call it that and say that we are not in the stuff of the road. We're going to try to have best management practices on work. So I understand that the phosphorus is a problem and I don't want to minimize that. But I guess my question is essentially create two sets of regulations that are not the same. You complicate things for people a lot and what you're talking about is those certain situations in which the state protected designation would be superseded or exceeded by the town's designation, that can't be very much percentage of shoreline in the town and it can't be very much phosphorus and it certainly is going to be a pain in the ass for the people, for instance people living along this long road who's all of whose property will then have to be they'll have to go to the state or the town apparently they'll have to go to both if they want to do anything on I don't know how many houses within 250 feet of the shoreline of Bliss Pond. Bliss Pond is currently in our shoreline protection district right now. And that has an 800 foot boundary and it also has a 50 foot vegetative buffer but it's a 150 foot sort of no bill of sound 150 feet there really isn't much like the only limit past 150 feet is minimum in lot size as 3 acres and that has current zoning right now at this point. Can I paraphrase what I think I heard your concern to be Robbie, is that basically we're to have be the same as the state and not stop at the road and stop at the road and not go beyond the road to keep it consistent. I think there's a huge value in keeping things simple especially when the cost of not keeping them simple seem kind of high for them. Do you have any idea that the rationale of the state in making that decision not to go beyond the road? Probably have a lot to do with camps around Lake Champlain. Lake Champlain and some of the and some of the that kind of shoreland area that probably had a lot to do with the language they came up with. The people at the state were very were very willing to say listen this is not necessarily an ecological solution this is a political solution and what we wanted but it's what we thought that we could get. I think to specifically answer your question as to why we are promoting that different boundary it's because we had a meeting just like this and the case was very persuasively made to follow these guidelines and we listened to what was said and it made sense to us and so we modified the proposal based on that so I do encourage you to feel optimistic about all of this because it means that we're actually listening. I personally think that it's very very important for us as a town to exceed that other side of the road because this is environmental. It's nothing I just wanted to say that the conservation commission and the lakes and streams committee both organizations very strongly supported extending it beyond the road so that we could could achieve the benefits of protecting those bodies of water. I live on this pond but my property is not separated by the road so I guess I don't have the same dog in the fight that the other folks do but I very much hope that we can extend that so that future development and hopefully current development of the owners are willing to do it would create better buffers to protect this pond because it gets an awful lot of sediment just from the road itself which can't be helped at this point. The buffer, you're talking about vegetation there's no building in that area anyway. So that has nothing to do with nobody's ever going to build there but you're talking about encouraging people to grant certain kinds of things that help prevent water habitat. We've got plenty of existing structures within that 100 foot buffer and if a person wants to modify the structure within that buffer the state might tell them their mitigation strategies to do more vegetative buffer plantings, maybe put in a rain garden do something to control surface water runoff. And within the buffer pretty much the co-op is part of that it's all kind of within that structure but your grandfather is a non-conforming building and so it's going to stay that way unless you decide you're going to do something or build something then it's got to go to the zoning administrator and then to the state. If you're within that 250 foot if there's any building within that 250 foot it looks like the co-op's out the co-op's not in but the next property the next property is seriously I'm having maps problems here sorry about that there's the co-op right here this parcel here is part of the 250 foot so right now I think at Bear Piana a portion of that parcel you actually have to go to the state and ask permission for work in this purple area here on this lot there should be two lots between the co-op lot and the there's Mary and Prugna's house and then there's what's part of the music school in fact there should be probably three parcels what used to be the Chase house right well it's all part of the Bear Piana house I mean there are Mary and Prugna's house who owns it? Jenny so that's a private family parcel behind the music school behind the co-op parcel where's the co-op on there John? there's the little one right here so the dam the music school the dam and all that is part of the purple and the pools the pools that come across the road the pool the pool along it doesn't show on this but I'm assuming it's in line with this this little river so a portion of that may actually be inside the state show on protection act well not the state but our products of callus one of the pools is actually on the on-site of the road so that would be that would apply you mean the one between the beaver dam and the storm the way it looks right now anyway so the question that is there any more questions about the shoreline? I have one question about that the shoreline of that we always used to call the beaver pond that's been a quite variable and evolving shoreline over the years and the beavers affect that and I think just natural filling in so how do these state regulations deal with that or how do the town regulations deal with that? not much I look today at something mean water level so that must be like the average water level where is open water is that right? water level is that's what it is the state can