 This is public comment and we do have Suzanne Blaine. I think it is wants to talk to us. So Suzanne. Let me. Yep, Suzanne. You can go ahead and unmute yourself if you'd like. Hi, can you hear me? Yeah. A little bit low, but we can hear you. I'm a bit of a quiet talker. I'll try to talk into the microphone. That's better right there. Okay. So I own a few properties in Vermont. One, sorry, and when you see one of which I live in and then three, I own and then rent out. And I've had some issues with sort of the. I'm going to make sure I'm using the right terms here. So the when you see master plan kind of has one concept, but then the, um, the UL, UD arc, I'm finding, I'm having like, there's some things that I don't quite understand why they are the way they are. And the way they are has, um, put a lot of hurdles and like developing more, uh, rental units on my property. Um, and then the next thing is I have a house in the RB district and we wanted to add a detached cottage and in the, um, UL, UDR, the detached cottages and all three districts are, uh, conditional use. And so I guess what I wanted to bring up or think about, um, and I think one of the things that I wanted to ask for reflections about is why the detached cottage or like an ADU style dwelling would be conditional use rather than, you know, just, you know, if I, if I could just meet the, you know, certain conditions that, that form to the, the use of the lot, um, and be a lot simpler than going through, you know, the DRB process. Um, fairly offensive and, um, not as inclusive as I would say the master plan was, um, the use of the terms character of the neighborhood and that those are fairly ill defined in, in all of our documents. So I guess one thing I wanted to bring up was the use of character of the neighborhood and how that's used and what that means to us as a community and to the planning commission. And also addressing, you know, why we're having a detached dwelling or like an ADU style dwelling, um, be conditional use rather than just kind of like how the gateway corridors are, where you just, you know, meet the, meet the criteria and then you can be approved through the zoning administrator rather than the DRB. All of your properties are in the residential zones. Um, one of, well, that's a sort of a separate issue, but one of them is in one of the gateway corridors. Um, but there seems to be some other kind of, um, rules about it that I don't quite understand. Um, so one of them is in a gateway corridor, but I'm still sort of tied with how I can develop it. So have you talked to Eric about your questions? I have. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. He's been very, very helpful. We would expect nothing else from Eric. Yeah, I'm not sure how to answer your, your questions. I mean, one of the things that we've talked about and the mayor's on too. And, and. Christine, if I misspeak, I know you'll jump in and correct me, but one of the priorities of the city council is finding ways to get more housing, especially, um, family. Um, size housing, three bedrooms and more. Um, and, you know, we put the provisions in for ADUs and for detached cottages to try to help with that. And personally, I don't know if I've seen those. Has there been updates in the last couple of years. To the detached cottages and ADUs. Eric, you want to jump in. They're, they're so state statute dictates mostly what qualifies as an accessory dwelling unit and how, and they, it outlines. Kind of the process that needs to be followed, or at least the minimum process that needs to be followed for approving an accessory dwelling unit and what the, the minimum standards are that need to be met. Primarily the way that that's right. Is that the property needs to be, it can only be developed with a single unit and the property needs to be owner occupied. So the owner can just has to live on the property. They don't necessarily have to live in the primary unit versus, uh, they can live in the accessory unit as well. That accessory unit can be, uh, attached or detached from, from the primary unit. As well. The detached cottage, however, is. Is an additional use category that we have in our regulations that allows. For a property that is, has a single unit, but is not owner occupied or. Has more than one unit already to get a, an additional accessory dwelling in certain circumstances. The detached cottage though is, as, as Suzanne mentioned, is a conditional use versus the permitted use as an accessory dwelling is classified. So there's some state, there's some statutory requirements that are dictating the ADU component. Technically. We could, if we wanted to, we could just limit it to only allowing an ADU. Per the statutory requirements. Of owner occupancy and single unit only, but we've actually, I think added the additional component of having a detached cottage as a conditional use to allow for, um, Additional density in some instances. Through the development review board approval process. Yeah. So what I'm finding, like, I would like to add the additional. A lot of people really like, so on our current property where I live, we have a detached unit. And it's highly sought after, like people like the idea of being in their own little space. Um, so that's like something in our community as, of renters and the area really wants, like they like the privacy and things like that. So, so it's great that we have this option, but I guess my confusion about this detached cottage option is that. It's so even if you have an area like in the RB district, for example, you can have two units, but they have to be connected. So it has to be in one, one, two, three, four, five houses on one property. So even if one of them is like a small cottage in the back. So I guess that, yeah, that's kind of what I, what I wanted to talk about. I mentioned to think about, um, in terms of like for further development. I think from, from my standpoint, Suzanne and other folks can jump in if, if they want. It's, it's a kind of a balancing act of, of, you know, allowing more units, but protecting our neighborhoods. And so that's the extra layer of, of, review of people at the DRB. If you, I mean, if you meet the requirements, the DRB. Yeah, it's an extra step, but it shouldn't be that problematic. I wouldn't think. Well, that's not, that's not been my experience. My experience is I met all the requirements. And I was denied. And then when I came back, trying to meet the requirements again, I was denied based on successive application doctrine. So now it's been an environmental court for the last year. So I've been trying to put a small cottage on one of my properties. And it's been over three years that I've been putting effort into this. So I've been trying to put a small cottage on one of my properties. So I've been putting effort into this. So. Well, I appreciate, we appreciate the call and we, we can think about it. You know, as we discuss things further, but. I mean, for now, obviously we can't get into specifics about your property. Right. You know, but. Yeah, I think, you know, we will, we will consider it as we continue talking and discussing the, the, the, the, any amendments to the zoning regulations. Right. I just wanted you to have feedback of like how, how, you know, people who live here are coming up against some of the things that you're designing. Is it. Is it that. The land, the use restrictions in that district that's causing this though, or is it something else that's not causing property to conform? Yeah, it's the way that the conditional use goes through the DRB and like what the rules around. Like one of the things that I failed to meet the criteria I failed to meet was character of the neighborhood, but it was not defined at all. So there was not like, it didn't just like there, there's no description of what character of the neighborhood is. So there's no way that I can meet that. I mean, I mean, it doesn't say there's that there's literally no language about what, what is character of the neighborhood. And in other places and often characters of the neighborhood, often as a way to. Keep. Keep neighborhoods the same rather than adding multifamily units. So, you know, in the, in the multifamily, you like on one property. Which as we know is inclusive housing. So I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, there's no planning mission to think about how are you using character of the neighborhood? What does that mean? And like that should be defined through all of our documents. That's the specifics that I think are really helpful because. If that's the reason you got denied. That's something that we can look into and try to define. Or remove if appropriate. Right. I would have thought that the setbacks would have been the most determining factor before character of the neighborhood in this case at all. But. So. So, yeah, we should move on with our meeting, but yeah, Suzanne, as Abby said, thank you for bringing that up because that's really nothing. That I can recall even. You know, coming up in our discussions and we can point to that in the future as we go through. Okay. Yeah. The other little piece of it. Residential properties in the gateway district. What, like how those are allowed to be developed as well, because I, I think that they're still like, you still have to stay within like the, like, if it's a RB and there's only two units, then even if you're in the gateway corridor, you can't develop those. So just also looking at the way the residential properties and gateway corridor, like what they're allowed for, that would be the other thing. Eric, can you speak to that? Because my understanding is the properties are in the gateway district. They're not RVs. Yeah. Yeah, there shouldn't be any residential zoning in our gateways. So Suzanne, what, I don't know what property you're speaking of specifically, but. So we're St. Peter street meets Malts Bay. Now isn't that in the gateway district? Is it Malts Bay? Malts Bay Avenue is. Malts Bay Avenue is. It depends on if I have a property that had a, but now it's the avenue. If it's, if it's. On Malts Bay Avenue, it's in the gateway zoning district. Yeah. Yeah. Let me. Okay. So last time Eric and I talked to, he said it, like the first time. It was not, and it was in the gateway district. And then the second time we talked, it wasn't. So I just was a little bit confused about. The development along the gateway district. Okay. All right. I think any other questions you have as you go forward. Best to talk to Eric about the zoning rates. He knows them better than, better than the rest of us. He deals with them every day. So. Yep. So thank you, Suzanne. We appreciate it. All right. Thanks. Okay. Bye-bye. No one else for public