 It is seven o'clock. First item on the agenda, consideration of our S 43. To the development. Regulations. So I'm happy to sort of take you through it a little bit by a little bit. I piled everything in. We can see what we get through tonight. So I'm happy to sort of take you through it a little bit by a little bit. There's a couple more things that I need to. Ask you towards the end of. After we get through 17, what might be 18, 19 and 20. So. With that being said. I'll start to go through these one by one, if you like. And we can stop for questions along the way. So we haven't done one of these supplements in over a year now. So I think that's something that I would like to see. And hopefully some changes to the. Regulations that are seen in more of like a housekeeping. Or small changes that are being requested by. Applicants or property owners. To. What they might like to see what might be holding them up small changes. So I think in the packet, I provided some information from SDI. From the last meeting that they had asked for for follow-up. So we'll get through that in order here, but. The first is the possibility of exempting small chicken groups. From. Neen permits. And we looked at, you know, what is a small one? Just in terms of prefab. 120 square feet. And this is because they move around. And so we'll go out and we'll check and make sure that needs set back. We'll get to that. I think that's just a point. And then the next day, the chicken coop moves in. It may or may not need it. And so I think that was something thrown out of staff as. Perhaps just exempt them from permits all together because it's always sort of a moving target as to. Whether or not they meet setbacks. And so that was the intent behind. The first idea. have to be permitted for the chicken coop and it becomes a shed then we have a problem. Yeah, but it's 120 square feet so that's not a very big 10 by 12. Well, so it was just an idea but you're right if it did the chicken slept the coop then it becomes. It's a hobby that gets old after a while. Yeah, it's a purposely okay. Well, my shed is about 10 by 12. I see a pretty good size chicken coop. I mean, I have neighbors that have very small chicken coops and I don't have any problem with that at all. So maybe it's a smaller size maybe it's a yeah something that couldn't be used as storage like a six by six. Sure. Or just limit it to like 36 square feet or 40 square feet. Because the size could be you know usually smaller chicken coops are only like three feet wide and they could have be 10 feet long because they'd have a little little coop and then a little little yard in front of it. So under 36 square feet. That sounds good to me. Yeah, all right. Second one is to clarify in 2.09 standards for accessory buildings exceed 50% of principal size of so I think Rich you had asked sort of the culture thing of buildings that need to be attached so we've always had this standard that you can't have an accessory structure that's more than 50% of the size of your house in a residential district and these are handled as conditional use applications before the board. A way to get around it is if you attach it then you don't need to be set back 10 feet from the structure and there really is a size requirement once it's attached. So that's where you get some of these different attachments. But this speaks to detached accessory that are exceeding that size. Path forward we used to have was put them before the developer review board for conditional use. The board said we're proving all of these. Couldn't you just give us a way of administering them. We did in doing that change. We had an oversight and we didn't accept them in the ag and rural residential districts. So what was meant to be a process for people to have something that looked more residential and scale and what have you if it was larger shouldn't be applied to barns. And so we're seeking some clarity on this one. Say only in the residential districts and keep barns barns. So I think the wording that we have is residential in nature but exempt that in the ag and rural residential districts. Does that make sense? Yeah I didn't have any problem with that. No but that's just taking care of the agriculture part of it. We're not doing anything about the residential part. So we aren't changing that at all right now. This is just a housekeeping one of just when we carved out that exemption. So I didn't have to go to the board anymore. Unfortunately I made this residential nature applicable to all accessories exceeding 50 percent of the size of single family if they were allowed. And so now that's applicable to the barns and we're just pulling it back and saying nope sorry we didn't mean to make it a couple of barns. I'm good. I'm good. Anybody else? That's fine. All right so three we've been seeing more accessory apartments that are truly for family members and not to be necessarily just rented out. And particularly during the past year there's been more of a push to have shared outdoor spaces. Unfortunately the way so accessory the way that we define it and we're actually more permissive from the state we allow up to 900 square feet or a third of the house size whichever is greater. And 900 square feet for accessories is pretty generous except when you start bumping into what's included in that such as a patio or a deck. And the way that we've applied this in the past is if it's shared with the primary like let's say it's a shared patio half goes to the accessory half goes to the primary. So when you start tolling those things up it counts against the size of the accessory and sometimes precludes the accessory from being able to have access to it because it'll send over that size limit. So what we're proposing is to really better define this and say if there is a shared patio or some sort of outdoor unenclosed structure such as a pool that those don't necessarily count towards the accessory. We ran into one up in the village where family building together one the father slash father-in-law have access to the back patio and pool right now we can't grant that doorway back out to that shared family space because it will exceed the size limit for the accessory. So does that seem fair or concerns? I think that's very fair. Sounded fair to me. I didn't have any issues with that. I'm okay with that. All right. This is going too easy so far. I'm just waiting for the... Can I ask a question about that? Sure. And this is very personal. You know this is about me that I'm curious about so I just want to put that out there. But I have an accessory apartment and I wanted to put a door in a wall so my son and myself could go back and forth to their apartment. I have to go down the stairs now and up the stairs to get to it. Would that mean I could put a door in inside? So no because you're still inside and it's still inside space that would count against you. This specifically addresses those sort of outside spaces. Okay. That's a good question. But we tell people too is if you expand the size of your home then you can potentially expand the size of your accessory apartment too. So you know a third of 3,000 square feet gets you a thousand square foot accessory apartment. So okay well I'll talk to you about it if we ever decide to do that. We try and offer creative solutions but this was one that just came up to us as being unfortunately not a good way around it. So I'm going to do a new screen