 All right. We'll call the meeting to order. It is 6.05. We have a joint meeting here right on top. Okay. Agenda considerations reserved for changes to agenda items. I think we're good on that one. Comments and questions from the public. All good there. All right. So we're right into the joint meeting of the Planning Commission and the Development Review Board. I'll let you tell you what. I do a very quick intro. Yeah. And I think our plan for tonight, this is very informal. If it appears that we're unprepared, it's really just that we're trying to make it as informal and comfortable for everyone as it can be. So why don't we kick off with just grabbing some pizza and then Zach and I'll lead some introductions and maybe a fun little question to just get us through dinner time and then we'll kick off some more interesting questions. A little more development regulation specific. Hi, Zach. Zach, did you already pass out? Do you want to pass those out? So these are just talking points. I'll let Zach lead them. The goal just to get us back to why we're here and anybody who's maybe listening. If you're curious about these two boards, something important to know is that the Planning Commission helps to write the regulations. They do have to get approved by the select board, of course. They go through public hearings, but what separates the Planning Commission from the DRB is essentially, you know, sort of that tri stool of government where the Planning Commission is responsible for writing regulations. The Development Review Board is tasked with implementing them when applications are brought to them. And it's really critical, I think, for the two boards, the two groups to talk because I've never, ever, ever heard of a set of regulations that were perfect. They're a really living document. There's always something that we want to tweak or even that just changes because the community changes and the policies change. And the Commission has had a policy recently of twice a year hearing from anyone who wants to bring amendments to them. Sometimes they say, thanks, but no thanks. Sometimes they say, we're going to table it until we have room. And sometimes they might want to take them up right away. It's important that when these proposed changes come, they're not just coming from members of the public or the development community, but they're also coming from folks who are very close to the DRB who see them in action, who see, boy, this language is really problematic for X, Y, or Z reasons. It might just be that it's not very clear. Dear Planning Commission, what the heck did you mean when you wrote this? Or we think you might have tried to say this, but it doesn't actually say that. Or you didn't contemplate this weird scenario. And this weird scenario is not so weird anymore. It happens a lot. And we're continually trying to figure out, how do we use the words that we have to make a decision in what's in front of us? So what Zach has done over the course of his time here and more recently is to try to listen to what these things are. Some of them are recurring. Some of them are maybe just more recent. But what are the big where the issues? Where are things that we should talk about? Where are pieces where we should let the Planning Commission know, hey, this might be something you want to look at again or, hey, can you tell us tonight what the heck this means? And so we do have a list for you to work off of. I'm going to turn it over to Zach in a minute. And then, of course, Matthew having had a lot of experience with them, maybe can share his insight, too, as to what he has seen through the years. And obviously, if there's anything that's not on this list, please feel very welcome to add to it. Our goal is not to necessarily pick apart all of them. You'll see it's a pretty long list. The goal for tonight, I think, is to highlight these and really talk about why they're on this list. Why are they important for you? Give us some examples of where it's come up. The Planning Commission then can sort of help to gauge, okay, boy, this is happening a lot. Let's try to get this fixed. Or maybe this is a small thing or maybe they say, boy, maybe we don't mean that anymore. It used to be that it was okay to build closer to the lake. I'm making this up, by the way. It was okay to build closer. Like, we don't feel that way anymore. We know more about water quality than we're used to. We know more about erosion than we used to. And we just don't, we've seen this and it's very problematic. So there's a wide variety of why's, I think, that are on this list. What we'll try to do is give them the time they're due without giving them too much time. Definitely don't want to rush anyone. But what I don't want to do is to dedicate 90 minutes to one item and never touch another. So with that in mind, I'll turn it over to Zach. I'm going to play whiteboard person and timekeeper. And maybe listener. So Sounds good. So, yeah. So, I wanted to walk through this list. This list is not every single day before the development of few boards since 2017 that needs to be updated. Really something more recent. Something that lasts a year and a half or so. Because that's about five to ten years when the town started and I was able to get things, you know, just off the top of my head went through all the old agendas just to see what came up, you know, at least my memory. I'm hoping to have a quick discussion about some of these items. One of the first items that comes up that, you know, you'll see on the top left-hand corner is the Severance Corners Form-Based District. This is a, you know, the Form-Based Cove District for the town's, you know, Robey Center area. The four quadrants