 All right, we're gonna call all set. Sorry, we're gonna call meeting to order. It is 703 Colchester Planning Commission, June 21st. First item on the second item on the agenda is consideration reserved for changes to the agenda items and order. We will probably do one here of moving the zoning map up in presentation. And the next we have comments and questions from public not related to the agenda. All good there? Okay. Yeah, I know what you're here for. You're for the East Lakes Shore, right? Yes. So we're not yet. Oh, no, no. This is for not on the agenda. Oh, okay. We've got you. This is totally different. Yeah. I mean different. Yep, nope, you're good. Okay, so now we're going to our presentation from Kathy for the public feedback received at April visioning sessions for the East Lakes Shore Drive rezoning. East. Yeah. And he is interning with our office this summer. I synthesized some of the information we received from that meeting. So right when we wasn't here at that April 3rd, we had a meeting. When we did a video in front of our survey, we had a bunch of folks around to the room and a bunch of sticky notes and they asked people to provide some feedback on anything they felt when they looked at the various images. And I was even a poll tester. They were from other parts, but they sort of represented what could or couldn't, maybe possibly already does exist along the East Lakes Shore Drive. So we ended up at the end of that with, with lots of sticky notes on them. So Jake, in a much better way than I ever could have, used his fine, young, technological skills and put together a brief presentation. So, Jane, come over here, can't you? Oh, on the mic. Do you want a driver? Do you want me to flip? I want to. So hopefully this represents what you guys put on those notes and it's a lot of the same images too. So if you haven't seen them before, you can see them now. Yeah. So I took all of the comments and I, if anyone is interested in seeing what the actual comments were, there is a document of all of the comments, but I kind of condensed the information to make it more digestible. So, and so I, there were a couple of major topics that people put on the sticky notes for just about every image. One of those was parking and traffic. So for images like this, people were concerned about maybe cars backing on to East Lakeshore, maybe increased traffic on East Lakeshore. There was also concerns if images didn't show any parking. Some comments were concerned about where people gonna park, things like that. And there were a few comments about walkability and biking, mostly a concern about safety. Height was a big one. So the image on the far left was one that people, was a two story that people felt was okay. Whereas the ones on the far right, people felt were much too tall and unsightly for East Lakeshore. The one in the middle is interesting because the one on the right and the one in the middle are sort of similar in height. But it's really the narrowness that I think people disliked with the images. And of course that with the parcel sizes on East Lakeshore, narrowness would come into it. So a couple of the images were obviously commercial buildings. And this was pretty divisive. There were some comments where people were saying they love a little mom and pop ice cream shop to meet up with members of the community, things like that. But there were a lot of concerns about increased traffic. Would people be crossing the street to get there? Would people be biking? Is that safe? And there were also a few comments of people expressing that they didn't want any more commercial in general. So in terms of aesthetics, people tended to like the pictures where there was a kind of a camper cottage style, low profiles that don't block views of the lake, you know, just kind of a quaint, cozy vibe. And the aesthetics that people absolutely did not like were really anything that would block Lake View, like tall fences, tall buildings. The tall buildings that were most disliked were the narrow, skinny buildings. And in some of the more modern buildings, there were concerns about not fitting with the character of East Lakeshore. And also just very large, kind of grand, almost McMansion-y type styles. It's intrigued by the comments about the fencing because I really, I didn't know what to expect and how people would sort of feel about this. So it was really informative. I think you looked at that building in the middle, I kind of knew how people would feel without having to put it up there, but I thought the fencing was really informative. So here's just a breakdown of the kind of different categories. So that was the only building that was universally liked. Everyone kind of enjoyed this building. No one really had anything bad to say about it. Yeah, and people, so these ones had a few negative comments, but mostly positive comments. So, you know, people like the low profile. You do me one favor. Can you go back to that picture, please? That one right there. I don't want Bob to see this picture, actually. That building right there is the most popular building that everybody liked, for the height of it, and the aesthetics of it, what we saw. So when you get us talking, you'll know what are happy places. All right, go ahead. Thank you. Did you guys like it, too? Mm-hmm, yeah, so these ones, the main concerns with these pictures were parking, you know, backing out onto East Lakes Shore from the one on the right. The one on the left, there were some concerns about lack of parking, but overall, people were pretty happy with the size and the aesthetic. These ones, people, these ones were a little bit less like than the previous. The narrowness was really one of the main things that people disliked, and also kind of the density. You know, you can see how close the neighbors are. But overall, people felt that these looked nice. The one on the left didn't get too many comments about height. So these ones were pretty divisive, and the ones people sort of disagreed on. So some people liked the style of this and thought it. Had a pleasant character to it, but the narrowness and the tallness of it was really not appreciated. So these ones, like I said previously, the commercial was pretty divisive. The aesthetics of these were also pretty divisive. Some people didn't like the ice cream look, some people did. And yeah, overall, some people want little spots where they can connect with the community, you know, hang out, but there are a lot of concerns about the practicality of that, the feasibility of that given everything else. This was the most liked image that was obviously commercial, but there were a lot of concerns about pedestrian safety, you know, if people are biking there, if there's enough parking, if it would cause more traffic, things like that. So just as a reminder, this is the same building, but the view is taken from two different angles because I thought they were different enough. And that's down Route 30 on like Bombazine for anyone who's trying to figure out if it looks familiar at all. So now we're getting into the ones that people really did not like as much as the others. So this had some positive comments about the look, but mostly people didn't like the character of it. It's too tall and narrow. And also there were some concerns about density or multiple families. Things like that. The one on the left, the main thing is the parking. I don't think people really had an issue with the aesthetic or the size, but I think the three cars and the idea of those potentially backing out onto the road, creating hazards, things like that, people kind of hesitated to accept. And then the one on the right, the fence was a big issue. Some people noted that there wasn't parking visible so people were kind of curious how that would work. Yeah, the main thing for that was the fence. And then, so there were a couple that received absolutely no positive feedback. So first among those is this grand one on the left. People said this feels like it would be an Airbnb, which is something that some expressed they were, was unwanted. And just in general, it felt very out of character for East Lakeside, yeah. And the one on the right, again, a very grand style, more concerns about the height and how the stories work, things like that. The coffee shop was apparently very out of character for the street. Concerns about traffic and increased commercial, what that would do to the area. And then the one on the right was the most universally disliked. There were a couple of sticky notes that just said in all caps, ugly. And again, the height and the narrowness was a major concern. I'd say for aesthetics, the narrowness and the height was the most common out of, you know, across all of the pictures. So no surprise there. Yes, then this board has, you know, people were asked to put sticky notes on the bottom for what they think potential new zone regulations should be. And then, I can't really read the top, you know. We've got to get all of that up a lot. Yeah. Yeah, I will do that on the next slide so that we can see where we are. Yeah, so you can see the Lakeshore One Zoning District has those, and the R2 Zoning District has those regulations. And so the suggestions that people had. Those are all current just for anyone who's looking. Yeah, so for the lakeside of East Lakeshore, three people said there should be a 20 foot maximum. Two people said that it should just keep current R2 regulations for footprint and height. And then there was one comment that said three story maximum, one story below the grade of the road. You guys can see that was okay though, right? And so now for the non-lakeside, two comments said that there should be a 40 foot maximum for residential 15 foot front yard setback. And then there was one comment that said it should only be residential use specifically. And then these were just some general comments that were left on the board. Three people said that there should be something along the lines of mandatory off-street parking or other comments just concerned about there being parking in general. There was a comment that said zoning should be done by stories rather than by height. Some people wanted aesthetic to be regulated, but then also people wanted aesthetic to not be regulated. So a little bit of division there, but I think that is the end of it, yeah. You did a much better job than I could have and I was here for that meeting, so. I am very appreciative. Anybody have any questions on this particular synthesis before we move into what we did with it? When you were talking, when you were talking about like a little bit of information like with the ice cream in places, like a bigger scoop, the cars were lying all around us. Is that the one you drive in? Is that the one you drive in? Yeah. And then you also, maybe you're gonna divide it up a little bit. So when it comes to the frames, the pictures, and stuff, I don't know, should we have little things like that in between? Yeah. Or do we leave it? I think we're gonna talk a little bit about it. I don't know if that's what we're talking about. Do you want me to jump right into five? Quick question. I'm sorry, I don't know who you are, I thought you would step up and hand it. Oh yeah, I feel it's Brydon from Eastlake Shard Drive. Okay, thank you. You're welcome. Well, let's appreciate it. Yes. Thank you. I appreciate it, Bob, because I'm also supposed to be taking minutes. I don't multitask with that many things that well. You do a great job, and I just. It's a little barn that everybody likes. Would that be a 20-pler for height? You don't? I'm going to, when we get into the dimensional stuff, come back to some of these, because I think it definitely feeds into some of the, you'll notice I haven't closed it completely, because. Okay, good. Not what's on my screen. The presentation will be available. I'm not full. I'm just waiting for my screen to go to network. Thank you. Back to the agenda. Okay, so there is a lot on here tonight, if anyone was looking at this agenda. So we talked a lot, you know, I think most people, many people are here to talk about East Lakeshore. When we do updates to our regulations, we do them in what we call supplements. And have you ever looked through the regulations? At the very back, it actually shows you what is included in every new supplement. So we are up to 43. What we currently use in our regulations now, and this goes back a long way. It's not all just us, is 43. This would be supplement 44. So it would include changes to, of course, the East Lakeshore area, the tables in the back. But there's also some proposed changes for quite a few other items throughout the regulations that have come up through just things that staff have found, stuff that the plan commissioners maybe talked about briefly, technical fixes, and suggestions from the development of View Board as they implement the regulations, where they have found text that's confusing or could be written better. So it looks like a very long list. Most of the substantive conversation for tonight is really into the East Lakeshore. I did try to put it up front. So if anybody wants to not listen to all the rest of it, you are free to leave if you'd like. Hi. I just have a question. Sure. For the record, I'm not a voter yet. Yeah, that's how you are. My name is Tom Vough. What's up? And I do a lot of those stuff as well. And I'm just curious to either the development of View Board or the planning commission, do you have a design review subcommittee? We do not in Coolchester. That's something that could be thought of by another con item from it. I know Manchester has a very shared design review. And how about signs? Do you have a sign log of the other sign log? Yeah, so the sign regulations in Coolchester are included within the development regulations. In some towns, there are standalone ordinance, but in Coolchester, they're part of the regulations. So that's how we've organized tonight. There is a proposed zoning map that, as Rich had mentioned, that was kind of listed at the bottom, but we'll bring it up to the top to talk about where those lines are drawn when we talk about any new districts. So I'm gonna give you just sort of a brief introduction. Most of you have probably had no cause to pull out a set of regulations and see what's in there. So when you look through the regulations, there's various chapters that are in there. We have mostly some of them having to do with land use and there's some standards that apply to all development that really is what's used when we do a site plan or a subdivision. And then some other performance standard stuff and then other pieces that might relate to other parts of regulations like wastewater and potable water and traffic and anything sort of engineering related. So that's largely how those are laid out. I've tried to list all of these, not pages, because pages would change every time you added an update, but at least a section where you can find these pieces that are in here. When I think historically, and I didn't quite flag this for the commission, when we do sets of updates and I think historically, they have been bolded and maybe italicized. I personally find those very hard to read and to pull out changes very quickly. So I hope you don't mind that I've made them read and underlined, which is standard in many other areas. I find them a little bit quicker to find. So as you are reading through the regulations, anything that is underlined is new text. Anything that is struck through with a red is deleted and anything that's green and struck through has been moved. So it still exists in the regulations, but has been moved to a different chapter. I thought I've had it up on here. So I am gonna jump around a little bit because I do wanna focus on proposed changes for East Lake Shore. What I do want to point out as I go through these is there are a few areas where I'm sort of making my best guess at what I've heard. There are a few areas where there are pieces that are tied to what exists in the other two Lake Shore districts. So West Lake Shore Drive in 2016 was rezoned. It had a conglomeration of quite a few different districts as I understand it. And the town created what we call