share so I'm going to stop. I apologize it's a little messy here at the moment. All right so I've been with you the whole time just kind of just catching up was listening and just didn't realize I was in the plane. All right so I think we're on to number four on staff notes and this gets to the SDIRLIN request which is to have garage locations relative to porches and not the principal plane of a building. So this will allow them to reduce that front setback and they submitted some additional information which you would ask for in the packet about what they gain for parking spaces. I think it was 33 parking spaces that they gain by this. They also asked for recent configuration of the parking area and I said that we're trying to move fast on a lot of these supplements and if they had to choose one which would they choose the true parking change or the change to the setbacks. They asked for the change to the setback so I conveyed that we might be able to consider the other one at a later time but perhaps it might be best to take a more gradual approach and this was discussed at the last meeting. I do believe that at the meetings when we went through this whole form-based code and stuff like that that we conceded some things to them for heights and stuff like that to get these setbacks and parking things and I just there's a reason we did some of the stuff we did and set the precedences that we did. That's just me though. Yeah that's I have to agree that's a little bit of a difficult one without being able to research it a little bit. It had to be a reason why the setback was considered. I have actually no problems again with the parking and expanding the parking lot for more parking. I do for the sheer number of cars traveling down the road. You're adding more parking spaces that wasn't part of the traffic study to start the whole thing. Again it's one of those we're not giving we're just taking but that's just me on this one. Yeah you're talking about the setback though right? You're talking about the setback and also the parking at the same time. They want to you know take some park and get more parking but that's more traffic. Was that part of the traffic study they did to do what they're doing? To be set parameters then you can't just change them as it's convenient is my thought. So parking stays are usually based upon the number of units as opposed to the parking spaces. But some of the options that you have to and I just include addressing the concern on the garage setback. And so you can see I crossed off minimum eight feet behind the porch balcony stoop or other feature instead of building. So right now the idea was to not have sort of snap houses where the garage protrudes in front of the porch so that the porch protrudes first is a more welcoming feature to pedestrians, people sitting out talking to their neighbors. So you can approach this variety of different ways. The first way is what's listed here in terms of making it setback from the front of the porch as opposed to the front of the house because Ireland's concern was when you have it be back from the porch on the front then you have a real far setback for the garage. But this would allow that area to be sort of shortened up and create potentially more garage space for them. If that makes sense. But another way that you could approach this is instead of sitting in the middle of eight feet behind you could still prescribe an amount less than eight feet potentially. But those two who fail to meet that standard must be held accountable. They either lose garage space and turn it into a storage unit or try to add more, a little bit more living area as you adjust back and forth, right? Yeah. Yes, Arita. Oh, thank you. So are we talking about the difference between function and aesthetics? Like that they would get more space in their house one way but it would look nicer the other way? So the idea was I think driving this requirement was the aesthetics. But SDI-1 has asked for this modification so that they could gain more parking. It also better fits with their designs and I think they presented some of those at the last meeting. My understanding was the eight foot setback means they can't have a garage. That's how they're getting 33 spaces if we change it. And I think it's pretty important to allow them to have a garage. That's right because then that garage per their design intrudes upon their living space. Right. As design and builders you would think they would have thought of that before that we set everything up previously and decided to add it to it. It's my only question. They kind of explained that this was kind of an entry-level townhomes and that they're trying to reach a certain market. So it's somewhat affordable and they recognize that if they don't put a garage on that you'll just get things collecting on the outside that aren't desirable. So the garage not only could take a car but it could take other items that show up in people's yards without a garage. That's what I understand. Was it Robin? Yes. Explain last time which makes sense. I mean if this is entry-level most we're talking about young professionals going after these kind of properties. I can see the garage being very desirable and having the extra parking space in front of it because usually they have two cars. I don't know. I didn't quite understand whether getting this extra parking space meant that they met the parking requirements or this was just additional parking that they thought would be required because when I was reading through it sound like there's desirable for the units with the extra parking in the other two parking areas. I think there's 10 spots and two locations that included the 33 that they said would be for guests and visitors which they have found has been desirable for these kind of developments. I don't. I wasn't part of the form base code but I can understand why the setback was there because there's been some projects where the garage is the main feature and it doesn't look so good especially for a one-story building. I think with a two-story building it gets a little bit more interesting and that the two-story kind of takes away from the garage. I think there could be some more flexibility in that sense because there's a lot of nice modern designs that do have the garage kind of upfront but the two-story kind of takes the edge off of it. That's just me as a designer looking at this. But if it's a reason for a question of marketability wouldn't older people who want to live in that area close to everything also fit in that dynamic that doesn't need two parking spaces or garage because they probably don't have canoes. So it's just that's just me on my thought on this whole. I just I heard a business. I think it's a money thing more than anything else. We can get more money for the place if we can stuff this in there versus and with the market the way it is they're probably understandably hoping to change what they had planned to start with being in their occupants. It's a long-term thing I understand but I don't think it's going to change. That's just me. I'm just hearing that employers are really having a lot of difficulty finding employees for their work and that there are people in rural Vermont that would like to come and work you know in Chittenden County. There's more opportunities for them but they cannot find housing and affordable housing. So I tend to support really just