 Call the meeting to order. Colchester Planning Commission is 702. First thing on the agenda is considerations reserved for changes to the agenda items in order. I'm all set. Kathy's all set. All right. Comments and questions from the public not related to the agenda. All good. All right. Now we have a presentation of the draft of FY24-FY29 Capital Budget Program program with Rennie Marshall, our deputy town manager. All right. Thank you. Welcome. Thank you. So as you saw in your packet through the FY24-29 Capital Budget Program, this Capital Budget Program is a plan that includes the planned activities for FY24 and the amounts that will be spent as well as the following five years. So this tool is really important in that it helps plan for expenditures, but it also eliminates the need to have those financing costs that we would need to if we were having to take loans out each time we needed to do these large projects. So to start, first I want to acknowledge that this Capital Budget Program is a result of work of many different people in many different departments. And so just acknowledging the efforts from finance to IT, library, manager's office, police, public works, parks and recreation, fire and rescue, all contributed to the plan. And they also, I would say that when you're looking at the expenditures that are planned, they also evaluate those each year. So DPW is looking at the equipment that needs to be replaced just to make sure, does it really need to be replaced now or is this something that would make sense to, you know, that it could go another year. So there's a lot of adaptive management planning as well and into the equipment. So what is included in the Capital Budget Program? So we have the vehicles and equipment acquisitions, facility repairs and improvements, transportation improvements. So those are the highway, the paving, your sidewalks, park improvements, information technology and communication improvements as well as our public safety communications and equipment. And so each of the plans that are included in the Capital Budget Program are funded in a different manner. As you can see on this page, the majority of the plans have a fixed rate on the tax rate or a set reserve amount per year. The Fire Department Capital Plan, you'll see that one is from the Municipal Services Budget, so it has a set amount that's expected for the FY24 program funds. Capital Equipment Facilities Plan, Capital Transportation Plan and the Park Capital Plan all have a fixed rate. And the others, the bridge fund actually was used in this last year, so that one is expired. And then the Technology Fund, Communications Fund and Public Safety all have a set reserve. These are some of the projects that were completed in the past year or work that was done on them. So you'll see... Sure. Yeah, so that's on the tax rate. When your tax rate is calculated, that is added into it. So the Capital Equipment Facilities Plan has a certain amount on that tax rate. And so your tax rate is established based on including that, as well as the Municipal Services Budget. No, that's a set rate on the tax rate. So it's whatever the tax rate. Yeah, it's... Thank you. You're welcome. Tennis and shuffleboard courts, they were resurfaced at Bayside Park. There was repaving. So there was a schedule of repaving that occurred on the town roads. And you'll also notice that our library parking lot was repaved. A new tandem dump truck for fouling and hauling materials in DPW. And in the rescue, there was a garage drain and oil separator that would work what was done. And then there's continued work on the Westlake-Shore-Primm Road and Bayside Intersection Design. So for the FY24 proposed annual budget includes $3,721,863 in planned capital improvements. And this pie chart is sort of a breakdown of what that looks like. And if you notice in the upper right-hand corner, state and federal grants, so of that $3,721,000, there's $1,890,000 in state and federal grants that were acquired. And our staff has been very diligent in seeking grant funding to help offset any impact to the taxes. In the lower right-hand corner, you'll see the Capital Facilities Program. That is 12% of that. Capital Transportation is 15%. And the Capital Equipment is 13%. And this is just a sneak peek of some of the expected projects that are planned for FY24. And so the Airport Park Pickleball Court Access, there'll be more paving of other town roads. We have a schedule of paving based on conditions. And then there's going to be a lot of effort into the energy efficiency or LED replacements in various town buildings. And again, taking advantage of rebates that are available for LEDs. And so we had a certain amount planned for certain buildings, but because of the rebates that are available, we're making use of those. And we're actually, we're going to be replacing about standard, like around $97,000. And we'll have $68,000 will be saved from those rebates. So it's a considerable amount. And the following five-year program, so FY25 through 29, has plans spending of $14,191,664. And this pie chart shows that. And again, if you look in the upper left-hand corner, 47% of that is going to come from state and federal grants. It's anticipated. So there are potential future revenue sources. We have our local option tax. That was approved by voters in October of 2015. And as of December 31st, 2022, so you just take, I just captured a moment in time. There was over $8 million. And that rose by over $2 million each year. The lot funds are restricted to voter-approved capital projects. So we have, in the capital budget program, there's also unfunded, currently unfunded candidate projects that are listed. So there's a little over $16 million in potential transportation projects. So as those projects, as funding sources are available, then they get moved in. Facilities, there's $1.6 million. And you'll find that list in the capital budget program. So the process to date. So the Select Board, we had their presentation and they had a draft review at their June 27th meeting. Tonight, you were getting to review it and provide comments. And then the Select Board has scheduled a public hearing for July 25th. Questions or comments? Yeah, absolutely. You know you find that. Oh, no? Jump right in. Yeah, I know, right? So when I was reading to it, it says it's a guide for infrastructure projects, sidewalks, bike paths, school and drains, buildings, parks. So I think it's no surprise that I'm concerned about, I feel that Colchester is kind of ruled by automobiles and I feel like people would just make a capital Colchester. It's like a byway to people. And especially along Eastlake Road Drive. And I don't know if this is the capital budget or not, but this is just my opinion. I would just love to be a little bit more balanced with pedestrians. Not necessarily on Eastlake Road Drive. You know, I keep looking at the road, thinking if we just put up a path, like a little path on the east side of the road with some crosswalks. I mean, it would slow traffic down, but I just would like pedestrians to have access to the way to the area. You're always, people are always trying to cross there and looking both ways and kind of becoming, I feel like things are a little bit balanced there. I think we do a really great job of bike paths and I believe there are more bike paths coming. Does that help there on Westlake Road Drive? Yeah, so what I would say, and if you think back to the capital transportation plan and the fixed rate on the tax rate, so we have to really balance priorities between the paving projects and the necessary things and so those things are all evaluated and looked at. I just feel with the sewer going in, it seems like it's a good opportunity to look at that and I'm assuming, is it safe to assume the money or revenue for the sewer will be paid of the state grant for the roads to replace the roads to hold the town, we need to fix the roads after the sewer is completed. It's all part of that project. It is, so it doesn't come out of the capital? No. Well, the only other thought I had was, again, like just maybe having some full over lanes to turn into bid store, the bins and the models, again, it just seems that traffic has really gotten out there and this isn't anything above the capital but I just think that would be very helpful if there was a way to pull into a separate lane to make a lot of income there. Thank you. Thank you. You know that? Wendy? I don't have any questions. I am absolutely excited about the capital budget program. I think it's one of the better things we have in town by far. Like you said, we balance everything, not everything it's done at once, but the monies as they come in were spent properly. It kind of spreads it all over town too. I like that idea a lot. There's always sidewalks in place somewhere. It's always a balancing of priorities. Yeah. I think it's a great asset to the town. So if we don't have any other questions, would it be like a motion tonight for? Yes. Yes. Yes, at the bottom of the memo. Yeah, I was trying to. Okay. How long is that? It's good to it. I can bring it to you if you can't like it. That's fine. Almost there. You're almost there? Proposed motion. Here we go. Okay. I'll propose that the Colchester Planning Commission moves to recommend that the draft of the physical year 24, 29 capital budget program be approved. You second? I second that. Discussion. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye. And just to be clear, that's just, it's a recommendation. Yes. We got it. All right. That's it. Thank you very much. All right. Thank you. Tough crowd we got. Absolutely. Moving on. So now we have discussion of the potential items for inclusion and supplement 46, the Colchester Development Regulations. Give us a moment just to switch out technology. Yep. Walzak is doing that. Is it okay if I take a quick moment just to introduce you guys to Kari. Kari's in the audience. Kari is one of our summer interns from UVM through the Rubenstein School. We do every summer. I think last year you met Jake. He gave a presentation to you about the, we were doing the visual preference survey on East Lakes Shore Drive. Yep. Flashback a whole year. And this year we're very lucky to have two interns with us. Another Jake and Kari. So Kari's here. They'll learn a little bit more about the Planning Commission. Welcome. Thank you. Am I plugging in? I'm plugging in. All right. Hang on. We'll get you. I'm going to kick this over to Zach. The only thing I want to say here is that I know we've talked. We've had a lot of talk this spring and going into, well, the winter into the spring as we started the calendar year about, all right, what are we working on this year? And we had a list. And this summer was going to be the summer of form-based codes. But we do have to take a little detour. And I had this other list for you of like all the things that'll be S46. There's still all the things, but they'll probably be S47 because, as with, you know, wastewater, when we have those changes, there are some potential required changes to our regulations that come from some state legislation, S100, that Zach's going to tell you a little bit more about in detail. But for context, there are some actions. There are some pieces of the legislation that don't affect us or are already in compliance with. But there are some that will require actual changes to our development regulations. And so I think that that will probably make up the bulk of S46. There may be some tiny small things because it'll make S47 shorter that I've brought to you guys before. We've talked about just some minor fixes in our regulations, things that are not huge policy changes, not huge bits of regulation to read, but where adding a definition or changing a few words can really make a big difference. So there might be few of those as part of S46. But the bulk, I think of S46 is going to be what Zach's going to talk to you guys about tonight. Context. I don't necessarily have a timeline for you yet. I think tonight is the introduction. We're going to tell you what they are. These are all in effect as of, most of them are in effect as of July 1st. That date has passed. Nobody can pass a regulation that quickly. But as long as we are doing our best to reach compliance or work towards it, I think we're where we need to be. We'll probably bring you actual text by your August meeting and then August or September. And then we'll consider warning of public hearing. As Zach will tell you, I don't think there's, I don't think the text changes are going to be very bulky. But we want to make sure you've had ample time to look at them and where there is any place for your discretion beyond what was prescribed to you in the legislation that you have the opportunity to think about it, wordsmith it, change anything else around it. So keep that in mind as you listen to Zach walking you through. All right, so we're going to walk through this memo here tonight. Again, like Kathy Ann said, really looking to just get everyone introduced enough to speed with some of the items that have been passed by the legislature, some of the governor, as they relate to the Colchester Development Regulations. I will note that S100 or the Home Act makes a lot of changes to the state designation programs for downtown designations, neighborhood development areas. It also makes some changes to the regional planning that goes on in the state as well as municipal planning. But tonight I think what is really actionable are those changes to municipal zoning. So we'll walk through those ones that I think are high priority. We can maybe talk about giving me the authority to approve minor subdivisions down the line. I don't need to get into that tonight. All right, so that being said, Kathy Ann did note that the Act has already taken effect in large part. The parking requirements are actually delayed a little bit. They take effect on December 1st of 2024. And the limitations on regulations regarding emergency shelters, we get until September 1st of this year. So that's not a lot of time. We're probably shooting for that timeline, to be honest with you. If not, shooting to miss it by a little bit. So with that in mind, we'll kind of jump into the first part here related to definitions. So the Act updated a few key definitions, the first of which, you know, being relocating the definition of accessory dwelling unit. No major changes under that revised definition. It's really just putting in a different section because previously it was defined within, I believe, a different part of statute. It added a definition for duplex, emergency shelter, and multi-unit dwelling. You know, the definitions and the coal gesture development regulations are consistent with these definitions for ADUs, duplexes, and multi-unit dwellings. But really, you know, do want to point to towards emergency shelter as it's got a new definition in state statute, and it's going to be something that, you know, we're going to look to integrate with the regulations. And before jumping right into that one, we probably spent 45 minutes talking about it, we're going to move on to a different definition. We'll come back to that, trust me. So a key definition here, and one we're going to spend probably just a little bit of time walking through is the definition of areas served by municipal water and sewer infrastructure. So the Act makes, you know, a lot of that the real intent is to, you know, allow for more housing opportunities in areas that they might be prohibited today. You know, increasing density in these areas that have access to sewer and water infrastructure. So, you know, there are some impacts, of course, when you're talking about what those areas actually are. So I did want to walk you through those areas in town, you know, through Chapter 10 of the Code of Ordinances. And, you know, we can actually pull up a map here. It's actually on page 157 of the town plan, if you want to pull it up. 157. You can just type it in there. Overrotated. You've got to go all the way around. So to start this off, areas served by municipal water and sewer, there's a definition that, you know, it begins on page 6 of the Act. But I'll kind of walk you through that. There are some overall exemptions to that definition, and we'll kind of walk through each one of these here. Generally, you know, I'll summarize it as, it's going to be areas that are planned for growth. And they're planned for residential growth. And that's a very, very brief summary. It's about a page-long definition with exemptions about what does not actually meet that definition. So walking you through this here, you know, right off the bat here, exit 16, you know, there are some areas that are not allowed to be. Exit 16, you know, I'm sure you know where that is, does not allow residential development to our business zoning district as well as our commercial districts. Residential development is not allowed there currently, despite people coming to the Planning Commission and asking for it to be. So it does not meet this definition and would not the, you know, the benefits of those areas that being said, you know, let's go to the next one here. The Chapter 10 identifies the village. The village system serves the Breezy Eggers mobile home park as well as the Hillcrest mobile home park, although I don't believe they're connected to it yet. But that's the area that you know, has been identified to serve the village. There is an exemption in that definition of areas served by urban water that for, you know, doesn't apply to mobile home parks where, you know, the purpose is really to serve the residents that are there not to necessarily grow that area. So not looking to, you know, have that area comply either with this part of the Act. There is a section in the, in Chapter 10, dedicated to exit 17, which I understand has been, you know, kind of a next step beyond Severance Corners perhaps. But that being said, you know, there's no sewer infrastructure in the ground. The select board hasn't taken the, or the voters haven't approved even, you know, a system in that area. So at that time, you know, if there's no infrastructure in the ground, no capacity really up there, it's not going to be an area where the town would have to allow for more growth at this time. And then do, I do want to pause for a minute here because we are going to get into what we'll go down to the other two ones here, Brookside and College Parkway. So starting with College Parkway, it's the area down on Route 15, serving Camp Johnson, Fort Ethan Allen. That area really, it, I spoke with the Department of Public Works ahead of, you know, writing this memo and sought to understand if there's capacity in that area, because it does allow for residential growth. That being said, you know, the capacity that's