LS1 and LS2. So, and they run the entirety of West Lake Shore and they actually scoot around a little bit as I found out, sort of talking to Phyllis a little bit more onto parts of East Lake Shore. Gonna pull up that map here. Point zero two down to the right of them. Yeah, so there's a few properties there that are here. So for historical context, everything in this dashed ready area here is Lake Shore one. Everything in this brown is Lake Shore two. It goes a lot further than you can see here, but this map was created for the new area on East Lake Shore Drive. So it does sort of, so here's Bayside Park, right in here. And here's where the East Lake Shore starts. So those other districts do incorporate a bit here. And Phyllis, what's the name of this road here? Church Hill Road. Church Hill Road, okay. So that's about where that ends there or two. So no surprise I think for anyone in all of the conversations we've had. If we are going to create a delineation here, we've talked about Lakeside versus Non-Lakeside as being very different. Calling them Lakeshore three, Lakeshore four, Lakeshore three is that Lakeside zone. That is the sort of brown sort of speckled area there along the lake. It does not extend across the road. I think technically it might include the road. The other side of the road was formerly R2. That's the area that you can see here in the blue. Everything there that's in blue is currently R2 and that same blue R2 had applied or currently applies to the rest of East Lake Shore before it turns onto Bay Road. And as you can see as you turn onto Bay Road that R2 still exists for these properties here. So these are properties that have frontage along East Lake Shore. Some of them as you can see do run a bit deeper. There's some big parcels in there. More above five acres than I would have thought through here. So we can return to that map of course, but this is a starting point as we talk about LS3, LS4. LS, if I have multiple screens in here I would leave them up for you. LS3, Lakeside, LS4, Non-Lakeside. Question on that. On the zoning of a property that goes on both sides of the road, how does that work? Oh, my property goes across. It does. Yes. And have you had a determination yet as to whether or not that's technically one parcel or two? As far as I know. As far as I know, it's one. As far as you would get two pieces of it. I'd only get one. One. So yeah. So just as a question, because I could see that coming up where there's different guidelines on each side where maybe you can make a subjective call. Can you run into that on LS1, LS2, did we? Because we did have a split zone going across and we made it one. That's the first one. But we crossed over to the other side with the zone? Where the dentist was, Dick Mazes, across the street and we had it, it was split. So we made it one. We extended LS1 to make that all one, but we didn't have any that crossed the road. That were one unit. Yeah, I wish I was more prepared to answer that question, but it's a very good question. That's a good question. It definitely is. I want to include that question in the minutes as well. Could you remind me of your name? Belinda. Belinda, okay. And I think I have your name on the mailing list so I could find your last name there. Thank you for that. Oh, and just, do you mind if I just, what's the address for you? 756. 756, okay. So I'll take a closer look at that and I do think that's important for us to figure out as we write this. Thank you. So before I move out of the map, any questions or comments there, we can always come back to it. Get me as I skip a bunch of red, we will return to what I promised. This is one way to get to a meeting. Yeah, this is great. Sorry. How far are you on this? Oh, okay. Okay. That's not showing my, so the first thing to think about when this was being written, so Lakeshore one and two already exist. They exist in chapter four, which is our general development districts. General development to Colchester means sort of mixed use and it varies among the sub districts how much mixing of use happens. But generally speaking, most of the sub districts within general development are mixed use. They allow some residential, some commercial, sometimes in the same building, sometimes on the same lot, sometimes just in the same zoning district. I've opted here to include Lakeshore three and four in the residential chapter, not in the general development chapter. So if you're looking at this and saying, why are LS one, two, three and four not in the same district? It's a recognition that Lakeshore one and two are mixed use districts. Lakeshore three and four, at least at this time, are not mixed use districts. So those are included in this residential chapter. Let's make them a little bit out of where you get three and four before you get to one and two, but I don't know that there's much we can do about that. The strike throughs here, these strike throughs exist throughout the entirety of the regulations. They are repetitive. So where we reference the municipal plan permitted uses, conditional uses and the dimensional requirements. We've historically listed those things in every sub-district. If you add it all up together, it takes up about eight extra pages. So I've struck them here, but they are included in one place at the beginning of the regulations. So if you do see a lot of ranked strikes here, it's not that it's not important. It's not that the municipal plan, that's the town plan doesn't apply. It just means that we've moved it to a more consolidated place. Not deleted, I promise. You have a question? All right. Shouldn't it have been green that you just moved it? It was for one. So one of them got moved, but there was like 18 references. So the rest it made red. We should have all of this. Yes. Yeah. We've already lost. It's good attention to detail. Yeah. And would you mind making the presentation just a little bit larger? Yes, sorry about that. That would be great. Thank you. We'd love for it. Yeah. Yes. Absolutely. Thank you. Now that I'm not having to scroll through as many, it's a little. Thank you. There you go. Oh, yeah. Thank you. Lakeshore three. So Lakeshore three, like other districts has a purpose. This purpose statement, some of the sub numbers are the same as you might see in Lakeshore one and two. When we talk about protection of the waterways, green infrastructure, but some of it is, and flood hazards, some of it is new, particularly for, in this instance, you can zoom in a little bit more if you'd like. You could also read it to you. Maintains the favorite historic cottage community character on the street facing and lake facing sides of these through lots. So that's new language that's very unique to Lakeshore three, this potential new district. I'm not going to go through each thing unless you guys want to slow me down and do it. Just because there's a lot. Lakeshore three is on the lakeside, Lakeshore four is on the opposite side. Yes. Okay. Want to say your name for us? Go ahead. Want to say your name for us? Ken Pusey, 756 East Lakeshore Drive. Thank you. So under item four, that looks like you're adding subjective regulation instead of sticking to the objective regulation. Yeah. And that's, That's very concerning because it's black and white. What does, is something to set back or not? Does something mean to building height or not? As soon as you get into aesthetics, someone likes it, someone doesn't. And I really, really don't think it's a good idea to start putting subjective language into the zoning. All right, it's under consideration. You're right. It's a discussion we're going to have. This is the beginning. Yeah. And I understand what you're saying. That's why it also says maintains. They've also done this before already in the Bay. This isn't new. It was done with the Bay project years ago with the same language. And again, it's not hardcore. It's significant. Yeah. It's done before or not? Right. So it's a flavor. You're right. Could you use your name for me, please? Esther Aldrin. Yep. Sure. Who gets to decide what is that cottage more important? And in reviewing what you had earlier, you know, you had pretty much split the signals for people who wanted us to be part of it and who didn't want us to be part of it. But yeah, I just think it is very subjective and I understand. I understand. That's what we're here for. Absolutely. That's actually why it's in there. Because the last meeting we had, it was a big discussion on what people are going to build and what it's going to look like. But how do you go from black and white to we'd like to maintain the flavor? You don't. You leave it open wild, wild west. And the DRV might agree with you on that, too. Because we have that discussion, whatever we do here ends up at the DRV when they make their decisions. It has a, we get into trouble a lot with setbacks because we'll use the word up to so many feet. And the question is, how much is good? 15 feet, 100 feet. And if we give you 15 feet, up to 50 feet, everybody wants 15 feet. So that gets, you're right, it gets complicated. The aesthetic part gets complicated. All right, we understand that. Rock with all kinds of hazards. Right. Subjective stuff. Right? Anybody else have a, go ahead. I just assumed it would be and put the correlate if it was subjective, you know, because I just feel lawyers would just be arguing what the word meant or what you meant by that. So just to be preventative. So what I'll just share with you is that purpose statements in a perfect world, you want your purpose statement to reflect the same purpose statement that's in your town plan where you have the same, where your land use area is the same as your district. And so you would take that and town plans are very subjective in that way. Purpose statements, and this is throughout the Colchester regulations, are intended to give motivation, I guess I should say. Description as to why the rest of the standards follow. Purpose statements are not used in a legal defense and they should not be used by a DRB. They're sort of an introductory chapter. If you're gonna call them anything. They're not a standard, more just a descriptor of what's to follow. If the language is not what you want it to be, I would absolutely tell you to remove it. I professionally feel comfortable in using purpose statements. Generally, that are more descriptive, but if this descriptor is not one that you like, I would absolutely encourage you to remove it. I feel like if you're comfortable with it, you've seen probably this a lot and they have experienced a lot, so I'm fine if you're comfortable. And just to be clear, I'm comfortable with the idea of it and the actual text of it is what I heard from the commission to date and what I heard from other folks. But if the actual descriptor, of cottage community is not what you wanted to say, I would tell you to remove it. I'm not so sure to remove it myself. I'm not against it. It's not, it is not black and white. And it's not, it's not in our regulations either. It is a suggestion at the beginning for the purpose, but we don't regulate it anymore. So that's, there's a big difference there. So if it was to go to the DRB, they really don't have a say in the aesthetics. Not unless you include that in your standards. Correct. Yeah. So it's a nice suggestion, which I think it gives you, if you're going to build it down in the Bay, it gives you an idea of what people would like to see, whether you choose the follower or not, it's different. We don't, we didn't put any legal status in here. This says you have to do this. What do you think? I'm not sure about the zoning changes and isn't this the language that's going into this? Hang on. We're providing a context for changing to the zoning language. I'm uncomfortable with item number four being there at all. Okay. Just to be very, very clear, I really don't like anything that's gonna end up, we're going to go to subjective zoning. It's just, everyone has a different opinion on whether something is nice and in character or not. And I don't want the governing body to get into that. I don't want that body to have that kind of power and even having that in there that someone builds that in later. I'd like to see that, item number four, eliminate. Okay. Good thing. I think we've gotten a lot of feedback from the community on what's been happening on these lecture drive events. Could you speak in the mic, please? I'm sorry. I think that's a response to people's comments that we have to do something on these lecture drive. We saw a lot of colleges go down and larger scale projects go up. And that's where we were kind of focused on we got to do something about lecture drive. There was too many comments about it. I think this statement basically says we want to keep what traditionally was there, a community of what was camps at one time. It's a little larger than that, but this statement is more of a purpose that this is going to be a community neighborhood. And the way it's stated maintains the favored history. Maybe favored is wrong, but maintains the historic cottage community, that character of the area. I think it's just a purpose. It's not telling you have to do this. It's a purpose. If we put in there that this building has to have a square box with a gable groove and two windows and a door on the front face, that's going a little too far. We're not doing that. I believe, I wasn't involved with LS1 and LS2, but believe in the reds. We do have some more descriptive guidance on what's acceptable in those zones. There are some design standards associated and we're not really designing standards. I didn't hear from you that you wanted to carry over. Right, now we did do that for the other side, specifically on the parking and the setbacks. I know you're going to get into it further, but there is another area that gets more into more definition of what meets this requirement. And that may be where more discussion needs to happen. I think this is being more of a purpose. That states the direction we want to keep Lakeshore Drive. And. Great, thank you. You think, Bob, Serita, whichever one? Well, I guess I'm a little unclear about, I really want to, what I heard from people and personal preference is to try to do our best to preserve the historic cottage community. To not have a six foot, 100 room hotel on East Lakeshore Drive. We've heard it from a lot of people. It isn't, we're not the ones that are deciding it. I mean, I thought that came out as the most blaring as that public hearing that we had that maintaining the character of that community was important to the people that came that night. You set up the whole exercise to have people judge stuff aesthetically. Right. If your goal is to avoid huge buildings, that can be done with objective criteria that is easily interpreted legally as opposed to subjective criteria that is not. And I'll caution you again, stay away from the subject. I guess I'll shut up about it because. Nope, that's all right. That's what we're here for. We know very, very strongly about that. So we will get into the regs, which gets more into the details, height, structure, that sort of thing. That will become more, we do have opinions on that. We are gonna restrict some wires. 