around Severance Corners. You know, the developer review board now recently has seen a proposal for three years in Sunderland, which is the quadrant that's more underdeveloped right now. And obviously many proposals over the years in the southwest of the quadrant. I'm just, I'm flying this here. I understand the planning mission is looking at, you know, the form-based standards to see if there's anything else that should be added or, you know, clarified just to make sure that the town is really getting to see what buildings, you know, people want to see in that area. I'd be happy to turn over to the developer review board members who might have any comments about some of these buildings or what they think. I think one thing that I remember kind of standing out was that there was, there's some language in there that was definitely well intended around the bump outs, right? Like we wanted the contour of the building to have some character to it, but we ended up getting snookered a little bit because of the geometry of this one building where the plan proposed was definitely or it seemed like it was on the money as far as the intent, but it just couldn't quite meet the distances that were spelled out specifically. And so, you know, I'm not, I am not going to advocate ever for more leeway, you know, at the DRB level in things like that. Like I want to be able to kind of rely on something so that we can set the standard because the folks who are going to leverage those specific zoning ordinances are going to be the ones to kind of start to pick it apart and feel where the loose edges are and try and, you know, do things that they want to do. But it is an important thing to recognize that that one probably caused a little bit of undue agita as far as the, you know, back and forth with the designer and the developer and architects and, and, you know, blah, blah, blah. I'm not even sure how that one shook out, honestly. Yeah, that one ended up going out. That one, the board ended up reopening the hearing. Oh, more than once, I want to say. Yeah. More than once. Yeah. Yeah. You know, provide more information, provide some plans, ultimately, they comply with the regulations. Okay. But it took a lot of effort to get there. Yeah. So, you know, on that one, especially this one, the forum-based zoning, so I was around for this part when the, the idea of forum-based zoning was when the growth center came in, actually when the growth center came in, there was a big discussion on how big it should be. I personally wanted to extend it way towards Essex and almost down to here. I thought this whole strip could have been better utilized, including the bay, but the state pushed us back, so we ended up with what you see today. So the concern was, do we get more of a downtown flavor? That was the original intent. And one of the big discussions was the first part gets built, and they didn't want it to look like New Jersey. I heard that a lot. We wanted more of a hands-on flavor. And then I got off the board for a minute, then I got back on the board. Now we are talking about what you see would start now. And the idea was, Colchester never had a design review. We specifically said, this is the color, this is the building, but we knew what we wanted at the time. So that's how forum-based came about. And at that time, there was a flavor in how that little piece of our world should look, and we want a quality build. You know, in Colchester, we have a blank piece of paper. And somehow, I personally think, it doesn't look like what we thought originally. And somewhere in the language or what we built for the forum-based zoning, it doesn't look like what I heard back in the day. Somehow, we missed something on that. So you had to struggle on a building to make sure where the developer, and I get it, he wants to get his bank flip-off out of the property. But somehow, he came up with as tight of the rules as he could, and you guys had to discuss what we put down, and it didn't come out looking like we thought it should. At least, I don't think what the board originally intended for it. And I talked to Kathy about this before, and I was thinking about that today, is a lot of times, we talk about what the flavor should be in the planning commission, you know, overall view, what it should look like. But then it gets up to the year guys, and the flavor kind of gets lost. And then I realized there are no ex-planning commissioners on the board. And over the years, we had a lot of ex-planning commissioners. They get off and jump on your board. So at least they could discuss what they thought should be happening in the past. And then today, you know, they come up to you and you're like, ah, that's not quite what the board wanted. But you guys have to play on the rules of what we put down. So I think somehow there's a disconnect a little bit right there. I'm not sure exactly how to fix that at the moment. But that's what my flavor is. Yeah, I think going off with that, Rich, I think, you know, really taking a look at, maybe taking a look back at the form-based zoning and having a discussion and saying, you know, what's working? What are some unintended outcomes we've seen and how are those being corrected? You know, do you want to see more color in building? Do you want to see more? Do you want to see a certain type of roof on a certain type of street? You know, those are probably longer term conversations that I trust the Planning Commission will be able to have. But I think, you know, really defining that will help the DRB regardless of membership. Make sure that what gets proposed and ultimately proved to build is really what the town wants to see. And if I recall