 Planning Commission meeting tonight on June 16th, 603. In-house, I have a Diane, and that's it, and everyone else is online. Ah, there she is. With Patrick, we have a quorum of three, so we can conduct business. Robin's here, and Regina is here. It's really a work session, but we do have minutes to go over. And the audience for visitors, there's nobody present, anybody online that's, if anyone else's online. So, I'll skip that. Any additions or amendments to the agenda, Robin? No, John. Thank you. Ah, onto the minutes. So we had a joint meeting with the trustees on May 19th. We were issued draft meeting minutes. Does anybody have any comments on the draft meeting minutes? Yes. Whoever did the corrections in red needs to learn the fine points of English grammar. Any place that they corrected the capital S to a small s needs to be corrected back to a capital S because they're referring to the state of Vermont. Um, I would like Patrick Shield to be included and not excluded for when he arrived, because I think that's important for the planning commission to know when Patrick came. Hi, Patrick. When? Because he has just showed up. 605. 605, not bad, Patrick. The link. Oh, that's why I showed up. I just my ears were burning. Yeah. I thought it was important to keep you in the minutes because they they were going to put you out. Um, yeah, um, I don't have in front of me. Do have. Okay. So, um, well, I was told I didn't I did or did not need my computer. Um, so, uh, that's the corrections that need to occur in the portion for the trustees. And I did not see anything that reared its ugly head to scream at me to say that anything was wrong with the rest of it. So, um, I'll take a motion to approve the minutes with the corrections made by Diane. I'll make a motion. Second. Second. Second. Second. Second. In favor of the minutes as corrected. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. And with that, uh, we continue with our work session. Um, on the land development code, we are closing in on what is, uh, referred to as final edits and some other things. So, uh, Regina, I will pass it over to you. Awesome. Thank you. Um, all right. So I have like 5,000 windows open up things to share as we move through these things here, but, um, So, uh, First. Up is chapter eight. This is a super small section on nonconformities. And I'm not going to actually open up the text because I don't think it's going to be as important as just showing you, um, The map that Melanie put together. Um, Where she was able to sort of highlight. Um, Lots that would be under that size. It's a, it's an eighth of an acre lot. Um, And basically point being, um, You really don't have any vacant small lots. So it's sort of irrelevant. We can take out that minimum lot size and just move on with the state statute as it changed. Um, So the question I have for you real quick, Regina, is some of those lots were like. Miniskill. Um, I think some of them work under the eighth of an acre. Um, should we can be concerned that somebody wants to put something on, let's say, a tenth of an acre or less? I mean, We're literally talking about putting on a shed and that's it. And some of those, those little triangles that were in her map. Um, But I did have a question about for Robin is that there was one of those little squares behind the current 197 construction. Um, So I thought that was all part of the. That project. Okay. To see if there's actually small square. That's not part of that project behind, um, down the hill toward the, the brook. Um, Is a little concerning. Um, Robin, can you give me a screen sharing ability? Remind me again. Remind me again. Oh, can you give me a screen sharing ability? So go to participants and it'll show the list. And then if you hover over my name and go to more. It's in the, it's in the, it's yes. I'm still working on the, um, I'm still in labor. I have, I have a question on that. That which we used to use. Make co-host or host, which would you like to be? Uh, co-host. A lot of the, the. Which is my command. Okay. Thank you. In the village center. But there are a few outliers. Okay. Diane, where are you? Okay, so go down Pearl street. So in this man. Yeah, you're good. Keep going. Okay. All right. See that little purples? Okay, that's the brook, but that's the purple square I'm talking about is where are you going? Come down to the right. There. That's square. This one. Lower, lower center, right. Yeah, the current 197 construction is going on where that white roof is. And so there's this purple square. And I'm kind of gone, wait a minute, between those two developments, the previous one and this one, how is that not part of that project or one of the projects? Or is it by somebody? I think it is that and my memory is in that area there gets pretty steep. So maybe developable? I think so. It might be. You know, but I'm sure it's owned by one of those, one of the two there, unless it's just, well, everything down to the brook is a little steep. And it's very steep. If some of those places it's scurly steep. I don't know why, but for whatever, whatever reason, it does show up as a separate parcel. We're not seeing all the parcel lines, unfortunately. And I don't think I have the ability to mess with this map, although I might be able to. It's just a question for later, because to me, it's, okay, there are a lot of lots where this one owner owns both lots. Like my neighbor next door had both lots of she's subdivide or didn't have to subdivide, she just sold off the back lot. Assume she owned both, well, she owned both of them, that they were conjoined like my property is hers was never conjoined. So she had free reign to run without that complication of dividing her property. So I'm wondering if this is that same technicality. But when we approve the project, I know they went down to the creek, and we're supposed to do a wall and stuff. So I'm finding this intriguing. Since we approve that they do a retaining wall to maintain the integrity of the brook. Yeah, I do find that interesting because the time comes over the broken spots. I can't early on my tenure, I can't remember what project it was, but we were looking at it and they had included the square footage of ownership, but some of it was in the time. So we had that discussion. So I vaguely remember that. But I don't want to digress too much down, but you know it's. Since we had the map available and we're looking at it, but a lot of the other ones, that one's twice the size of some of the others that are on this map that she shared with us. Well, here's your European perspective. A lot of places in Europe at the minute, they're putting eight to 10 homes on an acre. I know a tenth of an acre is 4,356 square feet. So we have some districts, we need 5,000 square feet. And it always depends on the lot. If the lot's 10 feet wide, it's not going to work. The closer it is to square, the easier it is to develop a lot, I guess. But I don't think we should discount it just because it's a tenth of an acre. So what we're not really taking action on anything here. Somebody was just trying to point out that the items that we're trying to approve in chapter 5 may or may not have any actual map, any land that it applies to. Right, so. We'll spend any more time on it though. Okay. Yeah, it's just, we're just, it's in chapter 8, we're just getting the existing small lot definition in line with the change that they made in state statute. And since you've got water and sewer in the village, the idea is to just remove the, the idea with the statute originally is that if you have lots that exist that are smaller than an eighth of an acre and you don't have water and sewer, those lots should automatically merge with an adjacent property under the same ownership because in theory, they're too small to develop. I think generally speaking in S-Extension, this is not really an issue. Well, some of them, some of those lots that you got pictured are backyard shed size, so I'm surprised they aren't conjoined with somebody's neighboring lot. Or maybe they are, they're just, they just never, like my neighbor next door, never joined them. They're just two pieces of property. And that what he ever thought about, well, it's only big enough for a dog house. Why should I care? All right, none of that matters. Okay. Yeah. The law, it's a state law that's basically saying if there's already a lot that exists and you can build on, you'll, you're able to build on. So, fine. Right, we like that. We're promoting as much building on, especially when the state says you shall, building on, you know, on small lots or tiny houses, you know, somebody could put in a tiny house, it may be. It's not up to us to decide. We're just saying, okay, we now have a new set of rules that apply to those small lots. If it works, great. Okay. That's what we're saying. All right. Here we are. Okay, awesome. So moving on to chapter five. So this chapter is a lot of your process stuff. Final edits have been made in here based on Chelsea's comments. And I will just quickly go through this. I'm going to share it. Okay, then this also just is one of the chapters that I was able to go in and do the city of Essex Junction changes and switching to the development review board. So that, you know, it's just annoying. It's not that hard, but it does take, does take time. For some of the typos and such, do you want me to just email you those? Because I've got a long sheet of them. That would be awesome, Diane. And probably a lot more productive than pointing them all out. Yeah. Yeah. Yes. That would be great. Yeah. So we're not here to be here. I don't know. That's why I'm pointing it forward. Yeah. Send them already. I thought about it. I thought about it, but I had a bunch of people calling me for darn. Okay, nevermind. Okay. So in doing so looking for, I mean, I mostly did find a replace, but then I went through to hopefully make sure I caught everything. I found some things that are unusual. And so I edited them. This is an example. So your current notification process. So when there's a proposed development, there's a state statute requirement to notify a budding landowners. Your LDCs talk about doing that within 150 feet of the project. That's not in state statute at all. So I edited this in accordance with state statute. Robin, I don't know if you saw this or had any issue with it, but I did not have any issue with it. Okay. Awesome. So your edits, your edits just remove the distance definition and you want all the butters to. So if I'm two blocks away, I don't get an announcement. Not a butter, not a butter. Right. It really is all a butters absent of right of ways. And really, it's kind of important to stick with that state statute definition because those are the folks who actually have the opportunity to appeal down the road. So it can be confusing if more folks are getting in a butter notice that aren't actual state statute gives them standing automatically and other people might be interested, but they're not going to get noticed. Right. And that's the reason why the Z sign should be on the front of the property so that people generally driving by it's in their neighborhood, they know that something's going on. And I doubt anybody really reads legal notices in the paper that those are that's the point of having that and also the agenda is being posted. And we do check to make sure that the notices every single time. Okay. Also because of that 150 feet, there was this concept in there that if a development is like on the inside of a lot and the 150 feet keeps you in your lot, you don't notify the butters outside of that. And that's not that's not legal. Fair enough. So there was a line in there about private lane. So if you live in a private lane, it's everybody on the private lane gets a notice. So we have some private lanes that are good block long. So so if somebody let's say lives on another one block paved street that's already accepted by the village, they wouldn't get a notice because they're not next door or across the street or beyond. So I kept that sentence in just because it's a little bit above and beyond. If you want to do that, you can do that, but it's not in state statute to do it that way. It's not actually asking you to send it to the butters that's saying anybody who has the rights to use that street, which I think is fair. Right. Okay. Yeah. Okay, DRB DRB DRB. Okay. So another thing that I just found in here in the process stuff, it is allowable in statute to instead of issuing a written decision for an application, you can just use the minutes from that meeting as kind of the official record of what the facts of findings and conditions of approval are. But it's really poor practice. So I took it out. Do you guys right decisions or do you rely on the minutes? We write them and the chair signs them. Okay, excellent. Okay. Those are just number changes. I think those are some of the changes from the process. So this is a question I had. So when you're a city, the land records are still