10 feet, a hundred feet, we will be restricting it. If it's subjective, I'm okay with it. If it's subjective, I'm not okay with that. Yeah, and you don't like it because you're afraid that this opens the door. Do I understand that correctly? So we understand that we're flex here. This is a suggestion, but your fear is that this is number one, and then the next supplement we decide we're going to step into it. I'll tell you whether the history, the history of this town, I would be amazed. That's as close as we've ever gotten to anything, is a suggestion. It's happened before, like I said, the Mount Spade Initiative on the other side. It was discussed and the same idea was brought forth, but there's never been any regs on design review. Bob, what do you think? I agree, and obviously your opinion is important to us, and we take everything you're saying into consideration. We also look at a lot of things and talk to other people, and we take your advice and your interest at heart. Do you mind if I pause just a moment? I just want to get your last name on there right here. P-U-Z-E-Y. P-U-Z-E-Y? Correct. Ken? Yes. Thank you. Okay, so it's still up for discussion. This is still public. I guess just one last note I would add on that is if you remove four, you will want to remove every purpose statement. All of these are subjective. When you talk about promote greening, that's subjective. When you talk about considering challenges, that is subjective. That is not a blocking light standard. And I would, if you, again, if you decide to remove it because of subjectivity, I would encourage you to take a look at all of them and make that wholesale across the regulations. Can we see the first sentence? These are all listed underneath a statement. Yeah, okay. Should we zoom in? Is he okay? Yeah, I can see now. Okay. Tim, just curious, where is your home in Colchester and how many other properties do you own? I would like to know this kind of stuff. I'd always find it interesting. I live in 756 East Lakes short drive in Colchester and that's the only property in Colchester. Fair enough, just. Would you be in the LS one? I mean LS three or the four? Three lakeside? Both. Oh, you're in both? There's the crosses. Oh, you're the, okay, so you guys are getting here way too much. Okay, so yeah. Yeah, you'll have a lot of opportunities. It came of course. We're not planning to build them in LS three, so. Yeah. I'm curious, could you build on the other side? No. No. Straight down it. You don't want to. Yeah, yeah. I would, you know. Exactly. Right. Okay. All right. Okay. So I wanted to flag, I've talked to a couple of you guys about this independently. This language was carried over from LS one and two. I left it here as a discussion point. I want to make it clear that it is not because I am recommending keeping it, but I did want to keep it as a discussion point. So as you may know, your largest thing to offer. Yeah, I'm trying to just give it context so you can see what it's referencing to below it. LS one and LS two have these green infrastructure standards. I'm going to scroll down real quick so you can just take a look at them. Basically, there's this complicated model that the Regional Planning Commission and the League of Cities in town has where a bunch of, the engineer will put in a bunch of stuff, a basic homeowner really can't do it themselves. See them put this, tells you whether or not you've done this. We've used it for maybe two properties in the last five years that have developed using this. Going back up, this says that I don't know the history of why this was included in LS one and LS two along East like West Lakeshore. I have no idea. I tried to find it, I cannot. Maybe you guys have a better memory. So there is this standard that says, and I've got to highlight it here, a lot coverage may be increased over 40% in accordance with subsection C. If a project is deemed to comply with subsection 306C, that's the green infrastructure standards. Lot coverage, maximums, it says does, there's a typo in LS one and two, does not apply. So that says that if you meet these green infrastructure standards, there's no maximum to your law coverage. You could cover 100% with impervious services. That was an LS. Is that going to go on ours too? So I'm not recking just to, that was an LS two, right? So that would apply to you. Oh, right, I want to know the information. Yeah. So LS one, this is language from LS one and two. And two, they both are in there. I can't seem to understand what sort of the goal was, but I am flagging it for you as to whether or not you want to amend it, keep it, delete it all together. I think because I believe in AMDAW is better, but I believe it's because they really wanted some aggressive growth. Along, I think, sure. Yeah. You're going to have to think up, I think. I'm sorry, I believe it was because we wanted, at that time, aggressive growth in that section. They wanted to get the bay up and running again with more commercial, more opportunities, not so much for East Lakes to drive, different flavor. I agree, I think that's more for the commercial. Yeah. Than it was for residential. Yeah, absolutely. So, but that wasn't specific because you're just saying I think it was for the commercial. I'm pretty sure. I have to think. He wins. No, no, no, not on this one. This is a, this was... What? No, I'm just saying in general, it wasn't specific. You said we wanted growth and you said I think it was for the commercial. That's what, well, put it this way. I think you win because it was... Put it this way. Put it this way. It definitely is for growth. There's no doubt. If I give you 100% to grow on your property and you build it out, you've got growth. So, that's pretty black and white. But that's only in LS one and two. So, copying this over to East Lakes for Drive, we probably don't want this. It's an area. Right. You have more properties that, we're still talking about two different areas. That's why they divide it up so we can make sure that the rules don't go across the board. Exactly. Where we need a starting point. This is a good example of one that's probably not going to cross over. No, this is one that I highlighted saying I wasn't too sure why it was in LS three and fours. Correct. I thought it was going to be this side. Kathy, wouldn't the stormwater regulations I'm just curious, even when this was put in or now or early, when did the thing just can't be putting in? You couldn't build your lot of if it's an impervious service. So, a lot of the stormwater regulations kick in at a certain threshold of land disturbance. Most properties under 10,000 square feet of disturbance, quarter acre disturbance are not going to mean state stormwater permits. And I think what this was saying is that if you can treat all of that onsite using green or low impact technology, you could build out. And I can only guess that the gap between 40% and does not apply is because it was really hard to find the right number. Is it 70, 80, 90? And realistically, if you're doing green infrastructure, you're not hitting 100% because you're putting in something green, but it could go up to that in the current regulation. And I don't know if you'll ever want to revisit that in the future. It's so hard to use 100% of an area because where the boundary lines there supposed to be coming through right from there. It does neutral area. Yeah, I think historically people have it because we have capacity on wastewater. With a sewer line, the capacity may change. And that's what we're adding into this also. Yeah, I mean, I would keep it flagged even for LS one and two. It may have been a different discussion when you thought that sewer could really limit the coverages of those areas. But we can return to that at a future point for LS three and four for East Lakeshore. I guess I would tell you that I'm hearing from you you don't want it. Your options are to delete all of two. You could provide some incentive for the green infrastructure by saying it goes over 40, but you put a different cap on it. It really just depends on whether or not you want to incentivize that the green infrastructure, the stormwater treatment on site in any way. Does this include like a, if there's a property that you were told you have to stay within the footprint of what needs to exist, and I didn't know what would come in. So it's not, I mean, you can limit it from 100%, but we can somehow have to wait a little bit more. I mean, I guess the reason this is there is so that people could go outside of what previously existed. Yeah, I think that, so the green infrastructure standards aren't required, they're a bonus of sorts. So if you treat this stormwater stuff above and beyond using certain methods, you can increase your coverage on your lot. So Peter was way ahead of us. Who's that? You knew something was over there. So would that affect the properties that are on the Lakeshore side, that there's an old foundation there, right? You can still build on that foundation. Yeah. So would this allow them to then take up the whole space or they wouldn't be able to set back still? Sit there or come to that work? So that's a really good question because I think that this has come up a lot and is obviously going to continue to come up with a lot of pre-existing homes and foundations. So what those homes are grandfathered at, given vested rights, is for that footprint and for any approved coverage they may have. So if you've already had, or for more than 15 years, have had a parking area on that site, so you're sort of vested with those pieces. If you do rebuild your home and you do reuse that same footprint and you do reuse your parking area and you say, I also want this other parking area now because now I've got a bigger house and I need more cars to come. You're not vested with those rights and you would have to need everything in here. So it's really the footprint piece that is your vesting, right? Heights are not included in that and I know that's a conversation that's come up and is important to understand. Rebuilds are not vested with those heights that they have now. They would be subject to the new regulations. Yep. So I thought I saw up above a little bit about, if a property's been more than 10 years, so let's say a whole camp got torn down and it's been 11 years or longer, how long did it, does that mean they can't build that back up? That's correct. Okay, and how do you track when that expires? So it's a variety of ways. These are through tax records, through aerial photography. Technology is wonderful. You can go on Google Earth and go back year by year and see what existed there. It's not a perfect system, nothing is. I'm just curious. And it's not uncommon for the town to enter into agreements with people who are wanting to extend that 10 or have come up on it. There are several that exist in the area. So I think the town has historically worked very close with homeowners to replace where it makes sense. How did you, to the building down, get within the three or four years or something like that? It's 10 on a lake. Oh, it's 10 on a lake. Yeah, so that's the, Oh. Mentioned this here, it's in A. This is listed as new language, but it is language that exists in LS one and two and exists in some other areas where you talk about pre-existing non-conformities. So this language is in our regulations in quite a few places. In other areas where you might have camps as well, Good So Point or some other areas, Nicke Bay, pretty commonly applied around the lake. Okay. So direction on what you would like to do with number two? Number two is gonna go. Number one? Yeah. Number two? Well, the only thing that I can't be brought up is it would take away any incentive for the green infrastructure. Do we just take out the last sentence if that's anything? Yeah. Correct. So if you want to do the green infrastructure part you're gonna get a little more. But we take out just that part of the bottom. I would encourage you to give some idea of what that little more is from the number. Right. Up to a certain number. Right. Just as we talked about. So we are in the standard section now and you really want strong language. Yeah. Go ahead. I guess to me it would make a big difference in that extra coverage you're allowing in the law as to whether it's width that's gonna block view versus depth that's not gonna block view. There's a, I mean from my perspective there's a much larger impact to allowing something to grow wider than to let it grow deeper. You see the difference there? Yep. That would be a setback. So deeper, the good thing at least on the lake side is deeper almost never happens because of the shoreland protection overlay and the flood standards. And the same thing with going closer to the roads too as well. Yeah. Right. So. That's not the case on the non-lake shore side. True. It's too bad because the roads are pretty green. And when you get 30% of the, you want it to look green and well-streamed. You want to pack it with houses every day. I mean I don't know. How many properties and what space are we talking about? Can you show us on map that section as this would be that we're discussing at this moment? I think that this is in here again, not having been here when LS one and two are written. I imagine that the goal is to incentivize treating storm water. So the whole purpose behind that section is about treating that storm water which would probably not require storm water permit. So it's kind of above and beyond. How much you want to reward that is really up to you and it's an opportunity cost too, right? If it's competing goods. If you do, as Phyllis has mentioned, if you do improve the storm water quality on the site, maybe that comes at the cost of a different good in terms of how much more you're seeing on a small site. So there's a benefit but there's also potentially a cost. And I believe that was the objective at the time we were discussing this back in the day was to make sure that the storm water was taken care of and if we had to give up something, we could at least get the storm water taken care of better. If you left a little bit more green and be able to brush to the water, I mean green is going to go to brass, it's going to go through, it's going to be, you know, it's lush in the floors and it takes, you know, you leave a lot more of that. We're just saying natural buffer. Yeah, it's a natural buffer. You guys have to advertise for saying how here, the rain that runs out through the roof and you're kind of like, we've got a program, you can build these water storm or watershed things. If we leave a lot of the green, a lot of the api's like so dry, that's our natural, you don't want to take that right. We want to leave that. So what is our language we need to leave whatever we're saving even now? Let's do it. Right. This is when I fully put in a category of I have no professional recommendation other than to be clear. I do think I always, I'm always hesitant to do this because I don't want to end up thinking I'm picking on their property. No, no, no, no. We dropped by these all the time, we do. So, you know, I hope none of you live right here. I just picked a random one where I dropped my pen. You know, so looking at this one as an example, maybe, you know, they've got pavement already in the front here. I don't know how much of this on either side they might own. The trade off if you keep that is that maybe they build over the screen here but they're treating their stormwater that's not reaching the lake. So, less green, stormwater treatment. You can come down on either side. Nope. Or somewhere in the middle, I don't know. It's definitely convenient, I think. Well, eventually that whole thing is going to be nice because it's been touched so bad, you know. So, it's on period, it only comes into play if you're going to use it for stormwater. If you are going to meet the standard, so that space doesn't necessarily have to be met. So, there's these standards and the regulations that are down below here. There's a model that's followed at the League of Cities and Towns, it's a simplified sizing tool for small projects. It shows that you can incorporate 90% of annual storm events. So, if you meet that, if you do whatever it takes I'm not an engineer, but if you do whatever it takes to meet that standard you could then in LS1 and LS2 right now increase your coverage because you've met that standard of treating 90% of your annual rainfall. The trade off I'm guessing was deemed acceptable in that other area. I'm hearing so far that the full trade off is not de-acceptable. You'll just have to decide if any trade off is acceptable. The alternative is you just believe it and there's no... Lots are a lot smaller on this side, a lot smaller. And the purpose is a lot different. We're also seeing individual builders who are doing this who, I don't know where necessarily you're gonna take advantage of this. Green infrastructure, it's kind of complicated. Right. I mean, it's costly. So, on LS1 or LS2, I think there's been two. I asked, unfortunately, our staff, as you know doesn't have a lot of longevity in our office. I understand and talking to our longest tenured one-year staff member that