left there is extremely minimal. It drops in the bucket. And really any additional capacity is going to be served through the town of Essex. So with that understanding, you know, there's sort of a service agreement that probably needs to be worked out in the future to allow growth in that area. So it's not something that would, you know, really meet this definition. Similarly, Brookside is a half of a neighborhood accessed by Winooski. You know, it's a split development. And that area is really specific, you know, the capacity that's identified in Chapter 10, specific to that neighborhood managed by, you know, Champlain Housing Trust. So, you know, not really an area for growth that it doesn't really meet that definition down there. The last one we'll kind of get to is the Mallets Bay system. Because the Mallets Bay system does serve, you know, it's not the ground yet, but it has been, of course, approved and is definitely under way for planning purposes. And soon to be installation. This is really that area that, you know, you all worked very hard on, you know, the zoning for that district, understanding that residential is generally allowed in the LS 1, 2, 3 and 4 districts, although it's conditional I believe in LS 1. Perhaps LS 2, I haven't checked the table recently. That being said, you know, looking at residential in these districts, you might read through this and think that this is an area for growth for the town but there is an exemption and we can pull it up. Do you have the act open? I do. I'm going to pull up Page 6 of it. You know, there's language that excludes areas where there's shoreland areas, first of all, which, you know, your LS 1 and 3 districts are really going to be encumbered by, but also, you know, the real driving purpose of the Mallets Bay sewer project is to address these failing septic systems in close proximity to the lake with really no room to put in new systems or, you know, going to actually address any pollution in that area. So there is a carve out for areas where, you know, there's a public health hazard. It's on Page 6. I do want to point out that this act is 76 pages. So thank you, Zach, for helping to walk us through this. We have spent a lot of time processing everything that is in here before adoption. A lot of planners wait in during and after. I think that's a continued continuing process because there are some gray areas that are still being sort of sorted out at levels higher than us. But this is a very long act. So thus, the bulk of your agenda tonight. All right, Page 6. It's actually Page 7. Not that I lied. It does start on Page 6. We're looking at I believe We're talking about Mountain Spay, right? Areas with identified service limits? Nope. So it starts with 2 there, which is going to be where these residential connections are available but may exclude. And then if you go down, I believe it's 3 under that one. So it's going to be areas served by sewer water to address an identified community scale public health hazard or environmental hazard. So from what I understand of this work that started actually long before me being here with the town that was really a primary goal of the Mountain Spay sewer. And the capacity that's been identified for that system I understand reflects the built scale that's out there. It's really not envisioning a second growth center out on the lake. Probably satisfying some fears that I know the community had. I know this is very, very preliminary, but the state has passed its already rules. And what we have, just so I understand what we're talking about here, we already have our rules. We promise everybody we're not having growth in the state. Are we looking for an exemption from what the state says? Is that what you're saying? I'm losing it a little bit here. Because the state says we have to grow, but we're showing an example of why we're not going to put 700 new units down in the bay, correct? Yeah, so the state and the reason why I'm starting with definition is that the definition leads into certain density allowances. So in the state before, you now have to allow five units per acre because it's an area served by municipal sewer and water. But they have clarified through the definition of areas served by municipal sewer and water what they actually mean by those areas. And they're saying that the state's saying that that excludes areas where you have a sewer line in the ground, you have a water line in the ground, you have a sewer line there to address a public health hazard. You didn't put it there to encourage growth. Okay. So does that answer your question? Yeah, absolutely. And we feel very confident in asserting these exemptions, the ones that we're talking about. Because I think the language is very plain and clear in this. And we believe that the intentions and the capacity limits at 15 with the Essex those areas served by the town of Essex and in Mallards Bay that we meet that those don't fall in the legislation's definition of areas served by sewer and water. And so that's because so much of the language says you must do, we'll get into it, all of these things in areas served by water and sewer. So we wanted to make sure that you understand as we start to talk about all of those things that we are talking about very specific areas in town and that your brain is not going to, oh boy, there's going to be water and sewer on East Lakeshore or there's water and sewer at St. Mike's or what about Breezy Acres, what's going to happen up there that as we talk about these things there's a limited part of town right now and I think it also may be informed some of the discussion as Zach pointed out that you had about Essex 16 where your current and the town plan's current direction is that that is not an area for residential growth. This legislation I think is very smart and helpful in that area where it says where residential growth is already allowed and so it is not trying to impose residential growth in areas that are not planned for residential growth or residential use, maybe I should say instead of just growth. If you have use it wants you to have growth but it doesn't want you to have it where it's not at all planned for to create something where it's not. So the sum of that is that almost everything we're going to be talking about is in 7th quarter our growth center so if things change in the future like we changed the zoning for certain area and it changes and now of a sudden it meets that definition that in going forward you'd have to make sure that that's falling under that. Specifically exit 16 falls under that as well as exit 17 should that be a potential in the future? That being said because Colchester has municipal service agreements with other towns that are regulating the capacity of flow that is leaving town that's really going to be the overarching limitation that excludes the fork currently as well as I believe I guess Breezy Aker's is a different example but the fork where you're seeing denser development anyway. I would say that the best part of this legislation is that it does do a very good job of identifying what an area served by sewer and water is in a very fair reasonable pragmatic way but yes as you've said if there was a zoning change there we would part of considering that would be to consider the impacts on not just is it allowed but what does it mean once it is? Thank you. Continue on. Oh, never mind. Kathy, you and I were meeting on escrow country if a legislation said if you have sewer and water this rope needs to happen and you I haven't thought about this about capacity like even South Burlington's type capacity when the planning went in. So is that an exemption as well if the capacity of the number of units were planned does not have the capacity to have it? Yeah, I think it did you sound like you have an answer for that real quick? Sorry, I just moved I guess a little too quick. I believe it's at the top of the page. Yeah, it is in here. It's when you're looking at identified capacity constraints I think, you know, if you can't get the effluent through the tube it's going to be considered a constraint whether it's hydraulic or capacity. Yeah, I think that for better or worse or somewhere in between this is meant to address the communities the areas within communities that have the capacity but for a variety of reasons have said we want limited or low density growth here and those are those areas that we'll be seeing the most impact but again I think the legislation in this part for this definition is very well written and I wouldn't change it at all because I did take what you told me and I went and met with the right Yeah, I think they hadn't finalized this Oh, maybe that's why it's in here I'll take credit I'm just kidding So that is what you were talking about Yeah, and I think that there was a draft of this section at that point but it wasn't finalized and so I did have my fears as I've shared with you and anybody else who would listen that there are capacity you can't just say you must do X, Y and Z if it's physically not possible Physically not possible So, that is all summarized to say that and as we walk through the rest of this memo I just want you to think when you hear areas served by municipal water and sewer infrastructure I just think Severance Corners Growth Center because that's really where the changes are going to be required if any are required So let's walk down to the actions here