 somebody on hearing none. We'll move on to item two, additions and amendments to the agenda. Normally I'd ask Robin if Terry has any. I haven't heard about them. Anything? I don't know. Terry's actually lying. But I don't think we do. It's really just a work session. So we do have the number three of the regular meeting on August 5th. I had a question about those minutes. Okay. I wasn't at the meeting. So I had a question. I don't know if I'm supposed to say this is Phil, Commissioner. I don't know since I'm remote. Down towards the bottom of the first page of the minutes, it says in section 501C, the commission chose to change the number of working days that the CDD must review an application for completeness from 10 to 30. My question was where it says number of working days. Does that mean business days? So effectively it was changed from two weeks to six weeks? No, it's calendar days. Calendar days? Okay. It's a little confusing. So maybe we want to also add to change it to calendar days? Well, if it isn't noted that it's business days, it's calendar days. That's how the law works. So working and belonging in either category, I guess I would want more clarity on that myself. Okay. So but I don't know what the minutes actually said. I wasn't here either. So I guess I would recommend that we we define it as either calendar days or business days. But I don't need to change the minutes for that. I just need it to happen. I understood it to be calendar days. Steve, you were here. Yeah, I thought it to be calendar days as well. Okay. So maybe we can just put in parentheses that it's calendar just to clarify what the board's understanding was at the time. I thought the minutes were a little tricky to follow and that some of the items seem to be put together in paragraphs where they didn't really make sense. Like what was the phosphorus management software? Was changed to AutoCAD? How do those go together? Okay. So there is this long discussion about AutoCAD and another term for AutoCAD and HydroCAD. Pardon? HydroCAD. There we go. There we go. HydroCAD. And so it's kind of like, you know, so HydroCAD I guess is normally used for phosphorus or it's a subset of AutoCAD and well I'll just say we use a lot of AutoCAD but it's mostly related to drawing packages. It's issued by Autodesk who issues all kinds of other software. So to me it's confusing if anyone has clarity that would be helpful. I got clarity after the meeting. I asked Hamlin Engineering who is the village engineers which term would be better in the code and they said AutoCAD would be better so I made those corrections when I sent it back to Regina. Regina, welcome. Do you have any, we just want to make sure we know what we're saying here. The couple of members that weren't at the meeting are having questions about the minutes. So we're on the bottom of page two where it talks about references to chapter five, the various phosphorus management software were changed to AutoCAD for consistency. So I mean that's the thing. It was a confusing conversation in the moment. We talked in circles for sure. Yeah, this is Patrick. I recall it being the way it was initially worded. There were a couple phrases that were like they weren't even like complete sentences and by switching it to AutoCAD actually ended up clarifying the whole thing that much more. So that's why we took that direction. The question about just at the top of item three under audience for visitors, Nick Meyer who was on the tree commission has been eagerly awaiting an opportunity to talk to us and I think it's on our calendar for a little bit later the whole landscaping piece. It was there was a portion in our package about that but I don't think it was meant for discussion and we certainly didn't expect Nick to be here tonight. He's saying that we should be posting summaries of our meeting discussions on social media and the land development code changes on social media and I think that's a good idea. I just don't know what happened. Did we ever decide that? And has that happened? Is our website tracking the discussion? Can you read the minutes on the website? Which I'm guessing you can but I don't know how quickly those get posted and we're still trying to make sure that we're being open and inviting to people who want to see what we're talking about and offer comment. So I would just remind us that we always have an obligation to be out there with our work and then if we have to do something to make that happen, I think we should and I just don't know where we are with it. Well, the minutes by law have to be posted five days. Five calendar days. And now are those the approved minutes or the draft? No, it's the draft. The draft. Okay, well that's good, that's good enough. So that has to be there. As to whether we have to post them to village forums or front porch forums or something like they would have to go on the village website. Because I'm not sure where else they would be going other than posting literally on the wall. So which I did not see anything here as I walked in. So the village website would be adequate, right? It would be adequate. But I think this is suggestion of they get posted to the front porch forum or for that matter, Facebook, I'm not sure what village has for Facebook page. I know that there's at least two affiliated with the village, but I don't think they're official. But somebody can qualify that for me. It feels like we should be doing something officially and not, if anybody wants to take the minutes as as issued and put them somewhere, that's fine. Well, I think Nick is asking for as the school board does a summary of here's here's the high points of the meeting. And I think Nick is looking for something similar to try to get some people more informed as opposed to here, you can go read these very confusing minutes that we are all discussing. So you know, the people might be more more welcome if they if they knew that they knew what we were doing. Is that something that a commissioner would put together or a staff member? We're not sure. I would I would ask the the village and town administration what is being done, you know, already, maybe in other parts of our community and see if we're behind or or not. I think it makes sense and or at least linking to the minutes when they're published on Facebook and whatever so whatever other social media the village is on. Yeah. Any other questions on the minutes? I will take a motion to approve the minutes as written. Second. All right. Any more discussion? All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you everyone. Next on the agenda is our ongoing work session. Regina has joined us and this looks like she might be ready for her portion of the presentation. We're continuing tonight with stormwater management, housing and format for future public outreach if we get that far. Regina. Yeah. So Chelsea is here so we can sort of walk through the chapters like we did last week as well. But Chelsea, does it make sense from your perspective to talk about this offset concept generally or should we just go through the chapters? Just go through the chapters and we can talk about it when we get to that part. Which one do you want me to start with? Can we start with chapter five, which is just a quick clarification. It was some homework we were given from last session. It would be section 514 and 515. And I did not put those on my laptop before. All right. Let's see if I get to it. Well, we can start with chapter seven then. That's fine. I can pull it up out of my email really quick from you. Oh, Chelsea, if you want to go with, I've got chapter five here. Okay. Well, it was remember there was we had a discussion about the half acre and how we changed it didn't make sense and so there's a discussion on if we even need both of those sections and Jim and I were supposed to figure out which one is the regulation that we really need. And so in discussing that we feel that section 514 can be eliminated and we just leave section 515 but change it to read where it says one acre. It would be a half acre for both. So here we got it. Got it at the same time. Okay. Well, then you're already sharing your screen, aren't you? I'll do it right now. So sorry, section 514. Yeah. So my question to you, Chelsea, is that one says about land that's less than half acre and the other one talking about land that's more than an acre. So how can we eliminate one since we are essentially dividing applications into one that's less than the one more than. So I can't see. Did you share your screen? Yes. Oh, there we go. I had my email. So so this before said approval activities involving the disturbance of land less than one acre, right? So that one is capturing disturbance of less than one acre but we're going to start regulating besides this disturbance, the amount of pervious surface, the state is as well. So that's why we were thinking that 515, if you can scroll down. At least that's how Jim and I read it this morning. The disturbance should be the disturbance of equal to or greater than a half acre of land and or the creation of more than a half acre of impervious surface. But then you're saying that something that's a quarter of an acre doesn't like there's no regulation on a quarter of an acre. Right. Right. And before there was. Yeah. Okay. So maybe that didn't work. 514 did. Okay. 514 is zero to point to one, which now will be point five. Well, we can leave it to one. And I guess we just felt like if changing this, this was capturing some of the stormwater projects that we thought it might fall through. But they shouldn't fall through. It's just you're just dividing it into more than an acre or more than a half acre and less than a half acre. You're still, but the added 515 has the impervious surface. Yes. Correct. Yeah. Service of less than a half an acre. Because to do that, we should probably add that phrase to 514. And we don't want less than half acre. We want to just bring it down to half acre. So if you go down to section 515, it would just read, we could just change it to read in the creation of more than half a half acre of impervious surface. So we're not eliminating, we're just, we're just putting that the qualifier is being a half. Yeah. Yeah. So the state, the state limit is changing from one acre to a half acre. Is that what I understand? Yeah, correct. So we just want to match it. We'll start ours at a half acre or less than a half acre. If we, how, Regina just typed it works. Well, the goal. Okay. Do we want both of these to be half or just the creation of impervious surface at half? I would argue half, but that's yeah. I think Yeah. If 514 is going to be half, then 515 should also be half. Right. Yeah. So that Okay. Other housekeeping from other chapters? Anything else in chapter 5, Chelsea? No. What should I go to next? Chapter 7. Chapter 7. Chapter 7. There's a particular page, Chelsea. Oh, my page numbers didn't print. There aren't page numbers until you get halfway through the delinquent. Oh, that would be nice. How's that? And the page numbers on the bottom of the handout versus the, do not match out with the actual physical book. Which I found intriguing. Okay. So we'll pick that. First one would be. The first one I'm seeing is 704E dealing with illumination of building facades and landscaping. I have no clue what page, but it's about the fourth or fifth page of the handout. Yeah. It's okay, Regina, if your screen doesn't work, I have it printed. I just wish I could like get there fast instead of making the world, everyone who's watching us at home scroll. So I have a number of comments before we get to that. We want to just go through this page by page and see who has comments, or are we just going through the staff comments so that we can take care of that. Yeah, I would say that just other than Chelsea is going to have to keep coming back if we don't get through all of her stuff. Yeah, that's what I'm wondering whether we, so let's go through the staff comments and then we can come back and then go through our own comments. I think that that's good. Okay, so Diane, what section did you say is the first? The first one I'm seeing any writing on is illumination of building facades and landscaping. 704 Lighting, item E. The discussion talks about exempting holiday lighting. Now in my reading today, I saw that holiday lighting is actually discussed in another section. I wrote myself a note to say, oh, go back to that and I forgot it. But it's in something that we read for today that it talks about how the lights are put up and whatever else. So I mean, it's like the short time periods and time periods. So I'm sorry, I did not put a post a note on it to go back to it, but it's. 704 section B96 or sorry, five intermittent under intermittent lighting except for holiday lighting may not be used. The beauty of having the PDF I can do a control f and find holiday. Okay, so you said 706 where? Sorry, 704. 