he's seen two. One of them, on zone two, on line two? Yeah, on zone one and two. There was a home rebuilt, I think it was actually on East Lakeshore, but it was in LS1. I'm guessing that that's going towards that end. Yeah, I don't know that he started construction yet. I think if somebody was permitted, I can't remember the name. It's one of the first homes after you passed the base side. Is it possible that we could leave this on the L1, L2 for next-use space and not put it in the residential portion for now? And then you guys can reconsider if there's a lot of stuff that's a lot of people requesting it in the future. Yeah, so I've made no changes or proposals to the other two. So this one. We're pretty much going to be residential, so to speak. And that's, I think, the way we want it. I think that's the way you want it. You've got your commercial, and you're wanting, not towards me, but you're going to put that bike trail over the innards would be pretty nice. But one and two are the commercial areas. So three and four is becoming to be residential if you have any percentages or numbers. I think that's an appropriate and it fits. I mean, that would be our language for that's appropriate and fits, residential. My only concern would be LS4. Right. Pretty large sites and the way the regs are now, they could be heavily developed. And that's where stormwater would really want to get. And are those going to be attached to the sewer system? Is those big lots, like you're saying, that go way up to five acres? I mean, if they build 20 houses up there, they're all hooked to the... That's a great question. What I didn't bring is the sewer service area. Which pretty much aligns. It aligns with this, but next time I will bring a map that shows them both together. Yeah, because I keep driving up down and I'm like, well, no, that says a port. So that port is not... So the sewer service area is not just what is directly on these lakeshorts. It's the same properties that have that frontage, but that may be much larger. So those are still in that service area. So does that increase our 289 houses that were recluded? No, and I'll get to that. I'll talk about density. Okay, great. Because that's a great question. So to Rebecca's, this is for LS3, but... LS4 has the same language. Right, so you're right. That would be good. You're right. LS4 is probably a proper town, but it's still there. I have no problem taking it out of LS3. I don't either. So we're all good at taking it out of three, but four will be a different one. We'll get to four after. So we'll take, so I hope you guys don't mind. I may just do it as we go. So we're recording this. Yeah, it's definitely one week. Obviously you'll see it again. The color, you're pretty good at it. Just so we don't have to find what it is. Whatever it does, actually, because it was new, it won't show up at all. Because it's not deleted from the current, all of this is based on the current adopted. So I think... Just so you know though, put this back in would be a whole nother supplement. We'd go right back at it, have another discussion, public forum, the whole bit, to put that back in. So that's why we get pretty detailed right now in having years great. Because it saves a lot of headaches that people talk about this year. So that's LS3, four will be quite different because you said there's a lot more land space. Okay. Do you want to jump to four on the same issue, or do you want to finish three? Let's finish three. Yeah. The green infrastructure for the whole day to come out. Well, I thought so. I thought so. For two anyway. But as I'm like seeing it, yeah. It seems to just apply. That's not my understanding of how it's worked in LS one and two. I may recommend I'm going to leave it in there to look at it closer. Would you like it to apply? I'm looking to all properties. It says green infrastructure, but it seems to be all about stormwater. Yeah, I think that the name of it comes from that tool that VLCT has. I don't think it's a town named. It's, that's the name of their tool. That's how I looked at it too, because I was thinking. The green infrastructure is simplified sizing tools for small projects. It's a mouthful. Right. So I guess my question to you is, would you like that to apply, regardless of incentives, or would you like to remove that requirement? Should stay, I would think. Anything that helps the lake. I mean, that's the whole thing we did this. Yeah, I think it should stay. Somebody wants to do it. I mean, that's our idea, right? Yeah. Clean as much as we can. I take it out. I am concerned about erosion, you know, in LS three. I mean, that whole bank there. I'm not an engineer. I'm not a water scientist, but I just saw what happened on Riverside Avenue. I'm just concerned. I don't know if that's, I assume people are, you know, monitoring that, but I am concerned in that particular area of erosion. So let me look at this. I haven't spent, so it looks like E might be a problem. I'll ask you to let me spend some time with this and come back to you. So I'm going to leave it for now. So it would make it a requirement, but I have to look at the details here. It looks like E increasing a lot coverage over 40% is one of the factors that triggers it. So I'm going to spend time with that. I hear that you would like to keep it. So I'm going to do that, but I'm going to make sure the language is clear about when it takes in. We have had a few erosions on that area. And they've been working diligently to fix another area that they've been working on. I don't know how that's going to play into the role once we start tearing up for the sewer system. I'm just saying, because the sewer system is sort of down the middle of the road, so to speak, that's what you're saying before. So, you know, any time you dig a big hole, it just loosens all the structure around and that will include three. And I'd say three. So it's going to be really touching because it's very close. Sure. I mean, we voted for it. It's going to be great to have it in there, but I'm sure they've studied that. Yeah, I hope so. Okay, so we'll come back with that. So again, more spaghetti at the wall here. I take no offense to any changes. Building placement and design standards, this is just to give you something to respond to. Some of this, most of this comes from LS one and two as a starting point. I'm going to leave this up and scroll through slowly. These are for new expanded or placed or substantially remodeled buildings. You know, it's interesting because I don't know whether there's any wording or anything in there. So, you know, when we built those four story homes on East Lakeshore Drive, everybody was upset with this person and then you let somebody else build another one. But anyway, you know, it definitely, it definitely ruins the aesthetic because it should be a lot of those going forward because you may get this Lakeshore Drive, Lakeshore Drive. Lakeshore Drive, Lakeshore Drive. And then you're thinking like, that doesn't look strange now from the water side and from the road side. So how is the wording up there within? So, a lot of that and we'll get to that in those tables. So we'll get to that part. You turn that down. Yes. There's two of them over there. You just have to hit the, see the green light? So put that green light. Can we just turn it off? Yeah, the green light should turn it off. And I think there's a second one. Thank you so much. Great, I was quite comfortable. It was nearly 80 degrees when we got in here. Yeah, I'll get the windows open. That's good. So commissioners, again, I would encourage you to go through all of these one by one. Most of these come from LS1, which is the lakeside on West Lakeshore, which I'd say there are properties that are equivalent to the lakeside of East Lakeshore, but there's also some that are not. I remind you that I hope you are entirely honest in removing, editing, adding anything in here. Just so, can you, what is the rights on parking? I mean, when you either care down and rebuild or redesign, those houses require to have at least one parking lot. True parking space. I thought too. I'm asking. Yes, a new construction requires two parking spaces. Two parking space, but if they'd have, let's say, three, do they keep that, or do they have to go to the new regulations? I'm not entirely sure. It's very clear in our regulations, but historically, any impervious area that you've had before that you can demonstrate you've had for more than 15 years, you would be allowed to keep existing. You'll see there's language in here that I threw at the wall that talks about proposed areas. Let me lead you guys through number one. I'll just go through until you've got comments. Let's go ahead and start with, I would say, lead us through, yeah. So again, these are things, this is text that exists in Lakeshore One, that's the lake side of West Lakeshore. To the maximum sense, feasible. Buildings are designed to fit into the natural terrain and minimize any change in grade on the site. Buildings are located near the street with at least an entrance where a lake's accessible and connected. I believe that the intention of this is because there could be temptation to focus everything when you're building on a lake to look at the lake. And that's your preferred side. Nobody can blame you for doing that. But in doing so, you might sort of create a back end or rear end of a building that faces the street. So I believe that some of these standards were put in place so that the public doesn't have to look at the rear end of a building. Let's go back one more, number three. All sides of the structure. So we received design consideration from the sides of the building, should be tractively designed and articulated to eliminate large spans of blank exterior wall. I really like that one. I do, I really like it. I just, I have fondness to me to see houses without even windows that may not be used, but just a huge expanse of a wall without anything breaking it up. And I do think we need to consider what those houses look like from the lake as well as from the road. That's why it's in here. You feel like that one's there for that one? Go ahead. That's symmetry, it's got a door. It does have, go ahead. Go ahead, you're ready. Your aesthetics are forcing someone to adopt a structure that is less fuel-efficient in eating. Windows are a huge source of loss of heat, so your code that you're putting in place, I'm not putting anything as well. No, no, that's all right. I'm just sharing my opinion, that's all. What you're suggesting is forcing energy inefficient, and that's a good point, that is a good point. It is, and should be taken into consideration. Okay, thank you. That there are state-designed code, it's not code. The RBS, the residential building energy standards because their standards, right, that all housing have to meet, and then there's the commercial one and for all commercial buildings have to meet, and that's where illustration and wall percentages are addressed and covered. It's okay, it's mixed over there, it's present in the residential building. I can hear you, fellas. Yep. I can hear you. Oh, I was just saying, thank you that both sides of the residential drive are mixed residential and commercial units, so yeah, so. And a lot of people, except for the houses with it from the B and beyond, so to speak, are, there's no water viewer, I mean businesses or anything like that, I mean they're just, you just see the front of them, so it's mixed, so you're right, there's a lot of stuff. Good, yeah, what are four? We could take them into the Julia or as a whole. Okay, either way, works. Mass of the structure broken up by incorporating visible changes in the wall plane in the roof form, traditional roof lines encouraged, pipe shape, pitch direction should be considered, flat roofs are not permitted. Seems like a big one to chat about. We can build anything, we still wanna build something nice, either way in the end. We have a lot of buildings that unfortunately are built that are not nice. When you think of that much money invested, people would want something that's kind of nice, but you've seen otherwise. So we have to start somewhere, and I like this idea. It's not, I know it's not exact design review, but it is a direction. There's one strong statement in there that I would like to get you on the record of liking or not, and that's about the flat roofs. Yeah. In Vermont, that's not, that's very, should be a word of, you know, oh that's the one with the flat roof. Yeah. Whoever builds that kind of roof, it isn't from Vermont. It looks very nice, but yeah, it's just not that. There's a fair amount of businesses and buildings of that structure, especially in box stores and stuff that build flat roofs. Yes, it is. They rubber and stuff is much improved, but I agree, I think it's kind of scratching your head, but, and I agree that I don't think flat roofs make much sense. But that's also a way for them to limit their height without putting a peak there and do something else with an extra five, six, eight feet that they're not putting a fish through five. We're gonna come back to that. Okay. Well, because that is exactly a concern that I raised privately with Rich that I'll talk about more publicly. I don't know, I've had more on this one, because I think done in the right way, flat roof might work. But I think the first sentence kind of says it's encouraged, but I think it might be a little too strong to say flat roofs are not permitted. Well, let's see what Kacamea has to say about this in her presentation, we'll go from there. Try them very slow, here. And Trevor doesn't go as fast as he wants, twice as fast as he wants. It's working. It's working. Is it? Oh, it totally is. Oh, good. It totally is. I have all the guys that are so used to driving so fast, riding, everybody's rear end. It's just terrible. I just wanted to pull over, the little, you know, the people pull over and, oh my gosh, and then they let go by, but you know, on the most part. Oh, that's not flat, okay. No, it's not, but it's- Hey, that's my house, we go. Is it your house? No, that's Nicky and Jeff's, but mine's the gray one. But- I hear so many compliments about it. So that's sort of why I zoomed to it. It's a great house to be structured very well. It's structured very well. But that one doesn't meet, you know, the tall thing about a gable, gip, or gambrel. Yeah, that one's more like a shed. Yeah. Different angles, which- It's the light, it goes back a lot. It's a striking house. I really wanted to put this in our visual preference survey, but I've tried not to pick anybody. Yeah, that's right. They wouldn't mind. They wouldn't say, oh, sorry, they're bad people. I just didn't know if anyone liked it as much as I did. And also, like you were saying, the sidewalks, they would go right inside of our houses. I went up to your room. What's in a structural reason that you said flat roots are not permitted? This is, so this language had already existed. Yeah, I believe it's an aesthetic reason and not at all structural. I think it had to do with another level of the house being built as well. Instead of putting a gabled roof, that loses you some space inside. You put a flat roof, which gave you an extra chunk of living space. Yeah, I mean, typically, when you see people include them in regulations, it's because they're thinking of the worst case scenarios. They're thinking of the Dollar General stores and the one-story, CBSs, and even the bigger big boxes. But even the smaller big boxes, when people think about flat roofs, that's what I think comes to mind for them. And I think that's why it ends up in a lot of regulations. Cool, just there wouldn't be unique if you adopted it. So this is a carryover from LS1 and 2. Yeah. Back to where it's the thing. Yeah, because the shopping center, I think has a flat roof. Doesn't it have the shopping center? I think a lot of those, too. I think it is, so that was, so I think that's, we were trying to avoid that kind of a look. Yeah. So, but, you know, I would put it in the categories. I have no, it's huge. No professional advice on this one, but what's the other? Yeah, this is two stories. That's what it looks like right