just because hopefully they're simple they might not be The first one states adding a definition of emergency shelter so adding some requirements around it So for consistency's sake, adding this definition as the state writes it to the Colchester Development Regulations probably is a good step there and then also adding that as a use to Table A1 Now considering that really the guardrails that the state has put up are that regulating hours of operation or season of operation for this use of emergency shelter they'd consider it to be interfering with the operations of that shelter So taking a look at this from how these are going to be permitted really thinking that emergency shelters should really be permitted or prohibited in certain districts and the reason for that is conditional use allows the board to impose limitations on hours of operation or season of operation So to avoid muddying those waters I'd suggest at least that we consider not making conditional use So just a recommendation of course you'll get to see tax you'll get to see how it's integrated and we'll have a discussion about those zoning districts down the line but did just want to flag those for you I know we're right at the very beginning so supplement 46 we're going to go through with this zoning Now is the state I won't fine tune I know the fine tuning of it Now is the state saying we can and can't do this or are we going to have a little leeway we decide we don't want to hear or there So I just pulled up specific to emergency shelters the text that's there and a lot of this legislation is very prescriptive it says you have to as I said there's probably very little for us to sort of talk about that they've left some openings about but Zach do you want to talk more about what's required for emergency shelters am I in the right area here I mean if you don't want to get into the details right now that's fine I mean we're on it and I think we might as well address this item I think this is best this section is best reviewed if you scroll up to one just so we can read how it rolls and do limitations so really there's certain uses in town that you can really only regulate with respect to certain criteria location, size, height, bulk all of these items here I'm going to interrupt you just for a sec Zach this legislation is a lot like we do ours where you see text that has no underlines or strike-throughs that is existing legislation it's nothing new what's changed just like we do underlined, new, crossed out removed sorry except we don't get the actual red lines on it but it is red lines so really I would summarize this as saying you can regulate it through like CYPLAN review to the extent that you're not going to interfere with the actual use so just keeping that in mind this has been added to that list so you already see that now with churches schools hospitals waste management facilities and as Zach said you can say you can limit for example the height you can say it has to be set back a certain distance you can talk about circulation and parking spaces but you can't say not allowed I know that it said I was just wondering what is the definition so that they really stuck out to me like what do you mean by that is that like two weeks what does that mean it's a great question it's not one that I have an immediate answer to because I didn't write the definition it comes from state statute where they define it I should know it but I think it would be helpful to know what the definition is of temporary I think we probably wouldn't apply our definition of temporary as defined in the development regulations of 10 days or less to this just because I think that would just have a hunch that that's not in line with how the programs probably work but it can definitely be something that we look into as part of integrating this into some text for you we'll come back with that at your next meeting so definitely more to come on that any other questions on emergency shelters at this time you'll have another chance so the other action here is really just a recommendation the Colchester development regulations use single family dwelling unit multi-family dwelling unit state statutes shifted towards single unit dwelling, multi-unit dwelling if we wanted to revise those terms it would require updates to actually a good amount of the regulations to review those terms absolutely doable for consistency's sake might have to just modify a couple definitions we could actually probably remove the definition of family which is a funny one to include in the development regulations but you know we just an option for the planning commission it reflects a larger shift I think in the planning profession to get away from the idea of the family unit as a planning tool alright so moving on oh any questions so moving on to the next update here there's a requirement to allow duplexes anywhere single family dwelling units are allowed subject to the same or less burdensome dimensional standards then an area served by municipal water and sewer you know the municipality must allow multi-unit dwellings with three or four units to be permitted uses right off the bat just kind of addressing the first one there looking at multi-unit dwellings in areas served by municipal water and sewer severance corners that is already generally permitted use you know a little bit based on street type but just want to clarify that right off the bat and then taking a look at allowing duplexes wherever single family dwelling units are allowed generally they are already now subject to the same or less burdensome dimensional standards luckily table A1 is really based on regulating by the dwelling unit which means that you know density on lots is going to be the same which is great but really looking at you know there's a few standards like frontage for example most lots you know require a hundred feet at least of frontage on a public road in order to you know sustain a dwelling unit so if you propose the duplex we'd be looking at 200 feet of frontage which for you know some lots they might be large enough to actually fully comply with being able to sustain a duplex except for that frontage requirement so it might be something to consider you know looking at when we're looking at these slightly burdensome dimensional standards it might be creating a bottleneck for you know creating duplexes okay question then we started out saying this new legislation has to do with areas that serve residential that have water and sewer but this one would be this one would be across the board this one is across the board and there's actually some you know there's certainly parts of the legislation that are across the board we just wanted to make sure where it does say that you understood our interpretation of what that meant so that first one about duplex is indeed across the board I'll add to the discussion that Zach has already started there's been a lot of discussion loose well is it loose discussion and I maybe even some misinterpretations in my mind of what this means we and every planner I know views duplex as a structure it is the form in which two units take place through my reading of this and I every planner I've talked to the reading of this is that this is not an increase in density just to be clear this is saying that anywhere that you allow a single family home you must also allow where the density is met where all other things are met that unit to be allowed so if you have half acre zoning for example and you have 10 acres you cannot say that only single family units are allowed on those 10 acres that does not increase your density to say that again half acre zoning there's 20 units that now becomes 40 it just says that the form in which they take place can be single family or duplex units and as Zach was saying the way the language is written is that you can't make it more burdensome to create a duplex unit you can't say all duplex units must have 5000 you know we allow them it's just impossible to actually get them and our first reading of our own regulations is that this is an area that would need some slight modifications because it is more burdensome slightly to build a duplex in some areas per our regulations than a single family home we can still absolutely regulate all of the dimensional standards of that building but if that building can fit two separate units in it we have to allow that so what about wastewater it only can for whatever for one family so again all of those other pieces that would normally be at play are still at play if the wastewater doesn't even if the density says you can have 20 if your wastewater says you can have 3 you can only have 3 but you can have those 3 in a duplex in a single family per the state legislation we can't require that those 3 must be attached units and again just about everywhere duplexes are allowed even on Lakeshore 3 which we talked about at length but we believe the modification you'll have to look at is to make sure that it's not more burdensome to create that duplex and that'll require just some fine tuning of the Table A1 and A2 we'll give you a better look at what that is so I don't think it's really big though that's going to be some fine tuning that's a little more complicated than it sounds I don't think it will be because you already talked about we're not going to increase density but we're going to put in the same small unit we're going to split it up so we now