providing affordable housing you know workforce I think of it as workforce housing to bring people here and provide a place for them and I don't think that has a I understand about affordable housing but I don't think this is affordable housing question this is what we've asked them to do and they're asking for changes but that's just me like I said nobody have to stuff this in this particular settlement. We could also table it to the next one. They're not going to have buildings built in a week so we can discuss this further as we go down the road. That's absolutely true. They've added this to the latest when we've got people waiting for a long time to get a lot of other things done. On the if we pull the if they did pull a garage out considering we have form-based zoning and there are requirements about flat fronts those buildings would they have to go under I don't look again at the requirements. So there are other design criteria that they need to meet that they would still have to go before the board and they'd have to meet the no more than 50% of the street-facing facade can have a blank sort of facade there have to be architectural elements distinguishing so there are other there are other restrictions in the gd4 district which are going to come into play. I also just want to quickly say to anybody that's watching live tonight that's trying to join the meeting if you are trying to join the meeting I think I've successfully thwarted some zoom bombers that had very inappropriate screen names that we're trying to share so if you are trying to join the meeting and can't get in please check your names and identify yourself properly before trying to enter but you can also watch this broadcast on CCTV on their YouTube station I believe live so my apologies to people that perhaps had somebody else change their screen name and we're trying to join tonight but um okay so on on this on this subject uh it doesn't sound like we're gonna have an answer from this one tonight I agree yeah I have a question before we move on though we're not moving on go ahead yeah would it be possible to grant only this uh structure this design project uh the ability to have a different setback and still keep the regulations themselves themselves the same I don't know that answer but I would assume that if you set a precedent and allow other people some people to do something you wouldn't be able to stop other people from asking for the same request and the same changes could we create some sort of conditional I guess feature to the regulations in that case which outlines which situations and which reasoning which reasons would allow this sort of thing because if it's in the context of affordability and if the original setbacks were for the purpose of aesthetics and uh Rebecca made a great point with the um garages being used for storage and that keeping like undesirable things off the property could we I don't know would that be like a regulation change to allow qualifiers I guess for setbacks that you're absolutely right that's what we're discussing tonight do we want to change that we were discussing was affordability of housing I don't think these are going to be the kind of buildings that are built and sold that are going to be under the probably $300,000 range which I don't think is fits in the low budget we we asked about numbers where they would go and what they would change and we weren't providing with them which is why I said let's table this for a little bit until we have a little more information and take care of some of the other things on the plate I thought you said they were 240 I thought I asked how much they would cost and I thought she said they were around 240 300 were they yeah okay I heard that they were less than 300 they're more like in entry level right 295 to 315 that's what she said somewhere's that range I don't think it calls under what it's considered affordable but more of entry level so I think of it more as for instance I got two adult kids and one has found a house but they found it kind of before the pandemic and the other one is searching and they can't really touch anything so they're they're in this gap where they can't go into affordable housing but they can't afford buying a place of their own so uh this looked like a good fit to meet that need but that doesn't really I think whatever we do here to make any changes to the regulations I think we need to think of it in the broad sense of how it's going to be applied to other developments that would fall under these regulations whether it's affordable housing entry level or high end and address it from that direction so I think just to sort of pull back a little bit here in terms of what their request is in terms of I think some of the concerns are the design of the building and how that it's going to appear from the street and so they're asking for reduction in the setback so they can pull a garage or put in a garage and plan accordingly to that there are two mechanisms in this particular language that are sort of the levers that you can pull on this the first one is if you let them take the setback from the porch the furthest most piece or if it has to be set back eight to ten feet from the porch and it's actually where the main building starts so that's sort of the first lever that you can pull is where do you take that setback from and then the second lever that you can pull is what is that setback so there's a way to maybe give a little bit on this maybe not pull both levers at once but allow for them to have a little bit more flexibility with this in terms of getting some additional indoor space for storage of either cars canoes kayaks planks those sorts of things if they fit a car in there a small car so yeah it's a garage yeah small garage but I would still I guess keep in there you know a minimum distance from the plane of the building or porch I mean if they don't have a porch or a balcony or any kind of stoop and it's kind of the front of the building I think that still needs to be in there I'm going to go back to my original request that we just kind of slow down and take care of some of the other pieces of business that we can get done and these people have just recently asked this we've got a lot of questions we need to answer and either approve some of the other things and push this one off for a little bit and just kind of move on as a group I don't think we need to answer this tonight I think we have some questions what do we think I don't think it's the weirdest thing to wait on I mean we want it right there can be a whole row of these pieces this is something that's going to affect some changes I've been here doing this long enough where I have reacted quicker after the fact that I thought I should have so sometimes you need to just slow down and digest and make sure we're doing it right that's all has there been other projects that have been built under these regulations no because this would be the first townhomes or sea streets under this regulation I don't think it's pretty important to learn out of the garage I I agree and I'm I'm concerned about the window they have for building that's not the concern it's getting their right should be more of a concern than the window they have to build it this is something that we look at and we're going to look at for a long time we drive up through there it's our growth center this is stuff that we took time and energy