tell you where that is and actually that's how the beavers are the shoreline it is defined by the mean water level but it changes every year so you have nothing to do with the like that dam which is broken right now so really the state if we were concerned which we are we should go to the state and say since you made us do this what was that? I don't know who owns the dam the state or I think it's the the musical people the musical people own that dam because I remember when it broke being down here the water flowing down the road yeah Eric thought it was the state do you think the dam is broken now? yeah it is it leaks but I think it's already leaked it just seems so little water there's something about those tubes that have shifted the beaver baffles the beaver baffles have helped with the situation there this year the water level is really low but other years and in the springtime and stuff like that the beaver baffles really do I think the beavers have abandoned that dam anyway and is deteriorating the beaver baffles are not in the civilization that they were in originally the state will come out and look at those every little while check them out any other questions on the shoreland portion of this either what we're proposing or what the state has anything more before we go into the whole village district discussion so Jan any of these changes would affect pardon? any changes that are made would affect the whole town exactly I mean well this portion affects that but there's other issues at Curtis pond there's issues at North Curtis we have a very wet town and so this is probably the first time that we're going out to the areas and trying to establish the dialogue before we put our final thing out to do our final hearing which we have to do two final hearings one by the planning one by the select board before it can go and be voted on by the people so we're really still along in this process and I have no clue where we're going to be ready to vote on this but we're still working through it and the important thing is to hear from the people that live and are affected by this I'd like to point out that we did modify what we see in purple there the 250 foot boundary or our callous overlay we can't do anything about the state's jurisdiction but the callous overlay we extended it 800 feet on the eastern shore of Curtis pond because so many people told us that there were special problems there related to development on that side of the pond that we we increased the overlay district there we extended three acre minimum lot size within 800 feet from the water's edge instead of 250 feet from the water I remember that and here in Atamand you might, and I'd like to hear someone talk about whether or not they want to see the overlay district expanded or you could maybe accomplish the same thing by taking the village district and bringing it down so it doesn't wrap around the quarry theater at the top it comes down closer to the center of the village and then make everything rural residential which would be a three acre minimum lot where's the quarry controlling we'd be reducing your village district and that's one of the questions we're asking should we reduce the village district because do you want density on your shoreline that's basically what we're asking and if you don't what's the best way should we do that should we reduce the district make it rural residential and if you do reduce it where do you want your village district to be what is the village district is that that little red thing no that's the green all of that green hatch is village district the way it stands now as the village district accounts it doesn't seem as though the green part represents the village at all most of the village is on the other side and not in the village district and that's a very undeveloped and undevelopable along there and you don't want it to because you don't want them developing right on the shore anyway and there's no sense in having that so what you're saying is that as things currently stand with no minimum lot size someone presumably the owners of the music school could theoretically develop multiple multi-unit housing along the edge of up that road there's no restriction on that all that could be the way things are right now the way things are now yes that doesn't make sense I'm all in favor of concentrating the development in the village and maybe extending the village minimum lot area somewhere that doesn't make any sense to extend it there it goes all the way up quarry road it looks like it encompasses the end of the quarry so you're probably saying have you locked them off top part of it making it smaller it's essentially wet a lot of it too the only place it could really be developed will be all the way out at the end the one road with those are recognized wetlands so what is that those are wetlands those are state-designated wetlands these are actually I think it's the development concerns what Matt Peters did that we accepted so it's more than just the state these are the state so my question jam was would this change the village center designation we're not talking about that yet all we're talking about is this village district here the designated village center is just an economic growth area it's really not impacted one way or another it isn't even where there's the village so the designated village center is the rest of it isn't the minimum lot so there really looks as though there's minimum to build or to create lots because of the wetlands and remember the designated village center is more of a state designation to be used to get grants if you decide or we decide that we want to make let's say you want to make this the village area where you could do more concentrated development with the water flowing down that way and you make this all rural residential so that there's a three acre minimum lot then we have to decide where do we want the village or do you want this rural residential and do you want a planning commission the Central Vermont Planning recommends a village that goes a little bit, a village district that goes beyond the designated village center but I don't know how we do that why? I think they want to see the the Central Vermont Regional Planning wants to see a little