have 4 cars instead of 2 the whole bit changes changes the whole look of any neighborhood you're building if you go from duplexes from single homes it just does you can't get around it it's a physical thing I understand the reason was is because we're building more houses you would actually increase your cars so if you were going from 3 units in a 4 we'll use a square number or an even number if you were allowed for whatever reason 4 units on a parcel those 4 units whether they're in a duplex or a single family are still going to require x number of parking spaces it's just that they're in a different location so if you have for a parking requirement which we're going to get to later because that's a whole thing if your parking requirement just for ease of numbers is 2 per unit whether those 4 units exist as duplexes or not that's still 8 cars no matter how you're slicing out the cake it's still 8 cars, still 2 per unit I'll take your wear on it for now but I said no I say absolutely not once you split it we have 2 different groups of people and everything changes the dynamics change, the lot changes the driveway system changes it just does there's no way to get around that you have 2 separate units now you still have 2 separate units what's changing is they have a shared wall you can have the same lot and have 2 houses I agree with that what I'm saying is that we're going to take we have no choice anyway but we're going to take whether it's a single family home and we're going to split it it says anywhere that it's allowed and that is an important distinction it's not required it's allowed I get it I get the allowed part too because every developer that comes in would much rather have 2 than 1 they're not getting extra I understand but the physical problem is still the same they're sharing a wall now instead of being separate whether they were 5 feet apart, 10 feet apart 400 feet apart they are now allowed should a person wish to build a duplex instead of 2 separate there's a little bit of cost savings from what I understand I think what Rich is saying if you have a lot and you have a single family home that single family home instead of being a single family home can all of a sudden be a duplex that's where Rich is coming from correct, you're changing the dynamics anyway you look at your you're just physically changing the dynamics if you had a whole development of houses that are 30 houses and I don't care if you vote every single house splits into 2 you still have 60 units in there and the whole dynamic side of the neighborhood changes you're doing, you're multiplying the number this does not multiply the number I know, the buildings are the same the interiors will change and the dynamics of that building will change so we already have just I know, I know, I get it all do development lately this is all we're seeing anyway so I don't know that there's much of a change in terms of and I don't mean this in an insulting way dynamics just trying to quote you I don't know that we'll see a big change there that's what everyone's building and we allow them anyway it's the only real change that I think that Colchester sees you might have slightly different frontage requirements but I we're gonna come to you with what those details are but I think I honestly don't think it changes much they're allowed everywhere you can see them, you can drive around look at every new, almost every new I could rattle off names to you but all the new construction they're duplexes oh absolutely, I get that the cookie cutter ones too I get it, I'll say we gotta get more details I promise continue and to be fair as well what the developer view board is seeing there's very few people proposing larger subdivisions that are maxing out their density so just to keep that in mind as well that there are other limitations that are going to dictate what development looks like on some of these lots I think that without speaking for the legislature but from what I've heard of people who spoke about this they had felt that there are some communities that do completely disallow everything other than a single family I'd stop using family a unit, a single unit in a building town wide and I won't name those towns but they exist and they're not that far from here and that there was some I don't know that this is an attempt to build more units as much as it is to hopefully bring down the price of units because generally speaking and there are very expensive duplex units, don't get me wrong but generally speaking a half of a duplex unit is more affordable than a standalone unit, I think that's just fact and so I get that part I think the attempt was to get rid of some of that exclusionary like which there we go I think that's somebody else's town you will hear if you're following any of the news on this people who are interpreting this as a doubling of the density I think that is a very bad interpretation a doubling density a doubling density it's just the regulations it's a form duplexes are a form they are a building form but there are people that you will hear talk about this who see duplex and they see that as a doubling of density that is not my interpretation at all the way I see Colchester is we have something for everybody if some town doesn't want all duplexes that's their business as far as we're concerned I think we have a million rules and we got many different parts of town and they all kind of work together but you can move anywhere in this town and have a total rural feel to a total suburban feel and I get it some of this is already here but since we're starting at the very beginning I kind of like to make sure I wrap my head around what we're talking about until we get to the end I think this will make a much bigger impact on other towns than it will on Colchester I think we're largely aligned with this already sorry continue no don't apologize this is what it's all about we can scroll into the next page then and so again I think Zach quickly talked about this but I didn't have it highlighted there the only area where we have municipal water and sewer multi-unit dwellings we allow much more than three or four in those areas already okay where we going, we'll keep going next page, page three of five so first of all a point here the act really focuses on ensuring that review of standalone accessory dwelling units or single family dwellings with accessory dwelling units cannot be more restrictive than the review for a single unit dwelling so just keep that in mind you know from my review of the regulations you know we have a very straightforward review of accessory dwelling units there's no like additional restrictions or anything like that it's not conditional use so and it's really permitted where single family dwellings are permitted already here is just to kind of bring the language in table A1 up to the same language we use throughout the rest of the regulations so not a big change there there has been a change though that now the development regulations cannot prevent or penalize hotel rooms renting rooms for the purpose of providing Vermont general housing assistance so I can explain a little bit of this but I'm probably going to hand it over to Kathy because it's a little more well burst in this than I am but you know the hot button issue or the hot button topic is really discussing you know the it's called the motel housing program right the state of Vermont will assist people experiencing homelessness and other folks having lodging within you know a hotel during COVID this program you know really an increase in federal funding and now you know kind of coming out of COVID a bit we can say that you're starting to see you know this program still continuing so right now the regulations say you know there's certain restrictions on hotels because they are really you know there for example allowed in commercial districts whereas residential is not so really taking a look and saying you know these hotels you know the state would like you know the Colchester to not prevent hotels from participating in this program I'll hand it over to Kathy and at this point just because I you know this realistically could look like a very simple change to the development regulations but I think it's one that you're probably going to want to spend a little bit of time discussing because it has some pretty big impacts it definitely doesn't seem simple from my perspective so and I'm not even sure it's one just to clarify because I don't want to misspeak I meant it could be ascendance but it has bigger impacts so I don't want to dive and get us down this rabbit hole too long or too far but I do want to just say that I do have some questions with this one of seeking out a little bit more clarity because just to be clear the town of Colchester whether in the regulations or by policy as far as I'm aware has never prevented or penalized any hotels or renting rooms whether pre-pandemic or when that program became much more widely used and my planner never really left is to make sure that the language here doesn't force a change in the definition of a hotel that there is a difference in renting a hotel room a short term hotel which is considered less than 30 days that that's still a hotel it's still functioning as a hotel it is still having nightly rentals regardless of who pays for it and the population in state out of state experiencing homeless are not are using those rooms