at the town, right? And it's the town assessor that you're filing a copy of the permit with? I believe for now, for now. So it's the yeah, that was my question on page 25 is that K, which is where it is, is that it talks about the town clerk, the Essex town clerk? And my question is the town of Essex maintaining the city records. Now, I understand that anything in history here would of course be there. But what's going to be the procedure moving forward, which of course is either in a few short weeks or next year, we're putting on how that goes. So how is that, you know, what do we lean or required to do? I don't know what we've contracted with the town to do. Do you know, Robin? No. I think, you know, we're going to keep the status quo moving forward. What is it finance will be with the town until 2023 or through the town till 2023? Jess is moving through that slowly, the new city finance director. So I think we'll segue slowly to that point. But we're not there yet. I mean, we'd have to renovate to Lincoln. Right, because there is no, there's no land records there right now, right? Right. And that vault is not probably quite suitable for Okay, so there you go. for a year. Thank you, Raj. Okay, so we can't change the process in the LDCs. Then if this is the process that it's going to be for the next year for now, it's got to stay this way. Yeah, we can, we can make minor modifications as we need. Yeah, we need to decide that tonight. So we can give, we can give applicants an update as to where it really needs to go when that happens. Absolutely. Okay. Okay. Okay, I'll just say that it would be helpful for us to have some staff notes on on how the process really works. The applicants come in, maybe, maybe Rob is taking care of that. But it's sort of seamless to us, except that somebody's gonna ask. We need somebody. Yeah, they'll be asking that at the city offices. Good. All right. What? Where are you? Okay, it was pretty far down. That was, yeah, it's pretty far down. So where are you currently Regina? I am on page 36. So I think this might be a different section than what Diane is talking about because and that's not surprising. This is the process of recording the land records is probably in here a bunch of times. But so long as we know that we don't need to change it right now, we're good. Okay, that's not a new comment. We have talked about that before. These are just the changes and all of the timeframes are adjusted accordingly with state statute now. Sorry, I'm moving through this quickly. What was that? I'm just looking at that because I had a client ask me how long their approval lasts for. I believed it was a year. But this conditional approval lasts for two years or is that is that going to change the normal approval? And who's giving conditional approvals that's the share. So the future BRB will give a conditional approval and that will last for years or until somebody comes in. Yes. And so that's a good question. Like let's say right now you approved a conditional use. Let's say nine months ago. If that approval has an actual date on it. That I would advise this village to ask for legal counsel on that because this just changed in state statute effective immediately. So assuming that conditional use whatever it was applied for if they didn't build it yet. And you issued the permit six months ago. Do they still have two years from six months ago? They might. And why hold them to the year that they had originally? Now that statute's changed anyway. So if you have a project that doesn't need a conditional use, is that also a two year approval? The statute changed specifically for conditional use and site plan. And to be clear, statute doesn't require you to put an expiration on either of those. You can just approve them indefinitely. So that's a possibility. But if your regulations do put an expiration, that expiration date cannot be any less than two years time. And the reason for this change really came from a housing development project in Morrisville, where it just takes a lot of time to put the housing project together with all the different funding sources. And by the time they got the project together, the year had expired, they forced them to go back and get a conditional use and they put all kinds of new conditions on the project. So the longer, the better. Alright, thanks for that. Okay. So moving along here. This is not new. We talked about this before. Basically, there's just notification requirements to be trans when you're doing a project on a state highway. This is not new. We talked quite a bit about what what you'd be asking for folks if they're going to be building public infrastructure with the intention of the city taking over the public infrastructure. So that's what that goes in there. Same comment though, isn't it? I mean, don't most neighborhoods get constructed such that the municipality will take it over after it's completed? No, not recently. And I don't know what recently I'm going to say very roughly for a few decades. Municipalities have been much more in the camp of not taking over infrastructure for new subdivisions. And I wouldn't say that's a good thing. They don't allow it. They want they don't want to maintain it. Yeah, but it is one of the many things that sort of adding to making housing so expensive, right? Because now all that cost burden is on those individual property owners. And Robin, is there a process for the intaking agent for the municipality, namely the planning department, to understand or be told what the intention of the applicant is as to whether, you know, roads and curves and sidewalks and everything. I mean, we have we make them build it to the village standards anyway, right? Yes. So it's just a ownership and maintenance. Generally, John, we changed it. Oh, six or seven years ago. For autumn pond, you know, village walk, village haven. So we said that they shall be private, but built a village standard. The one was a little bit different was village haven because we wanted to have the water line because people in Athens Drive, especially the higher point had very low water pressure. So we wanted to keep that so that we could improve the water pressure for people on Athens Drive. But generally, we just thought about it and we thought, no, this is not something should be burdened on us that. So we've asked that, you know, PRD is coming in. We told them that our preference is that they will own the infrastructure and maintain it in perpetuity. Basically, forcing new development to be, have homeowner agreements and all kinds of things. Well, they would anyway, you know, but yes, we're adding to it. We're adding to the documentation. Let's put it that way. PUD, I mean, I don't know what I think about that. All right, we'll keep going. Yeah, I got mixed feelings on that as well. And it's tough. It definitely is situational. If it's going to be a dead end in the middle of nowhere, that's really hard for the village to take on. You know, there's lots of, lots of different thoughts. And there's a lot more to think about this when you have sort of a sprawling suburban town, which you are lucky to not have. Okay, here's the site plan approval to two years. Just scrolling through here. We're doing, we're following along with you, but we can't read the screen. Can't read the screen. Well, I suppose we could be sitting over there. Oh, you want me to blow it up? No, no, John, she's complaining that he's sitting at a bad angle to read the screen. Sorry, John, that thing to more toward us because there's nobody here to see it, but there you go. John fixed it. We're good. Carry on. Okay. So, signs, we've talked about this quite a bit that there is a lot we could do to sort of get signs in compliance with the Supreme Court decision of a couple of years ago. And it is not likely something we're going to be able to do before trying to just move this set of changes forward. Okay, so appeals, this is the other thing that you'll sort of see changed because it previously under the old model, appeals go to different places. Now that you've got zoning administrator appeals are going to go to the DRB. DRB appeals are going to go to the environmental court. So text is sort of changed throughout just to just to cover that. ADUs, we already talked through all of these changes. We just brought this up to code, up to statute and made clear that these accessory dwelling units should not go through the complicated conditional use approval process. It should just be a zoning permit just like single family homes. So that's all in there. There's the existing small lot. Again, it's defined in chapter eight as well as defined over here. Okay, so here we are with our favorite planned unit development. This is again the process section for planned unit developments. The standards live over in chapter seven, section seven, twenty three. Last time we talked about this, the purpose, the new objectives sort of purpose statement didn't quite work right. Does this appear to be what you're looking for? I think it does. In that it gives us that flexibility if we want more or if we want to flesh it out a little bit more as to what we mean. I think it gives us a lot of creativity, flexibility. Right. Okay. Very good. Okay, all these other changes are the same. Swapping out the terms. Same thing. Also, to your question earlier, John, about do other approvals change to the two year time frame? What was not changed in statute is the subdivision because those just sort of follow a very different time frame based on when you have to get the plat recorded and all of that. And it's really not tied to development as much. It's just really the subdivision of land. So that stays the same. There's the detrans notification part. These I think are just some of the final changes that Chelsea had. Regina. Right here. Okay, where you got on this, this copy has the GIS geospatial data portion in there. This that you sent us still had that unstruck. So should I go by these papers? Because the other ones would have a different number in the bottom. This is page 55. That has been a different number in the papers that you sent us for review yesterday, the day before. Should we go by, well, I'm going to go on like page 25. There's no page 25 in here. It starts at 33. So I'll go through and compare to see if some of these things were already been done. So my question ended up being is that if something is corrected or struck here in this copy, is this, is this what's real? Or is the papers, the chapters that you sent us for review? Which ones are more real? They should be exactly the same. So what I'm looking at is what I sent you. So I'm not sure what's going on there. Maybe when you printed it out, the page numbers. No, I didn't print anything. I was doing it online with what, from the email that you sent. And sometimes that, you know, the track changes show up differently for different people, depending on how you have it set and what you're looking at. For the full markup is typically what I'm showing you. But this, it should be that this old language about how you would get the digital documents should be struck. And it's these three options. And these are, you know, you'll see this a few times throughout the document. Right. I just, I don't want to send you stuff that's already done. Okay. Because that, because of the papers that were sent or the chapters that were sent. What if I just like print you a full set of everything? Would that help you? And then you could do. Your editing from that. Sure. Good idea. Yeah. Let's just plan on that as, as we get through the chapters, I will print and just either drop them off or mail them to you. Okay. Okay. All right. Just a last one. What it's worth. I just downloaded what you sent Regina. And it matches what you're showing us, but the preview, when I preview it in my email, it like doesn't match at all. Oh, interesting. It doesn't even go down to page 55. So maybe it depends if you're downloading it. Viewing it in Word or doing it online. Okay. I just opened it. I didn't, I didn't download it. I just opened it. So that could be the difference. Yeah. That could be a challenge. Okay. And I should, I should be sending you guys PDF files and then that would, that should solve the problem. But I'll try and do that going forward. Okay. Same question about the land records. So we got that. So let me just make a note. Okay. More just final edits from Chelsea. I don't think there's anything on big stuff to talk about in here. This is not new. I don't know. I don't think there's anything on big stuff to talk about in here. This is not new. We talked about this last time pulling out these standards that are not standards from the PUD, from the one of three PUD sections in here. Okay. Last time we talked about the PUD. Regulations. Okay. So as it exists today. I believe folks are required to come in for the conceptual. And then they're required to come in for the final approval stage. And it really the language is like, it's up to the applicant. If they want to come in for a preliminary and in between stage. It would be helpful if you had that preliminary stage, because there's a whole lot that can happen. And by the time they bring you final, it feels too cooked to ask them to change anything. So. Before I had offered that when you see something at conceptual, if you felt like just requiring that they come in at preliminary, you could, you would have the authority to do that. But that felt a little too squishy. So I put in, if the development includes six or more units. In more than one structure. Or six or more lots. And this basically just mimics your subdivision definition. That defines what's a minor subdivision or a major subdivision. So does this work? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So Gina, does this impact design review as well? It's kind of two distinctly different things. So design review is going to kick in. If geographically you're in the place where design review kicks in. And I think basically the way that we've worded that for like any application. So even if you're coming in for a subdivision or a PUD, so the PUD is around the same thing. So, the PUD is in that overlay. If it's in the village center district or the overlay. It's interesting that we're not necessarily defining at what point in that process that comes in to play. But. I have mixed feelings about this. I feel like. As. This board becomes the DRB. And all we're going to be doing is approving. Why not just see them have the two separate stages, I guess? but That's kind of like my opinion Yeah, I mean there's a lot of benefit of just the two stages And so the previous language gave you some flexibility like if it felt like something that really needed a third time You could do that, but here's the issue from the developer's point of view like which gave and he kind of used on the last Little project where it was a little different than normal is that you have to spend a lot of money just to get to the Pulmonary phase, you know, you need engineers You need a lot of people to lay things out and so maybe what we say is You have to do preliminary and you have to do final But if you want to come in for conceptual, that's the one that's optional So if you want to know whether it's worth your time to spend the money to get The engineering and the rest of the things done that that get you to preliminary Come see us for a concept We'll tell you whether we think it's gonna work if it doesn't work don't spend the time Yeah, they can also come to audience for better visitors and get a sense as well and that's happened in the past but I think You know we there's a risk for us and a risk for the developer applicant if they get Some kind of a you know Yeah, that looks like a neat idea and then they show up at final and expect it to be approved and That puts us both in a position. We don't want Well the last conceptual flop it on the table here What do you think as a visitor? They thought they had gone through everything up to final at that point time and that was their perception, right? So I'm saying Don't allow that to happen me if it's if it reaches this level of you know six or more then we want to see a preliminary a full preliminary and then a fine But but you're welcome to bring any any idea you have in with less You know rigor if you want our I might have misspoke when I said the three stages I meant I didn't like the idea of going straight to final I Like the idea of seeing it at least once and then again at final. So I like they do it at their risk That is their risk But really it turns out to be really hard for us to sit here and watch somebody Go through that much effort to make it happen if we're really don't like We've had some Applications that we've continued because we felt not to charge them again because they weren't quite done and we wanted to see Gave them an assignment to fix x y and z which they did And then we're completed on the next meeting So it was that different from You know Doing a conceptual or preliminary and I've tried I've tried to describe sorry down I've tried to describe that to them that if they want to go to final It'll probably be tabled and they'll come back back and it makes a lot more sense To start you know with a schematic and get a sense of what you know What the DRB thinks they should do? My opinion is that if it's if it is essentially a major major development Some you know we're saying anything over six or more units or six or more lots If it reaches that level then we want to see it for a preliminary and fine That I mean that's that's really what we want. Yeah, it's a minimum. Yeah. Yeah makes sense Right. So so if there's if there are three possible times you can come talk to us You know The the first one can happen to anybody any time the conceptual And it can happen for small projects where they can do a conceptual and then go right to final But if it's more than six units or more than six Lots, we want to see the full preliminary and the full final you do we want to say six lots Or do we want to say six units? Because it was a PUD it would still be one lot, right? I was thinking something so I think you put the words a little bit more eloquently than I would have Robin But the idea might what was coming to my mind is that new development off of maple Street that has four units For four housing units on the single lot I feel as though that's something that we would want to see a preliminary development plan for But that falls below this definition and it wouldn't When trigger that's actually six units They haven't they haven't built the Front two yet. I don't think I thought it was yet for yeah, I think it's it's gonna be six Yeah, I think it's a broader brush if we said six six or more units Six lots also seems pretty pretty large Rather than just say Six or more and lots. Yeah, so if we just say units It doesn't matter one structure, you know, or how many lots it's lots It's a catch-all Okay, and don't chewing so he's thinking about this. Yeah Regina is is this similar to other towns in the area? cities Yeah, so a break down between a definition of what you consider major or minor and Major goes to the three stages or I think most people do have their PUDs written that way you the Conceptual sometimes is optional or not. Otherwise, it's required. So you're going three times Otherwise it's if it's smaller than that it's got a two-step process. So that's pretty typical How folks are defining what major and minor and don't have that super clear in my head in terms of whether this is lining up with that or not, but it probably It probably works fine that way Just seeing where we line up with other Yeah, I think the only hesitation from my end is that Again for housing developments, we're trying to streamline this right and not make it as complicated and process heavy as possible but I think we've done enough changes in the LDCs to be clear that if we're talking about a Project that isn't going to be subdivided. It's a multifamily one structure project It's not coming for PUD approval. It's gonna come for a site plan approval And I think that makes sense because it's a lot There's a lot less to think about in terms of whether you're like how you're laying out new locks if that makes sense Okay All right, so I will get that edited Okay waivers we've talked about that before just sort of tightened up that process Okay, then back into the sort of public works pieces and just have all the final edits in here from Chelsea and then Back to this half acre one acre situation. So I think we're Back to the original way that this was worded and I'm just gonna run it by Chelsea one last time but I think we've got these figured out these two sections at this point and Talked about this is not new either talked about this last time also about just trying to get the wetlands regulations well well lined up And then that's not new that's a new state statute section that is added in there as well Okay, any other chapter five questions six, I don't know what it does it stops here All right, let me find what's next chapter six chapter six zoning districts so multifamily residential so The edits that you'll see in this section I Think are all the final edits that we need to satisfy what I just said, which is basically to Not push a bunch of stuff through the PUD process unnecessarily So really where this came into play quite a bit is in R1 R2 Mf 1 2 3 so And as we talked about last time Mf 1 especially is pretty well built out But I just wanted to sort of Look at this one more time with you folks Because you really see the sort of effect no shoot hold on sorry wrong screen So all in here is the multifamily one zoning district and you can really see very clearly The sort of impact and result of What I assume is All of these were approved as planned unit developments Let me know if I'm wrong Robin. I'm just I'm just sort of making that assumption So they're multifamily in the sense that they're Attached as opposed to detached And they're kind of clustered so you end up having this open space sort of all around it On the one hand today looking at this That looks like a lot more land for housing that could happen and it is possible to shift and adjust the Sorry, let me back up for a quick second. So typically when these happen the amount of density that you can get for a whole big lot is tightened up into these smaller Spaces and then the rest of this is in theory preserved and protected from development into the future Unless it is within the authority of the municipality To increase the density of the zoning district in the future And so if you do that it is possible unless this land is really protected through any actual deed deed and covenant language You could put more housing in here Well, Regina where you've got lower you had your way to keep where you've got your arrow right now You have up there Indian Brook. Yeah, there's a small problem. It's Indian Brook Right, so it's got it's got its own wetland and all kinds of other stuff in there Which is why they clustered that development? Because they couldn't build on the creek Okay, so everything Going down through the other and then there's a waterway through this other one to like a big lot That was supposedly going to be given to the school, but there's a small water problem And you're a cursor in the right over Major transmission power. Yeah, there's that too. So, you know got it topography challenges Which is which I'll give credit to the developers They use the topography challenges to Cluster things and let the topography challenges alone Yeah, I will say it's used heavily by the surrounding neighborhoods as walking trails and Opens, you know, it's open space, but it's more recreational trail stuff. There's a Tennis courts and a swimming pool and a big open field that are part of the yeah planned unit developments, which is really nice But otherwise Kind of a nice little forest on the other side, but it is swampy So if you want to go look for polywogs, right, they should be a good spot. Okay, so Doing a good job Exactly what we want a wetland and some other things to do to be a wetland and do right should do to protect us So should we develop that? Even even when I saw that the plan put a school in there It wasn't really the best idea because it's kind of like yeah There's a small little island, but then the rest of it's all wetland. So It's gonna play Problem, which is why it never went anywhere and the schools didn't take it So there is there are a number of Down at the bottom left of your screen there is a field that's part of the back field for ADL Those are also Extremely wet during well, there's the others topography challenges there too. Yeah another stream down through there. So Anyway, the the point is well taken if there were parcels that could be Somebody came along and increase the density Or or recognize that as PUDs maybe they should have had Been given more density and you could figure out a way to do I'm sure somebody But but you know frankly and as it makes in with the rest of the single-family homes all around it on on their own locks You know it's it's really a nice example of suburban You know different things right because you've got townhouses. You've got single-family homes You've got groups of things it and You know could it be a little denser sure You know if you can if somebody figures out how that's gonna work and they've got density Available and you know I think we're We have seen let's see it's on Lane just Right about where it springs off of Where Rosewood comes in they did act something somebody but put three or four houses in a little tucked away backyard and You know they're fine They've been there forever, but they're How do you spell it briar? Yeah, it's just Other it's just the bottom road that you're oh, I see All right Open field that looks like sideways Vermont. It's just north of that Yeah, so Briar Lane and Rosewood join each other twice so go down to the other end of that In here. Yeah, so all those