when we did the foreign base coning foreign base and looked at everything and kind of gave them these leeways and what they can and cannot do to decide in one or two meetings that we're going to change it to allow them to do what they want I think we need to step back and just look a little bit that's all I've got to say about that I don't know what is right or wrong I just want to slow down the touch I have no problems again but let me make sure everybody's on board Sarita I'm just going to say nothing's probably going to change I don't think anything I don't know what the questions are that would change my mind or what the answers are uh chair or cat okay we think mark if if the point of am I on mood or unmoved you hear me do somebody have the news on in the background I'm sorry that's my husband okay well that's all right I just I think the garage is important for making the homes marketable I mean they're marketable because everyone wants homes but more utilitarian given you know our climate and everything and I'm not sure if it was intended by making these setbacks that you'd make these units not able to have parking I think that might have been an unforeseen consequence and I think you can still do a lot to address aesthetics make it a four foot setback from a protruding porch you know which gives you shadow lines and things like that but I think we should focus on on whether we can let them have a garage thank you I also think part of it was impervious services too I think they're making a footprint larger and they want to get rid of some bumps in the parking lot that was also to help slow down water spread and things like that and they say they have the answers and everything set but again we had this conversation set some precedence had some ideas of where we wanted to be with all this and so I would say that I think what's striving this is the idea that you had a tight site it's in the back corner of the southeast quadrant where they had this has been under design for the bare part of a decade before the foreign base code and they really wanted to do townhomes there and I think they're trying to take their previous plans and sort of pull them together and see what they can do to meet the foreign base code and it gets to be a trade-off in terms of density and so sometimes when you have a tight space and you're trying to get in a lot more units which is what we want to see in the gross center it just becomes a trade-off of what do you do with the space so I'd say maybe a way to roll this out slowly would be to have the maybe the setback retained minimum of eight feet but have it be behind the porch balcony or stoop as opposed to right now we just say building and we don't define it really so that might give them a little bit to work with see what they can do be creative and yet you maintain that setback that would be for them to come back to us at the next meeting with their discussion on that it's not a bad idea but we won't make that decision tonight I don't think I don't see it so you'd like sd Ireland to come back at the next meeting to discuss I think we should and that that idea is is a good idea I think it's a compromise okay can they still have can they still have a garage that with your suggestion Sarah that's for them to answer okay so just let me ask a question because I'm having is the zoom administrator tonight some odd things show up for instance it said that bob shek had entered the waiting room bob you still have audio I'm still here okay so somebody was spoofing you and trying to enter and I got another Pam loringer that was trying to enter but I think Pam's still here too hi there okay there's some weird things happening on the zoom admin side tonight okay perfect thank you there's all right so I'll move on to number five we're sort of done with number four for right now yes okay so let me all right on your screen so I do scroll down to the floodplain stuff one foot two foot may um okay pause that all right so we have some females changing where you have to how you measure when you have to reconstruct if you get substantial damage and you have to floodproof a building they require that you elevate so you're out of the floodplain and they now want to see some specific language saying that the lowest horizontal member of the building needs to be about the floodplain because what they're having people do is take that base floor elevation move out of the floodplain but then have all the mechanicals hanging down below it and so you can imagine that that can cause a lot of very expensive damage to a building if those things get flooded so we're proposing a couple clarifications one is in six section 6.03 f and the other one is in the definition section of 12.02 about what a lowest horizontal member is this is really only applicable to anything new that would be going to the floodplain any reconstruction the floodplain and we'll say is after the 2011 flood we had a lot of people that when they were built chose not to just bring it up to above floodplain they actually want a couple feet above because particularly out on the mouth of the Noosky River the Colchester Point Broad Lake you had that wave action from the south trees acting as battering rams coming in and a lot of sort of lossly driven impact that a lot of people said we're going to go higher so I don't think this is really going to make much of a difference other than it will make you happy in terms of checking a box saying yep we're measuring the correct way any questions on that make sense I'm good with it all right sounds good yeah to the next part Sarita I'm good yeah okay I mean I think floodplains are changing and will be changing and I just think we should be aware of that because I think these the floodplains that are now established were is it like 30 years old or something so actually the floodplain mapping for Lake Champlain was they had just done the remapping right before the 2011 flood and so the good news is it's fairly updated and we now know and it was sort of proof checked that year by the actual flood but I think what you find is in Colchester a lot of our flying is along the lake which is that bathtub building but a lot of the other areas where you see flood damage is that quick inundation flooding along rivers along tributaries and things like that so we're fairly fortunate that our 27 miles of shoreline you can sort of see the floodwater coming so but right now the lake is I guess two feet below normal so we're not going to have to worry about that right now okay thank you sir number six um clarifies section 8.03 b so what this does is it ties back ag in civil culture which is forestry exemptions right back to the state language so if there's any questions about what we're exempting from our review we're saying hey state statute says this they're exempt it's uh hopefully a quick clarification make sense okay any other questions or how good all right next a few quick ones hopefully we can get through me so we um have standard to when people submit applications and we ask for name owner what have you um these are subdivision approvals usually submitted by engineers surveyors we're just asking for them to put the parcel ID on it helps us a lot makes things faster makes it more specific so we're just saying particularly with boundary line adjustments give us the parcel IDs on the applications hopefully that's easy enough easy peasing makes sense I'm