as a hotel regardless of their payment methods my concern as a planner is to make sure that hotels and hotels is very clearly the word used in this definition remain hotels and that this does not force a community from turning a hotel again, mostly important and has nothing to do with its population but to do with some of the wastewater uses and some of the planned uses of an area I'm thinking of exit 16 where we have very specifically said regardless of income, regardless of the user, whether regardless of the value of the room or the home or the building we do not want long term residential use it could be a $3 million apartment with a great view of the lake on water tower hill the town the commission has said no residential use but hotels are okay because we view them as a commercial use there's turnover, there's traffic there's people who are contributing to the economy because they are coming from other towns it's a great impact on the tax base hotels are widely seen as wonderful things for a variety of reasons so what I will be attempting to do not through you guys but just so you know is to really make sure that any interpretation of this, whether by the state or by the town is to make sure that we are talking about the impact on a hotel and not changing a hotel to a long term permanent residential use again, this has nothing to do with who the users or tenants are whether or not that rental payment is $50 a night or $5,000 a week that the town has been very clear in its and even recently in some requests that were before you so the word hotel is really important to me here to make sure that the hotel is maintained so I don't have answers for you as to what that looks like I believe as Zach has already shared that there's not a lot of there's not much we have to do with the regulations just as you can't penalize it, nothing in our regulations currently penalizes it but there may be something that we we may look again at our definition of hotel to make sure we do define different types of hotels that we are still clear as to what we mean by a hotel which has nothing to do with its tenant very well said, everybody who's nodding their head yes so you've got a whole board following your road right down, perfect that's perfect hotel reports no, I mean I think I hope it's nothing we never even have to think about but you know what, it happens it's already happened, it has nothing to do with the state program there are hotels that are in commercial areas that are long term residences, they become apartments some of them are even market rate but they still call themselves a hotel again, even if any of our current hotels decided that they were going to become apartments, even market rate apartments I think the town would have a serious concern with that and so I think that the best we can do is make sure that our definition of hotel doesn't create issues with this because we're not talking about who the users are we're not talking about any sort of state programs but that we are making sure that any building in an area where hotels are allowed or long term residential is not it's very clear so those are my thoughts there, sorry perfect so there I believe we had someone come to speak to us maybe in the fall about an office space that could be rented like I spoke to the DC people that were turned to those spaces and who said no and I said a pretty certain people absolutely so my concern is that we have possibly out at exit exit 16 the office spaces that people might want to convert into maybe short term rental units is that allowed or is that a possibility so those could be converted today if they meet the definition of hotel and provide I think these permitted use not conditional they're right but again just for hotel regardless of the value or rental income from those under our current regulations they are not meant to be permanent living spaces and again I know we've talked about this when you had the requests in front of you a big part of the a big part of the reason for that is the idea of balancing our uses our uses throughout the town and that when you have communities that are 100% residential or even just far tipped to the residential scale that you lose the very real tangible tax implications that come with other types of uses you lose the place where those jobs could be if not now in the future and sometimes if you're not careful you just also create if you're forced into it incompatible uses in the same space and I know that's part of what you talked about you have a quarry down there that quarry is permitted that mixes much better with a grocery store than it does with permanent living spaces again regardless of their value and so I think it wasn't here when you wrote the town plan but I think that there were some very good reasons that were listed for not allowing that to be a residential use area and it's my understanding again just talking to people who were here that that was a fairly unanimous decision to do that at the time it's obviously a question you'll be asked again at your next town plan and maybe it's still largely unanimous maybe you change your mind I don't know but at least for right now your town plan says no residential use is there the thing that concerns the local chester is in most places where people like to protest they need a cover to get places and I think my understanding is that families and maybe other people want to live in a place where they can walk you know there's transit you know where they can where they can walk to a grocery store or to a restaurant so that I just I wonder if the demographic is shifting and just to kind of keep that in the back of our minds of people not wanting to always have to get into a car to you know go out to eat or maybe get something pick something up at a store or something you're going to have a lot of fun when we do the next town plan I promise and the thoughts and the exercises that will take place at that time there's also trends it's just interesting and I think that again you know when that conversation comes back around those are some of the factors that are considered and there might be competing factors but they'll all come out I promise we'll talk about all of them alright I do all the little longer that I meant to on that one yeah it's I mean it's two lines on here and we can have a whole we probably talk all night about it that being said let's reel it back in we can jump on to the next two here so prefaceing this with areas served in severance corners really looking at you know the establishing lot and building dimensional standards to allow for you know five or more dwelling units per acre for each of our residential use density requirements for multi-family dwelling units cannot be more restrictive than single family dwelling units just off the bat there severance corners already complies with this in the gd3 district if not already exceeds it so no no red flags here nothing that needs to be addressed also adding in you know a dwelling unit density bonus of 40% and a bonus of one habitable floor of the height maximum for affordable housing development as defined in state statute so just noting here that you know density in the general development three district is not identified it's really focused on you know your sewer allocation the need of the developer and really focuses on allowing you know a much higher density so density bonus is not necessarily going to be needed to be added in with the regulations as they're written but the one habitable floor will need to be considered and added in so you know taking a look at this you know we have tables based on the street types so a streets b streets so you will get to do some form base code here although not a lot of leeway so looking at adding in that you know an additional story can be provided for projects that meet the definition of affordable housing development and those definitions are defined in state statute and provided in here as well we can add those to the regulations or provide references to state statute well the question that comes up to me without looking at the tables if we felt like a four story building was appropriate on street b let's say and we don't want to go any higher does that mean we can change the regs saying that now street b is only a three level building? This is my favorite addition I gotta tell ya I think the it was well intended but poorly written yeah I used an example today when I was talking to Zach that you know like look at the city of Burlington it might be that 11 stories for whatever reason based on the lake etc 11 stories is the right height for buildings I can fairly say 12 is the right number now is a little weird but yeah I guess I hadn't thought about whether towns will just be like we're just going to reduce them all across the board that's where you wanted to cap I had a hard time reading that one too again I think it's very well intentioned but not scaled well but that said I think height and story limitations was something that I was prepared to talk to you guys about anyway when we got to the form based code it struck me as a little funny that we have limitations on heights in some of our buildings in the growth center that are lower than in other parts of our town and I'm not talking about Watertower Hill the idea that you're limited to three stories within the growth center in some streets but that we have a four and a half story building