comment. There's actually Michael Arnold is also with us. I don't know Michael, if you're interested in speaking, if you are, you can raise your hand or use the chat. Otherwise. Michael, it would be anything that's not on tonight's agenda. He has a comment. I think he said I have to, which have to go unfortunately, but there's a long comment here. I see. In the Q&A. Yes. So it looks like this is specific to our. To our discussion tonight. So we can. With the, the amendments to article four. So we can, we can look at this specifically when we get into article four. At that point. All right. Thank you, Michael. No other public comment. Not that I'm seeing. Okay. So we'll move on to approve previous meeting minutes. And we have two sets of minutes from. July 14th and our special meeting on the 28th. I'll be looking for a motion and a second to approve those minutes. Either together or individually, whatever your preferences. I can't speak to the ones I think on the 28th, because I was, as you mentioned. Like stuck on a mountain top. Yeah. Yeah, unfortunately. I, they otherwise they looked good to me both. I mean, I don't know what transpired at that meeting, but I can definitely speak about our, was it earlier July meeting. So why don't we take them individually then? So I'll be looking for a motion to approve the July 14th meeting with any corrections. Is there a motion for that? So. Second by anyone. Abby. Any, any corrections. Comments. Sorry, Mike. Sorry, real quick. There's a Connor just put in the chat. Yes. Connor, you are a voting member currently. Since you're, you'll be our fifth member. Yeah, we're missing two, two other members. So. So all in favor. Say or raise your hand or say I. Anyone opposed. I guess no one's opposed. So that. Sorry, sorry again. Who, who made that motion and seconded. I think it was Joe. And then Abby. John. Okay. Thank you. Sorry about that. Yeah. Now for the 28. Let me have a 28. I'll move. Second by. I think Mike, you're the only other one there. Connor was there as well. Oh yeah. Connor's going to second that. Yeah. That's like a very quaint little meeting you. Yeah. Sarah was there too. Yeah. Any changes or comments? If you're not all those in favor, please say or I, or raise your hand. Any abstentions? Okay. Great. All right. Thank you. Next is election of officers. Eric sent that around. So let me start with, does anyone besides me want to be the chair? I should say, does anyone want to be chair? Don't everyone speak up at once. Does anyone want to make a nomination. Or chair. I think technically Brendan and Connor cannot be officers because they're alternates. Okay. Have you heard if Sarah. Or Tommy is interested in any position. They have not indicated that they are, but I'm going to guess that. In at least in the past, I know Sarah didn't, didn't seem to have interest in being an officer. So. I don't know. I don't know. And Tommy was an alternate previously, but. So I can't speak to their interest or lack thereof. Okay. So let me. Let me try to make it a little bit easier. So right now. I'm the chair, Abby's the vice chair, and there's no secretary. That was Terry. I think the last. That's correct. Yep. Okay. Are folks okay, nominating me and Abby for the same positions and Abby, are you okay taking vice chair or do you want to move up to chair? No, I'm good with ice. You're good with ice chair. Okay. Can I move to nominate Eric as our secretary? He's not on the commission. Technically cannot, even though I'm, I'm acting in that role. I'm not. I'm not. I'm not. Also, if we like the chair and vice chair tonight, we can wait until we have Sarah and Tommy as well and see if one of them. It wouldn't be fair to nominate one of them who's not here. True. So we can hold off on that one. So. What's the wishes of the group. Did you say and Connor cannot. So just Joe would be able to fill a role. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Were you interested in either role? No, you folks are doing such a wonderful job that I have great confidence in both of you and continuing. The service. I guess the other question I should know this. Is it only secretary the other role? Correct. It's just secretary. Yep. Right. There's no treasure. And it doesn't sound like Joe's interested in the secretary position. No. Okay. So yeah. Quite nicely the way it's set up. I guess I would say I anticipate continuing in this role, regardless of whether or not we officially have a secretary. So. I don't think there should be any, any concern that if, if we do nominate a secretary that. That they will automatically start taking, taking minutes from the meetings. So what, what would the secretary do then? If Eric keeps taking the minutes. Right. That was my question. Good question. Maybe if there's a mailing and they really are ambitious, they could be communicated with Eric that yes, that mailing should go out. Yeah. I know. Yeah. Yeah. Just for a frame of reference with the development review board. We do have a secretary and, but there's statutory. There's statutory. Actions that they have to take as secretary, mostly if there's notices of appeal and things of that nature, they get forwarded to the secretary. So it's really more of kind of a. That's really their role. I think it's more of a, I think it's more of a, I think it's not a good thing to be on the committee. I think at the R.B. they don't take minutes either. So I take minutes for that. Those meetings. So. There's not much of a role in any case, but that's, we do have the position. I believe you're the only staff person taking minutes at a commission meeting. That may be true. Yeah. It seems like you would benefit from somebody else taking them. I would think to free up your ability to. You know, you know, You know, I'm not actually writing anything down in the meeting. I'm just, I, I just write up the minutes following the meeting. And most of it, I just have in memory. So. Or I look back at the tape if I need to, to know anything. So. In all seriousness, you've been very fastidious with it. And I am very grateful on behalf of this commission for the job that you've done in producing the minutes. I think they're of excellent quality so far. Oh, thank you. Thank you so much. Thank you. I think it's more robust than when we had a. Exactly. That's why I'm, I'm hesitant to move from this pattern that's established, even though I realized it's extra work on you. So. Still looking for a motion. If you, if you want to nominate me and Abby for. Could continue in our roles. We still need to make a motion and second and approve it. Yeah. Even though, can I second it even if I can't be an. Yeah. Because you're voting tonight. Yeah. Any further discussion. All those in favor, please say aye. Anyone opposed. Okay. Congratulations, Abby. And my one year as well. My one year as chairman that started, I think in 2017 continues. Before, which is, which. What's that? Go ahead. I was going to say, which is fine. But I'm hoping that maybe next year. Someone will feel. Inspired. To throw me out and take over. I think Abby would be a great chair, but it's just, it's a time thing I'm sure to get. Yeah. Tommy Tommy was chair when I first got on this in 2015. So she's done it before too. So. Yeah. Anyway, I appreciate the vote of confidence though. Yeah. Yeah. We know it. We know how. Abby, we know how much work it is to be the vice chair. Yeah, that's great. I'm loving it. The all for the CCRPC board and the vice for this. This is great. Yeah. All right. Let's move on to the continued discussion of amendments to article four general use regulations. Okay. So what I thought we would do at our last meeting, we got through sections for one through four, four. So I thought we'd pick up. With section four or five and get through the rest of the document. I think we should be able to do that because there's not a lot that's being proposed for changes and then go back and revisit sections. I'm gonna go to section four one and four four specifically because some, I had some conversations with the state office of historic preservation. And so there's, there's some new language and some changed language in those sections based on those conversations. So something I want to just. Have, have some dialogue with you all around going forward. So I am going to share my screen. And we can continue on in the same manner we've done. meetings here with these items. So give me one minute to just get all my other screens up as well. Okay. So as I mentioned, we left off or we got through section 4.4. So the next item, the next section to talk about is section 45. This is really about equal treatment of housing. It's mostly related to multi-unit dwellings or mobile home parks and mobile home provisions, I believe, is mostly what this is related to. So really just looking at adding in the language of housing that meets the municipal development plan or master plan, depending on what we're calling it at the time. So nothing substantive there, I don't think. I'm just updating some of the language here as well from family to unit as we've done in other sections of the regulations. And really that's about it, quite frankly. So not anything major. Any questions or concerns about these changes? Eric, is this section in primarily because it's required statutorily? I think I exclude. I believe it is. I will, I don't know if statute requires it, but I'm pretty sure there is some connection to statute as to why this language is in here. My kind of recollection was that we, I think it was state statute, but we wanted to make sure that we weren't, what's the right word? We were allowing any type of housing that meets certain standards. That's why the mobile homes and yeah, basically it's, it's in essence, it's saying that we can't, we can't limit the type of housing that's allowed in our residential districts or in our districts, I should say. I think what is there like five or ten mobile homes in the city, if that? I don't even think there's that many anymore. I know several, since I've been here, several of them have been replaced with either single or multi-unit dwellings, but there's, there's very few that I'm aware of anyway. The intent here is to be non-discriminatory, is what I'm gathering from it, because otherwise we can't, we've never had a mobile, well actually we did have a mobile home park at one time in Winooski, I believe. Where? I think it was where the, oh god, I'm blanking on the name of it. Do you know south of where Kenny's Quick Stop and where now Tiny Tie is now? There's like a, there's a multi-unit housing complex there. I think that was at one time a mobile home park, but otherwise I never can think of there being a mobile home park within the city. Yeah, the closest I recall