houses that are tucked back into what's there are new additions Yeah It's lippled with drive and France strutting stuff that used to be somebody's backyard. Yeah, I see. Okay, so There have been a number of places where additional density and additional housing units have been tucked in Okay All right, so that that is helpful background information And your point of showing it to us with that if if additional density is available and we've now reduced the Minimum lot sizes You might be able to talk more units in here and there Yeah, so the thing that I was mostly thinking when I was looking at these the and I think they're all roughly like this Mf1 two and three And in terms of land area Total land area on the ground Mf1 is definitely the biggest one the other two are really pre minor places, but It requires more acreage in order to get additional units and so Just in thinking about this. I was like, what's the big deal if on the 7,500 square foot lot you could put three units So that's just sort of what caught sort of had me thinking down this road But then it's a little bit of a different situation when most of these lots are already built out Because really what it means is that somebody would basically Come in again and figure out if they could add more to these existing developments It's not like you've got you some big vacant lots out there that somebody can come in with a much higher density development You could come in and demolish a house Right they could or or they could do a Lot and could do ad use and and get away with it without impacting anybody Because some of them depending on how the house is located on the lot. It might be just fine to do an ad you For others maybe not But it has a potential I know that there's the top Of So Brian, I think it is the top of our land at the top of the hill there. There are some houses that have Auxiliary structures or they look like they're auxiliary structures Uh, and it blends in nicely the way the way the houses are built Well and keep in mind that accessory dwelling units are They're they're not even considered in density. They just are if you have a single family home You can have an ad you regardless of You don't need more acreage Or land area square feet. I should say considering these numbers In order to have an ad you anyway Based on the language in our text at the moment you need 7500 square feet for the first dwelling and 5000 for the next so you're up to 12 five to put two structures on and What's that eight of an acre? Yeah You know, it's pretty well. It's almost a quarter of an acre Yeah, so so that I guess the map doesn't really Most of this most of the dwelling units that we just looked at in that map are probably you're on A quarter acre mine's a little bigger That's about a third of an acre, but you know what I want to put another Structure up and I probably could I don't want a lot so You know that somebody will try it if there's a way that it works And they've got 12,000 five or a feet. They're entitled to do it And you know, we're saying if if you can show us that it works and you can still meet your setbacks and you can buy a parking And all the rest of that then go ahead, right? That's what we're saying Yeah You know, and it's it's a little bit similar to a lot of Sort of in just thinking about This is not really the case in this zoning district because this is really intended for more of a multifamily kind of a thing but you know a lot of Zoning residential zoning districts do allow for duplexes But you need more acreage. So it's not like existing neighborhoods really have the opportunity to Put a duplex on there because the lot would have to be bigger So I don't know. I don't I don't feel a hundred percent strongly about this one way or the other because I I think it's For the reasons you mentioned with the environmental constraints and Just the fact that it is fairly well built out I'm not sure that this is going to make a whole heck of a lot of a difference one way or the other If we shift this but I I would say it's an opportunity to allow more density I kind I kind of agree with john like if we're you can courage To get more housing in there and they can do it in a way that Meets all the other requirements and why not if we're encouraging more housing It seems like the downside could be like A tear down of a townhouse like development that becomes more apartment building like development Instead of maybe a more dense townhouse development which personally to me is nicer than Stack apartment buildings, but however, but I think encouraging more housing This is my favorite okay So I can edit this just to make it clear that you need 7500 square feet. That's it and you can do the uses That's allowed in the zoning district I don't see what it looks like we said pretty much the same thing three times in that paragraph Right existing once about new and The third one's about but they all say the same thing They do I want square feet for your first well 5 000 for any subsequent telling what whether it's in the same structure or or not You tell me what you're trying to say there other than that. I don't know why I need to rewrite anything um, so my question to you is whether I Move the extra square footage the extra 5 000 square feet for additional units So then you're saying if you have 7500 square feet At least You can have What's the limit to density at that point? So in these 500 square feet, can I put a second unit in? Yeah, hold on um Let me bring up the Use table because that will be helpful okay, so in those districts um, you can do uh all multi-family dwelling so it's um single-family duplex triplex four or multi-family um So, you know the way that the ldc is written now It's definitely helping to sort of tamper this as you get to um, I see You know kind of a that out. I could keep I could have if I had a 7500 square foot a lot I can do a single family And if I don't need any additional square footage for the next unit I could do a four unit structure In the same size Yes, yeah So there you may get people, you know, let's say they got an old junkie house in it want to take it down and put fourplexa We're saying it's fine Yeah, assuming I don't know what the you know how You still got a fine group for some number of cars Right, there's and you still got the lot and I think it's a 50 lock coverage, you know, you still have the other limiting factors that would be a game changer Yeah And and I don't expect it to actually happen that much, but there will be patience when it makes it You know, I imagine somebody buying buying that Say houses that are I don't know most of the ones you showed us in that those neighborhoods are People have some house sort of fell to disrepair and somebody came along and bought it cheap. It would make Pretty good sense to replace And I'm not saying that's would be discouraged except it probably wouldn't fit in with the rest of the neighborhood at that point. It would be Uh, you know different so I don't know maybe Maybe there needs to be some sliding scale like, you know, you need You have two units at the same size, but your third one needs that $5,000 extra I don't know what I think we we need to be careful. We're we're talking about, you know making housing more affordable making housing more possible Talking about how it's critical for economic development and and then we talk about You know, maybe we don't want to let something happen. It's going to change the favorite neighborhood, but the neighborhood was designed When we didn't have the issues we have not and maybe this is reflective of today's World not yesterday's world Do you have an overlay of that Regina because from what I'm seeing on the map, it's I think most of mf1 Are developments like we see on brickyard. Yeah, it's and I don't know if that and autumn way Yep, autumn on the way down on the end of camp street there. So They're existing. I think what are generally townhome developments Yeah, they're not historically Uh single family or multifamily homes Right, really all of them that I looked at are Similar situation to that even this this parcel down here too and I think this one also Yeah And to me in favor those were designed, you know, they have Traffic car heavy design Not designed for, you know They've been living And yeah, if we can encourage a little bit higher density I'm all for that. I under I see john's Point and I think where some of that might come into play also is the mf3, but I don't know if we're talking about that at all Yeah, I don't My opinion for mf3 is very hard because it's a totally different kind of scenario Just yep, um, so we might just want to leave mf3 As is mf2. I think it's kind of almost sort of a not well mf2 is actually in the same boat I think there are similar type developments on those two random parcels Um, even has mf I'm trying to reading this correctly mf2 is also on west street and that's big street. Yeah, that's in that green Yeah, um Why um, I wouldn't even know that was mf2 although I did take a bike ride by there and there's a lot of duplexes in there and they're nicely placed Um, which is why I don't think of it as being that highly residential, but it is if they Whoever put those duplexes on there put them on that they don't Unless you just start looking, you know, really recognize it unless you do a slow crawl Ask, uh, if you just drive by a car, you wouldn't really know you think I'm just in the house Yeah, and they're you know, it's it's pretty limited there those lots are narrow the state owns the land behind it There's not going to be a that's not likely a place that's going to transition No, um people enjoy having the nice park behind them I find with with that modification Okay, so um It's going to be a bigger lift for somebody because the you know, you're not talking about taking down one several thousand square foot building We're talking about taking down something much more substantial Or rebuilding after a fire But you know, I think those are opportunities to consider And to do the rebuild here on park street But anyhow, but it's it's it's three or four units Sure, well would be had been there, but yes three or four units if we got rebuilt on the same foundation Certainly we still have seen I never Never came through Okay, so now that we made that decision, um, uh, I'll just What was that? No, we're fine. Um, so Um My as we talked about a bunch of times my original intent is to not force things to go to PUD approval unless they really need to be um Just given what we just changed and knowing what's on the ground today Are you folks comfortable that these approvals would potentially not have to go down a PUD approval route? Or would you just feel comfortable considering? um the the sort of Real transition that this might be that you'd like to see it continue to go to PUD I would hope that the language that we used to describe When and how the PUD could or must be used would still be sufficient to govern whatever might happen Okay, because right now notice i'm suggesting deleting this last sentence Which is the sentence that really does require Multifamily projects in this zoning district to go to PUD approval um So your LDCs right now say you can't do more than one single family home on a lot Without getting PUD approval Does it really say that? Well, if you want really from some The PUD section says that but this particular zoning district with this sentence That I pulled out of here. Let me un-pull it out. Oh, gosh. I've seen you get there Oh, no, I just hit reject all changes Oh, no undo control z Okay reject It's not letting me reject this one change. Um So this says one single family home is allowed per lot Unless reviewed as a planned unit development, which is a weird thing to say in a multi-family district or multi-family district Yeah, I'm fine with you striking that doesn't seem like it won't work there Okay, sounds good to me Okay, and then similarly it had this whole PUD section that we've edited a few times now for the other zoning districts And I'm making the same changes here Um Okay, very good. Um, so we don't need to beat on these two. We just basically talk through all of these mf2 and mf3 um Village center So just made some of those minor changes you asked for last time to make sure the actual URLs to the map to in the comprehensive plan and the design five corners plan is actually referenced in here Um Talked about that previously. Okay, so at the last meeting we talked about this quite a bit sort of we're trying to step up the site features and the Design to promote cycling walking in transit So we are requiring folks to have at least two of these amenities Talked about how really the first one should happen everywhere Um The last two just might not be possible giving the given the context in some places um, and I added in sort of public art murals and interactive Games and then I put in some images These images are provided as illustrations of intent. They are not like you must do these things. They are just for reference um Did