on Primroad seems a little weird so maybe the addition of a story isn't as terrifying as it could be I know Lakeshore Drive doesn't come into play here but we worked very very hard on setting height limits there for particular reasons and if we set the certain heights for other areas all of a sudden this throws it out you know if Lakeshore Drive we were two and a half stories and now we're at three and a half stories we're at the same problem we had before that nobody wants those three and a half stories Pinkfully doesn't apply That does follow suit sevens corners there's a reason why the whole thing was tiered and the looks and all that was factored in and then you're right pretty bad on this one though Trinket all down different sizes because not every building will go for the bonus but I don't know this seems very odd I know the intent is good it seems very odd I don't disagree with you so you know I think as written here I think we just as Zach has shown in the recommended action we just have to say you get this additional story um you mean related to this new legislation or just in general you know this yeah I think in communities that do have view corridor language I think this would I don't know that it would preempt it but anywhere that a building is allowed it's now allowed to be taller interestingly enough it you know it says sort of additional story I know of a lot of communities that regulate in feet not in stories there are some parts where there are view corridors where you regulate with a very complicated formula um that has to do with your distance from the lake because you are protecting those and so you have to get an engineer and like light our out to figure it out but basically it says if you're this distance and you're up on this elevation um and that's a real thing in at least a few communities in Shending County that I know of so I don't know what an arbitrary story does in that I have no idea thankfully that's one thing we don't have to worry about I think there are some communities that are really scrambling with these and I do want to take a second I know we don't really have anybody here listening from the press but by and large you know there are a lot of well intended things in here the idea that Colchester doesn't have to do that much I think really speaks to all of the work that the commission and the town has put in over however many years and sort of getting across those hurdles already um and addressing some of those things and I know we're not always in the news as like the people who are doing the neatest groundbreaking you know just next last week but the fact that we are doing I think much less than a lot of communities to adjust to this speaks volumes so well done that's just my little my little bit of applause for you because I think it's well-earned definitely so there's the story um I knew you wouldn't like it but I didn't write it I'm applause that we don't have to add a definition of story I think we already have but we'll get into that so just kind of walking through these couple other recommended actions here you know including the definition of affordable housing development I don't want to belabor this too much just because it's a state definition and I think we are you know pretty stuck into this definition here but if you do have any questions about it please let us know we do have an affordable housing section of chapter six and a half related to our fees so you know already looking at this occasionally for different projects in town because they might be able to get a reduction of their recreation impact fee for affordable housing projects you've applied that yes I've applied it multiple times I'm a professional not really but that being said usually look to you know the document is pretty well for any exemptions that are usage of that section again just a couple closing parts here you know just updating that name like I said for single family dwellings with accessory dwelling units and then you know getting into those definitions of hotel motel extended stay hotel and in to kind of get at those items we don't need to revisit them all right now we will prepare something for you on that just kind of rounding back here this is that section related to emergency shelters you know like we said going through you know adding it to the table of uses and you know not interfering with daily or seasonal hours of operation so again kind of leaning away from that conditional use there so we'll get into that any questions on emergency shelters you know we are going to do a little homework on what temporary means in this case so hopefully we have more information for you Sarita so moving over to parking requirements some fun modifications here so in residential districts served by municipal water and sewer looking at you know not requiring more than one parking space per dwelling unit just to kind of provide a quick caveat here like you know Kathy was saying you don't have to do much here because the parking standards for the general development three district they're not really they don't really exist so really looking at you know having someone present a site plan application they'll provide you know information on you know why their parking is meeting these requirements and ultimately hopefully they're providing enough parking that you know their residents or customers are going to be satisfied and you know they're not going to have to create a ton of extra impervious surface they need to permit through a state storm water permit or something like that so not much to do here and hopefully a win for everybody now leaning into where we do need to do some work municipalities you know may require one and a half spaces for duplexes and multifamily dwelling units in areas not served by sewer and water and in areas that are located more than one quarter mile away from public parking rounded up to the nearest whole number so there is going to need to be a change to 10.01 table 10-2 to accommodate this modification so taking a look at this here I put down a recommended action I believe the standard I want to say it's two parking spaces per dwelling unit plus an additional one for every fourth dwelling unit for multifamily dwelling units so you know going to look to bring that down a little bit there and I'm sure we'll have a rich discussion with rich about you know making sure that you're just understanding you know I guess what parking is going to look like you know looking at you know duplex dwelling units you're going to see three spaces instead of four for example yeah well these are minimums so you can still see four right? I don't believe so when you read that they talk about minimums yeah again not written by a planner just to be clear I think the intention here is that this is a maximum they cannot require more than one parking space but then later it says I believe the intention here based on all of the discussions that took place at the legislature and the change that this is a this was I think updated in the very last draft I think this one got there was a lot of discussion on this particular piece the idea was well can duplexes have more than the one and the compromise was sure one and a half but then they say I rounded up to the years whole number I imagine they're thinking of the 60 unit building and not I don't know well I think it creates a situation where there's three parking spaces right? duplex it's two so it'll end up getting to three no matter what there there is some work that's being done while the legislature is out of session from various entities everyone from VLCT that's the legal cities and towns to DHCD and various economic and housing organizations of the state to gather questions on these and no doubt this is one of the first ones they're going to get and to provide clarifying language I expect we'll see that at some point I haven't seen a timeline for it they say they'll publish the questions but I think this is one that you're going to see because the language is written about as clear as muddy water I think there's a reasonable interpretation for anyone who followed along with the conversation as to what they mean but the language I'm actually surprised that their legislative council allowed the language to proceed because it's so mucky so hotly contested we don't bring you these because we're here to endorse them we're here to bring them to you because you have no choice but to I think even communities that are considered fairly progressive had some concerns with us but this is what we see now I don't know if it'll be changed there's some potential early in the next session that there's some modifications to this once the dust settles and everyone for right now that's what we have we must go down to the recommended actions so we already discussed the first one here number 10 looking at revising that parking requirement for duplexes and multi-family dwelling units but also noting just while we were in there table 10-2 appears to be inconsistent with the treatment of accessory dwelling units so table 10-2 in article 10 requires one parking space per unit but article 2 requires one parking space per bedroom in the accessory dwelling unit so there could be a case where you have a two-bedroom accessory dwelling unit which is allowed a two parking space requirement in one section of the regulations and one parking space in the other so looking to get some