good all right the next part is under PUDs and open space and I don't know if you can see it here but when we did our combined subdivision zoning regulations a couple years ago we tried to give some more specificity to um the board to work with in terms of open space guidelines PUD buffers those sorts of things and we had usually given exemptions on open space to our gd3 districts because gd3 is village slash hyberg reprim gd2 is the fort gd3 is seven squares and gd4 is exit 17 all areas that you want to see pretty dense development eventually and um we didn't specify all gds we only specified gd3 as the exemption so now we have um st michaels college out the fort that's going to try and carve up in cell its assets in a PUD and we had one of our last year be agenda that without this change three existing buildings being subdivided out onto their own properties at the fort is going to trigger a 25 open space requirement at the fort which you can achieve without knocking buildings down which by the way it's national register district we don't want to see that so um we're hoping that this is a quick clarification that we can make to just say gd districts you don't have to do open space same as commercial industrial their places we don't want to see development makes sense to me any questions is this what you sent us sierra because is this the same um in the box materials is this the same as somebody's i can't find like four open space so this is on page nine of that second piece under um it's s43 draft rags dot pdf yeah so um nine i have clarified pavement types in section 10.01 but i can follow along with this i just didn't i was i couldn't find where we were we're in number eight under staff notes okay it just looked different because of the the different sections okay so are you seeing staff notes on your screen yep okay so number nine's pavement types and i can get to that yeah next so we're also saying that you can do right now we said asphalt concrete we're adding pervious just to be completely clear pervious is great we'd like to see it and then also under parking and layouts there are new standards that when you and these are state standards that we need to make people aware of the rpcs are working to roll out this language saying that um you need to incorporate opportunities for electric vehicle charging stations into different projects and there are different thresholds and so these thresholds are the same as the state's i think it's the craziest thing possible if we have to follow state's rules well whether or not we put these in here they have to follow it and so what we're just doing is trying to put people they often start with us at the local level let them know what the requirements are understood and it is what it is we have to do it and make sense according to the state so that's what we have to do so one of the suggestions um when i was at this meeting was that we strategically maybe think about if we can possibly put these charging stations near restaurants or any place where they could people could spend money while their cars were charging so that was just one thought i had so that definitely what was the specific from this meeting for what meeting were you at at the state was it part of the the energy department or just curious it was um the caucus it was the climate caucus who was drafting probably this bill okay this is existing regulations it's not draft so yeah but is it new regulations because i know this conversation came up it came out within the last year yeah no and and so i think the parking the 50 spaces is going to get you that sort of larger area people are going to be congregating um and um you know and some of these standards it talks about making sure that while you're putting in all the infrastructure we bring in your street lights and parking lot lights that you also wire for these places it doesn't necessarily always require you to install a charger it requires that area to be wired for for the future um so in some ways that's a nice thing that you aren't going to have to necessarily tear things up in the future to accommodate it's there if you need it so and hopefully it doesn't add to this reason so which is reasonable all right ready move on to 10 and bike rocks oh good okay make it to bike racks and all right so we already have requirements for bike parking and we're saying that you know please put it by the front door where people will use it um we've had on occasion people try and do innovative things that no one's ever going to use that bike rack they'll put it in for putting in but put in weird locations and this is also specifying that you know if possible have it be close to a power outlet because now what we're finding too is um particularly some of those uh fleet bike rental are now going more electric and so if you have the ability to have it close to an electrical outlet that also is helpful because you're finding that seems to be a growing area power assisted bikes it's not required it's only if you decide to put power to a bike rack so right now the way that's where is bike racks shall be located in proximity to the main entrance with at least one power outlet within 10 feet of the bike rack but that can be done usually if a bike rack's up against the front of the building and you have one of those outside outlets for people to plug in lights whatever on the front of the building um this applies to new things coming before the developer of your board so um would it be like the the parking lot that they put the power there that maybe the outlets not there at least they have the power there so it could be installed in the future yeah they could so um with access to power maybe instead no i can't remember what the wording you had for the parking yep it was kind of similar to that that's doable the other okay i'll move on to 11 which is about solar panels so this was an old requirement and um it was pointed out that most of the designs right now with ground mount solar is if you did this um they essentially scrape on the ground and so we really need to increase it from eight feet to 10 feet just to give ground clearance that's pretty straightforward okay the next issue is septic tanks uh we specify time limits for all of our permits to expire but we don't specifically specify septic tanks so we just added in that those also expire within 12 months that's hopefully pretty easy yeah straightforward and then we get into some of the definition changes and let me pause that here go back um so we had a bunch of little changes in section in the definitions it's actually i think 12.02 for congregate care housing hospice nursing care institution mental health and residential care home and we tied these all back into specifically 33 vsa section 7102 um because when you specify this you're then tying it back to what the state permits and the state regulates and so it takes out a lot of objectivity from us and just um refers it back to okay well the state has approved this as a nursing care institution and so we're going to look at it as one in the same um so we did uh to serve a change to some of these we also clearly reference the state's definition of therapeutic facilities which could be interpreted as a variety of uses um so right now um there's some lack of specificity in terms of different treatment centers and these will help tie it back in and specify exactly what it is and take it off of staff