correctly, it was because of the intersection of a couple of different types of streets that also made the geometry of that building kind of not a hundred percent fit quite right. And because it had to be 60 feet and because the bump outs had to be every 12 or whatever. Don't quote me on the math here because I'm just railing. But it's like 12 feet, the bump out of three feet. And then like by the end, there was no place to put a bump out. So they were like, the whole building can't fit. So it was a little it. But yeah, it was something just maybe revisiting some of that to just say, you know, what are some of the challenges that we've seen? What are some improvements we could make because it, you know, we're going to see development on the other quadrants. If this part I apologize. Staff updated recent and ongoing updates to development regulations. The planning commission did include a look at the form-based code as the very next project that they'll be working on. We're finishing up right now. The planning commission is currently finishing up supplement 45, the bulk of which is related to wastewater regulations. If you're not already aware, the town had delegation of the state's wastewater rules, essentially the select board voted to end that delegation. And that would be effective April 1st. There's a lot of tie-ins between that delegation, which exists largely in chapter eight of our code of ordinances and our development regulations. So the planning commission is shepherding that through after the joint meeting is done tonight. They'll be talking about that and hopefully warning a public hearing. So that sort of snuck itself in on our list of tasks for calendar year 2023. But the next identified task once that supplement is wrapped up will be, I think, to take another look at the form-based code. It sort of rated the highest among commissioners as the next big project, along with something that I don't see. It may actually connect to you quite a bit in the end. A new open space plan, the open space plan that currently sits on the shelf in my office is from the year 2000. We have staff members that may not be much older than that plan. It's a bit outdated. So that's also on our summer list. If you see anything on that, we encourage everyone to participate. I don't want to talk too much in advance as to what that'll produce. We want to stay very open-ended, but it may very well produce some standards that translate into the development regulations. It may also just produce some standards that say these are our high priority areas for future conservation. I don't know. I don't know what it'll actually produce yet. We haven't gotten started, but it could run that range. We'll see. Other pieces that are currently under review. I understand that the build to, what we call it, the zone of encroachment at the shoreline and the shoreland overlay district has been a problem. Has that just been internal? Has the board seen that as well? I don't believe, usually those are going to rebuilds that go through the building development process. Okay. So that's something that we're also talking about as part of supplement 45. It's the how much can you encroach closer to the lake in that shoreland 100 foot protection zone? That's in the current package. We're also talking about just how people who do do development are required to send those applications and take that burden off of staff. That's not a very big supplement. It looks like a lot, but that's what we're working on now. And to tie us back to form-based code, I think that's going to be next. We haven't figured out exactly what that's going to look like yet, but I think it's really going to be a head to toe. There are a few items that have been identified that we've heard from the board that we've heard from applicants that we've seen in projects that are sort of, we won't talk about them tonight, but they're currently under review. Where the regulations just don't always, you don't think about things in advance when you write them. You don't think about those scenarios and you don't think about the actual turning radiuses. So these things will come up. We know we now have a few examples, as Zach has said, that we can look at. As soon as he gets back above 20 degrees, we've talked about taking a walk. I'd love to put that out there for anyone who wants to, to go see those buildings that are already under construction are almost done. And get a closer look when you're not driving by at 35, 35 miles per hour people. And look at them closer and see what you like and what you don't like. That's always very helpful. I got to tell you, there's a lot about Severance Corners Village Center area that I didn't necessarily like from the roadway for many years. But when I got out there and walked around, I saw a lot of, there's a lot of little hidden things that are actually really nice at the pedestrian scale that you don't always get from far over at the road, which have stood out to me. And so I think that's where we are with that. This was the first time we'll look at farm based sowing since it's been implemented. We haven't, we've never gone back. So we've got a few years up at it progressing. So this will be our first time to go back and take a closer look and see what the problems you guys have had with it. We don't see it enough to really, you know, have like a PhD in it. You see it once in a while and it's unexpected. Like I couldn't tell you what it looks like because I have to reread it. It's like maybe once a year. It's a big project though when you hit you. Yeah, it's not a little, it's not like a little tiny house we're looking at. And it's very technical. Right. So it's, it's kind of, these