bit of area where you can do quote unquote economic and I'm doing it in quotes that's the planning Central Vermont Planning and if you're going to have any ability to do a concentrated economic development you're going to do it a little bit beyond the village center and they recommend a radius but we're kind of stuck because we got East Montpelier on one side we've obviously got to have the ability for the village to go across to East Montpelier too because that's where the people are and they're not up at the other end of the pond can you add East Montpelier's zoning designations in this overlay? because we have no control but it would be interesting to see I mean that ultimately the shape of the village is going to be determined not only by power zoning but also by East Montpelier zoning so it would help you see what the whole village is right now you're just seeing half the village the village commercial center which is really the red is a little different than the village zoning so think about it like I mean not that Adam and I really have a commercial zone but think about it as where you want you want your dense commercial properties to be business center to be and then the dense housing around that's why you have a village designation for your zoning that's broader than the village center you're saying for instance if someone wanted to open an additional business open to the public in Adam and Village they would be essentially limited to that orange area they would be aided in doing that if they were in the orange center they would be able to do it if they were in any of the green area but you want a dense housing possibility around that village center and that's the green and maybe the right map here or maybe wrong but you do want dense housing around where you picture your commercial zoning why would it reach where you're going well it might maybe we would decide that it should I mean that's something for all of us to decide on what extent it goes to but you do definitely want both a village zoning and a village commercial area I mean I guess since you're here all of my comments then I guess I think you're certainly going to move that down way down Farry Road closer to Atman, it doesn't make any sense there see where it comes out of Sodom Pond and then May doesn't arc sort of has towards the back half of Jerry Barton's just kept going right to the pond I think we should go up a little farther than that because it looks like that's potentially developable land there, it's outside of that wet land and I don't know who is that Rupert possibly for somebody to put a house in there that would be the logical place to have more development I think that's a hillside actually so I don't think it's a hillside keep in mind that that you want to have enough of a village zoning district that you incentivize growth there rather than giving people incentives to develop far away from the village so I would be why? because you want to concentrate people to live near each other and to live in a dense area around the village center you may not to the extent that growth is going to happen you want it to be concentrated around the village area and not dispersed so the tighter you make the village area the more likely you are to encourage people to build outside of it so I would just say you may want to adjust the lines I would just say give a generous village zoning so that provides enough opportunity for development for people to concentrate there if it is going to happen can I just ask who you are? sorry, Lewis Porter I want to add something to what Lewis is saying if you can pull that map down so we can see more of what's north of there do my best so that area that area that the northern end of what's now designated as a village area that is essentially in what is one of the larger blocks of wild undeveloped land in Calis it's that section owned by the music school my parents own some of it but it's essentially a chunk I don't know if you can pull that down it would be crazy to push development into that wild corridor you can see that it's one of the larger pieces even if you go, I don't know if you can drag that down that's where that whole magical area is it's a large wilderness area it's owned by a variety of different landowners John, can you point to where he's talking about? he's talking about I think we're talking about this whole area up in here whoops all this movement is up there that's owned by a variety of landowners but if you put concentrated development here which you don't want it would just be back for a while the one thing that the charter has the planning commission is chartered is adding to our town plan on forest integrity and the corridor that's going to we've got to try to work all this together so when we do that amendment to the town plan if that village is gone then we've got a better way of writing our forest integrity and corridors that's why this is all important in terms of getting it all I think that district should stop where the gate is now stop where the gate is where the corridor that's way up there that's better I think it should stop there's a lot of cabin up there there's Eric and Donald right well all those cabins up there too the piano there's the other piano the other ones way at the top there there's that whole area where all the small buildings are when it used to be but those are potentially developed into full-fledged houses so we want that we want that I don't think anybody wants that but I wouldn't have ever thought that but if there are already existing yeah it's controlled by non-consorting laws and it has to go to the earth yeah so some of them are in some of them are out this road goes to some of them that's the poor theater so the poor theater is actually outside the village yeah and those little dots are piano houses building there are piano samples 20 of them we had to go visit them not all of them they weren't just for music it was for a different a different thing that was going to happen cultural sound arts so what I'm hearing is part of a consensus of moving a village district down we don't know exactly where and allowing for some concentrated growth area in and around the designated village center but getting rid of that village district up there