704. Number five. And it's mentioned two other places as well. That doesn't look like what you were talking about. There's also. See, there's also section 714. Section a about temporary signs and sign standards. And those are probably what's stuck out. So if you light up your whole house, it's considered a temporary sign for the holidays. It may not be as clear as you're hoping. The signs and regulations are. Yeah, I have to be overhauled. Well, it seems that it seems to be a catch all for everything and anything that happens to be. Quite frankly, I'm finding it concordance would be lovely. As Phil's got a really good, good panel on that. If I try to find it. Yeah, so it seems like based on the exemption under 704 B. Five. It does offer an exemption for holiday lighting there. I can look at section E and see if it makes sense to incorporate in there as well. But so we can circle back to that. I mean, I just like to add real quick, you know, I think Regina, these might be your notes, the RM two are one. But I mean, I think they're valid questions that you point out that one I think defining holiday as it is in a few places might be a slippery slope because how do you define a holiday. And the other question that you had Regina here where has there been an issue previously. I mean, I think if we haven't had an issue then I don't know if there's a reason to really try and. I think there's a reason to really try and squeeze the exemption in just because it could create a slippery slope of defining holidays and who's holiday it is and yada yada. So I just wanted to point out that I think Regina your questions there are pretty good. Anybody else. So this was Jim's comment originally I don't know if anybody is aware of this being a problem. I haven't heard of it being a problem. I just heard it wasn't holiday lighting so many of the hockey hockey rink in the backyard. Different. Yeah, we have had that issue come before us. The bleed over into the next day. And then there's quite a bit so on the bleed over issue. My questions were related to one I as a sort of a I use lighting a lot in my architectural work on and I'd love to illuminate facades because they can be really nice at night with a little light on but we excluded everything but it's not historic or symbolic architecture which to me is extremely limiting but basically you're saying you can't light the facade of your building unless you're historic and basically that's like. Nectar's got away with their sign and you know spinning because it had been there for so long and everybody loved it that they didn't want to see it go away. So exemption right so think of it in that terms if you have something like Lincoln Hall which is historic and you want to keep it illuminated because it's a nice municipal gesture. You can do that if you're a church you can do that if you're a business you're not allowed or if you're just a you know let's say you're a restaurant in theory you're not allowed. So I know that's not exactly in practice like you still see lighting but I don't know how we handle that kind of says you can't do it. This is Terry. I have. I want to make a comment. I haven't had anyone calling us or complaining about anything about lighting. I'm not really sure if that should be something that actually has to change right now. Maybe we should see what the newer structures in the village that are being built now look like and decide whether we're having trouble with anything. I mean we could have had problems this whole last year when people were keeping up lights because of the pandemic. It wasn't a holiday but they were still keeping their lights up. Actually I think they were encouraged to keep their lights up but I forgot who did the encouraging. I thought it was the governor but I'm not. Yeah no that was the governor's request was to extend the holidays that way. Adults spread a little bit more cheer for a few more months if we could. Right. And I you know I remember I don't know not all of you were on the board about the whole issue about the hockey rink. That was because the lights were spilling over to the neighbor's property. But that's been taken care of. So that's the only lighting issue that there's been a problem. All right. So if we don't have a problem we shouldn't really worry about it. We don't necessarily deal with lighting and signs. The zoning board had anything dealing with requests for signs being lit lit not lit up lit lit. Okay. I mean we talk about having in here in science talks about having them be illuminated versus lit. Okay. So as John's talking about things could be is there are some business here that currently lights puts light on their sign as opposed to having it illuminated. There were a few but they've had we've had some that come up from the ground. Actually I think Lincoln Hall. Our lights were coming from the bottom of our sign. But there aren't too many that light they're building from the ground. I was just wondering if anybody was washing them from the top. I think the church read does it really. They just have street lights pretty much. They don't have to turn those buildings lit up all the way down the street. So it's all from the top kind of coming down. They light up the sidewalk in front of the building. All right. Well we're a little off track if we're doing this with staff comments here. So I'm going to try and redirect them back. That was Jim's comment. So there is I mean we've touched on some of the bigger topics that we get into which is lighting and signage. And we're not we'll have to tackle those as we move forward. But let's keep going with our staff comments. So the next one I see is in 706. General requirements. Looks like three. No accessory structure may be located with any right of way. Visibility triangle. Totally easement. I think it's just a spelling. It's just a spelling thing. What's that dumpster? Are the next case section. Right. 706. Jerry. I didn't think there was an issue here the way I was reading this. I think Jim is just wondering if construction debris debris dumpsters need to be dealt with. I think those are typically temporary and you wouldn't subject them to. They are temporary. They are usually rented by the week, but sometimes they're just rented by the number of times they have to take them away. And we had one in our neighborhood recently that was there for at least a month. And, you know, just because and I don't know that it became an issue. I don't know if anybody complained about it, but you know, they are temporary. So I guess we're not worried about that either. Yeah. Unless anybody feels strongly about it. Move on here. 707 fences. Item B2. It's definitely got to be enforced. There's still a lot of signs around the village or fences around the village that you can't see. They go almost in traffic. There's been there a long time. Is there a way to retroactively do something about it? We've gone south Summit Street to West Street. Can't see to the right. There's a fence right there. You're going to pull out and there's a car right there. Well, it doesn't necessarily have to be a solid fence, right? So I'm thinking of, you know, there's some stormwater ponds or detention basins that have been fenced. And there is drainage structures and so forth in the bottom of those in some cases. And so if you don't have a part of that fence, whether it's a stockade type fence or a rail fence or just some kind of whatever type of fence it is. If there isn't a way to get in there easily, I think that's what he's worried about. You want to make something make that area accessible. So when you need to do maintenance on it, you can. Okay. But Andrews got a different question is more about current current enforcement of this reg is not there are sign there are fences that are in the way in the visibility triangle right now. Right. You've been there a long time. So there are things they're not supposed to be in there anyway. Right. Say you can't do it. Today I wouldn't go for sure. I mean, it's definitely in the village right away. It's right there. So sidewalk and can't see it. It's almost beyond traffic. So this is a safety concern. So how do we get the safety concern addressed, even though that might be for your father? That's the question. That's the question. That's a good question. I don't know the answer off the top of my head. So I think there's a note of that. But to Jim's comment here specifically about I assume Chelsea, do you know if this comment is coming particularly for stormwater drainage easements? That's my guess, but it could be access to a sewer line to. I don't really have there with the proposed language actually says, which says you can put ends up in the visibility triangle. So how does Jim's comment? It doesn't really impact that statement. No, I thought it was supposed to be like a new number three or something. Yeah, you just made a comment. Yeah, I mean, I think you could probably put that in there. That's a little bit difficult to enforce, but you can put it in there so that if you have a problem accessing something, you at least have that standard to stand on a little bit. But in theory, if this were a whole new situation, which is typically what these regulations are going to be used for mostly unless there's a. Maybe there's a site plan or something where you could use this to change existing situation. But for the most part, new situation going forward. I don't think you want to allow fences. Yeah, the first one. So is it so Jim's comment could be put in as a new item because it doesn't be tracked or modify anything that's in there already. And then Regina, your comment just doesn't even need to be about stormwater or drainage or anything else is just in general, if you have a fence. You can't put it in the visibility triangle and impair view. And other than that, if you have a parcel with an easement and you have a fence for Jim's comment, you've got to put in an access panel. If we allow the fence in the first place. But I don't think that says we could not allow the fence in the first place. However, in the options that we did allow the fence, we would have to have that. Yeah, I think that's probably a good way to word it that first and foremost just fences generally, irregardless of visibility triangle should not be put over. I think you want to say public easements. But yeah, if they need to be there for some reason, then you put in this removable panel. Yeah. Okay. Roscoe court, I know that there are a couple of gates in those fences. Okay, I don't think the panels were little, but they swing. That's that long, long road with a couple of easements that went. So yes, I'm thinking there are a lot of gates in there because people had used Roscoe court to get out of their backyard onto Roscoe court. When Roscoe court was not designed as it is currently. Okay. So we're okay with Jim's comments being added and the rest of it stays elated. Yeah. I think that makes sense. 709 private streets. Item A2. Snow storage areas showing on the plans that we should be doing. Are we skipping a barbed wire fence? Yeah. The next one is Jim's comment on the barbed wire fence. The way I'm reading this allows them to have a barbed wire fence. So I'm not sure if anything has to happen here. I agree. Sounds like it's allowed. This is Terry again. When people call about fences, I tell them that Bob wire is not allow unless it's on the farm. So I'm not sure if you even have to change anything on that. We only have one farm. Right. In the planned agricultural district. Correct. Correct. Right. So the snow storage. This seemed fine to me. I don't know if anybody. Yeah, the comment makes sense to me. This is Patrick. Alright. Alright. Next page under D526. Okay. So this is at the end of that visibility triangle section. Chelsea's recommending the addition of this vegetation section. That makes sense to me. Next page under review criteria. It's in the overall section of home occupancy. The way I read this, I think there's a number of different things in here. That limits parking for a home occupation. So I didn't see something that needed to be addressed. So others feel like that. The parking limitation. Jim's comment about the cars. The parking limitations would, by default, not allow a car to be out and out. I think there's some regulations somewhere. I remember reading about the cars being worked on. You know, if they're being housed or under a closet hut or something or other, it can't be in the driveway as a business. Right. Because it only has so many... It says that it'd be one, essentially, that the home occupations will be conducted entirely within the dwelling area. So... It's tough to have a car within the dwelling unless you put it in your own garage. There are some odd places where you see a lot of car, you know, parts happening in what appears to be somebody's driveway. So I think that the goal is to say, well, that's not really... You know, at some point it's not your own personal auto that you're changing that tire on here. You're engaged in a business. And that's now regulated. The guy over here on Maple Street, the buddy shop car and driveway on the outside corner, so is that a personal car that he's working on? Or is he seeing a different car every now and again? I think that's the intent, is that we're trying to say that's... Probably not. So is that an enforcement issue? Because there are already regulations in place that say you can't do this? Yeah, I mean, in reality they're acting as a home occupation and they don't have approval to... They don't have approval for a home occupation business. Then