here. That would be an LS4. What's that? That's LS4. That is LS4. Well, actually, it's actually, technically it's LS2. That's two? It's right at the end of two. Yeah, that's the very last property. Okay, gotcha. Before you go. Yeah. But for some reason, I was thinking it was a flat roof just because it's so modern. Yeah. And it's not. Anyway, let me go back to the regulations here. Anything you'd like to change? Keep do this. Pretty strong statements, again, at least in the very last one. The others are sort of recommendations, but wouldn't prohibit you from doing something different. The very last statement is strong, yes. Yeah. So you're definitely saying flatters are not. Well, I think that's what we're talking about. I know. And we haven't got to a height. We've not got to height, and we'll want to talk about that. Because that will definitely make a difference. Because of the way we measure height. Yes. They wanted the story in a half. So if we do that, it won't work any if you watch the game. You could also think about it. We could talk about it again at the next meeting. I'm not really building one-story houses anymore, anyway. You guys are getting your permits. I haven't seen anybody building one-story. Galvin two and three and four. That's true. Yeah. I don't think they knew the era. Anybody's building one. So they may come back? Yeah. We just see a few people who are thinking to more of their later years who are doing single stories. We just see some. But it's not as common. The cost per square footage is a lot higher. Yeah, that's why I was thinking it probably worked. It raises the cost, but there's still some desire. I'm fine with how to have some visuals. This is what this would look like. This is what this would look like. Do you like to see some visuals of flat roofs that look nice? Yeah. Or just some of these features, just, you know. Yeah, because you're making a look at your mind, and you're thinking, store for further. Yeah, it's hard to. Yeah, it does look like a visual. I'd love to see what we all like it to look like in the end, and then work backwards. Yeah, build a feast, like sort of three or four of us. I mean, come up. You must have examples of, like, this is what this would look like, or this is what it looks like. What I would caution you though is that without a lot of language to go with it, you're not necessarily going to get it. Yeah, no, I'm not saying without language. I'm just saying from my, you're just to understand this is what we're talking about, and this is what it would look like. I would find it thoughtful. I don't want to create more work you can't think of. Feel strongly about this now, or do you want to return to it? Think about it. I just have a hard time when you say not for minutes. I just, I just, I just, I don't, I don't want to. So you're at LS1, LS2, it says discouraged, because it says not for minutes, it says I'm discouraged. Okay. Wow. That helps. Because I feel like if Rebecca feels like there are times when it looks attractive, then why would we want to not permit it if it would look okay, and within the culture and within the character theory that we're talking about? Mexico really, are you ready to say that? So right now, I think we'd want to at least change it a little bit. I think I'm back to it. Yeah, you want to come out or we could at least put in that word discouraged. Discouraged, that is not permitted. There you go. Do you still want to come back to it? Or do you want me to mark that as sort of your? I'd like to come back to it a little bit because I've got questions about again, whether that was put in there to stop different heights being changed across the frontage of the lake or the other side and why we started with that. Just a little more research. I think it's really just about what people view as a residential structure versus not generally, but so change to discourage for now. We'll come back. One more guidance, I guess I would say. Number five, this is just me, because it's bothering me. I don't think there's anything, you know, it's a corner trip. This is supposed to be trim. Trim. Thank you. Despite the spelling, how do you feel about it as a, I think it's in keeping with number four? So the way I would read this if I was doing development reviews of the first part has to be met with at least some of those elements. That you have to have something where the second part about architectural heritage is just encouraged, but you have to have some feature. You can do it as a dorm or trim audience purchase, but you should have at least some of those. If I was reviewing this, a new house for compliance with this, I would be looking for at least a few of those and not looking at architectural heritage. Thanks for voting for this. I think it's the way to demonstrate that, it includes, I think it's the run from the start of the. So they're designed with your semi-qualitive period. Yeah. That is a weird deal, I have to admit. Associated with Vermont's architectural heritage. We're getting moving all together. I know that's true, but I don't know. I don't even know. I think it comes from the other one. Yeah. Again, the other one is definitely built more for the commercial. We did not want to get into big blocks. This one here is a different world. Would you like to delete that part? Yeah, I think so. All of number five or just that one? The second part, starting with traditional features. Yeah. I think what we don't want to see is a little square box in the door, the window. Right. I think the first part addresses that. Right. Would you like to repeat the second part? Sure. Remind me, we get to LS4, I think the same change. Landscaping or similar features, shall be provided that will add, I think there's some grammatical work that needs to be provided. Who's gonna provide them? Shall be provided? Yeah, there's some, this is a copy, but there's some grammatical work that needs to be done here. Because again, if you follow, to demonstrate that, and then you say shall be, it doesn't work. So grammar aside, if again, if I'm working in the office and reviewing this, I'm looking for landscaping. And if it's not landscaping, is it a fountain? Is it columns? Is it something above and beyond the building design? I think it says similar features so that you're not stuck with just a landscaping feature. So, I'll speak back, move on. Just like when it says pleasant, I think it gets back to your point. I mean, what does that look like? A pleasant street, I mean, a pleasant streetscape to me probably looks very different than a pleasant streetscape. I mean, do you need more detail or is there somewhere that says this is what needs to be included to achieve a pleasant streetscape? I'm gonna look at my house a little bit. I don't have any business. Okay, would you, do you have a recommendation? Well, again, I keep going back to the character. We could stop at visual interest, I don't know. Could stop at visual interest. We could stop at provided. Well, you have to reword this one anyway. I'd like visual interest, you'd like that. Okay, so we could do, since we're live editing, delete that part. Yeah. Yeah, please. Okay, you guys go over the plan as if someone comes and presents their building. You look at all of these things. I mean, you look at all these things. You know, if it's not, if some of these are included then that's fine, but if there's some other things that they've got that you're not happy with, it's not along the same lines as this, then they reduce the plan. I mean, so, I mean, they're basically gonna want to build something different. They're not gonna look the same. Do you want big trees there? No, walking on the view. The field stone, the brick, the granites, Peter's got all that in his place down there. I mean, those are all... Yeah, when we're done, they will pick this up. Yeah, they'll try. Yeah, so again, these ones, they're holdovers from what you like for LS1. You don't have to like them still. You don't have to like them for this district. Yeah. You don't have to give your starting point. Again, because that, it's the same idea as before. We are talking about commercial on the other side, and this is now residential. Yeah, and these are from LS1, which is very limited commercial, I guess I would say. Exactly. Like marinas, there's only very specific things. It's not as much as like the non-lake side. Yeah. Very material. So it's close, but not the same? I don't even know if we need anything. That's on seven? For... Yeah. We already have visual interest up above, and this goes to break it down a little further. This is visual. Keep any, believe it all? Look at the amount. This is, again, all encouraged. Right. How does she take wooden shingles out, though? Yeah. You would not? She would. You would. Yeah. They're very high maintenance. Yeah. Far heads are expensive. Not even... Before I delete the staff, are you thinking of deleting anymore? But I... It's the worst. Let me start with that. The worst. You can always keep that one. The only other thing I had with that one was about the roofing. I think we had it limited to those. And again, these come from LS1? Please know that I take no ownership or professional recommendation with keeping this. I just wanted to give you a starting point. Just like it, because again, I think it kind of creates some parameters on how we're going to get to maintaining the character of East Lakes for a drive. I think it just emphasizes that we want to look at what was there before. We want to try to have that new or whatever fit in. So it's not like something just like... I think now when I drive down East Lakes for a drive, it's just surprising to me that how different it looks with the new buildings. It just felt like someone just didn't even look around and say like, I wonder how this would fit into this architecture. They're racing to get them in before... The what? They're racing to get them in. They're racing to get every... I mean, Colchester's always been above. They're always saying... Or just do it, say what's. Colchester has a name for it. I mean, some are nice, but some are just like, just doesn't... Just it's glaring to me how it doesn't seem to fit in with that whole neighborhood. Well, that's what we're fighting for, because everybody has their own flavor and taste and everybody's got their own ideas and you know, people do what they want to do and they want to do it because they want to do it. There's no... There doesn't seem to be set guidelines sometimes and we've missed a lot of it so far. So that's what we're doing this today. So we can try to catch up with this. So what we have to do is we have to work on what's there. You know, so yeah, I mean, we've got to not... We're not going to get our wish because they've already messed it up. So what we have to do is we have to come from our wish to meet them in the middle and we've got to make a blend. So we're adding all this material because we're trying for a blend. Somebody gives me too many options. With these? Oh, whoops. Oh, I added a few. Oh, whoops, that's okay. Oh, look at all the stuff I added with you. There's so many... You can add... I cut out four little houses and say, take... You want to build here? Get one of the four. It's all up to sign. Which one do you want? Do you want a tower or something? You know, I mean, contemporary, you know, granola, you know, stuffy, you're this. I mean, take one of the ones and we'll stick them all in. Sorry. I hope I'm not being too pushy. I'm just keeping an eye on the time for you. No, I know, I'm sorry. All right. Number seven. Number seven, I think. Delete, change. Just like the windshield goes down. You took the windshield. Yeah, I think it's... Again, it's encouraged. Anything else out that you want? It's what we're thinking. Would be nice to have, but again, this is not... This one is entirely encouraged. If I was reviewing a building that came in under this, I'd just be looking to see that there was, you know, I see different. So I'm looking for probably the most minimal variety, at least. Are they showing me more than one thing? As opposed to full vinyl siding on four sides. Right. I probably would say they're not meeting this criteria. But I think there's a pretty low bar for meeting it. I think so too. That's what I'm looking at if I'm in office reviewing it. Right. I agree. I don't want cookie-cutter bones. I don't want that, but it's an aesthetic, I think, that I'm looking for. Yeah, and this gives you the idea. Look at this? Yeah. Without the hammer. And again, what I'm looking for, what I'm reading from this is that there's some variety, whether it's your texture, color, material, something. You've taken some of that and you've given me more than one of it. Yeah, right. So, okay. I think we're good. This one, this one I wrote based on feedback. This is again spaghetti at the wall. I'd like you to spend a lot of time on it. This is something that I thought represented what I've heard, but again, I will have no offense whatsoever. Do you think there's a better way to include it or to exclude it entirely? I'm gonna give you some time with that. Can you guys see it or would you like me to read it? You can see it. That's not both one and two or very long. I think one and two are both very long. I don't have a question, so I just... Go ahead. So, under the E1 section with the parking, is there any thoughts to regulating something, say someone parking very large houseboat on the Ellis Street side? Where are you? I don't know. How do you see that? I mean, I don't know. I don't know how to read the land. I don't see that at all. I mean, maybe you live there, that's there. I think that's 10 years. I'll come back to that one. Okay. Is that in a different section? So, I think that this, it gets included here because we're talking, well, I shouldn't say that. I've not researched that property specifically. If that is considered an expansion, so what this is meant to address, again, if that's always been a parking area, they're entitled to keep that as a parking area. If that's become a new parking area in the last 15 years. They're just surveying it. I think they're gonna build a house. Then it's a violation. If there's gonna be, they were doing the day today. I like that. Yeah. So, my question is that houseboat is, how many years has it been since there's been a house at that site? Yeah. I could come back to that one. I don't want to address that specific property because I haven't done the research on it. That's fair. On this one though, among number one, we're talking about backing out. How do you do, there's so many properties already that they have to back out. So, how, what would happen? So, this is a new one. So, this says, if you already have this property. Okay. And again, there may be a better language here. This is something I threw out there for consideration. If you already have a property, you've got your little parking area. No matter how terrible it is in the front, but you've had it forever. You've got to park two cars on site. That's where it is. Okay. If you come in and without naming the address, we've had at least one property owner who's recently come in. Partially because in the last year, they've added a new parking area on the side of their house that they've never, it was always grass. They came in to expand that partially legally, but didn't include the portion that they're using. This would apply to a property like that. They already have the two spaces in the front. Not great spaces, but they have them. They would want this new parking area on the side. That new parking area on the side is about the depth of a car, about 18 feet. So, we would probably tighten this up with a regulation that relates it to a parking space. So, we use a depth of about 18 feet first all, eight to nine feet in width. If their new proposed parking area is this area where you pull in and then have to back out onto the road, this would allow us to say no. This is not a new parking area. You cannot navigate that without backing onto the road. This area back out. Well, that is my point. I do believe. With nobody else. I do believe, I do believe in Vermont DMV laws, you're not supposed to back out into a main thoroughfare. You're supposed to back into your parking space. On a state road, right? Any, exactly. Lakeshore drive, anything like that. You're not supposed to back into a main drive. You're supposed to back into your parking space and pull out. If you're backing out and you cause the accident, you're at fault because you have done something illegal. So, this is just kind of. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know how far, so we're down there and we're about 55 miles an hour. You're still not legally supposed to be backing out into a main thoroughfare from a private road. That is the law. Yeah, so I'm not saying that this is going to prevent a lot of that, but I think what it could do is prevent our enabling. Enabling from. Of that. You know, I don't know if it's perfect, but I think it's something to start with. And you could also talk about whether or not, you know, people have new parallel parking what that should look like. But I would like to be in the position in our office to be able to deny anything that forces people into or predominantly. Maybe not forced, maybe we can do back in, but I think that's pretty rare to see. Pretty tough on that road too. Yeah, yeah. It's still tough on that road. I think we have a comment. We have to do that. Sometimes. No, I don't. I agree. So, you know, this is like what we heard, you know, and you saw in Jay's presentation, parking, it's a huge issue. Yeah. And I didn't want to gloss over it. Yeah. I don't know if this solves or even starts to solve, but I think that they're, we have to start the conversation. Yeah. About parking. I definitely would love to have a way not to have a back out of the road. Even pull up and have to back in. I know they do it, but it's so tight down there. There's so many properties you can't do it. Yeah. And that's going to be a problem. And again, this doesn't stop anybody who already has that space. That's correct. That's right. The better or worse. Right. It doesn't fix that or stop that. So, like, So, I guess we're here already. Yeah. So, if they go to dwelling and they end up having building an increase and then they rent out the upstairs or downstairs and they just have two parking. So, I mean, he and she lives downstairs and where are the people that are going to be living upstairs or renting upstairs or being upstairs? So, are they doing that legally or not? You see, they're in the consciousness. So anyway, so they're doing it legally. So, if somebody were in general, I'm not saying I don't remember doing that, but I'm just saying, you know, then they can't have a B and D. So, there are parking, there are parking requirements associated with new units and ADUs, the accessory units. So, there is a parking standard, although state legislation reduced the accessory ones down because they found that they were somewhat discriminatory. So, I think you only need one now for an accessory apartment. Well, they moved the boat. And they don't build the house. We can rent parking. People can walk. Any thoughts on one? You want a noodle on it? Do you like it? I like both of them. I kind of like it too. So, two is a holdover, just to clarify. I know it's a little tough to follow. Two, just to clarify, is a holdover from the other lakeshores. One is brand new. No, I think it's good. No, I think it's good. I like it. I'm all for it, actually. I can't do it. You're going to go across the street to your neighbors, I guess, and figure out a detail with them. Okay, I'll leave it. You can always provide more comments at a later time. Yeah. LS4. I have to tell you, again, this is sort of, I took LS3, copied it, lightened the language just a little bit. I don't know that it reflects all of the differences that exist between the two, but let's talk about those as we go. I'm sorry, I jumped ahead. Anything on the purpose? Four, we talked about for LS, or not for, sorry, B2, lot coverage associated with green infrastructure. You guys deleted that for the lakeside. Did you want to keep it or not? I agree with Rebecca on that one. Larger properties, more green space. Say that again. There'll be larger properties involved. So more opportunities to take care of the stormwater. Yeah, I agree. So you want to delete it? No. So this is one that would allow them to go over 40, all the way up to a hundred. How can I go up to a hundred with the setbacks? Well, I guess I shouldn't say a hundred. So lot coverage maximum don't apply. So whatever they can fit. Right. In line with all the other dimensions. They're still going to do the parking. They're still going to do all the setbacks. That's really where you see it. You're going to see it. You're going to see bigger parking areas. Right. I don't know if that's what you would have. They're still going to have to come up with saving the stormwater. That's going to take some time. Well, a lot of coverage may be increased over 40%. That means if you're, you know, going number out there, if you're already at 40%, you could increase it 10% more. That's 40% at 40%, right? Yeah, that's the first part there. Yeah. But the second part says that they don't apply. So you could go to E. Right. So I think the second part, since it's not commercial. Right. I don't think it really applies to residential. I think we want to keep it as green as possible. Yep. I agree. Yep. So if you're even removing that part. You can see that part. If a project is deemed starting from there. That's right. So if you do that, I would encourage you to give some threshold, because it does say maybe increased over 40. But then it seems a little bit open-ended. Would you like to put an upper threshold? 50. I don't want to increase it at all. I mean, increase up, increase, I don't know. So the left coverage for that district would be 40%. This is saying if you meet all of these, if you meet all the green infrastructure stuff, you can go above 42, dot, dot, dot. Yeah. This is on LS4 side, where the property is big, and there's more opportunity to address storm water. And on the LS3, like, there's no room to do any of that. I thought we were talking, I thought this was three. No, no, it's four now. Okay, so four. We're not going to have properties that go back. Okay, but they could do increased. So we need to give that one some more thought. Yeah, we're not saying that. So I think what I'm hearing is you don't want to have no maximum, does that seem fair to say? Yes. But you may potentially be open to something over 40 if they can meet their storm water treatment needs. Yes. So I am going to delete the second part. And do we want to put a ceiling on it at some point? Right. 70, 80. Does that mean that if someone had like a three acre lot, that could all be blacked out? Yeah, business. There's no money in that, Sarah, they won't be blacked out there. Well, okay? Yeah, no. I don't know. They just don't want to look at a lot of them. Yeah, that's true. That is true. But it'd have to be all green. So we've got to. We'd have to take care of the storm water. There's a commercial parking lot for all of the other people who have. There you go. I was going to park the garage back there. Parking on the same. Parking on the same. Oh, you're here, Kathy. Do you need to change the reference to 4.05 F? Does that seem to? Yes. Thank you. I'm not going to change it. I'll just highlight it so I know to change it later. Okay, I got change to C. That changed the three point. Yes. Three point something in, so thank you. I will return to that. So you guys want to noodle on that one? Think about it. Find some appropriate. I can't. Yeah, because there's so much difference with the properties. Four. Yes, there are. Yeah, 40% of a small lot might not feel that inappropriate. 40% of a large lot is going to feel like a lot of pavement potentially. Right now they have big lawns, I think. Houses that I'm thinking of. There's a lot of variety over there. They have a lot of big lawns, a lot of green space. If you showed your picture again, it shows all the available lot processes. Correct. You've got an average that shows. The aerial there? Yeah, the aerial. It gives a lot of... There's no land in there, I'm sorry. Okay. It's the wrong area. I'm talking about the wider district. Yeah, it's complicated. But there is a lot of variety between very small properties and very... Yeah, so see the... The law cabinet, they've got the OZA, it's the most important area. Yeah, and you could also, one other thing you could think about is what that coverage looks like. This is total impervious. You could say for buildings, as opposed to... So building, we look at impervious from a building coverage perspective and for a total coverage perspective. So if you're okay with sort of maybe a home expansion, but you don't want a giant parking lot built. Right. I mean, I think under that, there's nothing that would stop. This is a very lovely house, I don't want to pick on them, but if they're like... You know, it's also all the time. There's a lot of money to be made in the little parking area in the front here. They could do that with that increase. This is money to be made there, probably not, but... Just totally as they put the gray down there. What's that? I think they put the fourth of July gray down there. Oh, what's that? Houseboat. Yeah, that's us. I didn't think we'd be able to see that. No, it's across the street. That's our view. We're not in the house of that. Across the street. But I know that's where they're all... Yes, well, when you're on a campaign with them, limit short-term rentals, to a certain extent, if you limited parking areas. Practically speaking, maybe, from a legislate. I mean, people don't have to check their short-term rentals with us. They should be checking them with the state, because then the building code applies. I don't know if they are, but we have no rental registry at a local level. Right. You know all the houses in Caltester that are renting. You know, every time I think I do, I don't. I know, but the license plate's changed every week, so I would be like, yeah. This one here, that's a shed. Yeah. That's a shed. That's what it's permitted at. It's not a shed. I mean, I'm sorry to say. So no, I don't know all the rentals. There's stuff underneath the belt that... I guess I would say... When you guys weren't looking. Oh, yeah, I watched that, for both sides. We're looking now. Neither Peter nor there, that is technically an accessory structure. And that was probably... Except for that, when you put the restaurant gate, I wouldn't have to say it back. So I think this is actually a good example of the increased parking area, because this one, as I'm looking at it. You just did all that stuff. Six years ago, that was grass. Yeah. I think, isn't there one more lot right there? So this is not... That's one more lot right there, I think. Right here? Yeah. I think you're right. But this, these... This is... They just did it. I think they just put it in all that ground. With no permission. But if we clarify the regulations, it would clarify that they would not be allowed to have permission for that either. Right now, the only thing that would stop them from having a new area there, if they applied, was their total coverage. But if that's a shed with running water and gas for something... I mean, where they pay the water bill, they party in. I mean, you're right. I won't go into it too much, but... That's right. I'm sorry. I don't know how to inspect any of these around. Oh my God. Okay, let me get back to our rigs here. Yeah. I'm gonna go back up. Where would you like to go? You can go back up. You can go back up. Yeah. Paragraph B starts, see if you can go up. Versus intellectual and distraction. Thank you. Too much copying. I should remind myself to check the other one, too. I'm gonna leave. We talked about playing back to this great infrastructure for the other one. We'll come back to that. Okay. Remind me, a lot of these are copied over from LS3. We made some changes. There might be some yet, but are more appropriate for tour. Changed slappers, changed that one. Oh, yeah. And the discouraged, isn't there wood-sided or something as in discouraged? Let's see. We got rid of pleasant streetscape. Changed the corner. There was the shingles, they got rid of that. Oh, okay. Yeah, but it's shingles. Shingles. Up above, remember, bar. Changed trip to trim. Trip to trim. Five. So all of that, we should also remember, so I also wanna point out that this would be a duplicate of 3D, do you intend for it to be? The two different areas, though, that's the consideration. Yeah. So I don't mean that to be a leading question. Just, I think it's still appropriate. We still have the same neighborhood. Yeah. Nice consistency. Yeah. I mean, at some point, I'll have to enumerate the differences, and if there aren't any, maybe it's just one district. I think there's coverage differences that we might see, and height differences. Okay. Anything else there? And these aren't final. Come back to them. I'm gonna get down to the charts. I think that's the last bit of LX3 and 4. Not a little way there yet. Sorry, touch screen. Turn out in this version, let me open them up separately. Okay. So in our regulations, if you're familiar with them, we have two tables. Table A1 is all about uses. Table A2, and I'll zoom in. Table A2 is about dimensional standards. So uses here. I'm gonna quickly cover these to say that really the only committed uses in both of these are residential uses. Home businesses are permitted. That is a state statute that requires you to, requires us to permit home businesses. So this is 3-4, right? These are 3-4? 3 and 4, so that's the red here. Okay. Most people work at home. A lot of people are never. Yeah, so home businesses are different. It's like, it allows you to have like an employee. It's a little bit different than just working from home. You'll see this question mark that I have a highlight here. And this is something I really wanna talk about tonight to introduce for something to return to. So multi-family dwellings right now, we define as anything above two units in a structure. That is a multi-family dwelling. And they are allowed in every residential district we have. And so there is some temptation to just put them as a P here. My caution against this that I would like some time to explore is that when we define a multi-family dwelling as more than two, that is all we call it. I'm understanding of conversations we've had that a 20-unit building, even if the density permits it, is not what you are desiring on either side of East Lakeshore. One factor the road for them to accommodate them. So without making any changes at all in density, and let me back up a minute. There's no changes in density that are proposed. This would reflect exactly what exists in R2 today. So if you are, and that's about 10,000 square feet, which is about three units an acre, three to four, less than four, three point something units in an acre. It's very important that there's no changes made to density. That was an agreement with the sewer proposal. That there would be no increase or decrease that would be exactly what exists today. That is very important in accommodating that. So there's no changes proposed to that. So that's density. That's how many units you can put on a lot, right? If you have, do the math with me, a 10 acre lot. And you can fit about three and a half units on an acre according. So that's about 35 units. So that's what you're guaranteed. How those 35 units are placed. I'm making an educated guess people care about. You care about whether those 35 units exist in a single building or they exist in some other makeup. What I would propose to you is that I can bring you some ideas of what those makeups are through residential building typologies. If you don't use them right now, I would keep them very simple. I would look for your direction about generally what you would want those to be. So I've heard from some folks, there's a six unit condominium that's up the road that sort of exists. Yes, it's great. I've heard, I've never heard anything negative about the aesthetic of that, about its placement in character. I mean, that's the way they used to have it on pictures. Yeah. But does six units in a single? Can you talk about the brown