and converting that to rural residential is that what I'm hearing no not rural residential but I'd like to be village with a single acre no size specified village three acres right the other option is the village village has no requirement right so that means anybody can build anything anywhere we'll have condos down there next to rural and nobody said for the last 40 years with no restrictions they could do that it's not like that's something where that might happen that's the way things are right now right so you'd like to see a big development in there Barbara? I would like to see small individual houses more houses when you're at the co-op store and you go around the corner there are those three nice houses next to each other right which two are now used by music schools wouldn't it be nice to have three families living in three houses and having that same kind of a cluster development in other places but not three more houses in addition to that in available place in available places within this village district not on three minimum three acres what we're saying is if we keep if we move the village wow man I need a pointer I need my cat thing if we let's say here's a pointer here's a pointer right oh thank you don't hit me okay so let's say this is the village district here this would allow you to do your concentrated yes but up here is where we're saying we want this rural residential up here because we want that three acre minimum here so we're trying to decide where this goes or even more restricted since it is a very wild area and we we all seem to agree that we want to keep the big areas wild so then this would go here it could be a resource preparation which is a ten acre minimum of oxide and we do have that with considerable other restrictions there's significant limitation on what it can do with that lower base I think too John there's a lot of steep slopes around there too they're going to be controlling things so are other folks thinking of anything that seems like it it's not that we can build more buildings but just use the existing buildings I thought you were saying you wanted to have more buildings I do want to have more buildings I want the opportunity to put in a more concentrated area more building in a concentrated area which is what the state is but there is an issue to that and I'll tell you what the issue is that we've been told in planning and that is when you start doing concentrated building do you need a water system or are you going to allow everybody having their own wells and do you need a wastewater system and I tell you right now I don't want to be part of having a wastewater system because I look at what's happening in play field and the millions of dollars they're spending and so when we talk about development we don't have a good infrastructure for it we don't have the ability to have the East Calus has the East Calus Fire District they're limited we can't grow there because they're stuck at 50 three users and unless they change or we develop a whole new water system there we the West Calus is not going to grow another thing is going to be a development problem no matter how big your lots are in this area is your on-site wastewater system which has to get stepped up the soils and groundwater around here are terrible let's look at it this way is that it could be difficult there may be very very few options for it but why limit the possibility of development more cluster development smaller lots where it is possible because you don't have to live next to it but there's nothing in this you don't want to live in neighbor there's nothing in this that would limit it by the way it would take it would take away that area that sticks up it would take that area out of it but the unlimited no minimum lot size cluster development in the village area that would still be entirely intact just only in this area where it makes sense I don't know if there's any there should be a way to encourage it even more in the village but yeah it's a hurdle between water and septic existing lots what's the zoning for the white that's rural residential and that's how many acres 300 feet we provided a comparison to the difference between village and rural residential for right now the practical lot size that we find is developable in the village district which doesn't have by regulation it's not controlled by lot size but it is controlled by siding septic and water if you have both septic and water on the same lot it's pretty tough to get a lot smaller than three quarters of an acre it's in most cases it essentially works out to about one acre lot sizes that become the effective minimum lot size because that's what you need in order to site your facilities on it if you have a water system you can get that down halfway half of that which is a pretty plump lot for places like berry city but it's a pretty small lot for places like lightning ridge road so it does strike an effective balance that is the character that you're looking at right now traditional development within the villages in callus that's what we're seeing even in north callus where there are lots of very very small lots those lots are not being populated just because they can't they can't do with them what one needs to be able to do in order to put a hose on so the way things are right now so I bought Greg's place and had that big lawn between the house and the church I could conceivably subdivide that and put a couple of houses in it yes except for the wetlands problem well there's no wetlands indicated on that map that looks pretty good actually I know I absolutely don't really understand but at least on there it's not indicated it's a wetlands it's not indicated because Donna's her business is located in a wetlands I'm looking where Eric and Donna's house has surrounded but anyways I could conceivably conceivably yes anything along there weird question go ahead that line goes so straight across a martin road where on the left hand side that diagonal line it's so straight is that just a property line I think that is a property line I think it might be a property line too it's just so wall in between my two parcels so that's why that was made that way because it was a property line we don't know when Zoe was initially