they're in violation, they've got to get a permit and they have to meet these standards. Yeah, I actually had a related comment on the page 12.4, which is home occupations to section 711 under the general revision, but it says it has to happen in the dwelling. And it doesn't even allow it to happen in the garage. It doesn't sound like it. Like you have a detached garage, a detached garage, and you want to do something in your detached garage as a home occupation. Like let's say I wanted to have my business in there as a designer, you know, as an architect. It doesn't sound like I can do that. Or if you're a carpenter. You know, you want to cut up stuff in your garage that would work for a professional owner. Yeah, it seems like you would... This is my little inner portion of the dwelling. Yeah. I think that makes sense to Jane. Yeah, I think I'm going to avoid it being visible. Right. That's just it. It's not necessarily what they're supposed to be. It's quite nice over there. It's always good to jump over the place over there. Yeah, I agree. You know, if you're doing a project in your garage and it's not there for three months in front of the neighborhood to see them, that's fine. Okay. All right. So we're good on Jim's comment there. I just had a comment on number 10, just as I was looking at this section. So I put a comment on the signs section too. So a number of years ago, I'm going to say around five, might be more or less, there was a Supreme Court decision that really clarifies a municipality's ability to regulate signs. And the basic premise of it is if you have to read the content of the sign to know how to regulate it, that's illegal. It's a violation of free speech. So basically what you can do with your signs is you can regulate on premise signs in terms of their size, their shape, lighting, not lighting. And then you can also regulate off premise signs. Their size, their lighting, all that kind of stuff. But nothing in terms of content. So that means you can't say a sign that is for political purposes can be up at a certain point in time because you'd have to read it to know that it's a political sign that can be up at a certain point in time. That instead you would consider more broadly as a temporary sign because you can regulate temporary signs too, just not the content and the wording on them. So that whole section needs to be rewritten. Yeah, and you can still do things like no electronic signs if that's what you would prefer. Because electronic is either it's lit, it's moving, it's whatever. It just can't be, you can't have, like you couldn't say that commercial retail businesses can't have an electric sign, but the school could have an electric sign. But it's got to just be sort of clear across the board because what you end up doing is really washing out whose signs are whose. And it's really becomes a very generic based code standard. So it's a little bit tricky, but other people have done it and it's so we can pull from what other people have done. So in essence, if we eliminated the first and third sense of this, it would leave a phrasing that it was essentially you can put your shingle up and we'll be good with it. Yes, exactly. For that example. And I'm sorry, I have to, I'm going to stop sharing. It looks like nobody can see what I'm doing. Well, that's why I'm using the shingle because that's what it used to be. They used to use shingles and you put your name on it and you can John Smith and D or whatever. There you go. Yes. I think that makes sense, Regina, to eliminate that also. It seems a bit antiquated to advertise by phone number only in 2021. Yeah. All right. So we can. So that's a good point. Seven to one and three and the middle one can stay. Just specifically your comment on electronic signs. They're, they're not allowed with one exception. And that is a municipal departments are allowed to have. Right. And that is the only exception and it has not been used yet. I guess I have, I have a question about the third sentence there. The last, the last bit in the sense is neutral in color. Can you regulate that? Can you regulate color of the signs? Yes, you can. So we might want to keep something about a neutral color in there. What's natural white or cream or something? That's tricky. In order to be a useful sign, there needs to be some contrast. Otherwise, it's hard to read. It's not very big. You can't put white on beige. You can't read it, you know, so. I'll be interested to see how. What's the square foot of six? One by one. That's two square feet, right? One by one. Yeah. I think this is basically just saying that overall you want the sign in full to be, yeah. I mean, neutral could still be contrasting, right? Two neutral, two contrasting neutral colors. I think, you know, my guess is we're trying not to see hot pink, you know, fluorescent green or something. No, that would definitely stand out though. It would be a great sign for standing out. It's only giving one square foot anyway though. Who really cares about color? Can the letters be reflective? It could be a black sign with white letters, but they glow in the dark when we drive by. No, there's a regulation about glow in the dark. There is. All right, we're really getting the last track here. There is. Might we move on? So the next one is a spelling thing. There's a formatting thing. Yeah. And although it looks like, did we add something? Number six, stormwater management, 713 item. Five or six. Maybe that was all one paragraph and now it's two. So it's formatted. Yeah. So number six is new language, just clarifying that the other purpose of this is to protect water quality. Cause it doesn't really come right out and say that the only thing I thought about this is you could actually move that number six to number one. If you wanted to, cause that's really like, it's really the number one purpose of this whole thing. And then you can go to the others. Okay. Yeah. Chelsea, are we moving way too slow? Yeah. I think I'm feeling I'm coming back. So it's okay. You want to like take charge of the comments and really just walk us through them so we don't kind of, you know, take forever. Like the next couple of pages are pretty rich here. I'm just looking for a good way to be walked through it so we don't get sidetracked. Well, I think we're, yeah, meat of the stuff that she's got at this point. So we could probably just get through it. So there's an addition on illicit discharge. See one just sort of, I think that's just a clarifying thing. What other types of things are included in that definition. That seems pretty straightforward to me. Three more pages down. Well, actually it's the next page off of the working condition. It looks like I am for our border quest protection list. The only question I have about actually it's the next line is grass cuttings or leaves in the gutter, which, which is what that's talking about is not having stuff in the positing stuff in the right away. Do you have a question about that? No, I have a question about that. And that is an enforcement thing. Okay, we're not allowing things there to not have things in the gutters. We're talking about operable working condition. We changed it to say working condition. Yes. Yeah. In a working condition. Yeah. Okay. We can come back to that one. I have a question. There's all kinds of lines that say that something's been, been adjusted, but there's no different color. In construction site, strong water runoff control. Was there something before stormwater management performance standards and number four D four. Where it has comment from our end 20. Yeah. I don't think there's anything higher up there. It looks like there's really little tiny things like space corrections. Okay. It really just starts with four for any real edits. Okay. Yeah, because there's those little lines are right. This is something something's been adjusted. But yeah, I think it's just facing. Okay. Okay. So then they're getting into this healthy meat and what about offsets, which Chelsea wanted to talk about offsets. Right. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Of course. Um, so it's probably easier to walk through this. And then we'll just then as we go through it, we can talk about the offset, which is what women I added today. We clarified the language a little bit after seeing Regina's comments back to us. Um, or I can just talk about it in general. Basically, we're trying to strongly encourage and push developers to use green stormwater infrastructure or low impact development. And not just do a catch basin pipe system, which is known as gray stormwater infrastructure, which I do need to check back at best in the definitions on chapter two. I think it was. Um, so trying to set change the language to reflect that because that's going to help us by having developers install green stormwater infrastructure. That we might be more likely to take it over and or it could still help us with our stormwater requirements and meaning the phosphorus targets that are set for us. So our idea was that if we try to propose a gray stormwater infrastructure and prove and show us why then maybe we could have a conversation about them. We could be paying some sort of fee or something towards the village, ultimately putting in green stormwater infrastructure somewhere else. Or if we already know of a project that's really easy or like say an outlet needs to be stabilized or something having them pay for that in lieu of putting in gray stormwater infrastructure. The other thing I'll say about this offset concept if it's too much at this point in time. We're okay with dropping it because there's more that's going to be coming with the suit with the sewer ordinance changing and we can better flush it out and bring it back up then. It also knowing for sure about separation could change how we're going to do some stormwater especially funding because we need to find our own way to fund these projects. So we might end up going towards something like a utility and then that way that would be captured an offset so I will put that caveat in but we can still talk about this and look at some of the suggested changes but the part about the offset we can hold off on. If needed. So are they going to be developers or designers going to be coming to work through this with you anyway and and I mean I like the idea of that concept. And if it allows for some flexibility and discussion on obtaining a desired result instead of allowing or not option to obtain a desired result I think we should. Yeah the idea is we want to force a conversation with us and we might go ahead and be in after like having a conversation with a developer and their engineering team. We might be like well yeah it seems like you could only really do great stormwater for structure but we want to force that conversation and we could always grant a waiver. No I think it's a great idea. I would support that. It's definitely going to be more involvement from stormwater staff in this part of development now moving forward that they were not already involved but more even more so. Yeah I mean John I'm right with you I mean if and Chelsea if the expectation moving forward and we want to say we should be setting the standard for you know the green infrastructure. And that's what we expect and if they can't produce that and they have to explain why and have that conversation with us. Yeah. Good. Beef it up. Let's get the conversation going. Okay. So most of my comments in here are just in terms of. Technical language we can just get cleaned up about you know. How do we start the conversation. What's relevant. Whether it's new development or rehab development so all of that. I could just work with Chelsea on. Getting all that stuff. Set. Okay. Has any specific comments they want to talk about in here. Looks fine. Other than. The address was. The rules and design guidance I mean there's. This. Monstrous paragraph here. That's in purple. Talks about. Management manual etc. I mean if there's some way to. Say that things are coming from there and not have it cited like four or five times that. Yeah. That would be my guidance but. If the rules are here and we need to do it let's do it let's not wait. If we need to add to it later we'll add to it later. Most of the requirements are in the stormwater manual that's. Kind of. For designers in development that's kind of the new Bible for stormwater. So. I agree it's referenced a lot and that's why I. Like removed. You know section beans. Seeing because it's all now. The manual is redone. In 2017 so. That had. Now incorporates a lot of what we were already trying to do. So I think this is pretty much that kind of covers all. Number. Where we are. The four right so we can kind of move past all of that. Yeah. Then moving down to section. Actually sorry just go up for a second. The revised one that I sent Regina we just made a few. Wordsmith change but if you go up to the top of this page. There was another sentence about an offset. It's right at the top right there in the red. So. It was a little confusing so we changed it to an ability to comply with the. Total solid to spend a solid or total phosphorus criteria may result in. Yeah that's great us requiring a value like basically we're trying for. They do low impact development but it's not. Achieving the required phosphorus removal or something then we have a. Conversation with the developer is what we're trying to do. Cool. Yeah. All right so down to. Operation and maintenance. Actually we need to go to the H. Just up a little bit. In the previous meeting there was a conversation. About the bond and warranty. I think Regina you suggested that. For making sure that. The easements are recorded that. And the as belts are recorded and received and all of that. And so we're in support of that if that is something. I explained it to Jim and. If that will get us these minutes recorded. Okay yeah so we can. Sort of. Figure out where and how to structure that correctly. Yeah. Okay. Now you can finally go to F. Talks about the. Kind of. Reporting that's annual reporting that's required. Yeah we cleaned that up today too. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. That makes too confusing with the self reporting and. Basically. People can send will send us their. Annual reports. If they are in charge of. Inspecting it and then. We might audit some of them periodically. Trying to loosen the language a little bit. That makes sense to me. Anybody have any questions about that part. Kind of. Feet fine on them or. Specify what the county is on this. If they don't. Maintain it. It doesn't. That's a good question. Yeah. Definitely going to audit a quarter of them or you might. No that's why I removed that. I thought I removed it. It just says. We may audit. You may. You may audit. Yeah. Because after. Reflecting back on it today we realized it was too. Too much. So but the. Penalty. I'm going to. We'll talk about that. Jim and I. See. Because that is an issue. You know. You don't maintain it that it's not going to be doing its job. Anyways. Page numbers now. 111. That's on that part. This looks pretty straightforward to me. Just kind of. A lot of that across referencing make sure we're talking about this. Right thing. Right places. I have one question on. By the waivers. The village of us extension may waive strict compliance. Is that the trustees is that. The water. Division. Who is. Who gets the wave that the not the planning committee. I don't know the answer to that. It's not great water. It's not black water. So it's. Sort of clean water. So. Clean side of the water. Yeah. But we're. We're saying that there are waivers that may be. Given but I don't know. Who's. Granting those. I wouldn't. Want to. Try and figure out how to give a waiver for a. You know. Stormwater project. I don't know. I don't know. So here's the local statute that allows it. Who's doing it. Yeah. Terry. Do you have any insight. No. I don't know if maybe when. Hamlin is looking. Over the plans or anything like that. That. So. In other. Staff comments coming from the engineer and village engineer. They've been pretty good at. Pointing out things where they. Think the planning commission. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know if maybe when Hamlin is looking. Over the plans or anything like that. That. Come up at that time. So. In. In other. Staff comments coming from the engineer and village engineer. They've been pretty good at pointing out things where they. That plan and commission. Would have some ability to. To an issue a waiver or to consider. Options and. You know, if that's how they intend that to work that. That's fine. I guess. I'm thinking. More of the technical side of things. You know, if it's. If it. Comes down to we're enforcing the. When development code and. And the engineers say. You you decide. Planning commission. You know. I think that would have to come from staff, like maybe from like. Jim's position or something. Because. It's not something that. I think planning commission should be waiving. No, I would, I would envision it coming to staff, but then I don't know who really like. If we make a recommendation to someone. To say. To grant the waiver. That's what I don't know. Like what. They come from the. Like the zoning. We make the recommendation and then the waivers issued through that or. I'm not sure about that. Seems to me it's one of those things that has been. In the code for a while and. Maybe come up. Yeah. There's. A few of those things and in the code. And the next paragraph. You know, kind of continues that same language where the village of extension shall. And, and I, we may just want to think about how we're. You know, who, who's being given that responsibility. And if it all is understood by. All groups involved, then, you know, that's fine. But. It seems like something that belongs in the engineering world to me at the point. Yeah. It seems like. Circular to what Chelsea was. And John, you were kind of looting through earlier about if. If green water. If greens infrastructure is impossible. And gray is. Who has that conversation? And then. Who allows the gray to move forward when the expectation is green. I feel like they kind of. This starts to kind of get into that. So yeah, I think it'd probably be good to. Identify. Village staff of that storm. If that's the law. They'd be village storm waters or water quality staff. And. The engineer at Hamlin engineering or whoever. The village engineer. We might want to say village engineer rather than you don't want to say Hamlin because. Oh yeah. Yeah. Right. They might not be in the future. You never know. They have been for a long time. Right. But this could be that clause that then gives storm water staff. The authority to provide that waiver for a gray storm for gray water. You know. Yeah. And I'm just wondering how that comes in front of the planning commission because in the engineers staff report. It may say we've evaluated this. We. Understand that they can't achieve this. We agree with them. We're allowing us or we. They may say we recommend that a way to. Granted by the planning commission to allow them. To. And. You know. Who's acting on behalf of the village of this extension. In this case. I think it's just the question we have. So. Yeah. Know who. Awarding this authority to I think that's fine. Just pick something. Otherwise. I read that. And I can't remember where it says in the preemptive. To all of the stuff. But to me that means the trustees. And you know. The. The six junction ultimately we're all serving at their. Will. And. And so. In theory if there's a decision that has to be made by the village. It's really the trustee. Yeah. So you want to be more clear that this is really should be within your development. Review. Right. As it lives here in the land development. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. All right. We go. Okay. Bottom of the page. The bottom just incorporates. Something that's already happened. For some. Expired stormwater permits that we had to deal with a couple years ago. We dealt with it through the tap. We dealt with it through the tap. We dealt with it through the tap. We had to deal with a couple of years ago. We dealt with it through the tap. The town stormwater ordinance. But it never because we hadn't updated the LDC. It hasn't made it into. The documents. So we need to make. Add it. By reference. And it's the way that we made all those permits. Legal. So. Yeah. And. Okay. Do we need more words. Or. Is it. Well, this was like the exact. That's the last thing. Do you think we need more words. This was the emotion that was made. When by the trustees, it also is like. The little. Section of. This town stormwater ordinance. That. Corporated. Title 10. What a stormwater ordinance appendix A through C. I took it right from theirs, but if it needs more of a preference, we can add language or I can work on that. Well, I guess my question is, is that. Given the current climate that's going on. Do we really want to have. If we're. How do we put this? I mean, do we want to have. Our regulations that are dependent on neighbors regulations. I mean, that's, that's what you're telling me. So yeah, I know how you did it, which, which currently is. Legal. And understandable. But. That's so much legalese that I'm not sure what's going to, you know, if it doesn't trip people up, I'm not sure what else would. Because. Do we need that in the appendix? Okay. Of this document. To refer to it here. I mean, it says. Are that because those. Then you talk about appendix A through C and. I'm assuming that's this document. Or is this something else somewhere else. Yeah, that's a good point. No, that's, it's not this document. This is the town. Stormwater ordinance document that it's referring to. So. I think that we need to fix this language or alternative is we. Add all of that. To the land development code and. Not reference the town. Is that in order to stay in compliance with state stormwater regulations or federal. It is. Both. It's the state requirements, which, but are the, it's the federal permit permit that the state manages. So. Yeah. So does it make any sense to have it. Or is this like coming down from one level to another level. Another level. Well, it's kind of interesting. The way that land development code is written, because it really includes a lot of public work standards and most zoning regulations don't. There's like a lot of level of detail in here that. Others don't, but this is how it's been structured. So we should probably just kind of keep going with that. And if the stormwater ordinance. Stands on its own. So the village, if I understand this correctly, the village already adopted this stormwater ordinance. Only the section that pertained to the expired permits. Right. This title 1020. And it's. A through C. Yeah. So I don't know. And the only place that would be codified in the village is to put it here. It wouldn't actually exist someplace else. It's not like the village has their own stormwater ordinance adopted. No, we would love to one day. Yes. And we were a visioning doing that. If we were merging, we were going to redo the stormwater ordinance for the town of village, but that's not happening. So. Yeah. We at least have to get this part in. So like I said, maybe it's better just to take the language exactly from the town because we did work on it together and get it into the town stormwater ordinance. Because that was we were working towards merger at that point and just get it in here. So it stands alone. Yeah, that might be the best thing. Okay. And we can do it. I almost, I think we could. Yeah. It's a little bit messy because we're putting an ordinance into a bylaw and they're really two different things. How about we have something referencing that and put that as another section in the appendix. Yeah. Because it sounds like this is lengthy or it needs to be spelled out specifically. So why don't we put that specific language as appendix whatever C or whatever it is here or a subjection of something and then reference that in this section here. So when you hold up your land development code and it happens to have all the stormwater stuff in it because it's all been in there. We now have the appendix to go with it. We don't have to go find another book. Yeah, right. It's going to be in this book. It's just not going to be unless you want how many pages of the thing that adds to it. Whatever is more understandable. I recognize that a lot of what we have here is because staff has generally wanted to be able to just choose those pages and send those pages, which is why there's a lot of regulations here embedded where as opposed to please see this appendix. Yeah, it's it's 28 pages. Okay. Okay, because I just opened it. I just opened it to look. Yeah, 28 pages. That's an appendix. Yeah, I almost just think the village could adopt that as their own ordinance that almost would be potentially easier but we'll see. Maybe that's okay. I don't know because then the trustees can edit it. If you put it in this document, it always is this process to edit it, go through the full planning commission, public hearings, trustees. Okay. And ordinances on purpose just lives with the trustees and can just be adjusted more easily. That would probably be better. So we don't want it referenced in here is what I'm understanding. Kind of keep it and flag it for now. And okay, that trustee circle back. Okay, that's like going to be impossible for years. Yeah, yeah, might be better than nothing. Okay. On this page. Very top of the screen is the village. Things things the right to access access the property owner. That's the property owner first. Access the property to. Direct repair or whatever it says shall be. No, no, no, there's a really. The village. No, maintains the right to assess. In other words, I can tax you. Cause you to pay a fee, whatever. To for the direct repair costs. In other words, I'm going to get you to pay the. I'm going to send you access. Access the property owner. I'm going to cause you to pay a bill. That's actually what you were asking work before. How can they actually enforce that? So there it is. Specify the fee schedule though. Well, let's say you have to pick up somebody's pipe and fix it. Cause it's not working. That's on the homeowner to do that. Well, what they're saying is if you don't take care of your stormwater, we're going to fix it for you. And back to you. Which is the only way it's going to get done. There