is the one that was on the corner of Franklin and East, or West Spring that had like two or three mobile homes. Right, it was just two though, it wouldn't be considered a park. Anyhow, that's enough of that. All right. Okay, the next. Fences and walls. Fences and walls. Yeah, so here I'm adding in some language. For one, we, it's the title is, or the section title is Fences and Walls, but all the language in here was just related to fences. It didn't say anything about walls. So I added those references in, but I also wanted to add in this, this language under two here to basically get to the point of if you're building a wall that's intended to hold back earth and is be some, somehow have some level of structural capacity to it, that you're going to need a permit for that if it exceeds a certain height or depending on its location. The locational components are mostly just so that our public works department can review and make sure there's not going to be conflicts either with right away or operations. We do have some areas of the city where there are walls that are located in the right away or right adjacent to the sidewalks and we oftentimes have issues with plowing in the winter and just our general operations. So I wanted to make sure that if there was any wall that was adjacent to a public right away or adjacent to a sidewalk or public walkway that there would be a permit required or if it was going to be basically holding back earth. That way we'd get some sort of engineering documents with that as well to indicate that the structure of that wall will be sound to do what it's intended to do. Eric, so as I understand what you're saying, this is, it's like if any of these three criteria are met then you need a zoning permit, right? So I would add or after A and or after B just to make it because right now it could sort of be read, it's either one of the three or all three. I see. That's a good point. Oh, I was also going to, as I was rereading this under A here, the wall will exceed. I was going to change that to say the wall exceeds. Yeah, then under on the second part of that, that the to say the wall will be located instead of the wall is to be located. So just some grammatical changes as well in that. Any questions or concerns with this section? So basically, additionally, what this is saying is that fences, fences or walls, as long as they're not six feet tall, or well, they can't be six feet tall, unless they're adjacent to the gateway. But basically, they're exempt from zoning. So this is a way to then say that if you're meeting one of these conditions as outlined under number two, then you are going to have to get zoning for it. So it's kind of tweaking that a little bit as well. And this would be a permit that you would issue, like it would go to the DR. That's correct. Yeah, it would be administrative. Yeah. And like I said, most likely there would be review, there'd be a zoning permit issued. And then also we would have some review of public works just to just so that they are aware that and can provide comment if there are any issues with the public ways. And this is probably a dumb question. And it goes this sort of general extends beyond walls, but existing walls that don't comply with this, they just continue. They would unless they were unless they wanted to change or they needed to rebuild the wall or something like that, that then it would come in under zoning. Yep. Eric, I'm not sure how it's always interpreted, but a zoning permit, should it say issued by the zoning administrator as opposed to just to clarify, I don't know if it needs to be or not. I was just thinking based on Brennan's conversation, it doesn't need conditional use from DRB. So should it just state someplace that a zoning permit issued by the zoning administrator? I mean, I could add that in that it would be, yeah. I don't know if it's necessary. I just, when Brennan brought that up, I just popped it in my mind. Yeah, I mean, I don't think it could hurt. Okay. Just to clarify that it is still an administrative permit. Yep. Okay, anything else on that? All right. The next section is landscaping and screening. Really, I believe the only, no, there's two two minor changes here. One under the applicability, just adding in some additional language here. So really what this section is intended to do is provide landscaping and screening from a more intense use against a lesser intense use district. So that's where this table comes in. So if it's if a, and it's really against the residential districts, I think is how it's spelled out in here. But what I wanted to do is clarify that in areas where there's non residential zoning against one of these other districts that this section wouldn't apply as well. And really where this came up, this came up recently in the, we have some properties in the industrial district up on the north end of Weaver Street that are adjacent to the gateway zoning district. The, the gateway, there's a there's a small section at the top end of Weaver Street that's in the gateway zoning district, even though those properties are currently developed as residential uses. So I wanted to add in this additional language just to be clear that properties in those situations where there's where the while the use might be one thing, the zoning is something else and therefore it's going to be the zoning that dictates whether or not a buffer is needed. So really I was trying to clarify that a little bit more with this additional language under the applicability section. Eric, can you, I'm sorry, I just having trouble understanding that last phrase properties in non residential, I'm sorry, any residential use of three or fewer dwelling units on the same lot, why that's excluded? Well, so I can't speak to the first part that the, the three or what was less units. I wanted to clarify that it's on the same lot because that really, that's the distinction of our residential districts is that we do allow up to three units on a, on a lot depending on the district. So it was really more again to clarify that that so in the way that I was reading it before and I apologize, I'm not doing a very good job of explaining this. The way I was reading it before is that it was just any residential use of three or four, three or fewer units. And it wasn't specific to any one lot. So it could have been interpreted that, you know, you've got eight units on this block of land. So you need to buffer the whole thing, whereas it's not intended to be, okay, to be in that manner. I gotcha. So it's any residential use. So is that specific just to residential zones? Because if it's three residential units on a lot in a, let's say the gateway or a commercial zone that a bunch of residential zone that still doesn't need to be screened, is that what you're saying? Say that again. If there's, if you've got a lot with three residents, three residential units on it. Okay. In a commercial zone that a bunch of residential zone. You don't, it's excluded. You don't need to do the landscaping. Because isn't this saying uses in a commercial zone adjacent to a residential zone needs? Well, so that would be, in that case, yes, it still would. What this would be saying is that the, let's see, how do I explain this? If it's a commercial zoning district, it doesn't matter how many units are on the lot. The district is what's going to require the buffering against the lesser district. So what this is, I think what the intent here is to say that basically residential zoning doesn't need to buffer against residential zoning, which is why it talks about the lot or the unit count. So, so I, I'm interpreting that as saying, I've got a, I've got a six-plex in a residential zone surrounded by residential properties. I need the bar, I need the landscaping. Yeah. Yeah, I agree with Mike. It seems to me that in like the red line new language, right, it's like, it's the district that is governing what happens and not, not the use in that, but then this any residential use of three or fewer dwelling units, that to me just speaks to use and not irrespective of what district it's in. You know, it's, if it's being used three or fewer residential dwelling units, then this doesn't apply. Which infers that if it's more than three units, it does apply, right, right. Yeah, that's a good point. So, so I think the intent of this, of this language was so that residential districts would not need to buffer against other residential districts. So if that's what you all agree with as well, I think it may make more sense then to just write it that way to say that it'll apply to all zoning districts except residential districts. I think what it said originally was that everybody had to buffer that had more than three units had to buffer from the adjacent properties unless you're in the downtown core, right. Basically, yeah. So if we change the language then bigger developments, they were residential wouldn't have to buffer from other residential uses around them. So we might run into issues where you have a larger buildings going in with larger parking lots and lights and more traffic that does not need to be buffered from neighbors. Yeah, I like, I like, I think I like having the landscape requirement in there for more than a three unit residence no matter where it is. Yeah. Okay. It's just, it's just how to say it, I guess. So it's clear. Well, and I think maybe it's adding a sentence, maybe it's adding a sentence that says, you know, specifically any property with four or more units in any zone, this is applicable to, you know, must landscape or whatever. Which is, I think what it originally said. So, Eric, I'm trying to understand what came up that maybe want to change the language. Yeah. I agree with Abby and I think what Mike is saying that what it said may seem to make sense. Like you're not going to require buffering in the downtown core because it's just not, it's too dense, not realistic. And then you're not going to require it for basically small residential uses because it's not intense enough. But everything sort of in between those two things, we're going to require it. So that intuitively makes sense to me. So it may be that we need to, so maybe the change that needs to happen is actually with the table that's here and not necessarily with the language because the table is basically saying that the central business district, general commercial district and industrial district need to buffer against a less intense district, regardless of what it is. So if we're, if we want to make it so that properties that have four or more units regardless of zoning buffer against other properties, then I think we need to change the table as well because you could have, you could have three units in the central business district against a residential district. Or maybe it's, maybe it's just adding another one line table that says, you know, multifamily residential four plus units, zoning district all. Well, that's what I'm wondering if it's, if instead of adding language we're changing the language under the applicability section that it's another line in the table or an amendment to the table to add that additional buffering for those residential areas. I think that will clarify it. What I'm looking for in the zoning district is why is it limited to the, so we have the exception of the downtown core, but we have more districts in the downtown core central business district, general commercial, like we need to add gateway district, residential district, like are there any other districts that would need to be added to the table? So the gateway already has buffering built into it with the neighborhood manners. Okay. Either the 20 foot or the 50 foot. So that's already incorporated in that district. So I don't think we need to add that and really actually know the other, well, we have the public district, which is parks and other areas of that nature, but otherwise it's, we've got our three residential and then these three non-residential. Okay. So the existing language said that any residential use of three or basically four or more units would have had to have a buffer, but there was no specification as to what that buffer was. Correct. That was the problem. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. So I think maybe then it's, yeah, an update to the table rather than to the applicability section. So okay. Yep, that makes sense. I will make the note of that and make that change. Okay. So the next, the only other item in this section was at the end, just to clarify that it's the standards and specifications as identified by the Department of Public Works. Because I think the language that was in here previously, the Public Works Standards specifications was a document that was being developed that doesn't exist or that was never finished. So this kind of gives a little bit more leniency, I think, in how that's interpreted and that can change over time based on best practices by public works. And that way we don't have to update this language every time. Okay. The next section for eight, I'm not proposing any changes in that section under natural resources and open spaces. So we can cruise right through it unless you all want to talk about any of it and propose changes. I was not proposing anything. The next section is under non-conforming lot structures right of ways, right of way or drive and uses and really pertaining to the development of pre-existing non-conforming lots. And we have a lot of these, quite frankly, just because of the dimensional standards that we currently have in place. But there is some connection to statute with what was previously here. Really, what statute specifically included, and actually this last item, item four here, I believe, was previously included. So I'm not sure why it's showing up as additional text with the strikeout. But anyway, statute has had or has limitations on development of pre-existing non-conforming lots. But a municipality can be, I think in this case, less restrictive. So statute basically said you have to have at least an eighth of an acre. You have to have at least 40 feet of width and 40 feet of depth. And the property cannot be in common affiliated ownership with an adjacent property at the time of an act of statute. So we do have a couple of situations in the city where these conditions exist. And we've actually have a few properties where they are either just over an eighth of an acre or right around there. And actually one is there's one that's a little larger than that that's being developed right now with a single unit dwelling up off of Shepherd Street. So what I wanted to do is clarify that because, and I think a lot of this was being done more because from a statutory perspective for public health, because these lots were very hard to develop and to put a well in a septic system on it was also would be challenging, which is why there's language or there was language in statute, I think that talked about having access or having some sort of water wastewater capacity. So in Winooski, everything is on water and wastewater. We've got public water and wastewater throughout the city. So I think I don't think we should be limiting these preexisting lots. If there are a lot of record, I think, and as long as you can meet the dimensional standards as far as setbacks, lot coverage, et cetera, I think they should be developed if you have road frontage already existing. So really what I was trying to do here is clarify that as long as it's a lot of record and you have direct access to a public street and you've got public water and sewer in front of the property, have at it develop a way within the existing within the existing dimensional standards and uses that are allowed in the district where the property is located. So, Eric, these are lots that so they're undeveloped, but they're non conforming because they're too like small, for example. Correct. Correct. In our, in all of our, let's see, in our in our zoning districts, we have a width, a depth, and a square footage. And there's a large majority of the existing lots in the city right now that are developed that don't meet those minimum standards for one of the three, at least one of the three, I should say. So yeah, so this would be for lots that currently exist that are undeveloped that for whatever reason are are still out there as lots of record. And so this would say, okay, you lot, like a lot of lots in the city, don't actually meet all the the sort of dimensional requirements of the zoning district. Yep. But you can go ahead and build subject to all the other requirements. So setbacks, lock coverage, height, all that stuff. All that would still apply. So you might not be able to get a very large structure on the property, but you would still be able to develop it as long as it's an existing lot of record. And in the cases where that's come up in the past, there's been extensive research to show that that lot of record that that is a lot, one, it is a lot of record, and two, it was never somehow combined with an adjacent property through the deed. So there needs to be a clear chain of title on these properties for it to be considered an existing lot of record. So really, then the only requirement. Sorry, go ahead, Abby. I was just thinking that that need to be specified somewhere that there has to be a chain of record over a certain time period. I mean, we could we could add that in that it needs to have clear title or something to that effect. Something to the effect of somebody coming in and like, you know, subdividing. I don't know. It's just what you said sounded really good, like if it if it's been like this for a long time and people are trying to build on it versus essentially something that simplifies. Can you just speak a little bit more to the examples of this that you know of? I'm just interested to know I'm not in disagreement at all. Sure. Yeah. So like I mentioned, there's a lot off of off of Shepherd Street that was the it was actually a it was part of not part of it was it's adjacent to a lot off of Audet up on that northern end where I think it's Audet where it kind of just dead ends. Yeah, so there's a lot up there that's being constructed on right now. It's under construction currently with a with a dwelling. And another instance where this happened is over on Hood Street, right where it meets into I think we're Hood and Manso Connect. Right there, there's a there's a property kind of in that bend where it's actually I think it's two at least two lots that are there. And the one lot is actually it's only like 5000 square feet. And they were looking to develop it. And that actually went that went through the DRB for I forget why, but it went through the DRB and then that ended up getting appealed. And so the applicant withdrew their with through the request for that. But there are I mean, there's not many of them, but we do have there are lots throughout the city that are like this. The interesting part of it is for for taxing purposes. If somebody owns two adjacent lots, they get combined on the tax maps. So the only one bill goes out instead of sending two bills for adjacent properties. So a lot of times if you just look at the maps, you won't necessarily identify some of these preexisting lots until you start researching when ownership happened, who owns it kind of the whole that whole chain of custody and title. So but there's I mean, like I said, there's not many, but there are there are several that are out there. Okay. Well, because like, for instance, I'm just wondering because like the Shepard Street parcel, like if that is being built on, then so like this doesn't necessarily affect it, it didn't, this didn't prohibit that from being developed. That's correct. It didn't. It didn't. I just wanted to what I wrote. The part about the Shepard Street one is it was over an eighth of an acre. It was I think it's like 6000 square feet. So an eighth of an acre is like 5400 square feet. So the Shepard Street lot was over an eighth of an acre. So it was just big enough that it wouldn't have fallen into this category. But there are some that are either at or just under an eighth of an acre. So like like the Hood Street property, it's at 5000 square feet. So I think still big enough that you could develop on it quite easily, but not did not meet this threshold. So I do need to confirm that we can make these changes because like I said, it is referenced in statute, but I'm pretty sure we can. I think we can be less restrictive than statute in this regard because it's because we are still meeting all the other standards that are generally outlined in connection with this requirement, mostly being water and wastewater. So Eric, as to number four, getting back to that. So if if I bought a piece of land, a house, and it had an extra lot with it, as long as my deed says parcel A, plume, parcel B, plume, if my deed says, you know, what describes one lot, it's one lot, is that correct? Yeah, that's correct. What about if it what about if the deed just says, I suppose it's the answer myself, but if it says, you know, lots two and three of the Manso subdivision, then I go back to the plat from 1900, and it shows two lots. And so they're preexisting even though they've been together for 100 years. As long as there's a clear chain that they've never been combined, then yes. When you say combined, developed as one. Or just for whatever reason, somebody said, I want to combine these two lots and