interpreting in the future pretty straightforward yep i agree okay um i'll screw down 14 which is group quarters and this again goes to serve saint mikes and we did two things i'll stop first on the dormitory so there are a bunch of things that we just don't have in cochesteries to have a content we don't anymore and we're saying a dormitory is a group living quarter for school that's what we have right now and that's what most dormitories usually are and then we go down to group quarters and we need to specify there um that excludes dormitories so we're better defining what's dormitory what is a dormitory um and let me just go back to that this really goes to um with the college looking to sell some more of its property in the fort um this makes it more clear a change from a student dormitory or trigger developer or view board approval that we can evaluate the impact of that change on the neighborhood in the community any questions on 14 yeah i do i guess on the impact by doing this it does not it eliminates that problem correct so right okay now there's a little bit of ambiguity where if you're looking to take a previous dorm and change it into some sort of shared co-housing arrangement okay or just the general public or maybe for a specific segment of the public um you could say well we're not changing the use but this makes it very clear dormitory housing is only for students and anything else you're going to be triggering developer or view board approval and having to evaluate how that impacts the area okay all right all right i think we're gonna move on to table a one like the steak sauce my favorite table so let's go let me pause and go to i think the first one that we get to is contractors yards um as conditional use in gd and lumber contractors yards as conditional use in gd2 so allow travel trades at the fort to expand and potentially have more space for growing landscape contractors businesses um in the community so let me get back to that i flipped many things at once so that's all gds or just ones so let me get to contractors so we have the landscape contractors yard so you can see we're adding it here as a conditional to gd1 we're adding it to gd2 and gd4 as conditional so this expands the areas that you can have landscape contractors yards to areas like gd1 which is hyberg prim village gd2 which is the fort gd4 which is 617 and also lumber contractors yards which might be more trial trades than a landscape contractors yard it allows this conditionally in gd2 i think there was a concern that trial trades might not be able to change at all as a pre-existing non-conforming use if we didn't do this so what's gd4c so that is a very specific commercial overlay up at exit 17 which is really just sort of tightly drawn around the chimney corners area they made a carve out when they created gd4 for a couple of potential future gas stations and limited those that gd4c area okay so it should almost be permitted there well i think you could have some concerns with the aesthetics of a large contractor's yards right at chimney corners as well as some of the traffic impacts potentially of that but chimney corners where traffic should be and if you're putting in loudness in other places that would probably have those same concerns correct i mean gd2 and is that under the development review board to decide if it's acceptable to be there so conditional use makes it so that you look at the character of the area there are five criteria and one of the main ones is character of the area so if you wanted to add a landscape or contract yard as a conditional to gd4c too you could but if you're putting it in gd4 which is the underlying district you're doing it for both it's just gd4c if you want to think about it as the add-on is as there are more cabbage right all right anything else on i'm just can you just clear i'm just not clear kind of um is this in a zoning area that is manufacturing and commercial or is it is a mixed residential so for the landscape contractors yards um in gd1 gd2 and gd4 also offer residential however what i would say is these are really sure if you're they're really the people that mow your lawns the people bring you bark mulch that plow your driveway and we allow them conditionally right now in the r5 and r10 districts which are also more purely residential but conditional use would allow the board to evaluate character the area impacts adjacent residents okay yeah i just want to make sure neighbors would be considered you know the impact of if it was expanded conditional use requires a public hearing and notification of the abouters too great thank you all set set all right i'll move on to one of the things that's weighted the longest which is our archival facility indoor storage out the fort me so it's this time we'll see here under gd2 which will allow expansion of indoor climate controlled storage which was what the request was over a year ago um for that one property out the fort mr sleeper's property that was a good idea then i still do okay i think that might be me that might be it for the table oh the last thing was add group quarters to the uses so we're adding in a line in the table now that we're defining what group quarters is which is basically everything that's not student dormitory but we've been in that definition we're adding that in um to the table of uses so let me back to that zoom group quarters and so we're placing it as trying to hold the same thing with dorms um and where we looked at that before which would be group quarters would be conditional in gd1 gd2 g3 gd4 it looks okay to me great job yeah all right um so there are a couple more things that serve i mentioned in staff notes that aren't enumerated here in the 17 that you have so far um which was um or a quest which is in your informational items at the last meeting and i'll share my screen again let me just so there was a question from mr brennan about his store and now that he was looking to sell it it um pre-existing non-conforming how could he have some um maybe a small business there and the idea was that you could potentially have a home-based business there somebody that lived there and had a business but he was concerned about the number of vehicles that you could park there in a place like that that had been a store which has a large amount of parking it might make sense in a typical residential neighborhood with a single family home it might not and so they serve um proposal i've formulated to try and help that was um that you could have more than one commercial vehicle per per property as a home business use all home businesses have to go before the developer view board as conditional use applications so you're notifying the neighbors and you're giving the board the flexibility to look at the care of the area so in a tight single family neighborhood parking a more than one commercial vehicle might not be allowed because they might not have space for it but in a case like this where there's a former store and commercial property it might be suitable and to get the board some ability to um look at that now they sold the store and somebody went in and got this deal here with one extra vehicle or whatever they need the place sells again do they have to go back to drb for another another business roles in there again this nothing this is like a grandfathered thing so so if you get approval for let's say a restaurant and you change out who owns