you go. That does answer that question. All right. Section 714. We ready for that one? Or do you want to do? We talked about what has to happen there. Nothing is drafted. Yeah, but one day there will be changes to that sign. I don't know if there is anything else in. Yeah, there is. I don't know. I don't know. I'll look down to, I think this is the section. McMurray was really interested in, but section 719. Oh, wait. The landscape thing. Yeah. Eventually there will be changes in the sign section. So it's page 127. What page 127. Yeah. Okay. I don't see anything. Okay. I don't see anything. I don't see anything. I think it's page 128. There's just some comments back and forth. Yeah. So basically we're trying to bring in some of the. An LID concepts into the landscaping section. So that they both. Are. Working together and serving the same purpose. Yeah. So we don't just want to use landscape to improve the visual quality. We actually want to select materials that have a functional aspect as well. On the storm water side. Yeah. That's the concept. That's a good concept. Cool. No, I was just giving a thumbs up. I agree with that. That sounds good. Yeah. Yeah. So we don't just want to use landscape to improve the visual quality. Yeah. I don't know if anybody has any specific comments on. What's in here to make that happen, but. Well. Nick might have some ideas. Yeah. Currently the way it's written is you have a list of acceptable plantings that are, you know, essentially regionally appropriate and, you know, either salt tolerant or whatever other qualities they have to have. And they come from a list. And so if we want to have our plant material list evaluated, our tree was evaluated with this added criteria that will require perhaps some input from the storm water people that aren't normally at the table when we talk about plantings. Right. Well, our rain garden. I mean, and that's where I think we're necessarily listed here, but I would think that rain, encouraging rain gardens would be one of the many. Right. So are the plants that are useful in a rain garden on our list of acceptable plants. It just requires a little cross. We could, we could add reference to the, um, there is a Vermont rain garden manual. That they just redid and believe I'm, and we could add that reference under approved plant materials because they're all local plants that they included in that. Yeah. That would be great. So it'd be under approved plant materials, I think. But a lot of the trees already are some of these are storm water friendly trees and shrubs. So. Okay. Awesome. Anything else in chapter seven. Sorry, I just saw something on here right under the landscape design. Uh, seven 19 section a number five, somebody had wrote in, uh, encouraging use of green storm water practices. I mean, we don't really want to encourage. We want to require, right? So what if we just like eliminated that phrase of encouraging and, uh, had, had just had it say protecting environment by contributing to air purification, oxygen regeneration, groundwater recharge, and use of green water storm, you know, practices. Yeah. I like that. Just remove encouraging. Is that what you said? Yeah. Yeah. I think just remove the word encouraging. Awesome. That was helpful thing. Yeah. All right. Um, so, I mean, we, I have plenty of my own comments, but we're sticking to staff comments. Okay. So sections seven 21 accessory apartment. Staff comment there. Just a comment there about Airbnb. Um, are we pointing to chat with the housing committee on this? I would encourage us. I think our, some of the comments that I did have all the way through this section were related to the ongoing difficulty of actually getting an accessory apartment to function that we still have a lot of roadblocks at the saying how to do that. And so I would, whatever comment that you have there, how are we, how are we dealing with that? Do we want to try and figure this out? So accessory dwelling units are going to be something that we look at in our schedule. Um, even before we hear from the housing committee, because it's a state, that section has been updated in state statute. So for the stuff I'm giving you guys that need to be changed from state statute, we'll definitely look at that. The housing committee might have, I think is probably going to come up with other things. Um, on top of just, so I think it'll be fine that we just move forward on the accessory dwelling units even without having to sort of wait necessarily for the housing committee. Jim is talking about Airbnb. That specifically is something I think we should wait for the housing committee's recommendation on what, um, they want to tackle there because that's not an easy conversation. And I don't know if it's going to rise to their list of things that they're sort of tackling right off or, or what, but, um, that conversation could derail us from editing the, this document. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Okay. All right. But I do read you just that for further, um, in section seven, 24 is raising, peaking or harboring the live stuff. Um, village does have a chicken permit. Um, which as far as I knew was livestock. Um, so they're in conflict with, is it okay to have an ordinance and conflict with code? Not that, but it's Chelsea's concern, but it's more of like future discussion. I guess. Good question. Um, it does refer to the municipal code for exception. At the end of that. Okay. So I think that, that's, we can leave it as, as that. Yeah. Okay. Seven 36. Chelsea, which chapter would you like us to go to? The other chapter of each chapter nine and then the fees. Maybe for the other, the sewer chapter and stuff, maybe it'd be best if Jim comes for that one and can talk specifically for that. I think those were male or emailed to you as this packet, but I can talk about it too, but just because I know you have other things you want to cover tonight too. Okay. So in chapter nine, it looks like we have something about street. Yes. Passengers. Just allowing a waiver for, um, accounting green storm water infrastructure because sometimes that will impact curbing. So I have a question, Chelsea. Um, it is, help me understand about curbing or not having curbing and how that, that deals with storm water. So on streets that already have curbing, you could cut, take away some of the curb and direct more of the storm water into, if there's room in the right away or something, we could put like an infiltration, um, a trench for lack of a better term. Sway all they call them sometimes or you could put, um, a buyer attention. That's, that's the actual technical term. Um, or like a rain garden, we probably wouldn't do that, but there are examples where you could create a curb cut and direct the storm water into something that will infiltrate it rather than having it go into the catch basin in the street. So then you could eliminate a catch basin or take less, take some of the flow and put it into infiltration rather than it all going to a catch basin. So we want to take advantage of possible opportunities for natural infiltration on the outside of the curb that are currently not possible because we've said curb everything. Yeah. Okay. Cause Ricky likes curbs. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. But we're working on it with that. So we're trying to infiltration basins this fall hopefully if we can get them in the ground in time and we'll see. Oh, I'm just trying to understand because I mean the one, one thing that we have here discussed in off, remarks have been the fact that people park on their lawns. So not having a curb, it makes it easy to drive on your lawn versus having a curb makes it a little more difficult to drive on the lawn. Although I can see the advantage to directing storm water to go back onto the lawn. Okay. Or area to have it potentially infiltrate as opposed to run off. And that's the concept is to have it see bin versus running off. So I wouldn't envision eliminating a curb completely on a street. It would be just cutting a portion of it out. That makes sense to allow that storm water. And you wouldn't have to cut the whole car with it. Yeah, it just. Some people don't need a whole car. This ends up being like in the, you know, engineered low spot like a foot or something. The curb is open, right? Yeah. Yeah, about a foot. Yeah. Yeah, you would pick your spot carefully with staff input and so forth. So what do you have the homeowners agreement to have that happen to retrofit some of this stuff? If it depends if we have enough right away. One example that may be down the road is on South view. I think it is the streets like twice as wide as it needs to be. Ultimately down the road, we want to bring that to a normal size and then we would take that space that we're gaining back and do storm water project there because there is still one combined catch basin into our sewer system there, which is a no-no. So that's an example of where we might try to test drive some green storm water infrastructure that the municipality owns other than like the gravel wetlands that we've been doing, but something that's smaller scale. Are these sorts of curbless designs? Are these cheaper than putting a curb in because I'm wondering what the incentive would be to have these different designs unless we're saying that they should be done or some percentage should be done. Well, the incentive is related to what we're asking in the storm water part. And one way you could do it is through directing the roadway water. OK. So it would be part of meeting the requirements of the storm water runoff. It could be part of it. OK. A developer could say, oh, you know, they could even do it from a parking lot. Like Trader Joe's, they have those mulched swales or actually storm water catchments, and most people probably don't realize that. But there's ways that you could incorporate that to meet what we're asking them to do in the storm water in Chapter 7. Great. But that's a good question, Phil, because we're writing this like a waiver and it makes you go half of what's the incentive. Should we just be saying there's no waiver needed if a curb cut is needed for GSI runoff then you just can't have that. Yes. I mean, that's what we were trying to get to. Like we don't want having to have curbs be a barrier. If it's going to help them achieve what we need to achieve for storm water, like if they need to have only some curb, then. Is there a safety concern with curb that we should consider as well? So that maybe the waiver would be required if that could be a safety concern depending on where the curb cut is. Yeah. I mean, I think again, these kind of huts are intended to be real narrow. The curb for all of its safety purposes that it provides shouldn't be compromised. And in fact, if you're really thinking about broader concept where you sort of bumping out a rain garden into an existing road. And the curb would be cut so the water can run into it. That's almost helps safety because it's slowing the traffic down on the road. But I think what this is just what we want to allow in the code is for new developments to be able to put these cuts in places that make sense so the drainage can infill into the rain gardens. I think we can modify that sentence to allow it where approved for GSI measures. Yeah. And then let staff and work on where that happens and how it happens and when it's appropriate. Just a thing on curb cuts, wasn't there? Haven't we talked about curb cuts being specifically grantable by the trustees for a long time? Is that do we need to look at that relationship if we're sort of closing curb cuts for other purposes? This isn't like a curb cut for a driveway. This is a little different. And there's an interesting way curb cuts happen, which is that I think the planning commission approves a project but somehow the trustees have to confirm the curb cuts. So just as long as that relationship is still workable, I'm not going to bother you. Well, so that brings in sort of the importance of the second sentence here, which I was questioning, whether it's really necessary to include that. But I think you're right. I think we want to clarify that a new driveway is not what this means. And we refer to curb cuts generally as new driveways. So I think we want to clarify that we're actually talking about something slightly different, and what we're talking about here for GSI purposes would not require a trustees approval. So maybe find a new term besides curb cuts. Maybe it's a curb slice or something. A curb adjustment. Well, maybe come up with a fancy term for what this thing is. It's a, you know, come up with something. Yeah. It's a worded version is what it is. Yeah. Maybe it's like 100 syllables long or something. It's got not pretty. Okay. Anything else in this chapter? There was just trying to align the easement language from what we've made in the previous meeting. So there's a lot of colored words. I didn't have any trouble with the language. Yeah, there was no, no one attributed to the change in color. But my question is for dedication. Um, to the community. Is this needed to the village is as needed to the development as let's say the HOA. Who is the community here? It would be the village. I think. Yep. The