just make it one large lot. So I want to remove that boundary between the two and just create one large lot. There's no formal record that there's been an effort to combine the lots. Right. So if I bought a double lot like that, and it said, describe both lots separately or whatever, and I have a house on one and a garage on the other, I can rip the garage and say I want to develop a house on the second lot. I think you could. Yeah. Okay. All right. Yeah. Again, as long as you can show that there's that there is clear, clear title that that is an existing lot that's never been combined with another lot. Yeah. Or are you talking you're tight. I remember now the project you're talking about. So one of that weird like Elbow. Okay. Yeah. That came before us, I remember. But there are, I mean, there are some lots in town. I think next to you, Joe, isn't there a double lot on Union Street? Probably. Yeah. I sorely pity anyone who tries to develop that it floods horribly in that spot. So that's something to consider too. We don't often think geography, but yeah, but you know, as we as we look at the levers that we have available to us to try to encourage more housing in the city, I think this is one where we can allow these pre existing lots that are small to be developed if they're if they're able to to be. Okay. What was the intention of a number four and why are you recommending to remove all of that? So I think that was again, I think this goes back to the to the notion of of having water wastewater capacity so that if you had two lots that were in common ownership that were adjacent to one another, if one of the lots was less than an eighth of an acre or did not have at least 40 feet of width and depth, it was basically deemed to be part of the other lot. And I think again that was so that there wouldn't be the ability to develop it because it couldn't get water and wastewater on site. So I think removing number four would allow those lots that wouldn't be that wouldn't meet that eighth of an acre threshold to be developed. Because number two is the eighth acre and number three is the 40 feet. So those are already addressed in there. Four is really having to do with common ownership. Right. Right. So again, I think it's it's the notion that if I think the original intent was that if you owned two small lots, the likelihood of you getting water and wastewater for both of those on site was low just because of all the the area you needed. So the state was basically saying those lots are combined for all intents and purposes. They've they in essence it was a forced merger of those lots whether you whether you ever did anything with it or not. The state was basically saying these are now one lot. So what eliminating number four would do would allow those lots in common ownership. If they're if they meet the other criteria here have public road frontage and access to water and wastewater, they could be developed. It would allow that uncoupling. Eric, are you going to add to number one something like and clear chain of title? Yes, scripture or something. Yep. Yep. Based on Abby's comment. Yep. Oh, sorry, go ahead, Brendan. I guess then Eric, the am I right that the effect and I'm not opposed to I just want to make sure I understand the effect of getting rid of number four would be like if one person owns say two small lots next to each other that are non they're both individually non conforming, right? But they otherwise have public frontage, wastewater, etc. Then this would allow you to basically build a small a small dwelling on each of those little lots subject to all the other zoning requirements without basically forcing the two lots to be combined together because they have common ownership. Correct. Yes. Yeah. And you and you could sell that second law. Right. And I mean, in a lot of cases, I'm guessing if there's if the situation is such that it's a there you've got two really small lots, you've probably built your house in such a way that it's that you're basically on that common property boundary or you won't be able to meet the setbacks or the lot coverage of one of those lots individually. So, you know, there's definitely going to be some some limitations to who and how this can be can be utilized, but it does. I mean, again, I think we do have some small lots in the city. Some are developed already. I mean, we've got a couple of lots that are I think 2700 square feet that have four units on right now. So it's not not uncommon to see small lots being developed, but it gives more opportunities or it gives us more. It gives the city another avenue to create more housing on existing lots that are out there. Yeah. Yeah. And I'm just using small is a shorthand as I understand it. There's what I think we've talked about this. There are a lot of lots in the city that like meet the total square footage requirement, but they're too narrow for for example. So they're like non conforming in that sense. Right. Exactly. This would still apply to that as well. Yep. Yep. And I think the key here is that the both the lots would need to have the public road frontage. So if you had a if you had two lots and they were one was behind the other, you wouldn't have the public road front. So that wouldn't apply in this case. They would have to both have road frontage. I keep I always keep thinking back to I know this is not the same situation, but I think it was Upper Franklin Street where there was a parcel was trying to be subdivided. They were trying to actually move an existing house on the parcel and they couldn't get that approved by the DRB because I think it was more the setbacks in that standard in that situation. But really the lot size was actually very uniform with what the neighborhood had. And this is maybe an instance of like neighborhood character. It was actually pretty average for what that name that neighborhood already had, but yet modern zoning laws made it so that that couldn't. Yeah. Right. So like I said, I do need to check to see that we can do this because again, it's a statutory component or it's in statute. So I just want to make sure that we're not running a foul of statute with this proposed change. But I wanted to get your input first before I, before I spend the time chasing that down. Yeah. The only thing I would want to dig into more to see if it was anywhere else is this number four because without number four, anybody with an eighth or 40 feet wide and deep would be able to develop and put them, I guess, like a, you know, well, and I'm not a sewage treatment system on site. I'm blanking on the name, but for some reason they added that additional barrier of common ownership. And I just wonder if it was to discourage like somebody from subdividing into two non-conforming lots and then taking advantage of this. So that's the only outstanding question I have. Yeah. I mean, I guess that that's a good question. The only thing I would say to that is if somebody wanted to subdivide, they would, they would have to meet our minimum lot standards that are written today. So they wouldn't be able to subdivide. They wouldn't be able to subdivide something that was only an eighth of an anchor or only had 40 feet of frontage. So that that wouldn't be permitted under our existing regulations. This would only apply to something that existed or exists currently. So they wouldn't be able to subdivide a property into something that was less than an eighth of an anchor you're saying currently. Correct. Yeah. Yeah. They would have to meet our minimum lot size, the minimum dimensions and square footage in order to subdivide. Yeah. Yeah. To subdivide, they'd have to become fully conforming. Right. Yeah. Yeah. Both and all the lots that are generated would need to be. So the lot, the new lot being proposed would need to meet the standards and also the the parent parcel would need to meet the minimum dimensional standards as well. From a statutory standpoint, this having a lot more bearing, like you were saying, the eighth of an acre and the 40 feet wide, like, for instance, in like Mallet's Bay, where like a lot of former camps that are now like on lots of people want to put year round houses that maybe don't have like town water, like that could have a huge impact whereas when you see it's everything's, you know, city water. So it's right. And just to recap, so we're saying there, if you have an existing parcel that's nonconforming in size, we're saying you can develop it as long as there's no development currently on it. And as long as you can meet the setback and ground cover requirements. Correct. Is that enough Yep. Absolutely. Eric, I think that the answer is yes, but I'll ask anyway, are all properties required to hook into municipal water and sewer? I think they are now. Yeah, I mean, I think there's maybe one property that we have in the city that's still on a private septic system. But any new development is required to hook into the public system. I just want to make sure because even though you've got access to public water and sewer, there's needs to be some place that it says you're required to hook onto it. You know what I'm saying? Yeah. And that's, I believe that's in the municipal code under the utility sections. Okay. This was really intended to say that you basically need to have water and wastewater at the road in front of the property so that you can hook directly in and not that it's just because the whole city has water and wastewater. So having access to it is one thing versus being on the street already is another. Yeah. Well, and that's my point. As long as some place you're required to hook into it, because if you're not required to it, having access doesn't mean anything. Well, right. Then you wouldn't be able to develop because you wouldn't be able to get a probably wouldn't be able to get a state permit for the onsite septic. Oh, um, just to, I don't know, throw it out there, but like, why would this just just apply to undeveloped lot? So what if like you had a non conforming, you know, a unique lot that already has a structure and say you wanted to like redevelop it within the footprint of the former structure? I think that's allowed anyway. Yeah, that'd be permitted anyway. Okay. Even if even if it was, if you raised it to the ground and rebuilt in a non conforming. That would, I mean, we would, there would be other sections of the regulations that would apply in that case. But in for this section, it's specifically undeveloped for existing non conforming lots. Okay. Okay. Any other questions or comments on this section? All right. Great. Let's see. Next is, oh, there's a lot of other language here. This is under some existing language of non conforming non residential uses. There's this reference to