proposed and passed in Calis so it's not a property line it's not a property line it's not a property line it's no well there's lots of things wrong with that map there's a brook there that doesn't exhibit it may be an intermittent no it's not that's the brook out of your pond I know but it doesn't go that way right but that's what they do they they thought it must go that way but it doesn't yeah you're right those right behind your house the minimum because that must be the corner it's farther than that that must be the corner right at the bottom that's the corner of the field but not as only where the three where the minimum it's basically at the beginning of the hill at the beginning of the hill you said it correctly when you said it's hard to know what the forces were that were brought to bear when they proposed Zoe basically anybody who had a suggestion to make unless anybody had an objection to that suggestion you know initially there was a lot of that and then as time has gone on there's been less and less and less I mean I don't know about the diagonal line but the general area makes sense because you want your dense zoning along the roads near the village center you're callous right? yeah I have a little bit in this month there yeah and then let's just get somewhere because you're used to the area right now yeah if you look at this map there's a developable land in um close to the village of adamant those fields that Joyce the mountain and sherry gallus those are the only dry elevated spots I don't know what, how east Montpelier has that zone but I don't think east Montpelier has a village district that covers that and then there's a town far sticking into that so it's really adamant it's really hand in east Montpelier's got their plan but it's more in the off the highway too bright yeah I'm not sure they have any village designation for adamant they don't have the resources to do it we don't can you put the parcel lines over this or can you put the parcels on John the parcels are on they're just being a yeah so where is east Montpelier John so that's the town line right there do you do the zoning I mean there's a village designation here that's arbitrarily cut in half do you, does the zoning board of calis and east Montpelier talk to each other about coordinating we have not I'm just sitting here thinking maybe we need a meeting when east Montpelier I don't know yeah so I think she's out of the way what would be beyond that orange polygon in east Montpelier I'm just trying to think of the land it's my house I mean like Donna's business yes she's just out of the house she's out of the business church or cultural resource I'm not aware of any cultural resource south of where the red blob is right now the old house and part of the Alson's house the inner commercial business or a store so the designation is probably fine but in terms of where the village is the zoning we can change that's what we could we're changing with input yeah, Donna's business isn't in the red where is it where is it where is it I think it's it stops it stops at center road Donna's on the other side of center anatomy Donna's business is in that little section it's not wetland, it's not red it's right there that tiny little piece right there and then Don who? if there's a business there and actually maybe the designated village center map should be drawn we're going for renewal we might want to expand that that's a business what would that do for Donna let her take advantage of some old friends would you go to sidewalks the streetlight all those people there that was to include Donna's business building building most of the parking area yeah, but if we were to change the designated village center then it would be from standing which is near that point how about the old house office building which side of that is that any callus or is it not there that's callus is that some music school building the white one across from Donna's yeah, that's not the big one that's in callus and that's in the red yeah, I think it's part of the red designated village it's right across the street so I don't think comes down quite far enough to include that just that little piece of green in there between the white one and the orange one other than hearing to bring the village district down or towards the end of the pond make that rural residential and I think in three years we have to renew our designated village center we can make a change at that point to the designated village center but there's also the idea of having resource recreation district as part of I don't know we could but resource recreation is and we're also looking at forest integrity so maybe that's like a next phase and right now we're just ensuring and then this village district size issue popped up and we wanted to see what people thought but yeah, that can definitely go into to-do list just to look at what to do with the large fragmented with the increased use and increased activity at the community club for your designated village center it's not really commercial but it's a community building it's sort of the same thing in Maple Corner they have the Maple Corner Community Center across from the store and so that's their designated village center I mean it could very well so is this part of that little red? I don't know I don't think so where is it? it's that little square it's a little square out in the road there where to? if you go out in the road there about halfway that little square that's the center that's this plan here so extend the red out to that I think I remember when they were considering this the proposal was that the designated village center would extend and wrap around it and some of my regional planning said it couldn't happen because of the distance there was also a proximity they want it concentrated and the quarry couldn't be part of it either well the quarry I remember it was a request because it would help with grant writing and there was a school how do we call it came up and this is what we ended up with what the state ended up giving us what's that red line? some of the property that's too bad because John had to write up the designated village center so the orange and the red are the village district designated village center well