village. Cause there's been cases where we've accepted the infrastructure. But um, deeds were not filed too much later. I'll take a look at this. So perhaps we need villages to the community. On easements. The word village changes to city. Do we have to change all this again? Um, yeah. Easy. Yeah, that was probably easy because then you can just cart watch. Yes, cart watch. They think villages should be easy. All right. Um. As built plans is a lot of stuff in there. But it's probably. Nothing to worry about. Infrastructure. Oh, but I didn't catch that. So. You wouldn't actually require that hydro pad. Where are you? Section 914 15 as built plans. Oh, we, oh sorry, we go back to. Maybe not one. That's pretty small. Yeah. There's this company down the street. The fields with nanotechnology. I don't think we're there. One digit. One finger. As built. So hydro card. Is this a place where hydro card and auto. They're interchangeable or. No. I don't even think we need that. Because we would have already had that information. That could be. Yeah. Number one can be. Removed. That was before it. We understood the difference. It's. It's a live plan that fits in auto counter. You know, some. Graphic format that's still. In a manipulating program. The PDF or a record drawing of something. Kind of want. The record is more important than. A changeable document. I would think. Well, I mean. You're trying to build your own network of. Of live drawing. In case. You want the CAD file. No. Yeah. It was a misunderstanding. Okay. So you want the plans in this format. Yeah. And then they're also submitting. A set of milars into paper. Yeah. We want to start current digital. As well. I'm trying to. Yeah, I think I'm probably going to move this back. Yeah. Yeah, definitely. PDF or something. That's a static. Image and not a. Correct. Yeah. In paper copies. All three. Yeah. But then we want the GIS. Like. If they have that. So we can easily incorporate into update our maps. Infrastructure maps. And then. For the phosphorus requirements. We want the developer whoever to put. The information in the tracking table that we are required. To submit to the state so we don't have. Because they'll have all the calculations handy from. We've already have to show it to us during the process. Okay. With Jim's comment. In section 911. He has. Should there be a third and replace provision. 911. 911. Marker. I don't know if you think about. Yeah. I think that's in the. Act. I think that's in the actual implementation part of it. So if you're putting in. A concrete monument. And you. Pick something up and put the monument in yourself. And you fix the. Right. Yes. Say. Like how you do the monument so maybe he's looking for. You know any any monument placement. Shall include. Repair replacement. I don't know. I don't know. I'm not aware that there's an issue but it sounds like he's. Seen. Would you say. Any monument replacement shall. Put everything back. Basically. Include. Repair of any disturbed surrounding material. Every. Yeah. Yeah. That's not how that works. Yeah. Yeah. Where to now. We want to do the. The. Yeah. It's coming up on eight o'clock. Just in case anybody's paying attention. Well, I do have a question. The fee schedule I thought the trustees. Or there was some presentation. The trustees about. Change fee schedule. And this. I think. When compared to the book. Doesn't have any changes to it. There's no change in fee schedule. It's. So. I know that they just approved some change of fees. Or we're discussing change of fees. Diane, I can. Talk on that. This Terry. Robin said that we will put that in later. When I didn't know the fee schedule was going to be. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I haven't discussed until. Chelsea brought it, you know, sent it to me. But I can put that in. But the trustees said that they would approve those changes when the late, when they approve the land development code. Okay. So, so in other words, we should have a sheet that has the. Expected fee changes. Okay. I might just take what. Chelsea has done because mine has more mockups. And just add hers in. To the one that I already. Okay. I just had a question on the stormwater acceptance. Fee. It's in purple here on the. Next to last page. Yeah, I can. I can. I can address the sewer service too. If you want to talk about that, I cover that with Jim. So I know what he was trying to achieve, but we can do stormwater first. Well, I'm just reading it. It's a thousand dollars with a question mark per structure. And I don't know exactly if that means every catch basin. The thousand bucks. Or the whole installation is considered a stormwater structure. Yeah. So this is something we have to. It was more of the idea. We haven't fully flushed it out. So this is something that we might want to actually hold on the stormwater acceptance part. Until we know our future separation or merger. It'd be nice to get a little money coming in, but had a thousand dollars per structure. So I was assuming like a catch basin. But like I said, it's not. It doesn't seem to have been the research and the, you know, some of questions. It's, I was largely going off of. The sewer ordinance. The way of a municipal fee for a thousand dollars per unit. But just all the other seems a low. And then that one seems kind of high. Well, it takes a lot to maintain those. We have to inspect them every summer and then. Clean them out. Yeah. Every two years just about. When that takes time. But. So the general intent is to sort of provide for the ongoing. And inspection and maintenance that the village anchors. As a result of somebody. Developing and adding these structures. Yeah. The gray storm has more routine. Maintenance versus. Some of the green storm water for structure. Yeah. Maybe when you come back. You can sort of walk us through what's involved because I'm. I know that, you know, if you have a storm water pond or something, you ultimately have to go in and kind of dredge it out every so often to maintain the capacity. As they say. But I'm not sure what happens in the normal gray water system. You know, you have to flush it out every so often or throw a camera down. The pipes and see how they're doing. Correct. Yeah. Yeah. Being helpful just to just to educate us a little. Yeah. I mean, and then we're also, we haven't taken over many storm water practices, but we probably will be. And then when we do, we've been taking them over with no. No one paying us too. So it's just adding more and more to our maintenance. Yeah. And we don't have a cost and we don't have a way. I like something to supplement that, you know. So, like I said, it's more looking to the future. And maybe we don't put storm water acceptance in it right now. It's more. Right. Cover. We okay with where we are. Well, did you want me to go over Jim's request? Two other things really quickly. The sewer service. There's an issue where people or developers are granted capacity, but sometimes they never develop, but they don't. We don't have a way of knowing that. And so they hold on to that capacity and it. There's always Wilson always wants more capacity at the way smarter facilities, especially. So the idea is that you pay a fee to keep that capacity a yearly fee. And then you can keep it up to 10 years past what you were granted. And then after that, it goes back to the village, to the way smarter facility as capacity to then give out or do whatever we need to do with it. Essentially to keep an option open for potential development, which ultimately I lose if I don't develop by a certain time. Yes. Yep. Do you are normal? I mean, do you wouldn't it just expire without a fee? You know, yeah, I mean, that's the other way to do it is that you just have the allocation is only granted for a year or two. And then it's gone if you don't use it. I mean, your permit expires in a year or two, right? So, yeah, it was just going to expire. Does your allocation also go in? It sounds like right now it doesn't. They're not right enough together. But yeah, and that's so this kind of goes back to the difference between this is the land development zoning bylaw versus the ordinance, which grants that allocation probably unless is that in this code too? It might be. I haven't read as much of the sewer section it is into the link. So maybe you have to circle back to that. But food for thought, I guess. I think the question and again, so you're saying Jim will probably come and talk with us when we get to the sewer edit so we can talk with him about that. This concept to like what's what's the better thing to do have it expire or have somebody or give somebody an option to pay for it and keep it year after year after year. I guess you can giving him the option to pay for it. Create some revenue even if they ultimately know they may lose it anyway. Yeah. If they can't manage. So that's an option for the other thing that I've heard about the capacity issue and unused capacity is that you may be required to, you know, essentially create so much capacity based on what you're proposing to do, but you may never use that even though you're granted it and you've taken it. So some municipalities kind of try to figure out what the actual usage is and over time, if they feel comfortable enough, they've sort of taken some capacity back. Which, you know, and I don't know if we have a system in place for even beginning to start doing that or not. Not really. A lot of evaluation of actual usage versus granted capacity. Yeah. Is it an issue because once you're using your capacity or your fee turns into a make it turns into a metered fee tied to water, right? So yeah, that cost associated with the initial allocation. I guess it's actually so it's more like in the permitting structure. Do we have a running list that the sewer treatment plant has allocated out 85% based on your capacity? And what you're suggesting is do we ever circle back to that with what the actual use is out of the facility into the facility and identify how much extra allocation we actually have in real life? That is a continual work on process. The Vermont tracking system is very hard to follow. And there's a lot of cases where permits are issued and then it's not necessarily updated. So we ever know if it's especially another community like in Bilston, for example. The capacity has not been kept track of after it's been issued as closely as it probably could have been. We're working on trying to improve that. But there are instances in the village alone where there's developers that have capacity that they've had it for like 20 years and they still haven't developed. And they won't give it back. So I guess I would be in favor of linking the granting of developing based on your permit. You know, if development never happens and your permit expires, I don't think you necessarily should keep your... Gosh, you can put together a permit and then never do it and just hang on to that. Well, that's why I think part of it some people didn't do a permit. They never did expire, but they think they're still owed that capacity because we granted it previously. Yeah, I think they should figure out a way that they know that that expired with their permit. Yeah. Except for the relationship with Williston, should remain... Williston needs to be able to rely on whatever they have. Yeah. You know, for their own permitting process. But yeah, individual permits. Okay. All right. 