the design review specifications and for four, which I just wanted to add in the additional language for qualifying projects because we're looking at some changes to that section that may have an impact. So I just wanted to clarify that it won't necessarily apply to everything for the design review, but for the projects that qualify under that section as we've talked previously, the design review would apply. Okay. Next is outdoor lighting. So here, I think the only thing, yeah, just this section on the applicability, it's really to clarify that this does not apply to the downtown core or to the gateway. And this already had that same, that similar language of three or fewer dwellings or three dwellings were less, I should say. But the, so the downtown core was already there. The gateway district has its own requirements for lighting. So I just wanted to reference that as well in this section, and then just adding in the three or fewer on the same lot. I don't know if we have the same issue here as we did under the landscaping with the three or fewer language. But really, it's the residential districts, I think is what it's intended to be talking about in this case. Why, why does it, and I was already there. Why do the lighting standards not apply in the downtown core? I believe there's lighting standards in that, in that, in those regulations already. In the same, same thing for the gateway as it's lighting. Yep. Yep. So, Eric, I'm wondering why we've got the exception of, of the three residential units. If, if we're applying this to all zoning districts that covers all residential zones, I'm thinking that that last sentence, just exclude the downtown core and the gateway district. And just leave that second part off. Yeah. I think it's so that you, if you just have a few homes in your property, you don't have to do a big lighting scheme on it. Yeah. It feels like the intent is like it's too, it's seen as too burdensome for just like, you know, small scale residential units to have like an outdoor lighting scheme. I'm just sort of assuming that. That makes sense. Well, do we just want to exempt it from the residential districts then from the RARV and RC or? Well, but now that we've changed that, that was going to be my, that was going to be my next point to that. So yeah, I'm glad you caught that, Joe. Does have bearing though. Right. Yeah. This, I think this is actually sort of a larger issue. I know it came up in the, the buffering, I think it was too, but this idea of is it, is it the use when, when we're talking about residential, is it the use or is it the district that we care about? I think we need to sort of figure that out. It just seems weird because we're kind of the, the, the, the regulations as a whole seem to sort of talk in terms of districts and then residential, but then there's, there's seeming exceptions regardless of district for small scale residential. And that feels a little problematic. I guess, I don't know, because I feel like there's, there's, there are a lot of, there are a lot of nonconforming uses, right? There are a lot of like times where something might be in a certain district, but it doesn't, it's not necessarily like it might be larger scale in that. And so does it apply to some residential uses and the residential districts and not, and not others. So I think what I would maybe suggest is to Mike's point is that we just delete this whole section after gateway zoning districts, but leave in streetlights. So as I look through the lighting standards, most of what's in here are more intense type of lighting scenarios and probably for 90% of the residential uses, you know, the single unit to unit are not going to have these type of lighting scenarios included on the, on the buildings or on the properties. But I think at the same time, having said that, I think if they did, or if they were contemplating it, we would want to make sure that they were applying to these standards. So I'm almost wondering if we just eliminate the whole section about the residential, but leave in the streetlights, obviously, so that since that's in a public works realm. Comment reading number, number five, where it says next to your lighting plan shall be submitted and it shall document a score of zero, but candles at the property lines. Are you, that seems like something that you wouldn't ask like a homeowner? Yeah, I wouldn't, I wouldn't for sure. However, if it was a, if there was a project, for example, in the residential, as Joe mentioned, you know, changing the plan unit development standards for affordability and bedroom count, you know, we do require a lighting plan with those projects. Right, but those are more than three units on a property. Well, right, they are, or they could be. Right, so they would be captured in the residential uses of right or four or more, which is how it's written right now. Yeah, like if I, if my house, I want to add an outdoor light for some reason, do I need to submit a lighting plan? I wouldn't require that. Right, but that if, I mean, I think if we, if we get rid of the three or fewer units, then look read literally, that's what would seem to be the rule. Yeah, that's true. So I give it some, I think we need to give it some thought. But again, it's exempting three, three units or four units or more, right? No, opposite. So if you have four or more units, you have to do all of this stuff. If you have three or less, you are exempt. Oh, I'm sorry, three or five, I read it wrong. Okay. Yeah, I'm sorry, I read it wrong. So then maybe we keep the language as opposed to me. Okay, I'm fine with that. The only question is, is it, is it three or less or is it two or less, but three less is fine. And on the same lot, is a PUD considered one lot? That's a good question. It wouldn't necessarily have to be. It could be multiple lots that are, they wouldn't, you don't have to combine the lots to do a plan unit development as in you don't have to remove those lot boundaries. You don't have to have to do a lot consolidation. You can develop it under, I mean, they have to be adjacent obviously, but you can develop it without consolidating the lots. So that's a good point. If you don't do that, and maybe I'm wrong, if you, if you don't consolidate them, doesn't it become a lot trickier to like meet the zoning requirements for each individual lot that, because then you'd have to like meet, am I wrong? You'd have to meet lot coverage for each individual lot and that sort of thing. So in, with a plan unit development, it's, it's based off of the overall area. So basically those, those boundaries for, for all intents and purposes don't exist. You, you would have to follow the, the, the coverages for the base zoning. So, but the setbacks wouldn't apply for those interior lot boundaries. And some of those components would not be applicable. So the lots sort of exist in name only at that point, right? Correct, yeah. It's really one-wide. Brenda, do you own the land under your unit? We own the footprint of the house, but that's, that's it. Yeah. So, so essentially you own, you own the land under your building. Yeah. I believe that's right. Yeah. So I've seen these projects where they identify, I mean, on a site plan, on a site plan, they sketch out each footprint and it's unit one or two or whatever it is. I would think that would qualify as a block. Well, there's a, like a legal, you know, definition of lot, which is what we would use in this case. So maybe there's a different way to word that, Eric, to capture sort of larger developments that might be. Right. Well, we could just say we could exempt residential projects on of three or fewer dwellings and just leave it at that. Or how about on the same lot and or same building? And the fact that they didn't have that in there before, did that just leave it open to interpretation, Eric? Like you would decide. I think it did. I mean, that was my intent of putting it in was to kind of, to clarify what we were looking at. But it may, it may actually be making it more complicated. Yeah. So maybe if you take out on the same lot. Yeah. It's a really pretty sunset out there. Anybody can see it. So I can't hear you, Abby. I said it's a really pretty sunset out there. The sky is like bright orange if anybody has a view of the outside. There was a helicopter just going over my office. So, okay. I can, I can make those changes. That should be fairly easy to do. Okay. I think that's the only other part under section 410. So the last section 411 is on outdoor storage. Again, exempting the downtown core and Gateway because they have their own standards for outdoor storage. Again, here, this issue of the same lot. So maybe removing that, that language here as well. I guess I'm just thinking about it. So any residential use of three or fewer units. So like take, take my house, for example, I'm in a PUD with nine houses. Is each, is each individual house considered like its own residential use for purposes of this? So I think for, I think what I'm also looking at or thinking about changing here is that instead of saying any residential use of three or, or fewer units to say any residential project with three or fewer units. So that we're looking at it as a, as a project base rather than a use base. So that it would capture things like, like your development, Brendan, or another PUD that has say four units in it, they would be subject to these standards, regardless of the number of total lots that they're using or combining. And so I guess part of what's captured there too, is that it really, it really only applies to like new projects, I guess, right? Yep, yeah. Or, or, or applications to, to, to make alterations that would be significant enough to, to trigger these, these standards. Um, so there's this addition, and then under number three, this is the only other change, really more just to clarify what we'd be looking at for screening, basically to, to have the, these, these, these areas, these refuse recycling areas basically completely screened off with a, it was something that's significant or significant enough that it's, it's really going to, to have the effect of the screening in place. Just, just for my own clarification, Eric, the, at the end there that provides sufficient year-round coverage, that's to ensure that people just don't use just dense vegetation. Right. Year-round, right? Yep, absolutely. And I actually, I was thinking about eliminating sufficient there. So just to say, to provide around coverage. Yeah. Thank you. Yep, absolutely. And, and should we say, I, I see the original language is four sides. Should we say that in, in this language as well too? Screening shall be a minimum of six feet tall. We could. Or, you know, four-sided and provides