this darker thing here this is an overlap or surely an overlay on the designated village the two things are like they don't really mix well and there's a little wetland there well that's the ornamental pond which does make an argument for not extending the shoreline protection over the road in this particular case because of the designated town because you're basically you're basically encouraging you're basically encouraging commercial development and discouraging it you're competing at the same time I think that would be a valid thing to open for discussion that exact question if other people have an opinion on that that they could voice right now so we could hear it and report it that would be great what is there now in the red part that overlaps the shoreland what is there for buildings and stuff the main buildings for the music school but nothing else so why pull out a village center where's the church the church is right there we're not discussing the designated village center we're discussing whether the shoreland protection act should extend across the road in that one spot this is not a callous discussion this is specific to this one small area whether we're going to allow the road to be a barrier to the restrictions of state shoreland protection or whether we're going to extend it across the road to the full 200 foot buffer and 250 foot 100 foot no build 250 foot buffer just in the specific spot it's crazy to have it do it in your mind's eye you have to view where the road is right now and whether we are better served by the map the way it's drawn here or whether we are better served by getting rid of the purple portion of the orange over there I'm in favor of getting rid of it put me down for favor getting rid of it you want it to stop at the road I want it to stop at the road in that section but why why? for several reasons I guess first of all the reason that Lewis cited it's crazy to have regulations that are counter-addicting each other also because I think there's nothing that's going to happen in that area that hasn't already essentially happened that's going to make a difference on I mean fairly well developed there could it be further developed? there? I think if it were further developed that would fall under some sort of I mean I think what we have right now is a restriction where technically Eric's flower gardens where he dug and put in posts and perimeter fences around his gardens was probably not allowed by the regulation that's there and that because it's somebody's yard I mean a guy essentially was doing yard work in his yard and that's disallowed by by these confusing regulations I don't see any I don't think it's disallowed but he should check with the state he'd be on the other side of the road right on the pond side of the road he's between the pond and the road right so what we're talking about now is carving out what's across the road true point and Denise the way I look at it is we've told the state this is where we want to build this is our tight traditional business center such as it is in adamant we want to encourage growth and focus it here and then as planning commission we're saying what we want to protect water quality and everything's wonderful with shoreland and go even above and beyond the state and cross the road I just want to make sure I'm hearing what I'm hearing now we're kind of, it's been pointed out that's a little inconsistent to say build here oh wait no don't build here technically you couldn't cut a shrub in the church yard without talking to the state because you'd be violating the shoreland prohibition against cutting vegetation within the 250 foot boundary well that doesn't make any sense right so when they did landscaping around the church every time they did landscaping they'd have to go to the state and maybe also the town and get permission to cut or plant shrubs that doesn't make any sense the uses are allowed to continue but if someone did propose doing something that was radical change from an established pattern yeah they'd have to I think we wanted to put a new steeple on the church that's what I'm wondering there's another house back there well that's the question is there an opportunity to build a house back there it's all where I don't think it would perk but the land is there well I think right now if you wanted to build a house there you would have one part of the regulation saying we're encouraging development in this area and another part of the regulation saying we're not allowing you to do anything I think the way it would actually work is you'd have to go to the state and just piece of land because the town was difficult in the village so John the green the green that goes around is our 250 mark this is it but that's where what callus is proposing goes on beyond that we go way down there is what callus is proposing so we're hearing that there's some concern they would almost rather we keep it in this area it's still a formal area that's inconsistent because the state covers that one area there's still that weirdness there for the most part you're definitely going to have some places where shoreland protection crosses into a village and even downtown centers no doubt I'm just wondering if we want to minimize that in this one area and I don't have a strong feeling with the other the easiest way to write it up would be shoreland or shore to stop it at Haggar Road could I ask you know they're similar roughly similar issues in Maple Corner with Curtis Pond bigger issues really because there's more houses and more people in there and the perspective I think of the lakes and streams people and the conservation people probably is that to the maximum extent possible in order to protect these waterways which all interconnect and there's a lot of emphasis now on doing that then it probably should get a nod over the village district standards where possible I recognize a lot of people wouldn't agree with that for lots of good reasons but I think that would be I'm speaking for a lot of people I'm not authorized to speak for but I think they would probably tend to urge that you keep the 200 that you cross the road and keep the 200 well that's what I'm asking what you could possibly do in that area because that's what I'm talking