it what the restaurant is as long as you have the same limitations like number of seats number of employees those sorts of things you don't have to come back to us so the same thing with the home business is if you get approval for a home business from us and you sell your home and instead of being a plumbing contractor you're coming in with an HVAC contractor and they've also wall parked four vans that's fine you don't need to keep on coming back to the board but so the approval runs to the land so make yeah yeah how many how many vehicles could they have well right now you can only have one this allows you to go to the board and ask for more so you're only guaranteed the one anything beyond that you really have to work through those conditions with the board in terms of character the area um transportation impacts traffic impacts could you have 10 if you had enough land you could ask for it i'm not sure if you get approval for it but i mean i'm just wondering what we give the drd the ability to say i mean they'd have to be consistent wouldn't it be the amount of land that went with the property like how many vehicles could be on there so by having a home business the conditional use process um um you're looking at the five criteria so under state statute one of them is character the area um so you're looking at what's immediately around it okay you're looking at um also transportation and traffic impacts is this going to create or 10 vans going to create an adverse traffic impact that type cul-de-sac um probably yes if it was a very small residential area main road might not um so you're not you're not prescribing specific criteria for the board but you're saying you have to look at these things generally thank you sir that helps me understand thank you do they have to require any screening or anything such as that because that is an open lot with could the drb say we need it screened in is there you could under care to the area so if the neighbors show up and say you know i'm all four i just don't want to look at it um i think that's one of the great things our board does is sort of listen to both sides and um take into account if there's an ability to do something simple like plant some cedar hedging um but you might not have any neighbors show up or any concerns of that and it could go through without it i like the idea of uh being able to make more use of the property i just kind of hope it stays clean i guess it doesn't get messy i guess i would have to rely on the drb to hopefully make that happen i guess well i think there's one of the good reports that you have with the board where they provide feedback and say hey we approved it but we really didn't want to or you know we really need this in our toolbox as opposed to that do all neighbors get a letter about the public meeting or do they have to just kind of keep checking so with the conditional use all direct to butters anybody that owns land that touches a property and we do across the street too okay um get notification great thank you so are you okay with me adding this in as maybe 18 for now i guess so i do anyways Becca can you hear us yeah i can hear you i just now have the tv's probably gotten louder in the background let's apologize it's all right i'm with the brother opinions here yeah no this will still fall under conditional use so i don't have a problem with that all right i'm okay with it yeah mr shat still there all right um all right so there have been a couple other little things that have popped up too um and i'll tackle the easier one first which is we got a permit submitted for a deck on a home on sherry acres and discovered it was owned industrial and we couldn't approve the deck permit and we discovered that the neighbors owned industrial too how this happened they're adjacent to hazelits which was industrial um but we're really hoping that we could flip those to r1 which they should be so they can hopefully get a deck this summer yeah that's funny i don't know how we missed that that was pretty uh well almost lot by lot at one time going through those so we did and i i i couldn't believe it i was incredulous i went through i said i thought we cleaned up all these weird little spot fixes several years ago yeah we have over 7000 parcels in town but i guess we missed two i'm good with that fine and then the last one is sort of a more entailed one which is um so the department of public works is on our last drb agenda because they needed to repair the outfall the storm or outfall behind the police station and it was in the stream bank buffer and so they needed to come in through the conditional use process because we've always been so restrictive in terms of what people can and can't do in the stream bank buffer and karen adams our technical services manager brought up to us and said you know as we're looking to repair more of these outfalls which tend to be along streams and other things it'd be really nice if we didn't have to go to the board every time to fix them and the board actually gave i think a really good feedback and said we wish every application was this easy it got approval um but i think changing some of the proposed changes to the stream bank ordinance are not going to be very simplistic and might get a little bit more time consuming as to what's applicable to the stream bank buffer and what isn't um so i think that is one that if you guys are rolling on a lot of these others that might be one that gets held for potentially later um i can try and draft something up if you like but i have no problems with that being put on hold plenty to do i agree i agree all right so i think you're up to potentially 19 issues with um i need to make a modification to the bike parking um i'm going to add in about the home business and the parking and the industrial to um residential um what would you like me to do to sort of jumping back through with number four in s d ireland um you want them to come in at future meeting do you want to take that out of this supplement for right now depends on uh how do we want to move forward on a supplement if we do we take them out because you want to start that right off you want any part of the supplement they'll have to come back in we'll have to take a meeting next meeting correct so if you want to start moving forward with the supplement i couldn't get it warned for the may meeting at this point um you'd be looking at uh public hearing in june um but i would probably have to warn it if you're looking to have your next meeting on like may 20th i would have to warn it um before then so a couple of different options if you really wanted to consider still keeping something um of ireland's request in with the supplement you could have your next meeting be the first meeting in may and just have them quickly in and just focus specifically on that issue um or you could put the train out of the station and they get on the next supplement that um is that rossi going to be built this year i know they have big building coming up an actual building of townhouses back there so what this impacts is their ability to get approvals in place to start building um so they can't apply for it until the regulations are changed and um i think some of the first buildings that i want to start are this fall but they usually need to get their approvals months in advance of that if we made changes in the form-based zoning for that building there's no way