sufficient year-round coverage. Yeah, I can, I can add that in. Thanks. Okay. Any other thoughts or comments on this? Okay. And that is the last part, because the next, as you can see, the next section is parking, and that's going to be a, I think a big discussion. So didn't want to get into that tonight. I realized we're, we're running short on time here. So what I wanted to do just real quick is, if possible, real quick, I should say, is just kind of give you all an overview of the discussion I had with, with the state regarding Section 4-4 on the design standards. So I'll just scroll back to that section here. So, and I think this is more just, more of a question for you all to maybe help give me some direction on, on what this section might take, or how this section might take shape going forward. So in my discussion with the state, basically what they said is their recommendations are that there shouldn't be any reference to state or national register in any of our local regulations. Part of the reason for that is they, one, there's, there's really no, there's no regulatory oversight by having something listed in the state or national register that it's really simply just a designation. That's really all it does. The other thing that they said was they, they don't like to see that language listed in local regulations because they're concerned it will discourage people from seeking nominations for the state or national register, or that people will start to proactively delist their properties from the state or national register. So, based on their guidance, I've taken out the references to state and national register properties in this section. So it's basically been trimmed back to just local historic register or local historic district. You know, right now we don't, we don't have those currently. Currently, and in order to develop a register, there is a process that generally needs to be followed or that there is a process to follow, it involves outreach to the property owners to, you know, there's public meetings and etc. There's a lot of work that goes into it. I guess it's probably the easiest way to sum that up. So what I'm, what I'm trying to figure out is the best way to have some process in place. And it may not even be that it's necessarily specific to historic architectural, cultural, or archaeological resources. It may apply to any resource, quite frankly, or certain areas that we're looking at and certain activities. And I think based on the conversations that we've had in the past, demolition is really the one big item that seems to be of the most concern. So what I've been thinking about is having this kind of design review section, which as best I can tell, is a carryover from an older version of the regulations when we had a separate zoning ordinance and a separate subdivision ordinance. There was a design review district and there were design review standards that went along with that. So I'm really looking for some input from you all on if it makes sense, because demolition seems to be the bigger concern here or the primary concern, if we should be thinking about this in the context of requiring some additional review for demolition, regardless of what it is, so that we're having some additional oversight on those properties. And before I do a lot of work in that regard, I wanted to obviously have the conversation with you guys. Again, granted, I realize the time and we probably can't get into a super in-depth conversation, but anyway, I just I wanted to put that out there to kind of get your initial thoughts on what this might look like in the absence of the city having the resources or the time to be able to develop a local register or local districts consistent with the statutory requirements that are needed to make those effective. So, Eric, would it be kind of a stopgap until we are able to get the historic stuff set up for the city? That's I think would be the intent, yeah, is that, you know, once a at such time that we were able to develop those local regulations for historic preservation, this would be something that could kind of be a placeholder without having to go through the formality. That's not the right word, the formal process of developing those local registers, establishing the ordinances and the local design review or whatever the review would be locally that are only applying to those designated properties, including the property owner's willingness to be included. So, it sounds like that process is like extended a year or two a year or something like that? I would say at least, yeah. So, yeah, I mean, personally, I'm in favor of doing whatever we can to get some protection in as soon as we can. So, if the demolition side of it would be effective, it makes sense to me. Would it be effective though? Because it still sounds like it's basically pretend we have no record of anything. It's all on you. That's what this reads as from what I'm hearing the interpretation of your remarks from the VDHP. I mean, that's basically what they said is that, you know, we want nothing to do with local regulations and we don't want you to have, and I'm very heavily paraphrasing here. So, it was basically, the notion was in order to have anything effective, it needs to be local. And so, in order to make it, in order for that to be the case, you know, they really need the state and the federal components to be removed. Now, if there's a project that's getting federal funds, it's going to have to go through section 106 review, which will require historic preservation review. There's also Act 250 that's going to cover historic preservation review. Granted, it's not necessarily any protection, but it will at least have that component of review for those projects. And I think that's really where the VDHP was saying that's how they prefer to get engaged is through those other processes that are set up and that they don't want to be the ones being looked to to do any type of local review because that's not really their role in any of this. So, Eric, if we put in something about demolition and said, for example, it needs to go through Development Review Board for approval, and they will look at, you know, the building as it relates to the resource for the city of Winooski's, I don't know if you use historic architecture, whatever you use, you know, put something in there about what they're looking at. Yeah. Is that what you're talking about? So when you use the state register listing as a basis for their decision, right? No, no. But why couldn't you say, you know, the DRB will, you know, in a public hearing, which it has to be, will consider, you know, the history of the building, its place in Winooski, its impact on the character of the city, you know, something in there that puts at least some kind of protections in? I mean, I think we could. My initial reaction is that, yes, we can do that locally. And it could be that we do that for any building in the city that is being proposed for demolition. Yeah. Regardless of where it is or what district or anything, you know, if you're looking to tear a building down, there needs to be an additional process that's followed in order to evaluate the property. I mean, I'm not exactly sure. I think it can happen. I think we can make that work. I'm not entirely sure what that looks like. But before I do any, before I start going down that road, I wanted to have the discussion with you all first. Again, because of what the state has basically told me, it's relying on there, on the state register or the national register is not something they're interested in, in any municipality doing. And they're, they're concerned that that is actually going to have the opposite effect of what those registers are really intended to do. Legally, though, and I'm not saying we need to, we should ignore what they're saying, but like, we currently have no, we have nothing to go on, right? Like what we're talking about basically would just be at DRB can sort of put its own view on what's historic and important to Winooski. And I'm not saying that there's no value in that. Certainly the DRB, I think, can differentiate the Winooski block from like, you know, regular old house, right? It's perfectly capable of doing that. Right. I guess, whatever they want, are we legally stopped from considering what is in fact on the register? So I don't think, no, I would say no, we're not legally stopped from that. I think what, where they want to be disassociated is us relying on them for any type of review and decision making. But I think we could still utilize the state register or the national register to determine what properties go through the process. It's just, it's not ideal from the state's perspective. I understand it's not ideal. That was my concern is that they're saying you can't use it at all. Like it's, this is, these are our documents. Like we use them for our review, but you need to do your own. I think we still can. I think we can use them. I think so. That is at least a base level, you know, that gives you somewhere to work with. And I think, in a way, that reaction that you got is acknowledging the shortcomings of what they have in place as well. Because which we've discussed why there was a need for us to have our own language here. Right. Yeah, agreed. Agreed. And I think, I think that to Eric's initial point, maybe we talk about any demolition because what was it in the 70s, the last time a survey was done of properties, historic properties. So, I mean, there may be properties that weren't considered historic then that maybe are now. Exactly. We were saying is that relying solely on those documents is risky. Yeah. But, but so maybe it's, it's, you know, we put in some things about that kind of follow those guidelines. Any building and for historic, if it's over 50 years old or more, it needs to have a certain more level of review. I don't know. I think there's something we can do. And I would encourage us to do something sooner than later because it's going to be another two or three years probably before we get something in place that that we'll be able to deal with this. And I think that we're all concerned about losing our historic structures. Is that, is that workable? Eric, is it structures over 50 years old? I mean, I think we can write it however we want, quite frankly, as long as it's a consistent process for what we're, what we're trying to do. I mean, and it could be that it's, you know, I hate to say it this way, but, you know, the, you know, we could also make it specific to different zoning districts or, you know, whatever. I think we have some flexibility if we wanted to look at this as a citywide question rather than just a specific property by property question, at