8.07. Do we want to do anything else? So I did make some adjustments to the public works timing materials largely to match FEMA because when I do a lot, I do a lot, a lot of grant writing and reimbursements for the village for these projects. And that's what we get our reimbursement rates for. But in most instances, the FEMA rates are much higher than what we have in our land development code. And those are updated more regularly. So I just put a reference to that. So Chelsea, we would just eliminate all the machinery and trucks and things and just say... I mean, you could leave the list so people know what kind of things we have. But you would refer to this link to get the latest table and you would just search the table to know what a dump truck is reimbursed at if they, if we were to do a service for someone. The most often one that will be referred to is the street sweeper in the back truck. Any other questions on that? The last two sentences might have to be changed depending on how we reference the stormwater ordinance, the town stormwater ordinance, because in that we have an agreement that we could offer or one of the permittees could hire the village to sweep their streets and or clean out their catch basins. No one has done it yet. But I know that they are ready to be cleaned because I've inspected them. And so I have to create some sort of reimbursement for the village to be able to do that. So these references might not work in how we ultimately incorporate that, those documents that we need to incorporate somehow are put into ordinance. So maybe those just need to be flagged for future or later to figure out what to do with that. All right. That's the fee schedule. What's our next document or people want to take a little recess? Any people? All right. So what have we got left to go over that's for Chelsea tonight? So 11 is just super right. So we should wait on that for Jim. You probably have a more productive conversation. We didn't get chance to go over that together. All right. All right. Chapter 14 water systems. Well, I guess most of these comments actually are for me. I mean, there always seems to be one comment on page 193. Looks like it's an addition. So actually chapter 11 is more just language, like changing village engineer to also include wastewater. Chief operator or public works. It's just some of that kind of language substantial. Chapter 11. I think Jim's saving a lot of his comments telling those more about our new store, our wastewater permit, which was really went to affect August 1st, but we are appealing portions of it. So he kind of held off on that because there's going to be a bigger changes depending on how that shakes out. Chelsea, I have a question for you. And there's a lot of references in here that the village engineer has been the appropriate person. I guess it's been delineated if it's a storm water operator or whatever, but there's a lot of sections here. Like there's on page 11. It has the village engineer frequently listen. So my question is, is that truly the village engineer? Or is it the chief operator or public works? Should this remain the village engineer or, or should it be offshoot to a more appropriate entity? What page is that? Should it be offshoot to a more appropriate entity? What page? What page? I'm sorry. I missed page 180. So making a distinction between the village engineer and the other treatment. A lot of that would be the village engineer. So it truly is the village engineer? And then where they needed, it's also in conjunction with the wastewater treatment facility chief operator. Yeah, maybe we just need to have a blanket sentence like that. Instead. Cause we're not going to really care about private sewer connect, you know, it's more what's going to the public system is being in consultation with the wastewater staff given, cause there's good, there's some regulations coming for what's in our collection system potentially in our new permit. So it would, some of this is the opinion of, it should be an opinion of all of the parties involved, meaning the village engineer, public works and wastewater, but then a lot of the others can just be handled by the village engineer. Trying to, yep. Okay. Yeah. On page 181, it says, it's one, two, three, four paragraphs down to be revisited with pending permit revisions. This is, what does this mean? And I have that same question. Yeah. So that's what I'm talking about our new wastewater permit. That was just released. It went into effect August 1st that we're appealing. So, we wanted to wait to see how, if some of the stuff we're appealing is removed, like we hope, or if not, then it needs to be put into here. Chelsea, do you have any idea of a timeline on that appeal process? It just started. Like this week, the appeal was due by the end of the month. And so he had his first meeting yesterday with the state attorney and our attorney. And so we had, I don't know that it'd be too long. I mean, we currently have to operate underneath that permit until, until something is figured out. But I don't have an exact timeline. I can find out and you can let you all know. No, I mean, I was just kind of curious because we're, you know, I'm trying to finalize this within a certain timeframe. Yeah. The C's can be relatively lengthy, but I mean, knowing that it's, it started this week, hopefully they don't take too, too long to hash out what they need to. Yeah. Yeah. And we might be like sort of table this sewer stuff for now. Get moving on our things that we're doing. Right. And then circle back around to this and see whether it's still where the process is at that point, either integrate it or not. So, whatever we should do at that point. Sounds good. I think that's definitely a perfect. Tired sentence. Cause it didn't actually make any sense. I'm glad you guys got it. Did. Um, thing I have. See is appendix. Yeah. And there's just one sentence in that. Um, Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Because I don't know if you get it. That. Yeah. That's pretty minor. So that's just. Yeah. Adding the drainage outlets. And referencing that MS floor permit. Did anybody have any questions on that? It's. Okay. All right. Does anybody want me to bring that up? Are you good with that? I'm good with the staff. later yeah all right Chelsea not this time I'm gonna work with Regina on those those items that we talked about there is the Robin emailed folks about sort of bringing in some clarifying language around when you're meeting and so we we've got that sentence we can drop it in there and talk about it when we get to that section I think it's probably gonna be in chapter three makes the most sense for where that will go and then we've got the other pieces that I'm gonna get to for you which is a lot of the I think next on the list is sort of the state statute changes so that would be such a dwelling unit a couple of other things that I can never keep up front of mine so that's probably what'll be next on the the next meeting because we're gonna sort of hold on water and I'm trying to work with Robin to pin down that schedule so we'll do that together okay so people can plan on their comment you know attending for comments and so forth we plenty commissioners maybe we're best served by jotting our comments down or some semblance of our comments and and getting them collated so that we can go through because otherwise they're doing page-by-paging in to pick up non-guest appearance things and that's gonna take a lot because there's a lot of us so I somehow we have to have them flagged and be ready to go from just the things that we know from our own experience doing the reviews all the time what comes up and what we think we should be changing so yeah anybody wants to email at any point you can email me those and I can get them all collectively in the dark so we can go through it just like we have in these other sections yeah and I want I guess I would encourage us to be focused on things like do we really mean you can't have in there you know a home occupation in your garage if we really mean that I mean why would we do that you know if it's not causing trouble and bothering places you know and do we really mean all the obstacles to accessory dwellings if we are trying to encourage accessory dwellings let's make sure we clean the books of all the stuff that's slow I guess I'd like to know what the state changes are because we've discussed yeah we haven't discussed Robin has discussed having the principle of the property and within the accessory and having he wants that to be an option right now it's not allowed so the state has said no way that's allowed then we don't really have a choice but if you know the state hasn't said anything but we won't say something then well I guess I need to know what the state changes are since so we're gonna wait for the state changes and then just like I have a little list of things going and if I can check them off because the state's already made some some changes then great John I have this is Terry I have a comment on the home occupation yeah we've issued home occupation permits for people to do yoga in their great garages because that garage was attached to the house okay it was all part of the dwelling so so I attached garages which maybe all of a sudden you don't get that that ability because it's detached so I don't know I'm just you know if we there's just a few things that we may want to change or look at well I don't think you know with COVID a lot of people move to different sections of their house more home occupations are well it's not necessary help not necessarily occupation they have a home office that's moved to wherever it might be the garage you might be you know the tent in the backyard or whatever I'm not sure we're worried about that part of it I think that the concern probably is always you now have a business use in your garage that is generating traffic you know like people coming and going to do something I think that's probably don't think they're really worried about you yourself doing your own work in your own house or your garage I don't think that's really what anybody was so yeah so let's let's have a tickler list of things that we're all concerned about and we can shoot some of that to Regina if you want to I think that's great that kind of goes through the land development code item that we had for stormwater management which was what was on our warning tonight so all the other stuff that we've been kind of looking at you know we've got to come back to it anyway the housing thing maybe we just need an update on where that stands and how that's going to be managed and I did have a conversation with Regina about the grant that's available I don't know what that timing I can't remember what that timing really looks like but there were funds available through the state for people that wanted to make changes to their housing or affordable housing policies and maybe we can just see if that's something that we might be able to take advantage of we're kind of in the process of rewriting anyway which is great and whether that grant might help us dive a little deeper into some opportunities and be fun yeah John I can try and touch on that a little bit to some extent I mean I know you've been having some conversation Robin I've been working with a very small working group with the housing committee that I I guess I kind of volunteered for but then jumped into with a couple feet awesome what the housing committee is currently trying to put together and they presented before the select board and I think board of trustees the joint meeting earlier this week is that they are they want to propose inclusionary zoning and and what they're trying to do is determine how that would work and what that would look like in both the town in the village and I think this grant process that you're looking at or that you're referencing John I think they're also got their eyes set on it but they're not quite ready for it yet I think there's a little bit more research a little bit more they need to put into it to determine and basically understand feasibility how it would work if we do adopt it where we would want to do it how we would want to do it and I've asked them to make sure that they include the planning commissions the zoning boards in all of those conversations but I guess what I'm kind of asking of you guys at the moment as I start to go down this conversation this path with them a little bit more from all the committee members is exploring the idea of inclusionary zoning something we as a commission would be interested in understanding how it might work and what it might look like within the village I don't have an answer for that for the for the commission yet but what I'm wasn't I thought the grant was maybe a wider discussion type grant like let's look at all the things that are possible not just inclusionary oh sure yeah I guess I kind of I'm not sure you know like that sounds like one option but you know I think that grant would help us understand maybe what all the other options are and maybe you have more information than we do yeah yeah it has more holistically as like all zoning sections kind of not just one so it's it's how do you incorporate changes into your planning documents to encourage something and yeah so it's called the bylaw modernization grant there was a bill that explains more about what that is supposed to mean that never got passed the legislature they only because they sort of ran out of time like so there is language that roughly brings some better concepts around what this money is supposed to be used for but the money definitely got put in the budget bill so they're moving forward on this even though that other background document didn't get passed but basically it's figuring out how to adjust your zoning regulations to accommodate more housing and I think it could include a whole slew of different types of changes I think we could easily be sort of looking at that ourselves through this process I think the housing committee if they land on ID working on all those things that Patrick just talked about does take time so they probably are gonna be sort of focused on that I would imagine for a while and so it might make sense that you folks are just like looking at your LDC in the meantime and trying to like pick off things that just seem unnecessary and barriers so that grant is due November 15 and I don't think the application has even been developed yet because their ACCD is trying to sort of figure out what the parameters and the criteria and the standards are for it as they're as they're kind of thinking through that so it's definitely out there it's definitely a possibility I am meeting with Alisa and Darren about that grant next week I think so there are certainly opportunities for sure hopefully somebody on staff I would do it if I had time but I don't know that I think they're gonna try to make it fairly easy process to like they're really trying to really make some changes here so I think hopefully it'll be fairly simple but yeah so that was a piece on