ones? The brown ones. Yeah, they have a name. I don't know. They're on that big lot. They are. That is a very big lot. Yeah, that's great. I would say that was kind of in character. Yeah. But to those I'm thinking of is a three-story, yeah, multiplex building. And that's different. They're the same number of units. And so the only way I think to address that is to have a building typology that speaks to its, to a building sort of layout. And it's broad kind of terms. I've used these in other communities that I've worked in. In general, I see it pretty favorable. You go very, very light on any sort of architectural definitions other than the most basic things that help it get defined. So you're not trying to do any form-based coding necessarily. But it does allow you to distinguish between what actually is a multi, other types of multi-family dwellings beyond singles and duplexes. So you say you take this 1.300 and divide it up into different types of multi-family dwellings. So what I would probably say is that there are these new building types. So you might have row house as a building type, count home as a building type. And you would say what a, you would define what that is. And then you would say that's an allowed building type. I've got two or three areas of like that. You would say that would go in this chart. That would go in some chart. I don't know where it fits, but there would be some chart that says these are the allowed building types for LS1 or for LS3 and for LS4. So you might not want a six unit townhouse on the lake side, but you might not mind it on LS4. We know we don't want a big, right? Now, could we do it differently and just make it sort of a multi-family residence for this area and make it a number? Six units max or three units max? You could, you'd start to define. So you could give a maximum number of units for building. That would be the simplest solution. It doesn't really get into when you get a little bit, if you wanted to go a little bit higher, it doesn't distinguish between that six unit, I call them slim units, right? Condos that don't take up a lot of horizontal distance. They're sort of deeper. It doesn't distinguish between that and a six unit box. So you're allowing for a building like that, which will want a driveway, well, another 10 terms and exit off some east station. So they want another whole, just like, like next to me, Churchill was making it like you were talking about they have single drawings. Yes. They were going to be double drawings. They could have been, I don't know how many there are. Do you know how many there are? Hey probably one, two, three, four, five, six, seven. So we're all double. They're all doubles except for his or the triple. So under the current R2 regulations, if you are allowed those 30 units, we make no distinction between whether those 30 units exist separately or in one big building. So you could live at the height, you could call it 20 feet, but it could be 20 foot tall, 60 unit building. And I don't think that that's what I heard as anybody desires. I don't think any of the world particular groups of places they're on for are for. There's, I don't know what the name is, it's off the road, great place, it's pretty nice looking at that. Sandy Short Harris, I think. Could be, yeah, I mean, I would see those. I would see that throughout. But those could be eights, 12s. Yeah, but the thing is they're aesthetic looking, you don't even know they're there. They sit up and back. I mean, it's just great. Yeah, I don't think there's anything that exists today that people don't like. I'm saying that the potential is fully there. Yeah, exactly. And then Ray, Janet Ray, I think up and back, they get a big construction area going up in there. Yeah, they're just doing another cottage, a single cottage. Yeah, right there. It sounds to me like we need more discussion on this, but a little more information. Well, because the thing is I think it's, we're going to have growth in, I think it's very important, like you're saying, the drawings for, I mean, all of the, the, What's the three side? Is there even really, you can have a multi? The brown one? Yeah. What's that? Am I, am I, I haven't gotten to it yet, right? Yeah, you're way past the yard. It's coming up here? Yeah. Oh, did I pass it? It's way past the yard, the corner. Oh, yeah. Turn around. That's it. There you are, everybody. It's a bus ride. And then the houses that could be getting in there, they could build in their front yard. A little bit more? Yeah, a little bit more. So, I think what we want to spend some time considering is what, especially these, oh, here it is. The giant tree. I think it just passed it. Yeah. I think it's a street sign. I think it's a street sign. Let me see if I can see it better from here. Yeah, but I was going to go here. This one. Yeah, this one. Yeah, that one. I think that's, that's perfect. If there's something like that. So people, people like this. I mean, I, they've got the, I think they're sexy. I think they're not energy efficient, but Sarah likes them. But they've got the porches in the front, and I don't even notice they have the time it was I look up there. The best race for background. Yeah. I bet that was right on the street. I'd get to first story base. You know what? I feel different, me. And if those six were stacked taller, you might feel differently. Correct. I would. They are three stories. Yes. And there's a big lot in the back. If they were on the road, that would be quite daunting. Because of the background. Yeah, that's, yeah. I mean, it's coming back. I mean, literally are three stories. So I guess what I would say is we want to keep in mind, even if we keep the existing density, which I would strongly encourage you to do, that there are enough large lots that you have the potential for very large buildings. Even if you reduce the heights of buildings, they could still be very large. And I don't, I haven't heard from you that that's what you want. So I would, I'd like to continue to work on how to give you some options to address that. Yeah. I'd be interested. I agree. Your typology. Yeah. Yeah. We should do the pictures of just that again if we did. You know, you could get a bunch of pictures of that. So right now there's really only, and anything that goes up and down has the maximum of three dwellings. There's, right? I mean, East Lakes are drugged. There's pretty much, if there's one building, there's like three. I mean, there's three people. That's the maximum that I see. Is that really high? It's towards? Well, there's three. There's three apartments in it. It's supposed to be a two-apartment, but they- Yeah, so that's limited right now. That's sewer. They snuck in- That would change. The first one is just grandfathered in. Poachester grandfathered in instead of talking about now. Instead of taking it back. Where's your other cute one that you were talking about there? Okay. So let me go back to those charts because there's still more to talk about here. So this is about uses. Really the only thing left to see here, I think is that's why I've left the question mark. I think if we don't get to building types, I would encourage you to make this and not permit it until we do. I think it should be allowed on the LS3. I think we shouldn't allow it to break the LS4 possibly. Yeah. I agree with that. So are you ready to say that you'd like to not see it on the LS3? Yeah, just blank it out for now. So symbols and duplexes? Yeah. So that definitely is out of character. Nobody wants that so far. Thank you. Right? Okay. We should have more discussion on the LS4. More discussion on the LS4. That's exactly it. Because I don't think we're affecting the density on any of the properties on LS3. Correct. That's correct. Multifamily. Got it. Yeah. More discussion on LS4. Okay. I'm going to just get through this. Leave me comments. Just pause, stop me. There's really not much else. This is a holdover at this artist production studio as a conditional use. It's like the, I don't know, we could take it, leave it as a conditional use for LS3 and LS4. It's the only non-residential use in there. I think that came out before. I left it, but I'm happy to delete it. Quick delete it. I don't know what to do. Time's up. That's an artist production studio? Yeah, I don't know. I don't think it's a conditional use. That means it's more scrutiny, right? Yeah, I definitely will have to do a DRB, and they will check everything for part of it a little bit. I don't think it's the worst thing in LS4, but in LS3, I doubt you could scoot one in there. Who's like to remove it in LS3? Yes. You guys? Yeah, all of us. Everybody? Hey. Yeah, I do. We're going to have to wait. So it's an artist production studio. Commercial. So you could have yourself a little cottage, and you could have your studio in there, which could also do retail. We got our paint and sip every weekend at your house. That's right. Paint and sip. That's right. It's a sip and paint. You just show up, park someplace, and then go. That's the problem. You can't have a coffee shop. On LS4, you could. You could. Sure. Yeah. You can do the paint and sip on LS4, too. There's something in there. Which page? I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. That's for page 2. Yeah, it's permitted. It's permitted camera. That's a state. Yeah, that's a state. There's a state morrow that's booked. It's parked there. Yeah. Till they put the bricks under it, you're fine. What do you say? So mobile homes have to be permitted anywhere that a single-family residential is. OK, then how come you have a mobile home park and they replace it, so it's permitted. It's those 3 and LS4. I don't get it. I'm sorry, let me find it. Are daycares below? Oh, yes. They're also governed by state regulation. I'm sorry, I'm trying to find it. State number 100, single-family dwelling. Yeah. Let's get a light world right there. 1.122 mobile home park. That's the only place besides MHP. We have a permit in order. Interesting. OK. Yeah, that could go. We can put a mobile home, but we don't need a park. I don't need a mobile home park in that area. I don't think we'd put a mobile home. I might have to look at all of them, though. But the mobile home of above 1.112 is allowed. That's the state requirement of the park. But the mobile home park, I just didn't understand that one. Yeah, that's the worst way to make sure it's allowed. So I've deleted that. OK. Thank you. I see they have the multi-family questions. So that one's good. Anything else on table A1? We can put A2? 2.30. OK, so look at those real close. We can't see them from here. You guys look at, tell us what's going on. We'll be done on page 230, the next page. I had a question here about the development allowed in LS3. So that would be 1.8. Yeah, got it. I don't know if we need more discussion on that. 1.8. I just think there's room on LS3 to do that. Yeah, I mean, there's still a 3-acre threshold. So I don't think it would be allowed. We could change it. I don't think either way would be allowed. I don't think there's any 3-acre property either. I think we should go with each of these and look at them just to get more informed about what we're saying can be permitted and what would need conditional permitting. I'm pretty good with it. You are. I think if we delete it, it has almost no impact. We could delete it. For the home business? No, we're talking about a plan to do the residential development. Plan residential development. OK, I didn't see it. You have to slide it. For LS3, yeah. Right, yeah. There's a size threshold anyway. Yeah, that's no brainer. I don't think it needs to be in there. Yeah, I could pop that, yeah. Who's actually, I think you want to leave it for four. Yeah, for sure. I don't want to jump in on you. What did you do before? What was the plan developed? The plan developed. Yeah, yeah. Basically, it allows you to have more than a single unit on a lot. You know, the biggest thing is about putting a commercial one in. Putting any commercial one in. Yeah, and I don't think I have any listed. It's the type of thing that if there's ever a desire, you would want to talk about it specific just to that. And you would probably also want to go back to building typology. So if you do say, hey, we'd love a tiny corner store, but it has to meet X, Y, and Z. You'd want to spend time on that. You're talking Alice Ford. Yeah. Yeah. Because there's already a commercial building that has potential there, Alice Ford already. So I have included, and I think it's too much to bite off for this. If you want to do it, I would do it after. Yeah, definitely. Anything else on this table? You think I'm not all I open the other one? Yeah, so this one's all about uses. The other table is about dimensional standards. So that's where the heights are. So I talked to Rich a little bit about this already. Let's get down to the bottom here. I'll list three and four. Building height. I want to scroll enough so you can see it, but I want to be out just enough so you can see the top row as well. So 20 feet is listed in here. It's a number that exists in LS 1 and 2. It's a number that was listed a lot in some public comments. What I would tell you is that 20 feet is a very odd number. And this is why. 20 feet on a flat land does not get you two stories in a pitched room. Does that sound right? Does that sound right? Yeah. On top of that, if you were to add in where we measure from. So building heights in Kulchevstar are measured from average pre-construction grade. So anything that is built into a slope, which most of the properties on the lake shore are, you start your building height down the slope and you're measuring up from there. So a 20 foot height is not 20 feet at the road. It's 20 feet from where you start measuring from, which could be 8, 10, 12 feet below the road grade. So if your intention is to include something akin to two stories, 20 feet is not tall enough. If your intention is to include something that's one story, 20 feet will get you there and only there. But it could be one story at the street level and two stories at the lake. I think it could. I think so. What do you think of the grates? I think it was grates. You could do 20 with a pitched roof into those grates, maybe. But I don't think that was our 10, so you could change it and have your intent as a two-story and a street view. We could actually end up with a three-story on the lake view, so you kind of know that, too. So I would think of what you wanted, generally speaking, and then right-size the number. 