consistency there between the two sections from a quick read of this looking at the duplex requirement where it would result in three parking spaces it seemed like the consistent thing to do would be to just make it one but we can of course have a conversation about that just moving on here just to highlight there's some language in the act that requires the development review board to permit housing development as enabled in the regulations so they couldn't impose additional modifications or restrictions that would require a larger lot size than is actually in the regulations or require more parking spaces because it happened to be multi-family development for example or limit height based on something that related to the use so with this in mind there's no recommended action at this time I think the development review board I'm not saying this just because I staffed them and I hang out with them once or twice a month but they're really by the book they review projects against the regulations try to be as fair as possible and I think if you're crafting the regulations as you'd like them to be crafted based on the town plan and the values that you see I hope you can trust the development review board is taking that seriously and really implementing these items as that written so with that in mind but they had their reasons for putting this in here I can assure you there are not as awesome DRBs out there as we have okay so again what we're trying to do we're just trying to give you an intro to these we are the messenger in most cases and hope not to get shot through but we'd like to bring to you at your next meeting some text I believe that our obligation is that we're just working towards meeting these regulations obviously these clear the legislature and was signed in June even it was signed by the governor until June effective July 1st it's just legal and not possible to have these be changed in your regulations by July 1st so as long as we're working towards that again there's not an artificial timeline you can't just drop it and never talk about it and hope in 2028 that you're like well yeah we're getting there but this is not meant to be anything that's rushed for you either any questions on that one definitely be continued food for thought as they say I hope you still like us yeah alright we'll move on that's that information items and staff updates okay so you see in your packet you have a letter of support a joint letter of support for a town solar project signed by select board and the planning commission Rich and Pam so there's some information for you there if you guys want any other information on that project let me know we did get the certificate of service on that I think relatively recently but it looks like a great project we'll keep you updated as we go Renee is there anything new on that to share or is that pretty much very good they're supposed to be a monthly report for you for June it must not have got posted I'm sorry I don't think that there were any huge takeaways but I will share it I will email that out to because I do want you to have it because June especially is a year end so it'll give you an idea of what our permits were how we're tracking compared to the year prior I do apologize that it didn't get linked here but I will email it to you because of all months to have it June is the best one because year end I don't think there were any huge any notes just as a quick update I'll give you the acoustic version the department issued 50 Bianchi reports which are those letters of compliance that happened during real estate transactions which is double the amount that were done this time June of last year so definitely great job by folks in the department on those items and notice when you do open the report that there's some pretty large numbers in the multi-purpose permit construction values and that's because Champlain housing trust just started the renovations on three buildings in the fort so going to see some pretty large renovations of some buildings to create 65 new dwelling units in the fort I think one of the main takeaways as you look at the year end is that our new commercial growth is pretty much non-existent over the year that's obviously something that we as a whole town and various departments are looking at but it is noticeable sometimes it's misleading if you compare to prior years because sometimes a multi-unit building greater than four is classified as a commercial building by the tax assessor for his own reasons and so I do caution any comparisons there but we're just not seeing a lot of commercial growth and hopefully by the next fiscal year end or in any future monthly report if there is something there we'll definitely highlight it for you so you can be aware of it shall I move on? any commission meeting schedule okay so we are off cycle a little bit here because two weeks ago your regular meeting would have been the fourth of July and while it might have been a convenient place for the parade probably was not a convenient time for a meeting so I do have a this is a big question for you if you were to follow your normal schedule of meeting on sort of the first Tuesday that is very close that's two weeks from now on August the 1st it's a tight turn around for us to get the language to you that we've talked about you have because August is one of those months with five Tuesdays I can so dates for your consideration are of course August 1st that's two weeks from tonight August 15th four weeks from tonight but not the end of August or the 29th and then you run into the same problem discourage the 8th and the 22nd because you wouldn't be able to have this room the select board meets I don't know if I can either actually those are poor I know you also don't have to meet on a Tuesday we try to do it for consistency's sake where emergencies prompt it don't look at me I'll be here no matter what is that to the long the 28th you mean the 29th the 29th well I just think that in September we're going to have the same problem I'll be here I'll be here definitely be here for September but I guess I shouldn't have shortened your options your other option should you wish to take it is to get back to that early meeting and skip August altogether I don't say any of these with any sort of leading because I can't on a vacation and if you did that you'd be I guess September 5th which is definitely not a holiday that's the day after Labor Day is it? is Labor Day the 4th this year? yeah first Monday September those are your options I do ask that you make a decision before you leave here tonight I try not to usually push you on this one but would you need a next meeting date? is that 15th is that the only day you can you have to miss? well that week you're going that weekend yeah my family's here I mean I could comment that's the only option I but I can if that's the only option I think I'm back on the 15th I guess I should have checked I just assumed it was going to be regular first I guess and you can do it once I'm not trying to say you can't that's unrealistic yeah that's unrealistic what about like the 9th can we do we do it when no you got DRV yeah yeah yeah we can say August is vacation month yeah we can still do the 29th yeah it just messes up September depends on how much you want to break down your meeting it's going to be quite a bit for this supplement even if you don't present we do everything on the 29th we're still playing on the 5th so we could also do an option we could take the 29th and have it be sort of a shorter, easier meeting with just some of the other quick S46 things that I've talked about we don't touch any more of the S100 yet but we just sort of give you that brief briefing some of which we've already talked about we'll reintroduce to you Rich but we'll have language for you and then it's not a whole big slog if you want to go right into the 5th and start to reset and that's when you see the full text for everything I don't have any problem with that I just feel like we're just in this a lot of meetings especially now with the S100 I don't have any problem doing that so maybe the 29th we'll take a look at we'll take a look at some of those minor amendments again we're talking about things like how do you regulate a flagpole because the questions have been asked not deep thinking things just clean it up in the regulation type things and then the 5th we'll have all the language on S100 I'll go from there yeah, I'll give you plenty of time to work it out I think so if you have questions you can email us right? yeah, and if it's not ready or you still don't like it that's okay you can just say come back in October at the end that sounds like a good plan any other reasons or anything that you're aware of that I'm missing do you have any candidates for another member? we were just talking about that we were trying to figure out if it had been have you guys seen it advertised? I can't recall I haven't looked I have not personally heard from anyone but I will follow up on it just to see where we are and to see if we're advertising or okay, I'll get on that so let's need a motion for a minute okay, I'll make a motion that we approve the minutes of June 6th, 2023 alright, discussion all in favor aye motion passes now I need a motion to adjourn I'll make a motion to adjourn the meeting tonight alright all in favor aye, we are adjourned thank you I've got to sign this I don't have to