least in the short term. Okay. And I am, I'm trying to be mindful as well is that if it's something that is in fact hampering to development where it doesn't need to be. Well, exactly. And that's, that's, that's what I'm thinking about as well is I don't want to make this an onerous process so that people are just like, nope, not going to Wanooski because we can't touch any buildings without all these additional approvals or additional, you know, additional meetings and things that are just going to add to the process. So I want to make sure that we're not having the opposite effect of that nothing's happening anymore. So I think we all appreciate that balance. I think what I envision, ideally what we would have is a very rigorous process for a relatively small number of properties that are like true, like the like properties that really are important, we need to be really careful about protecting them, but we don't want to be so inclusive that it's too onerous that it like hampers development. I would absolutely second what Brendan just said. Yeah, and it could be that we do, you know, kind of a tiered approach where a building that's say 50 years old or at least 50 years old has some level of documentation that needs to be included. If the building is 100 years old, then it goes through an additional layer of review and documentation or screening. So I mean, there's different ways we can do this, I think. So that we're... I would say let's... I would encourage you to start down that road, Eric. Is everyone okay with that? Yeah, I'm fine with it. I mean, I think it will take time, but yeah, I think there's no time like the present. So I would say have have at it, Eric. Okay, sounds good. I also just wanted to go back to Michael Arnold's quest or his comments in the Q&A just to make sure there's nothing here specific that we need to be concerned about. And add those to our minutes too. Yes. It's along the lines of the email that we got as well. Okay. I'll make sure I can... I'm pretty sure I can download this, but I will copy it out just in case. Okay, then I will... I'll start drafting some language that will head us in that direction. Great. Thanks, Eric. Yep, absolutely. I'm going to stop sharing my screen at this point too. And thanks everyone for the discussion that we had tonight. It was really good. City updates. Mayor, do you have anything? You've been quiet tonight except for the one comment. I use the chat ones too, Mike. Oh, that's what I mean. I meant to chat. I'm sorry. No, I mean, I'm aligned with the conversation you guys were just having, but one big update that Monday City Council adopted the priority housing incentive languages that you all pushed forward. So we heard them. We had one public hearing, low turnout, I think because there was such high turnout when we were going through this and planning commission. So that's one big thing. It's exciting. If you didn't see the press release already, we were awarded the federal raise grants for the bridge project, which is also very exciting, but a little bit challenging because we are also trying to get that grant for Main Street and we are still working on Main Street. So we have a lot on our plates in the coming years. What does the timeline look like for that? Is there any... It's not even established. None of us, I don't think, expected to actually get that grant this year. So the design is already done though. We did the CCRP help us with a scoping study. So would the new bridge be built next to the existing one? So that's what they talked about previously is building it and then floating it in. What I heard is building it next to the existing bridge, taking the old bridge out and sliding the new one in place. That's what's been discussed, but everything is very much not settled. Having that bridge closed is unimaginable. Right. Now that I'm actually seeing the old bridge being fixed, it's probably going to be here for a little while longer. I know. It is crumbling into the roadway. I just went over it today. It's still chunks. It's from what, 1928? Well, the new build will have dedicated bike and pedestrian, which is desperately needed and the lanes are too narrow, right? So it will be good. I will just, in defense for a 1928 bridge, it served us very well, like to have two sidewalks and four lanes for the 20s. That was visionary for them at the time. I wish that we had taken better care of it through the years. Actually, the state within the last five years ranked it as I think average condition or whatever. Yeah. There's no structural problems with it, even though when the truck goes over, it bounces, but that's the way it was built. Yeah. Just terrifying to cross by bike or foot. So very excited. Eric, I think I saw, I don't know if it was in the digger or the free press or something. There was some story where you were interviewed about the new housing incentives. Yeah. There was an article in the free press and actually there was a, I, yes, I did an interview with the free press for an article that came out earlier this week. I think maybe Monday it came out. And then Monday afternoon, I did an interview with WCAX on the amendments as well. So it has gotten, I think, some good press coverage, quite frankly. I will comment. I thought the free press article opened in an odd way, just saying that beyond the roundabout, single family houses reign supreme. Right. Yeah, it's not true at all. It's not. It's certainly different from the circle, but not. Sorry, I caught what you just said. It's not fresh for you. All of a sudden, yeah, that was neither piece of media was exactly right, but they were both... Anyway, I appreciated you speaking well and explaining it way better than we could. So thank you. I appreciate that. Christine, anything else? Traffic calming manual is underway. We saw that at Monday as well, and we'll have that, I think we'll approve it at the next meeting. So it's like guidance when someone says my street is unsafe. We will have a procedure to follow to say what treatments could be put in place. And we have a commission head or planning meeting on Monday? On Monday, Mike is joining City Council, Council Liaison, Commission Liaisons, and Council Chairs. Maybe. Maybe. You got to be there, Mike. If you can't, you have to have Abby to come. What if I forget? You'll be there. So we'll be doing a group planning meeting for commission work plans to see where there is potential collaboration or alignment trying to get away from how we've kind of worked in silos for so long. You're taking away my silo? Good Lord. Eric? I have no specific updates for you all today. No city updates. I will say, however, going back to the public comment, if you all want to know more about that situation that Suzanne was talking about, I can give you more background on that. There is more to the story, I would say. My thought was, look, it's in the environmental division. I'm perfectly, they can look at it. That was my, I'm not trying to, that's where it is. Would there have been a difference if it was an ADU for the property that she was residing in? Would that have changed the circumstances there? If she lived on the property and there was only a single unit on the property, it would have been a, it would have been a permitted use rather than a conditional use. Yes. Right. So it's that, how many, how many units are on the property? I believe there's only one on the property currently, but it's a very small lot. Yeah. Anyway, I, you know, the records before the environmental division and they can, you know, that's for them at this point. Yeah. And, and we don't deal with specific properties anyway, so. Right. I'm just curious and understanding because I think she's trying to bring forth a situation to our attention of how this could have effect on things actually playing out in the city. And so I'm just kind of understanding of that. Yeah. And I do think she makes valid points about having some additional standards and kind of how we're evaluating some of these general criteria that are outlined in our regulations, most of which are coming from statute. So that I is a valid point and I have started looking at some of those sections of our regulations, but there were also some specific site, site concerns that were identified with the DRB when that was evaluated. So, but anyway. Yeah. Yeah. And I'm surprised Christine didn't make a comment about the election even though it's got nothing to do with us. Good turnout. That's all I know, Mike. And the food was good. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Other business, any other business? The only thing I would mention is our next meeting is September 8th. We did agree to only do one meeting in August. So September 8th will be our next meeting. I don't know if we want to go back to two meetings at that point or wait till the 8th to make a determination. But if we did, then the meeting after that would be September 22nd. So And I'll be out of town that 22nd. It's a good thing we have a vice chair. So anyway, we can talk more about that. We can talk more about that on the 8th about it, whether or not we want to have a second meeting or go back to two meetings a month or just stick with one at that meeting. But anyway, next meeting is on the 8th. I will not be at that meeting. Yeah, I will miss you guys. The other thing, oh, one other thing I wanted to bring up, I did get an email the other day from a resident who was asking why we are only doing remote meetings and was wondering if we're planning to go back to in-person or at least hybrid. So that's, I know that's something we've talked about as well. So something we should maybe discuss again. We'll talk about that on the 8th. Yep. Okay. Okay, I won't be here on the 8th either. I'm going to be in vacation in Portugal. You can always remote in, Brendan. Midnight local time. Yeah. No, I will sit it out. I'm perfectly capable. Congratulations on being nominated for secretary. I mean, it's just, well, I can't be because I'm an altar. I know you can't be. You're lucky. You're lucky. But even if I was, it sounds like Eric would just be doing my job for me. Okay, I'm looking for a motion to adjourn. Abby. Joe. Joe. Sorry, just a pause. This is my first meeting interacting with Connor, I think. I don't know if. Oh, yeah, me too. Oh, that's right. You were in the last one. Yeah. So I just wanted to extend a welcome to you. And thank you. Glad to have you on board. Thank you, Connor. Oh, no, thank you. Appreciate that. By the way, Connor, that's Joe. Thank you. Yes. I don't move to adjourn. Okay. I think we've got a motion and a second. All in favor. Aye. Aye. Thanks, everybody. Thank you. Thank you all very much. Night. Have a great evening. Yeah. Here. Thanks, Eric.