these work for folks? Did this make sense? Yeah, I might have a picture of a bike path or some kind of a Good afternoon walkway that wasn't obviously a Same sign Yeah, I mean I so what we're talking about here is the well I was thinking about it in my mind as really In the front What's facing the public street and how you really do your development in a in a way that Really Creates the frontage that you really want to see so that's why I only have photos here But it's a good question And I didn't really word this To address like a bike path that would maybe be off the back of the property or something Yeah, well, we're we're still working on Connectivity and that's more than just the sidewalks in front that could be and right. I think You know part of what we've been trying to say is that is that when you do one of these We're trying to end up with something and You know, that's a little better or higher design and and it would be nice if it was Available to the public at large, but I think the question that you're asking doesn't really have to be You know if you're putting in a playground that's For the residents of the development, that's equally beneficial to what we're trying to do here And it may or may not be available to the public at large Right, but the concept is you wouldn't actually get that or the open space or the protection of other features on the site Without the trade-off for density So right that like in theory. That's mostly how it works order or You know food housing or some of those other benefits possibly benefit everyone beyond the residents of the development depending on where they're located and how what we're saying is It may not be strictly Wired that thing Or accessible to by the general public Oh, they're yeah, there are quite past walking past from connectivity to Forest road from your neck of the woods. Yeah And you know, there's the you know, there's the the bike walk path that's on brickyard and so Like I guess my point is can you essentially legislate? public use of And I know the answer would like to be yes, but well, I think we encouraged the developer to Continue the connectivity and let's say on the from the village to forest road Because it was already there and we encouraged them to continue that connectivity So do we have that in their connectivity between neighborhoods? Could that be one of the Um, that's That is a great Because I know, um, like, um, what's it's not Kimberly drive. It's Gosh, where is the name? I'm not sure what that one is the end of grand view There is a cut through between great You can't walk or bike, but you can't take your car You can walk between the two developments over to stuff up road or whatever it is Uh, and so that's there. There are some connectivity pieces Uh that were not this only I guess they were encouraged Uh, that's why they still exist. So on a village walk in my neighborhood connects two neighborhoods That were historically always connected by Uh primitive trails. Yes primitive trail And they were formalized and they're used every day by people in both neighborhoods But it gets you from a public street to another public street. So On what appears to be a public pathway. So so it's a great example of what we're trying to achieve here, which is Yeah connectivity that does have a public Use aspect to it that happens in a Pud and benefits more than just the local residents Right. So it's somehow that should be on our list of uh, I mean the the trail that goes in Beach Yeah, it goes up and along in there. They eventually goes up into the town 10 you keep taking you can go all the way to hansifords. Um, I mean people walk up there regularly on that that trail To go to the store, which is of the street Regina, can you explain item a on the list there pedestrian access directly from the building to the public sidewalk? Won't that be by definition be there anyway? I mean that that's actually a fire requirement for any exit from any building and has to actually get to a public way So i'm not really saying that wants to be part of a Pud bonus So just to clarify. We're in the village center district standards right now Okay These additions that we made we wanted to put in here just for across the board any application that you would get not associated with Okay, that makes a lot of things. Yeah and we It is confusing because we ended up doing a similar thing in the over the new overlay But then also tried to sort of beef this up in the pud part too, but this is right now. We're just looking at village center standards um So Yeah, that's a great question john This statement I was just sort of trying to get away from a situation where you might have a new and maybe this wouldn't happen but like a new strip mall type of project where You're really the majority of the access is from the parking behind It and you really Don't put an actual real pedestrian Entrance on the public facing side of the building Yeah, I hope we don't end up with a strip mall in the village center, but I see what you're getting at it is slightly different uh a group of Uh possible incentive components than that would be in the overall section Yeah, I think if this was added to address the issue Like we've been building that you have to access it No clear access Talk about kind of that that might have been why this was We've got some Raj's question. Um, we arrived had a question in the chat there. There's actually four things in the chat now. I don't know What they all are but maybe you can browse through them and let us know Uh, set Raj's Recent question was uh, is what are the setbacks? In the village center and I think there's zero Yeah, is that correct? Yeah, zero setback So Oh, yes, thank you. I didn't do that at all in chapter six yet Um So I will get get in there Um, I guess the village center is going to become the city center Yeah, well, there's certain replace You know Raj the recent or no setback required in the village center is the tension Is to create a much denser much more urban type development pattern and uh, so the way that happens is Uh, eliminating things like setbacks. Although there are some uh, what Definition of that you still need sidewalks you still need public ways you still need Parking you still need some other things that end up giving you some separations and some access points and some setback from the street but uh setbacks from the proper line or setbacks from adjacent structures could be zero I haven't seen that much of that We haven't because because the businesses have asked And and we know and robbins was very good at negotiating those setbacks to have Places to sit front of businesses Etc etc. So there's it's a negotiated agreement to get the project to have the amenities out front Um So far Yeah, I mean for pearl street give us 15 feet of their property on pearl and park 11 um Park gives 12 feet of their property The old dominoes building they'd give us 10 feet. It wasn't built Uh, the other side of the road Uh, the building hasn't gone up yet. Were the old um London Mattis They said they needed to have the upper uh floors of their building To the property line, but they said they'd give us an arcade Down below so people could walk undercover But we've got to remember that some of the lots in the valley center district are small Can I ask a question? I'm finally able to speak as opposed to tech. Sorry. I was busy Sorry, I was trying to stop that happening, but go ahead I know I know and I respect I understand completely It's just it's just a Curiosity and wonder please don't feel like we need to go too far down the road right now. We'll talk about this later. I'm sure but um If we're trying to get people to do what's pictured and do what I see and In so many of our larger planning documents and conceptual planning documents and there's no requirement For any kind of distance from the street Which is kind of what I'm thinking. So if I'm thinking the wrong thing, please just tell me and I'll shut up But if if there's no requirement for it Um, and somebody can build right up to the spread up to the curb No, not to curb There's a difference between building to the street and building having a setback from your property lines is that Build it to actuality or city actually owns A right way that's designated as nothing to do with the property lines necessarily so Usually dependent on the level of service the road has and so on So there you aren't going to have anybody that can build right up to the curb There's lots of reasons why not but That is kind of the discussion. I want to really move through our our lgc here if we can and we can We can have a Session where we go through all setbacks and other things that are in and what it really means based on I mean, maybe Robin can provide some mapping and stuff but You aren't going to have anybody that can actually put a building right on the edge of the curb Like Burlington for example, there are no setbacks down there either and And they have a 12 foot minimum from face of curb to face building. So Something like that So so Raj the the only place we really have zero setbacks are in some of the uh, brown L block that there's Uh, at best six inches. I think buildings So they they literally have done the zero lot line in between these buildings So at the moment there are those that's the only place you're going to find zero lot line Regina you stopped Yes, I mean we're we're through with that section and you're loading up another Uh, I am just scrolling down through the document to the next section. So if folks are um Good with village center district for now. Um The next uh zoning district I want to talk about and these are we're nearing the end here of chapter six Is r1 and r2 um So again these um A couple of things so last time with the joint meeting uh with the trustees Uh, we had the planning commission had already previously talked about duplexes being fine in r1 and r2. So that has been um added to the land use table And then there was a suggestion about why not triplexes and these as well So we want to just have a discussion about that um And again these zoning districts do require the planned unit development review if there's going to be more than one principal structure on a lot So again, that starts to get tricky. You can't really do a duplex or a triplex without going through a planned unit development process as if it were subdivision, which Most people wouldn't do that as a subdivision. So I'm suggesting that we take that out Then also after that meeting I talked with terry and she just pointed out that One of the limiting factors well two of the limiting factors for Allowing some infill in the r1 and r2 residential zoning districts is the lot coverage And the parking requirements So um right now you require two parking spaces per unit Um, and if you're going to try to do more on the lot A lot coverage of currently you have 40 percent That could be a little bit tight and the building coverage of currently you have 25 percent building coverage That could be a little bit tight too if you're trying to realistically do a duplex or a triplex So Yeah, no, I that's it. Just those are the sort of issues to sort of think through Well I just want to ask the pc to take a look at the design five corners Post I put up about two or three days ago. I know most of them look at it over breakfast. Maybe some have missed it but It talks about the costs of parking and the cost of parking in relation to housing and the cost of parking in relation to affordable housing um I can't remember offhand. Some estimates were 60 000 dollars per car for grad space 30 000 dollars per car for surface space and a lot of municipalities are looking at reducing And the number of parking spaces required as a way to increase the potential for affordable housing It also takes a lot of ladder Yeah, and that's maybe sorry um Just going to say that those suggestions I didn't get a chance to put in your email But I do have some of that information for you tonight If you if you'd like me to bring that up about what the other municipalities are doing and the suggestion for parking reductions I can't really hear you phil. I don't know if that's my own problem where everybody's having that problem Would it help if I bring up some of that parking stuff now or do we want to Stick with the zoning districts right now I'm sorry, uh, you know just that's the zoning district. Sorry virgin No, it's okay. It's all tied together. So it's hard to you know get to a 100 pathway without It's all related Is this better? Yes, way better That disconnect and reconnect again. I was just saying that I'm all in favor of reducing parking requirements That I think most of them are antiquated and take cars too much of the consideration Over actual people. I was just wondering Regina if you could explain the principle structure issue Because I my understanding is the definition of duplex and triplex is Three or two units all in one structure so Yeah If that um That's an oversight on my part if that's the case if that's