they're going to be able to get approval it has to be finalized before then so before they bring forward um a set plan application to get approval for the town homes um sd iron has said that they need to have the setback somehow modified or else they're going to have to go back to sort of the drawing boards um in terms of maybe not having garages for the units or somehow changing um their designs substantially that put everything back two months we jumped from may to june well it depends on how quickly you want to work on the next supplement right but if we decide that we want to go forward on these items tonight except for the sd island one we could start that process in may if we hold off have sd island come in in may we don't start till june so here's what i'd like to offer for a timeline is you aren't going to be able to warn a public hearing on this supplement in time for maybe you'd be looking at having as soon as that you could have a public hearing going to be june okay and um in order to do that you would most likely need to warn that before may 20th which i believe would be your next meeting um i just quickly double check the calendar here just so i'm not talking out of turn actually it would be first tuesday in may is the fourth and then the second is the 18th and you need a 30 day turnaround so if you wanted to warn something for june 15th you wanted to warn a public hearing for june 15th you would have to have something um are finalized and worn before may 18th okay so if that's your intent to have a hearing in june you need to figure out if you're including the island thing you could have a meeting on may fourth like a quick meeting just to address that all right what do we think that's i don't think we'll do a may fourth myself i don't i feel kind of rushed about the whole thing uh i feel like sd island's kind of making us try to make a decision quickly on this and i don't get the comfort level from the rest of the board that that's what we want to kind of push through we really want to think about it since there was a lot of effort put into the code base form here i hear that i think you're speaking for everybody i think sd island's not going to make it you know it's just concerning to me knowing how much uh how little housing there is in this area um there's a huge demand and you know it's just unfortunate to me and um you know i'm just concerned that if we ask them to redo the drawings it's just i feel like they're just going to pass that cost on to uh the home buyers the prices of those units so there is a huge demand for housing um and so that's my focus is that and i i understand your concerns so i'm trying to weigh you know the demand for housing and the time they have to build before winter uh with um your concerns mark um i'd like to put some time into i mean i think they should have garages and i think we should do it without rolling over and saying throw aesthetics out the window so it seems like there's likely a solution that needs everyone's objectives um i don't know how we get there by june but i'm willing to meet if that's required mr shack you're still there i don't think so i agree i think i don't think we should be rushed i know housing's important but this structure is going to be here for 50 years plus hopefully i think it should look decent there's a lot of building going on right now that i i told sir i've been riding around looking at different projects they're not pretty a lot a lot of projects that are out there in 20 years now people will not be happy that they're there no i have to take care of it i agree with you on that rich i i agree with the buildings i know i know the market goes high and low but i don't know christina what do you think are you still there uh yeah i think it'd be best to have a table specific sd island one for now can you talk a little louder i can't hear you sorry yeah uh i would agree that it's best not to be rushed with these things when we can table the sd island thing for now uh meeting may 4th is not a likely possibility uh yeah i think that's something we can come back to and compromise on later down the road thank you sir can sd island make an application without the townhouses on it and continue with the rest of the development on that side absolutely so we're not really hindering them on anything except for the townhouse development at this point gotcha okay okay i think we have our answer so i'm going to i think in terms of next steps wrap up this supplement and make the changes and i'll get it out um that back in the drop box um as a draft for you guys to review and go over um and i i think we can have if you like uh discussion about future meetings and when you'd like to have this warned okay all set yes yes okay we're gonna move on so now i need a approval for minutes of march 16th so approve uh so i made the motion whatever second okay discussion all in favor hi hi all right motion i'm gonna put the five oh not hearing any correct okay oh he's back okay let's go to the packet information in the future meetings so pull back so you had a little bit of stuff in your packet um there was also a request for rezoning along west lichard drive in your packet which i didn't include that came in late so i didn't include it in the other regulatory staff notes um that's one that i'd say perhaps is miss the boat and if they want that request they should probably come in and present it absolutely um are you okay with me looking to try and have i think you're gonna have ireland back to give you more information at some point and for this request for west lichard drive are you okay with me also telling them a future meeting potentially to come in absolutely yep um also include is our monthly report i don't know if you had any questions on that um and i think um we need to maybe that may meeting is for that i need to do a for a plug program the crs i need to do an update for you guys at some point just to talk about um our program for public information about how we're doing outreach to people so luckily this spring mother nature is cooperating there's not a whole lot of flood risk but we have put out information to people about um what flood risks are how to avoid situations and that people can get flood insurance but i need to formally present that to you as the public information committee so with that being said i don't know if that's maybe something i could do on a may 18th meeting for you perfect what else would you like on that may 18th agenda would you want island come in do you want to hold off on that and um also the west lichard drive or quest i would think we don't yeah put those both on hold so we'll do the supplement move forward on that there's enough of those take care of that meeting okay so the may 18th meeting would then just be the public information committee on floodplain short and sweet yeah okay somebody else has an objection to that all right and then the june 15th public hearing yes okay sounds good well set yep motion to adjourn i may want to know adjourn you second i'll second all in favor all right all right very good thank you very much all right well thank you all very much it's good to see you guys and be well in person we hope yeah soon after july 4th right that's right the may meeting when is that may 18th yeah thank you so i'll send a zoom invite for that one because i'm anticipating that that will still be on that and i'll see you guys then thank you