about as was pointed out there's stuff there already and once they're already it is unless there's any the change big enough that would trigger the regulations but what it prevents is is further development in that 250 feet even across the road if you choose to exchange across the road so you could have more or less what's there now but you wouldn't have further development in that 250 feet that's kind of my question that could be built there it deserves housing or businesses or what if you're in the village district you can based on what's permitted and what goes to conditional use there could be anything heck in village district they allow a vet clinic we're going to say can the village district we need one of those in Calis do maybe in the village district this is Curtis Pond and this is the solution that we've made for Curtis Pond is on the east shore along there we made that an 800 foot overlay meaning that vegetated management practices extend to the 800 foot mark in order to protect because Curtis Pond has a lot of water quality issues and what's the green the green is the village district for maple corner and the little orange thing is the maple corner and why didn't the 800 feet extend to the left side pardon it does now this is our proposal if you saw the existing it does go 800 feet on the other side there's no road on that side there's no road and steep slopes would prevent any development there's only one property owner and that's resource recreation up there but that's crazy because it's solid caps all the way along there right on top of there they're all conditional they're all non-conforming that was the thing that we found 60% of everything on all of the lakes are non-conforming as it is they don't conform to any existing that we have so that's one of the things that we all were researching when we were doing this we looked at these parcel by parcel by parcel to find out what we had and how many all of those are non-conforming so that's 50% 50% 50% to 60% when we counted number 10 and all the lakes up north might be doing the mind-blades but yeah, everything Lumberton Camp Road everything is non-conforming so it's a fascinating problem that we have these would have actually not been going forward those problems change hands what happens to if they sell the property does that go with it? does it need some other permits? if they can sell it but if somebody wants to do something then they have to get a permit you can't change it's more difficult to change they would have to go to a conditional use review with the RV but they mow right down to the water's edge and if somebody sells a camp and the next person buys it they can still mow the grandfathered aspect of the property is transferable although we are trying to we are trying to educate people about the value of not mowing and we made the limit our proposal is in the changes is that right now it's a five year we're proposing a two year limit if you don't know within two years you have to follow the buffer so now it's five we want to be sticking down to two that's going to be in our proposal you think you will vote for it? I don't know we hope you will help everybody to vote for it it's easy for me to vote for it let's see we haven't even talked about it do we want to talk about it? no we don't what can we talk about there's nothing there the state stops at the road our proposal goes over the road and there is a little bit of village from what I've seen nobody could build anything unless it was on stilts not in callus how many houses are around there now? there's just one in callus where? are you selling? it's just before this house in between the two right there one house right there is it carons in callus? carons in callus and everybody else right there is another I don't see anything else constructed inside though not in callus the most important part is the village area well any other issues I think I've heard several things and we have some work to do in terms of change what we will do how we want to do the village district and we would come back and ask and meet with you if this meets with what you would like to post that we would then put in our regulations we cannot change the village district center until 2021 but we would obviously put it on the burner that there might be changes that we want to make with the designated village center who does that the state? we have to do it through the central Vermont regional planning is there anything else? did all the landowners around that would be effective did they get notification? I think so Melanie gave me a discussion about the apartments in callus but we haven't talked to them yet I think everybody can post it on the porch forum the notice and stuff so we can really make sure we know what's going on and we can always leave this information at the call-up for other people to read and figure out so that it will leave some copies at the call-up so you don't have any idea on of course I'm thinking process as I always do I'm not going that route I'm not ready because everything new comes in and we've got to do more I'd rather you guys take your time this will be cooking for a while also we can take comments by email or phone a lot of you got my email and Melanie's email Gary's got a great email we all have email comments as you think of things only you is there anything else that anybody has on their agenda have we covered all of your issues that would be my question so like some varying ideas for how far up we're going the village should go along the road but the road issue is going to be that's a big issue what we do with the road in this area I think we should do that let's see I'm going to go on we're going to end up carrying a map of the views when we start doing these public journeys right that's probably the northern most point that people have suggested others said there's a property line there's a property line any thoughts it comes curves around it's down there just below the wetland you can't do really very much a long skinny wetland no this doesn't even show the buffer by the time you're out of 50 foot buffer there's nothing there this does have potential here and a potential is something that you're looking at maybe drawing the line at the gate makes the most