the case then We're all good. That's it's interesting because the multifamily talks about it as Single family. So you're right. This is using a different phrase. It's using principle structure Um, I will check that if that's true Well, there was a I noticed that the language in the Multi-family one that we were doing also had principle structure and How many units were in the principal structure? You know, I kept wanting to See one of those three options that we've kind of joked about, you know, maybe there was a principle structure and an accessory structure Um, rather than having more and I'm guessing they're imagining a house with a Freeway in a garage and somehow that turns into a primary structure with an accessory structure Or maybe it's an existing garage that doesn't have a freeway connection But now you have sort of two structures on one site But I think we want to be careful to make sure that language is accurate because You know, if you have a principle structure That's one thing is to add another unit to that. It's a duplex If you add an accessory dwelling unit to it, it could take a number of forms But it's usually in a garage or an attached But it doesn't necessarily have to be attached So then you would have two structures on one site Well, it actually does have to be attached Um, any we've had to be attached Yes, we have actually what people have done is put up a trellis. It just says attached this and say are Sometimes people put up a trellis to attach the garage to the house. You can see it on Pleasant street. There's one example I can think of Yeah, it's not even a breeze All right Yeah, it looks like we have a definition for duplex that you can look at later Regina I can't find triplex though. So we might need to add that. Yeah Okay Yeah, so I would say a duplex Has to be two units in the same structure In the same for a triplex, I would say three units of instruction, right Um, okay, so I'll look at that. So, um Bigger picture. Yeah sense of We're already good with duplexes here. Are you okay with triplex this year? Our one We got thumbs up from Patrick and Phil I just keep going back to the map that show where our ones and our oh, yeah, sorry This is what you kind of showed us before on You know, it's fairly open large lots Yeah Mostly all up here Okay, so what what's misleading in this map is the school properties Right They're not they maybe are one on this map, but they're really school properties I think we need to refine this map to define the school properties because I really doubt that we're going to build houses on those and Although the cg is is is building taff street as we speak um it's Oh, it's it's uh I think we need to change our coloration on that school properties so that they aren't our ones So, you know what they are, right? Well, yeah, I'm not sure how much it matters on yeah, I mean you don't have a public use Zoning district. I mean we could Create one but Well, I think they're you know, they're owned by the school district unless the school district sells. Yeah right Well, they do it would never turn over and you never build anything Well, the ct has has built taff street in upper jewelry Um, it was those are already locks that are created. Well, as you could see it. Well, yeah Yes, the lines are and then they build the house. They're not all built on get things. No, there's there's like six that are to go um All right, so the question is do we want duplexes or triflexes in there? and What's the downside of that? Downside of a triplex If done well, but there isn't a downside If it's done well, it might look like a Victorian. Um If it's done well, if well, that's what I said if it's done well The biggest issue is you got what looks like a signal from my house, but now you got cars on That's when things start to go south, right? So, how does the park do it? I think we need to talk about the parking Well, what's what's the parking situation in the development sir r1 right now? I mean typically two car garages and typically Enough room to get four or five cars on, you know the driveway plus the in the garage So, um You know the normal cycle is while they're getting home. There are lots of cars and then they disappear and then there's not lots of cars um so, uh, the thinking is um Here's what you currently are requiring um in s extension for single family and duplexes two parking spaces per dwelling unit For multifamily, you're also requiring two spaces per multifamily dwelling unit doesn't call out smaller units Um plus one space for every 10. So that's fairly typical. There's a visitor parking requirement essentially and then for ad use one space per ad um, so Other this is just sort of what other folks are doing. I would say Essex has not really had this conversation yet. Um, in terms of Sort of newer thinking around parking requirements and they already require a lot 2.3 spaces per dwelling unit per single family and duplex Um, but then they do require a little bit less for the multifamily um Burlington so now when we get into Burlington south Burlington and Williston um, these folks have been putting a little bit more thought into the concepts of um either reducing the minimum requirements of parking that we all have traditionally used for decades and decades um, or Uh, just removing parking requirements period Folks who are going to come in with developments are Very likely to ensure that there's going to be parking on the lot that they feel confident They need in order to fill those units Then there's a third tier of thinking about this It is setting a maximum number of parking spaces that can be allowed um, and that um Really is probably pushing the envelope the furthest But really in places where you're um Have a lot of other opportunity. You have some Lot more shared parking spaces. You can you have a lot more on street parking um, you can kind of get to a point where Uh, you want to prohibit a new housing developer from putting in additional parking into your village or your downtown um and Definitely geographically the thinking is a little bit different on this between whether you're in Our residential neighborhood or more of a mixed-use downtown kind of place so, um Burlington as an example They have set up the entire city into three distinct areas Um, let me just show you that map real quick. Sorry for the scrolling um so Here's burlington They have a neighborhood district And again, these are these phrases are only for their parking standards. So they've kind of like stuck a bunch of different things together Um, so the neighborhood then they have two it's hard to see them in here But there's two different multifamily mixed-use districts And then there's the purple is a shared-use district So They don't have an urban-centric district. They're mostly calling that the mixed-use Um, so for single-family and duplexes in burlington in that multi in that mixed-use really the downtown places No minimum parking requirement and they have a maximum on it um Which is 100 of the minimum, which I need to confirm this with megan, but in theory, they're not letting anybody build more Parking down there. I don't think that's true. So I don't think this quite works out but Then if you think about the shared-use districts And those neighborhood districts, they're still keeping two spaces per dwelling unit as a minimum um in for single-family and duplexes And then they have set a maximum based on In the hundred percent it basically equates to that minimum So in theory if we did single-family dwelling unit duplex and triplex that the single family in in r1 And r2 would be two cars You have to have space for two cars If you have a duplex, you have to have space for four cars A triplex you have to have space for six Yeah Does the drawback for me would be the triplex that needs to park nine or ten cars And yeah, it happens Then then you get into how many bedrooms and how many related adults and whatever but You know somebody decides they're trying to Rent out a bedroom or you get a third car Whatever right there there ways that this can you can generate a lot of cars in a hurry if your Situation arises so Right and I think that's where the max comes in so there wouldn't be more than two per unit Yeah, you know we've seen I think we have a restriction on the maximum width of our driveways at the street with just 20 feet But there are plenty of people that have paved a third lane in their driveway You know usually for an accessory You know like a motorhome or a boulder Or an extra car So that the garage can still You know support traffic normal traffic So, you know really It's uh, if we're hoping people just aren't using their car that much that's great But most of the r1 district is Is only walkable by certain people And you know, I'll tell you from experience that Most of the parents are driving their kids to school and now even to the bus stop which might only be 200 yards away And you know, it's not what we think is expected behavior, but it's happening. So, um It it's not as walkable a neighborhood as let's say the R2 or or the things closer to the village center where You know, you're in a more compact environment and you're taking advantage of that everybody kind of gets You know our the r1 neighborhood here is is just a little more suburban So you're going to see more So I'm all in favor of not not necessarily requiring That you have all those spaces, but Somehow we need to plan Or like, you know, how how is that? Let's say you have a triplex How much land do you have and are we going to let you pave the door park on the grass because that's what'll happen Well, depending on which risk danger you are in You know, you've only got a maximum of 40 coverage. You used to be 25 coverage Yes, now you can pave more of it Or you don't you just put a car on it and it's a packed third spot of I don't know if we don't we not allow that We don't allow that but we have a lot of that occurring of So Yeah, especially in the winter time Right. So winter. I mean a lot of us have streets. I mean you could park on the street most of the year and it's that's not terrible, but winter time comes along from January it's December 1st April 1st, yes You know, you get ticketed for having your car on the street even if there's no No snow in the forecast for a month. You're still going to get a ticket Okay, so no on-street parking in the winter Yeah So so where are we where are we at with this conversation? We feel like we're kind of going in circles a little bit. I don't want to cater to the To the household that drives their kid to the bus stop to houses down I don't think we need to Be factoring that into our conversation So So can I just keep explaining what what the other towns have done that have put a lot of thought into this? um, so south burlington and williston They both have landed in a place with single family and duplexes Where they are not setting a minimum parking requirement nor a maximum parking requirement They don't want to set a maximum because they don't want to end up in a place where they're Um saying somebody's out of compliance if they technically have a space in their garage and a space in front of their garage Because people don't always use their garages that way and minimum is just really behind the whole sort of concept that Folks are going to build what they feel like they need to build in terms of parking There's really no reason from a regulatory requirement to require a minimum amount of parking for these uses So they're definitely took it to another level than what burlington did um, and then uh Also in south burlington, they've done a lot of sort of active research on what parking is happening in their multifamily projects uh, particularly behind shaw's Because those developments have been there for quite a while And they really adjusted their multifamily parking requirements based on what they were really seeing people do there um, so then It's sort of they start getting into sort of the nitty-gritty of how many bedrooms you're having in those units and therefore you're building the parking minimum requirements off of that um When you ski uh, didn't really adjust when they did their form-based code They didn't really adjust the parking minimums They it was sort of on the to-do list to come back to that and so I know they're still sort of talking about it But I don't think they've made changes as far as I'm aware of So just so you know where everybody's at on the on this concept Then lastly, I'll say the zoning for great neighborhoods document that the state put out that the congress for new urbanism helped with Their basic concept is if you really feel like you need to require a minimum it should be one space per unit And if you feel comfortable enough getting away from requiring it Just stop requiring a certain amount And then really you can kind of use the maximum if you really feel like you're in a place where You have a lot of other parking options for people I think the maximum is tricky if you don't have other public options