20 feet is not a two-story building at the street. I don't think in any case is a two-story, even on flat land, it's not two stories with a pitched roof. And this goes back to what Bob was bringing up earlier, about 20 feet is two stories with a flat roof. If you're built on grade, does that sound? You could probably do 20 feet in a flat roof. Can I ask you a question? On the LS3 side, can we use so many feet above the high water mark to start measuring ices of buildings? Don't send me out to inspect a building and have to find out where the high water mark is. I'm not sure we're there. Bring somebody with you. Just a thought process of that would be interesting for everybody, no matter how they want to do this or that. And we'd all be in the same playing field. But the road isn't. Yeah, the road isn't. That is the problem. Road's up and down. Yeah, there should be. It gives a starting point to that. I get it to the hollow. You're right. Yeah. Yeah. I want you to say. I mean, I think your first conversation should really be, what are we looking for generally? One story or two? And let's find the number that works from there. I think we need to visit the road again. You could, and I've talked to at least a few people about this. They say, what about stories? Let's forget about a number. Let's talk about stories. It is a viable option. I think it comes with pros and cons. When you're talking about stories, it does allow you to sort of get just where you want to be without having to drop a tape. But you have to be very careful in how you're defining a story. So if you do talk about a story, you're always going to have someone saying, I love stories. It's just, you know, my split level or my raised ranch, that's not a story. It passed above ground. So if you do want to go by stories, it'll take a little extra time because we have to be very, very careful on how we define a story. So the big concern is. And so towns and places, we'll do stories. And there's nothing wrong with it. Right. The big concern here was the visual from the road. Yeah. How much house do we want to see from the road? To make everybody happy. Two stories of stilts in another two-story house. Right. So you've got to be very careful when you talk two stories. They just did that. They just raised two homes. These six were dry. Yeah. They just raised them. So when they were doing that, what did you tell them? So that was a flood-proofing exercise, yeah? There's a few more down. OK, yeah. And also, the other thing I would point out as you're considering that is that we've got this 20-feet listed for LS3 and 4. I haven't heard from you that that's what you want, either. I think that there was more comfort with more height in LS4 than there was for LS3. Right. We have a comment for it ahead. Yeah, that was my comment. The LS4 side, I don't see the reason to change the name. It's only the LS3 side. The Lakeview impact side. When it gets down to the talk about protecting the public good, preserve the Lakeview. That's like the overwriting. Yeah. And I think that reflects what I've heard. So these are discussion points. I don't think either of the numbers is right. I really don't. So should we start with LS3? You want to talk about it more tonight? No. If you want to talk about it. You sure about playing? What do you mean? Can you pass the cookies to Bob? Hey, I'm a customer. You want to come back to this? Well. Would you feel comfortable just so we're going to put another draft out there? That's right. I'm hearing, at least I think I'm hearing that the 20-feet for LS4 is not right. No. Are you good with 40? That's what's allowed in LS2 now. 40. Or sorry, LS2. The district that it currently exists in. It's 40. It's 40 feet. That's Williams Road. That's suburban. But our question is, from the road, how do we? You've got to build it. If you get three stories, correct? We don't want the three stories from our road. So LS4 is largely flat, I think most of those properties. Oh, we're talking LS4 now. I'm trying to get to the easy one first. Oh, OK. Yeah, I thought she said. OK, LS4, OK. Yeah, no problems with that, whatever works. I know what's going on with my traction. You want to build up. You want to be able to see the lake view. LS4 is, I mean, they don't want to build so you can see the lake, right? Yeah. So what is 20 feet up in the top? You build across the street the top. Yeah. You want to build a little foresight. There you go. As you're using your car. 40 feet. 40 feet? Yeah, definitely. We're all shaking our heads on 40 feet. Any more public comment on 40 feet? Yay. I want to fly over here. So that's in keeping with most R2 throughout the town. Yeah. Yeah, that's fine. And we do measure those, again, from average pre-construction grade to peak. At some point, we'll want to talk about what that does for flowers. So we measure to the peak. Some communities will measure halfway up. They'll measure the difference between the, which I think gets halfway between the bridge and the peak. Yeah, which creates less of a difference between a flat roof and a pitched roof in terms of quality and measuring. For right now, we measure to the peak. I think that's where it is. The 3 that are the 4 and 3 that are the 40, that's 40. The 2 on 3, the 2 tall ones, that's 3. So you measure from the grade. I know. Which ones are we talking about? You're talking about LS. Oh, I like that. So something 3 to say, example would be, that's 40. Yeah, they hit 40. I'm pretty sure, but maybe they're 39 and a half. Well, we're going to look like in 4. Do we want those in 4? Do we want to have those in 4? Yeah, exactly. We'll find out. So I'm going to leave that. The 40% coverage is carried over. The density, that's that first column, 20,000 square feet. Sorry. So that's about 2 on an acre. Right. That might be a typo. Bear with me here for a minute. We need it to reflect R2. OK, R2 is 1 for 20,000 square feet. Give or take depending on whether or not you have a community sewer system. Road frontage, same as in LS 1 and 2. Those, of course, get modified if you're in PUD. Do you want setbacks? I'm just wondering, do you want to make a different number with setbacks so the houses are in the road? Now that we're getting a sewer system, we don't have to put our sewer systems in the back of our houses. Do you want to, I mean, mine's already there, but I can't do anything about it. I'm just saying, do you want to leave the houses a little bit far away from the road? Or do you want to leave them as close to the road as they are existing now? You want to leave the footprint pretty much? It's a great question. I think on LS 3, any number you put is not going to matter because most people are building their footprints. LS 4 is where you're going to see an impact. 15 feet, kind of short. For a new build. For a new build. Do you, I could, I was looking tired. So, 5 is one for next time? Yeah, well, I don't know what it is for RS 2. I don't know, I can tell you. That's commercial. 30 feet. So, R 2 is 30. So, 30 feet? Yeah, typical residential area, 30 feet. Yeah, why don't I highlight this? So, we return to it. We're pretty, there's some agreement that maybe 15 feet is too short. Yep. I was again, for commercial. Well, you're highlighting the side. Well, I like the front. You have 20 feet for the trine, the wrong one. The side, the side here, I'll sit back and see if you have a board. So 20 now, there you go. 20 feet really isn't that much either. No. You can get 20 more parts back. Yeah, that's what you have to consider. Okay, but it is late, so we'll mark this as come back to and have a more substantive conversation. So if he's saying it's the only go pull into the street, back into the street, then do you want to say we want the bill to have the driveway in the back? I mean, if you don't want to back in it. Well, no, the activist you both have the driveway and you back into it, you know, pulling your driveway and back out in the traffic is the legal way to pull in and pull out of the driveway. Okay. So it might be some good conversation we had there. I think I would probably put that as a let's do the stuff and get it adopted. Okay. And then maybe come back and have that conversation, but maybe do it after this is at least in place for the rebuilds. Okay. For rebuilds, okay. I mean, that's really like the haste right now. All right. Maybe there's a part two, three, four. Are we good there for now? Yeah. I'm going to come back to this. I think I've got a little homework. Yeah. Okay, do you have the haste to do? Yeah. Yeah. But there. Don't go faster. Anything else on East Lakeshore before? No. Because I had this, this has to be heard by a listening to her. He said, skip me. No, we can still do this. We just got, you want more than this? No, I just, just wanted to make my speech. Absolutely. Okay. I had, it's Phyllis, but I just, I just wanted to make, I guess two points as long as I, I got the stage. I wanted to represent the tonnage on East Lakeshore Drive. Right now it's 20 and I'd like to get it down to 16. We are still looking ahead at no commercial on that road. So I don't need commercial trucks coming through East Lakeshore Drive. The road can't take it. The houses can't take it because they're shaking. So that, that would be into this select board world just so you know. We can't do anything about the road itself. Is that a state? Is that a state? No, it's not a road. No, it's not even a 127. It's been taken away. What's that? Yeah. Absolutely glad that's not my problem. That's a 100% select board. Keep that speech. Bring it right to you then. Okay. Let's keep that speech. Yeah. Perfect. Okay. And then I can't bring up the public to improve it all. Right? Yes. Yeah. That's not a senior. Sorry about that. Yeah. I appreciate it. Make sure you got those two points. Yep. That's awesome. Thank you. I'll put it into another one. It's been along with Regis. All right. All right. Back out. Walk to you. Yeah. We're just looking at the board. So that's it for us for East Lakeshore Drive. That's it. It is as long as you want it to be. I think we're good, right? Do we have anything left? Anyone? As far as you're concerned? Kind of at this time. Right? There's still some to do while head and warning the public hearing. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. We have minutes to approve. Yeah. We will. Nothing to add. What's really going on in the app is those little bit of properties that are in LS1 and LS2. Are they more appropriate to LS2 and LS4? Right. Yeah. I have a feeling we might want to use an LS1 and 2 at some point. Yeah. Everything has to be... You'll be fine. Yeah. If you want to do that now and hold up some of the other things. Yeah. That's something to come back to. So, all right. Given the time and what we have left, what we'll need is a motion to table five. Correct? May I look real quick just to make sure there was nothing... Time-sensitive? Well, just something that I didn't want to write something I could work on. Okay. Let's move between now and the next meeting. There's the agenda. We're organizational. You guys have actually done B. I just... That's just referencing that. Verification. Then we'll stand accessory structures. Let me take this conversation. D is a text change. E is a discussion. F is just a text change. G is a text change. H is a text change. I... fairly more than a text change. J, pretty much the same thing. The only thing I would add in and I can work with Rich directly on this is we talked about the commercial vehicle parking standards. Rich was going to help me to better define the size of a small commercial vehicle. So that might be something I'll work on between now and the next draft. I mean, unless there's a question somebody has on five that... Is it more numbers of vehicles as opposed to time? Yeah. So on that, we should go back to where we had it. Get it at one and change the size of the vehicle. The vehicle is about a pickup truck. We should put it into more of a size of a usable commercial vehicle. Nothing huge, but something like a suricard. So there were two pieces to it. There was the number and the size. The draft you have in front of me... In front of you goes back to the very original definition of commercial. We could fix that even more, I guess is what I'm saying. Yeah. Nothing else I can't wait. Okay, perfect. Minutes. I'll make a motion to approve the minutes. Second. You all in favor? Aye. Aye. I make a motion to adjourn. Hold up. Hold up. Sorry. I wasn't supposed to weigh in on that. Go ahead. A couple things. A, we need to set next meeting dates. Oh, I didn't sit on the bottom line. I'm sorry. And two, I want to make sure since we have this conversation going, you guys received it in your packet, but just I want to formally enter into the record that there was a letter submitted to you. I do have hard copies for anyone who wants it, but it is in the packet from Rick Davy and Anita Davy with some comments. So it is a bit long to read into the record. It is available, but I do want to announce into the record as having been received. Do you guys all have a copy of that? Yes. I do have hard copies for anyone who wants to see it. I'll take a hard copy with me as well. What I have promised people, and I want to continue to promise people, is that any way they are providing comments, e-mail, phone calls, no matter what they are, we are going to be 100% receptive and transparent about them so that people can feel comfortable. I thought it was a good matter. So anyone who doesn't have it, it is in your Dropbox. I got it. And I think it's also on the website. Next meeting dates. Yes. Your normal scheduled meeting for July is the day after the course. I think you'd agree previously not to do that. Correct. I don't even have recommendations for you. Tuesdays are going to be hard without holding off quite a bit. You'd have to be looking at your next meeting if you went with it. Tuesday would be the 19th. Sure. Do you want to go that far? Are you good? Probably. You're only on your choice to say, the fifth is too close to the holiday, but the sixth or seventh is fine. I don't know. You could pick a day other than Tuesday. Are there other meetings on Wednesdays and Thursdays? Wednesdays is development review, but I think they're on the second Tuesday. So the sixth. Thursdays are always open. Thursdays I think you're always open. I don't know making a recommendation. The 12th will not work. The fifth is a bad date. The 12th is a select board meeting. The fifth is a bad date. The 12th is a select board meeting. So Thursday or no? I'm fine with a Thursday meeting. I got to find out for sure. What's the surprise that we commit to at least the 19th? Okay. If there is a date sooner, we're technically required 48 hours, but we will announce that ASAP. So I'll follow up with you guys just to pull you on your schedule. But there's some potential it sounds like maybe for the 7th. It can be minimal. I have to look up too. I think going to a different day and a following week doesn't save you much. So if you don't do it the 7th, I wouldn't do it again until the 19th. Okay. Sounds fair. Do we have minutes to sign? Actually, I think we just ran through it. We'll see. Do you want to table that? Do you want to call that running through this? Number five. We'll leave them all listed anyway. Just for anyone who wants to weigh in as we go. I'll keep the list. Okay. If there's any benefit of shorting it. Okay. Sounds good. They don't want to show up again on the public hearing anyway. Yeah, that's right. Okay. Okay. Updates. And would you like a draft for the 19th that's ready for a warning for public hearing? It's not the actual public hearing. It's just... I feel like I need a little bit more time. Okay. So maybe we do the 19th and August 2nd? Yeah. So August 2nd is the potential warning? Yes. We should be able to roll that out. That would be for September, so just walking through this for anyone who's trying to follow. If you warn on August 2nd, you'd be looking on August. You'd be looking at like a September 13th public hearing. Yep. I think it's a little later than we were thinking, but I think it's okay. Yeah. That's what it is. So I'd rather take a little bit more time and be pretty confident in what we decide. Absolutely. I'm fine with that. Yeah. Okay. Okay. So... God. Maybe see you July 19th. Thank you so much. That's it. Update. That's all you need. Minutes. Oh, I was quick update on Chapter 4. What's that? Chapter 4 updates were approved by the select board. There you go. Done. Okay. Egress windows now required in basements. Permit requirements will be changed from a $2,500 threshold to a $15,000 threshold. With a little bit more included than was included before. You didn't need a permit for a roof before, now you do. But the threshold is much, much higher. What do you mean? What do you mean by that? Wait, is that it again? Yeah, I lost that one. Yeah. Sorry. I didn't know if you wanted me to go fast. Not that fast, I suppose. It's from $2,500 to $15,000. Chapter 4 and a lot of ordinances. So... It speaks to what requires a building permit, not a zoning permit or a building permit. Okay. It had been $2,500 was the threshold for a lot of work. Certain things were excluded. But the list was really complicated in figuring out what was excluded and what wasn't. Okay. The adopted language changes that to basically any interior renovations. But the threshold is much higher. It's $15,000 of work now. Perfect. Not $2,500. Perfect. So it'll exclude a lot of kitchen remodels, bathroom remodels. Yeah. A lot of that stuff wasn't required for that building permit. Do you want any more? Perfect. That's a change of living effect to join. We'll do a kitchen permit. That's the $15,000. We'll do a kitchen permit. Just wanted to break you. Mr. Shep. I'll make a motion to adjourn. All in favor. All in favor. All in favor. Very good. Thank you very much. Thank you.