sense somebody snatched the gate that probably seems like the village yeah probably seems like the village is separated by that wetland what's the village is the place where they want to see Gensokyo do you want it here yeah yes the pyre doesn't make any sense because it's separated by the wetland anybody who wants to hear can raise your hand so I can see you want it down here the other place that we've been talking about who would like to see it who would prefer it at the gate can you say what you're asking the boundary for the village district we're identifying this is one potential and the gate is one potential I like to learn between you're going to have to articulate that a little better just past the wetlands just past the wetlands okay yeah how many would want it how many are agreeable at the top of the wetland one how many at the bottom of the wetland and how many up at the gate one, two, three I think the five people at the bottom have one yeah I thought you said a gate we could have everybody stand up and just sit down oh my god so the other question if you bear with me for another minute the other question that we talked about at length and we had one person who was articulate on one end of the spectrum and one person who was articulate on the other end of the spectrum and I'd really like to know where everybody else stands and that's this purple area in here whether that should remain protected by buffer or whether that should drop out at the road so there are other people weighing in on those two options how many want it dropped at the road we're going to get to that please I'd just like to hear some more opinions we have one on one side and one on the other side there's a lot of gray area in between let me say that there's not going to be much of a problem for the water if you take away that protection because of the way the water flows that protection is not going to be any use you see what I mean yeah we've got the same thing at the bottom of number 10 and we've got it at the dam in Curtis let me say that let me say that that is probably the one most divisive discussion that we have had between our otherwise beautifully harmonious planning commission is that exact question and that's the reason I want to hear from you all without me polluting the water with my own opinion so as it were we have this purple section how should it go isn't that the point the balance that we're trying to find the right point in between is development traditional development traditional development patterns which suggest that we should allow and encourage development within village districts or the other side of the the coin is our concern about water quality and runoff and residential impact on the integrity of our leaks and streams so that's the the question that was asked or the point that was made was that because of the direction that the water flows it doesn't impact the water very much to remove the protection of this water but it sure affects that water I would worry what happens if a piece of school is sold and someone comes in and says I'm going to take the party hall out and put up a condominium with eight units I would I'd prefer well I'd be within the village village center would be allowed village district in the village district that would be allowed so I'd be more apt to want to keep that purple on the other side of the road to prevent that from happening that's a good opinion, anyone else now that affects your land you're the only one here who that actually affects isn't it I'd go just a touch not even it's more than church property my property goes right up to it I would like to speak to this spectrum of making condominiums we do have zoning regulations a project like that would go before the DRB and be scrutinized anywhere it's not that somebody can just come in and put in a condominium that's kind of one of those scary things wouldn't that also fall under Act 250 somehow? only with ten units it would also certainly have to have an approved septic for the greater use it would be almost possible it could take party hall time to put another story on it or break it up maybe we don't want that I'll just make one more point it seems to me that those are legitimate concerns addressing them through shoreland protection is the wrong wrong tool for addressing that concern and I think Barter is probably right that the way that gets addressed is through other zoning functions now maybe the shoreland protection should be extended that way to protect the water but that's not the right way to protect against the condominium development I wouldn't think it would be the only way to protect against someone coming in and carbon up but it would certainly add to the protection of that property well the shoreland it was to protect the shoreland and the habitat that was the purpose of the shoreland overlay and where it is whether it goes beyond the road or not is the the crucial debate any other opinions just to the road stop at the road well we're going to get to a vote in just a minute right now I just want to fully expand on it everybody's got something turning inside and I want to bring that out for all of us to hear across the road then you've basically extremely complicated anything that goes on in the village center because you've got one section that is and one section that isn't just a point of reference I think we're ready for a vote are we ready for a vote alright who would like to see it the way it's mapped right here who would like to see that the way it's mapped this way with the protections coming out on this side of the road I know you're going to vote for it get your hand up that goes to the road that's going on to the road the road is here so this is extending across the road so we're voting out on shoreline extending the full 250 feet beyond the road that's correct hands again 24 and curtailing it at the road 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 alright great thank you so much thank you guys for doing that I wanted to thank the plan I should be doing this it's really really well done thank all of you for coming you don't know when we're planning this it's like are we all going to get one person to show up so it's really great the telling of you came to talk about this