for people so What would everybody think of not having environments, but maybe keeping a tighter rain on the total lot coverage What you're really ending up with is a ratio between pavement built environment and green space and so Not enough land you can put more fires on it. It won't seem That out of place, but we're not letting you pave. You know, I wouldn't go up to 40 percent coverage state It's what up to 30 or 35 or something, but Not Giving them a number for the cars I think a lot of developers, John, as you might know, come in Whatever project you're doing, whatever square footage they're building, they know The number of parking spaces they need to attract commercial tenants, I know we're talking about residential here, but They know what they need to make their project work. They've done it before they know and It would be very in fact, you know for one of the projects I'll not name it I was told that there were too few parking spaces that the The commercial units would not rent because the people who wanted to move in would say there's not enough parking close by right so Does anybody feel like we need to say one? Well, let's take for example a little The multi-unit development that just went in on Maple Street where it's going in now If you did not have a requirement and they only put one space per unit in there Well, it wouldn't have to do that either If they didn't have to put the parking on there, they could have possibly got more more But the reality is would they have Would someone had bought or rented there without at least having one space per unit Right, which is what the developer is going to recognize. They're going to need one space at least one space per unit Yeah, the developer in order to market that space And they know what they're who they're trying to rent it to and if they decide to choose zero parking spaces I mean, it's unfortunate and none of us would want any of those housing units to remain vacant But that might be the case and the risk that the developers putting themselves in So are we willing to let somebody that Feels like at least one space per unit would be I think in the in the R1 R2 areas. I mean, we're talking duplexes and triplexes. I'm not sure I'm comfortable saying no Requirements, but I'm also not comfortable saying six parking spots for a triplex Also, I think that's excessive. So finding a balance To me is preferable. Is one space per unit a balance Yeah, I could I could go for one space per unit I think one at least one one space per unit And maybe four for a triplex, you know, there's no visitors. There's no You know, there could be visitors. I mean also when we're when we're talking R2 and R1 We've we're kind of talking about divvying up the city the same way Burlington did Where you could have different requirements in both of those. We are saying that R1 is a bit more further out less connected To the main trunk roads less, you know, so we could we could add an additional requirement there if we wanted to Does somebody have a pinned to bedrooms? I think a couple. So what if you did? One space per unit up to one and two bedrooms and Who's faith well not one space For visitor for three bedrooms or more. So if you still had you the most you'd be asked for would be two spaces Under the assumption that if you had a four bedroom house You might need an extra space that for Two family at three family could be One space plus One visitor So you'd still only want that at least two spaces Uh, Raj looks like he has his hand up. I don't know if that's been up for a while or For a minute if that's all right, I'm I'm curious. I mean, I'm thinking Diane knows this well. I'm thinking about my neighborhood and some of the neighborhoods I ride my bike through in town and I know we're talking about sort of new build So this might not apply, but you know, the village city has a big problem with With people parking wherever they feel like they can in their yard and We don't enforce anything You know, I'm speaking as a resident right now. The trustees don't enforce a darn thing So You know, we've got two houses on Edgewood alone with a total of 12 cars in their yards that are unregistered And have been that way for over 10 years So, you know, if We we got to we got to find a balance between especially with duplexes and triplexes because You're just going to end up with what was said earlier with What is supposed to be green space ending up being dirt with cars on it 365 days a year Well, if you look at that as an enforcement problem and not a planning problem so Problem, I think you know, and I think if we're going to let let it be built though And it's just my opinion, but if we're going to let it be built Knowing that we're not going to enforce it Or knowing that it's a problem that the community is going to have a hard time affording to enforce Let me put it that way Because we're not going to set aside $200,000 a year or more to enforce issues like this and that's kind of what it would cost Um, I'm sure if you towed some of those cars out of there Get some attention But uh, I know you haven't been doing it and that's that's fine, but the planning the planning of this wants to be sensitive to People not having as many cars or not having as big cars or not And that's not to say it it isn't going to happen, but Um, there there's a huge effort Especially in our apartment complexes and not single family neighborhoods, but It's been pretty much shown that that one or two cars would be the maximum you'd ever need and and the average of a One or two bedroom apartment unit is still around one and a half to 1.6 cars Unless it's unless it's a rental and I think the apartment building thing is completely different And I mean you're talking about the residential areas where there are yards, you know So I'm just I all I'm saying is do do set something Um And and I'm I'm coming from a place where I assume we have less cars in the village. I just don't realistically I just don't see how you do that Especially for triplexes and duplexes We've got single family homes that are two or three bedrooms with six and eight people in them You know and in six or eight cars in the front yard and on the street Well, and it really brings it really impacts the neighborhood, you know and for for sure Raj And I hear what you're saying, but I at that same point my reaction to that is like we could set for a housing unit A duplex that has two dwelling units and say we set a maximum of 1.5 per Dwelling unit so that duplex would get three parking spaces in total for those two dwelling units to share Really respect that. I'm just I'm just saying Yeah, and if eight people are living there and there are eight cars that still Like we can't plan for that So, I mean it's still it still may happen. It still might not happen Um, yeah, I guess it's an enforcement thing Oh, I'll shut up We gotta I mean, it's it's a it's a valid valid I mean, I guess I'm curious what other communities how other communities are dealing with it. Um, and I guess that's not so much I you know from what I just listened to it It sounds like they they are somehow. Um, just don't know how and that's a that's a conversation For a different time My question right now is uh around if somebody could explain to me Maybe a little bit more about like lot coverage when it comes to the residential single family and duplex like r1 r2 as we've been discussing if you're only allowed to develop a certain percentage of the lot and does that include the housing unit end of the parking is considered lot coverage anything that's not Pathways chance anything So if somebody comes in with a lot size and they decide that they want to push the envelope to 40 coverage and they want to put a single housing unit and That has you know, maybe it's a duplex and It only encompasses 20 percent of the lot coverage and they want to take the remaining 20 percent and make it out to be however many parking spaces fit within that 20 percent Who are we to stop them? They're still hitting that 40 lot coverage maximum right And I'll just say that the issue of unregistered cars is a is definitely a different issue And that would typically be addressed via ordinance as opposed to the zoning regulations, but But you're right patrick without a maximum parking requirement, which again is sort of a new new world I don't think that there's anything that That is on the books that could prevent that Yeah, so I mean in my personal I'm all for reducing the number of parking spots. I'd love this D Car, you know, we should be building our our communities more for the pedestrian more for the person and not for the cars Like we have historically across the entire country But we could in some ways address this parking issue by we have lot coverage, you know within all of these areas it's not ideal for somebody to pave 40 of their lot and put in a parking lot, but I mean, we have the regulations that Allow us the remaining 60 percent to be open space and trees and shrubs and you know, whatever else And I'll also point out their setbacks and other things that are still You know fairly enforceable Yeah So, I mean, so I'm looking at kind of south burlington right there in the middle is like it Hey, I understand it. I understand that there could be a slippery slope I suppose with some of that no set minimum and no maximum, but we do have lot coverage Requirements and so And I guess as we learned too from who is it? Chelsea as you described the impervious services once you park a car on your side yard for however many of years and that becomes A compacted earth That is now an impervious surface and should we then be considering that lot coverage? Because it starts to fall within that impervious surface definition But that that's a that's opening up another conversation. I think Yeah, but that's a good question and we could just sort of look at the lot coverage definition to see that To see that it addresses that That would be a difficult one year how many years doesn't have to be hard can be proved many years. It's great Sounds like it's it's Just something's going to go to court um All right, so we either need to come up with a minimum number or we need to come up No number and just let the lot coverage Government and then someone would have to enforce that because otherwise it could be taken advantage so I think i'm Personally, I'd I'd like to see it is some way to acknowledge what happens with the complex or Triplex but not necessarily wire them to build two per unit, so I can't imagine any dwelling unit not meeting at least one per dwelling Okay, yeah fine so I guess I would I would go with the recommended column and on one space Well, and then make sure that we Lot coverages that would restrict this parking lots supporting, you know, multi-unit And I don't know 40 40 percent units That's generally pretty high. It's more common in commercial districts than residential Well, that's what the suggestion here is for r1 is Is fifth percent lot coverage and and the building is no more than that 40 percent Yeah, I think that's too much Yeah, I think I think it's probably a good strategy is sort of a first step is to reduce the parking space requirement And then maybe like you're saying leave the lot coverage as it is today. So for r1 that would be Max lot coverage of 40 percent 40 percent and 25 for for the buildings For the building and that one. I still wonder a little bit like if you actually wanted to get a duplex on there Could you at 25 percent? Probably not could you do a 35 instead Well, maybe maybe there's wiggle room in the building versus Parking lot coverage, but still no more than 40. What is it 40? Yeah So maybe we go the maximum total and I just checked r2 is the same so for both r1 and r2 Sorry, let me start let me share this Uh, okay, so, uh Let me see if I can just reject this we're going to go back to 40 percent total lot coverage And maybe we bump it up from 25 percent to 30 percent for the building coverage Right, so if you go 30 percent you still have to show us how you got your parking But we reduce the number of parking spaces that you're required to have Yeah All right any uh any do we need to do we have a consensus on on that for r1 When you said r2 similar Yes, r2 is the same building coverage and lot coverage so I'm looking at the r2 district and seeing that a lot of the Lots are well, but they're quite a few of the lots percentage-wise that are smaller than the r1 lots and Don't know exactly what that means, but it's going to put more pressure on them to Be able to pull off the number of parking spaces and a building A smaller lot coverage, right? I mean the lots are smaller Yeah, a lot of those lots are a third of an acre Max max they look smaller some of them are six of an acre. Yeah So But the bigger corner ones are a third Ones in the rows are six. All right, so we're staying the same thing though that that's going to limit them So even though those smaller lots really can't do what the bigger lots can do which is kind of what we're hoping