the housing and a possible grant opportunity and it looks like the timing kind of works but we need to develop some more when Patrick when does the housing committee when are they kind of ready to come talk to us about about the stuff because I don't want to be doing a whole lot of housing you know work without them you know I'd rather kind of get I don't get the sense that it's gonna be terribly soon they're they just basically went and I got to find out from them how it was received by the select board and the board of trustees and I'm I'm I'm assuming I assuming that they were probably told to go forward and develop a plan and then present that plan and we'll consider it so that's basically where they're at as a planning phase in and it's a really a feasibility study to see what it would look like and how it now it would go my thought around incorporating it into the LDC is as we mentioned earlier some of the stormwater stuff that it would probably be easier to do as an ordinance and that would give a little bit more flexibility and control over it than to write it into the LDC itself so I think we should probably just keep going with what we have in our plan as to how we're gonna address our things and then when the housing committee comes forward the board of trustees would then adopt some type of ordinance for certain zoning sections around inclusionary zoning that was kind of my thinking although I hadn't presented that or discussed that with them yeah that's interesting Burlington I think is an ordinance South Burlington and Hinesburg are in their zoning bylaw there are these sections so I think it can yeah be done either way yeah and my thinking around that is because I feel as though their timeline is a little bit longer than what we probably have in terms of addressing the LDC so we should go forward with what we want if the ordinance then comes in in a year or two and it works well maybe the next time we update the LDC we then incorporate the ordinance into it Patrick I'll say I'm all for like inclusionary zoning and just addressing affordable housing I think yeah but also making sure that we like think outside the box and try and I think also like coordinate with our neighboring towns because we don't want to you know what's gonna stop a developer from saying I can't really do that in that section I'm gonna do it in Colchester or Milton and making sure we have coordination with our other towns as well that like we're on the same page and as well as you know if we do bring it into the LDC and thinking about how other think how other regulations we we can change that makes it that will make it more affordable for developers do we increase heights if we need to in certain areas other things as well and I think I think doing this like allowing ADUs and subdividing lots is gonna be a big would be big for helping affordable housing in the village as well outside of inclusionary zoning yeah I would agree with that definitely allowing more density within the housing I think would be great as well yeah and like I said at this point they're just it's all it's all feasibility it's all trying to figure out what would work how it would look like I do know that they're leaning towards mandatory inclusionary zoning and so trying to develop the rules around that and I and they are it's a good point about neighboring communities and what they're doing and I do know that they are taking that into consideration as well and also seeing what works in other communities and but they're also under the impression and I don't think they're necessarily wrong that developing in Essex Junction in the village is actually a desirable place and we have an opportunity to control some of that so should we try and control some of that is what they're basically I think what they're trying to look at and address yeah totally agree all right so we may or may not be able to I mean I don't know when we're scheduled to actually talk about housing but it sounds like now so we're gonna have a discussion on housing before they're ready to get to us and I'm not sure I kind of like that so maybe maybe we'll talk about the timing of that section yeah I think next up for me on my list is state statute stuff so I can tell you for sure we're gonna look at the ADU section it that's very quick very easy basically you have to do at minimum what the state is saying if you want to be more permissive super right then we can basically leave housing there table it for now until you're ready to talk about it again but I do think we can probably yeah I mean we should sort of get a check-in from them but I do I do probably think if they're they're focusing on IZ which personally my opinion doesn't matter but I think great idea it will be time-consuming for them to sort of think on that I can't imagine that they have time to do that as well as like really think through what the LDC has in it now and how to kind of remove some barriers so we can see how it all how much time we can give to that process through this I know you guys wanted to wrap this up by the end of this calendar year just as a reminder there's no expiration of your LDCs they don't expire it's not like you're up against the time frame but of course you want to get your you you have a lot of things in here you want to fix so you don't want it to take an eternity it's a ever-evolving document you got to draw the line so I thought it was like eight now or something seven or eight that's the comprehensive plan that's good to know I'm not sure I want to worry about that I'd rather try and say okay we know what we know now let's let's get it let's get it get it finished but but the housing piece is such a big one that you know I don't want it to add another five months of the process but we'll see what happens so when when Robert and I sit down to look at the schedule of course here well anybody's welcome to have been put on about we should try and pin down a schedule of what we're really trying to achieve and what remaining topics we have left to receive input on and get comment you know we haven't really had a lot of public comment yet maybe just some of the key contributing players like the you know tree advisory committee and so forth that we know are out there waiting to have input so it would be great to get more public input in some form or fashion we'll think we'll keep asking for it at every meeting and you know I know I have empty audience chairs at the moment and nobody on screen that I don't know so it's a little disappointing but this is tough material it's kind of dry going through it you know maybe when we get back to chapter 7 on the general development standards we'll get a little more input I know I have plenty of stuff to comment on there so maybe we can just move on to the format for a future public outreach of overly district right so that's the expanding the design control to a slightly larger area than the current Village Center which is where it applies now is that we have a new plan for how we're going to do that or is there a plan other than we talked about it at the meeting and yeah so we provided we put an online map together and a some text you know that the Village can use however they want to use it we talked about that sort of like in August and it's not really the best time to just be putting things out so I would say at this point it's a great time to just put stuff out so you have those pieces I would say I think we talked about a couple of different things we actually I did print out a big size map that has like a place where you could go I think it talks about how to actually fill out the survey and all that kind of stuff so or it's not a survey you can go on the map and actually add that's what and it's not our website yet or it could be if we post it I have no idea I did the stuff and I don't I can't control how it goes out right so you might work with Robin and Terry to develop that and get it ready and then it's up to us at our level as the planning commission and staff to make it actually hit the airwaves you're talking about the overlay map yes I asked IT to put that on the website I asked before the September 2nd meeting was postponed so that should be on the website I might have to have them bring it further up you know on the planning commission page yeah and is there some announcement that goes with it or some instruction on what it's about and what what we're looking for as in comments or how does that Regina was that something you helped prepare just how do you send it out there as a press release it says guess what we're considering this please please pay attention yeah I had sort of like a little blurb and Terry did that go out with the with the map I believe so but I can't recall I guess we should be looking at our own you're trying to call it yeah we yeah that would be great if we can kind of keep track of that because you know people come up and talk to us as planning commissioners from time to time and you know we can say yeah I don't know how that works when we talk to them is it it's not a it's not a application really right it's not a is that a is it okay to talk to them about that or do we just tell them to go see the website oh yeah on the if you're doing their long-range planning stuff which this is you know you're you're acting as legislators now not quasi judicial people oh good you can talk away perfect so here's the website is the planning commission it looks like this memo is up here that has the link in it to the map and sort of ideas of what you could do with it plus this blurb so but I think you you know the idea is that this blurb would like go out on front porch forum you would put it if you have a Facebook page you know like this is the language that you would use to this is the press release so get it out there and make sure you know all right that's perfect now it's up to us to spread the the word out there yeah and we gave you one large-scale version of the map but we could print more of those if you want to put it up in other places and I'm thinking you know we should be probably trying to do this kind of thing with every big topic that we have out there you know this week this can be something that maybe is at out and about yeah you know it wanted to boot I guess map it out and about yeah I mean I put it on front porch forum every time you having a meeting it goes on all the Essex and Essex Junction from front porch forum but doesn't seem like people are tuning in you know it's quite lengthy on the front porch forum nothing to do about it but it has a whole list of what it's going to do it's pretty big so that brings up an interesting thing so right now on out and about which is October 2nd 3rd 2nd and 3rd so we have a booth Terry and do we know is it staffed or do we have people at a table and maybe we should be starting to talk about that I don't know Tammy is the one who's working with Radlock and Robin and a week though on out and about and Cooper is part of it but they were talking about having booths or something that you know departments or yeah elect board planning commission members might want to you know talk to the community about what's happening right okay so I guess Robin for those that aren't aware he's in Ireland right now and so he's visiting so he'll be back for our next coming back Wednesday yep continue with you know getting back to having him working with us and Terry to pin the stuff down because I think we're starting to get close to wanting to have our I see it as an outreach potential and we should probably take advantage of that so all right great so we can do that Regina thank you for the getting those materials ready for us and and Terry for getting those up on on the website that's great hopefully we'll be able to hear from our residents about that I'm what was that Diane we're in what time it is October 2nd and 3rd it's on our website and it's and this business is participating in the village and in in the town it's kind of the same as that they did last October and just like the opening outside that we did but that ran all day this is this is I think all day it's two days though it's Saturday and Sunday yeah I'm looking at it right now on the website it says Friday October 1st from 2 to 5 p.m. Saturday and Sunday 2nd and 3rd from 11 a.m. to 3 p.m. each day yeah Friday is when you can get to tickets all you do is show proof of residency with either a utility bill your license something and you can get $15 off and use that at participating businesses restaurants and some of the businesses are also doing specials and this must be a raffle yeah that makes sense Terry based on what I'm looking at now again that was those are the hours for the info booths right pick up your tickets otherwise the advertisement for the weekend just says October 2nd and 3rd doesn't have any time frame other than the days right I know there's going to be bands playing at different locations too but I'm not in on the meetings for out without for all that for the weekend. Okay. I'm going to move on to other planning commissioner items. Anybody have an answer. We're on to adjournment so can I have a motion to adjourn. Hi. Thank you very much everyone. You're putting our material out there. Good night. Thank you. Is there a.