for anyway All right, uh, everybody okay with this at the moment Patrick you all right? Yeah, yeah, I think so. I mean it's gonna pretty pretty major proposal for It's a year Bill good Yeah, I think that I think this idea will incentive Incentivize duplexes to go where duplexes work and triplexes to go where triplexes work, which I think is our intent Right and trying not to squeeze a triplex onto a sixth of an acre and And provide seven parking spots on that same sixth of an acre with three dwelling units just won't work Yeah, really parking All right, good. Yeah, okay All right, awesome. Um Great, and I think we probably have about 15 minutes left than us before Okay, um We sufficiently down this one six six six 22 So just one other change that I made in these two or I'm suggested changing Um and Again, I don't feel that strongly about this. I I can back out of these changes, but um I really just am trying to avoid Situations where you're making a decision based on the character of the neighborhood um because it's really subjective and there is likely going to be some Um evolution over time and so it's just not great precedent to Make decisions based on that And so this section specifically is talking about the front setback so what Front setback. Okay so um For the most part the front setback um The minimum front setback shall be 20 feet but The way that your regulations are written which is good is you can sort of look at what's going on in your neighborhood And the two lots next to you and if you average those together and let's say they're closer You could potentially get closer based on the average of what's next to you So there's some good flexibility in there. I think It's pretty common that I like it. So, uh, you know, it's made it makes it keeps the street relatively normal when you apply it so See any downside to that Yeah So then both in r1 and r2 the ldc goes further to say The planning commission can then wave This all together. So if there's a challenge meeting that was setback requirements The well it used to read the planning commission could waive those requirements Um, if the proposed setback does not negatively impact the character of the neighborhood That's what I'm suggesting you take out just because how you're going to make that decision um, and then Uh, and the proposed setback would be in keeping with the setbacks or character again Of the anticipated future development of the area So I'm just suggested that you do keep this flexibility. You do allow a pathway for a waiver if necessary But it's just in keeping with existing setbacks or setbacks associated with anticipated future development, which again, that's Very difficult to figure out, but it's not as subjective of the character of the area Then I am deleting all together that applicants can apply for a variance because you can't really can't anticipate future development of the area I mean, I I get the why you would want to do that, but I'm not sure how you do that I mean you can um, that assumes that we're Thinking that the development of some most of our areas are already built. So you would be changing the Or trying to allow for more change I guess I don't agree with their main premise, which is that using the existing character of the neighborhood is a bad way to Make a judgment because I think if you asked most of the homeowners, they would say, why did you buy here? Well, we like the character, right? So It would I would be less comfortable telling people that what they Are familiar with is subject to change One of the biggest issues that you find with people that are upset and come in front of Plain and Commissioner review board is Somebody is proposing a development on the neighboring property. That's not But they didn't know was allowed like I'm putting a gas station in next to my single family house And The argument usually goes something like well, did the zoning change or was that always possible? right, and if And if it was always possible, then okay, well, you just didn't know that's that's not our issue If you change the zoning and now that's allowed and now I hate my neighborhood That's something that I don't know that we should be responsible I think that that's uh The average homeowner in a bad position Yeah, I'm not sure I would put this issue at the same scale only because we're simply talking about trying to wave The front setback, which is hardly ever going to happen, but Yeah, those are extreme examples, but but they happen so I really like the lot line, you know, like don't just set a number. Let's allow the average of the adjacent. Yeah, that's fine. No problem with that Trying to um, I mean most of our language at the least in the historic section and billage center Talks specifically about making sure that new development is sensitive to and respectful and and somehow slip existing surrounding neighborhood character. So I don't know that we want that to go away everywhere Okay, so I Can reject this So I I will push a little harder on pulling out this concept of an applicant can apply for a variance um Because this Yeah, so It's not really what a variance is for no, it's not really what a variance is for and it's not really something that the former CPA should be approving either. You're not allowed to self-inflict the You know a problem and go for for really Like I want to have to be further back or not be in the setback area and I think I should you should allow it for me Yeah, yeah Okay, so that sounds good. Um, so I think that is It basically um, there are some other stuff Um, we want to put in something about sheds Yes, that's Not in this chapter. Okay. I just yeah, that's right. It's chapter seven. Yeah. Yeah, so that's coming up next Patrick just give me the eye Um, did you figure out what language you want? I have it somewhere on my desk when I get back into the office. Okay. Just email it to me Um And is it okay if they're on skits and you can move them around versus permanent Just give John a call Johnny on the spot somebody in our neighborhood put in a lovely shed. It's it's on, you know, big Eight by eight or something presumably they could just pick it away whenever they want so I don't I think we should be We should it's not a tiny home All right, I'm just looking through the rest of this chapter Um, I think we're good. There's the similar sort of pictures of intent in the overlay um So I think I think that's it And so do we get through all? All four of the things you sent us this time We need to go through the Let the conditional new turn Um, the except the use table we need to go through that So the use table Um, yeah, I guess we should just confirm so because I think we started out this question and then maybe circle away from it Triplexes in r1 and r2 We're good with it With the one required parking space and the maximum 40 block coverage Yeah Understanding that that might be difficult in r2 because the lots are so small but Yep, life. Okay, excellent Um, I think that's it One thing before we go. I just want to ask the pc members to take a look and I mentioned for But it's germane to what we've been talking about tonight If you check a design five corners from june 7th 11th 13th and 15th and maybe even um I've been on a sort of quite crusade about the way roads are designed in urban spaces in vermont You seem to use the same metrics as they do almost for motorways So I've been suggested some changes to art people from rsg actually haven't talked to most Uh, but 7 11 13 15. Uh, it's different things. It's like cycling. It's a bike creating good streets Parking minimums It might be something worth looking at and maybe it can feed back in the next time you meet maybe not So And I know you look at design five corners every day. You're just trying to make everybody else feel better I got it right next to me here And So you're talking about ages seven 11 13 15. No, I'm talking about Dits and june jump that I posted it on design five corners I go to great lengths researching stuff to put it on design I I explain to people that I'm trying to make design five corners facebook site aspirational not confrontational Oh, it's a facebook site Facebook Yeah, you're asking a lot buster Oh, I got to reactivate that thing to which dates again look at this problem Uh, 7 11 13 15 you come back for years, but those four would be enough to get you going Get your juices flowing for months or those days or those days Years kids kids kids And don't be eating those don't be eating those dates 11. So like july 11th kind of thing No, we're in june june November 7th He's european Do you have some questions if we're done with this conversation? I'm done so Keep me on Send us a link to robin or you're not going to get us all on the same page That sounds like a good idea and even you see on facebook page Okay, june 30th. We are meeting. Yes Yeah as we decided so, um Are you sure that this group should become the d rb because this all we've been working on is just going to Fall flat If we can't move it forward. Well, I I think it has to be a slow transition. The thing is That once we finish this In theory a planning commission doesn't have a lot on its plate where the d rb will So if we could continue until we complete this And then look at um Who's on the d rb and who's not that seems to be a sequence that would work pragmatically? Yeah, like if we could so I mean in some kind of ideal world we could have everything on the table On the 30th, which really the only big other chapter is chapter seven And so long as we're not doing anything new which cannabis is still question mark Can we really need to get something in about that though in some part? I can give an update on cannabis. Well, I'm not a whole update But I'm part of a cannabis working group with raj and a couple other people and we're meeting on next Wednesday, I believe is our first meeting And I know that there is desire from the trustees to Do something like outside of this normal ldc process. So there might be some changes That happen outside of that just like we had talked about last time and they all have to be In lockstep with what yeah, and and raj is aware of the timing as far as warning all the Meetings and warning the hearings and all of that for those approvals So I'll know more after that meeting so I can bring more information To that june 30th meeting Okay Because it would be it would be helpful if what we're working on right now if we can just Be done with it on the 30th warn a hearing on the 30th for this package Then nothing prevents other packages from coming but this at least gets across the finish line And then if you folks are the only Willing volunteers and need to switch to the d rb Then at least this thing is kind of on its way Yeah, I would agree with that Because unfortunately I'm getting um I got an email that said I needed to make a decision by the end of the month He either can really yeah Yeah, because my my term ends on june 30 What was that Good idea. Um Scott's out of tape. We just had some kind of crazy sound come through Yeah, we all heard it, but we don't If you're asking that question in in our transition here, you know, you know, the deadline's already been set as to You know, we're supposed to change Um, but we're not done So how do we how do we continue to do our planning commission stuff if we become the d rb? Are we allowed to do this technically? No, okay Robin has the advertisement for the d rb gone out Far as I know I'll have to check french port for him twice Yeah, okay. Yeah, I've seen So hopefully there's more people and I was thinking like andrew. He might be willing to come back to be on the d rb Oh, thanks um so, okay Yeah, I don't know the solution, but I So officially I want the planning commission to not go away I know that so just so everyone knows I gave my intention to stay on the planning commission in the change of the city, but I'll serve where needed, but I I know that we can't serve on both boards But nothing says we can't join the meeting and speak as public and as previous Members to help advise the new Commission so We just wouldn't have a vote. We just need we just need voters It's the quorum part is that yeah have at least three people on there so For this project to continue. We need at least three people so We're it unless we convince There are our zoning members of which there are two if they want to hop in and join the fund um I do know someone personally that george has been courting for the planning commission Someone put your name forward recently I'm gonna put your name forward. Um a wild bock, but I haven't heard any result Okay, so maybe it's all gonna work out, but uh, we first it will I Will be working to get you folks a final product without cannabis By june 30th Okay, awesome. All right any further business tonight? Uh, I'll take a motion to adjourn Make a motion Bill and seconded by Diane all in favor say aye. Hi Thank you very much. That was most uh interesting Yes, thank you. Welcome Thank you for the tough decision-making it's hard. Yeah