little things can kind of budge in. Yeah. Yeah. And I appreciate Matthew what you said about making sure that, you know, it's a line that you want to walk where you want to be extremely clear and extremely predictable, but you also want to make sure that you have the ability to use common sense when something just isn't fitting and the regulation just doesn't make any sense. And I remember with the bays, I think that was one of the first or only meetings that I joined the DRB at. We were talking about that bay issue and Zach and I were scratching our heads because we're like 60 foot gaps. That's just silly. So, you know, it's not an insult anyone wrote it. I think it's a great code. It's just you live, you learn, you build, you review and you see what's working and what's not. And I'm really actually very excited to get back to it. Anything else on form based code before we kick off another thing on our bingo card? So you can mark your free space. So one thing I want to clarify before we move into shoreland overlays, I put some notes underneath the decisions by the board and I just want to make sure we're drawing on the decisions because, you know, there may be applications before it's deliberating on and we don't want to discuss or draw upon anything that's, you know, there's no decision on otherwise you're invited by the planning commission to deliver the session. But there have been decisions related to these items. So in the shoreland overlay, which the planning commission is taking a look at through the supplement that's currently under review, one thing that I've made a note of is, you know, the definition of a sea wall. You know, we had an applicant come forward with two walls on their property and I think this kind of gets to what I think Evan has pointed out, where, you know, you we have this regulation that discusses requirements for sea walls, which we understand is retaining walls along the way. But there's no definition of it. So if a wall is set back from the lake, is it still a sea wall? I know that's been, you know, pointed out by the DRB and I just wanted to put that out there, let any other DRB members wait on that or planning commission members ask questions, but anything else to add there? That's a good one. We don't have a definition of a sea wall. No. That, I mean, I worked on that myself when I was bored quite a bit. It was a big deal and everything we did, we never put a definition. Interesting. We have a million ways to build them, proper ways. We're all about natural to start with. That was like the big thing. You know, we're all as much natural material as you could put down before we got to the cement. And then if you put the cement down, how much cement, how much could you move towards the lake and we don't want lake land grab. That was a big deal. We had a lawsuit go through down where somebody we thought had did a land grab on us, but we have no definition of actually what it does. Our where should sit. We must have a definition on how far back. No. We didn't put, what? No, there's nothing. No, there isn't. And we've got sea walls that they're kind of straight to the, they just go down below 95 feet. And then we've got some that are actually back quite a ways. We've got terraced ones. We've got very, very, very tall ones. We've got one that's like nine. It's ridiculously tall, but that's because they've got this whole terrace. Yeah, no, that's interesting. And we have one that I've been, that I've done with, which would be difficult to determine where the sea wall really is because there's two walls. And there's certain flood stages where the water actually comes behind the first one. So they're kind of both sea walls. Yeah. Yeah, absolutely. Are they always functional? I mean, a sea wall, it's never cosmetic, right? I mean, it's cosmetic, but does it always have to be functional, like to hold? I always think a sea wall is... Yeah, and that's the requirements. So you have to show neat. You have to show that there is erosion in your deal. So yeah, so retaining wall and a sea... Sorry. No, no, no. Go ahead. Keep going. I was just going to say, we've had as a board in the short time that I've been on the board a fair amount of consternation about that, the proof of need. Oh, interesting. Because people can, you know, applicants have proposed to build very tall sea walls that do meet the proof of need. There's erosion. But then they end up being so tall that now they're making more space, living space, usable space, which kind of exceeds that, you know, minimum dimensional requirement of a sea wall to resist erosion on the shore, which is really... So the sea wall needs a better definition, number one, so we can evaluate that proof of need, I think. And then I would say the regs around that, like, we could have a little bit better clarification around proof of need, or maybe better language to point us as a board and how to evaluate that. I think that I'd say 90% of the applications we see are for, like, rebuilds. I've seen very few brand new sea walls, but generally it's a rebuild and there's always a need to go a little higher. You can always explain it, usually refer to no new, you know, flat surface. Yeah, which is expressly in the planning guidelines. And we're relying on, you know, professionals' opinion about that need. So we don't want to, like, as a board, we can't say, well, we don't think you really need that, you know, or it would be maybe not our place to do that, I guess. That's interesting. That's the first time we've brought that back because we went through what you weren't here at the time. Yeah, it was pretty thorough. So this is a good example of, you see a lot of those, and we had a lot of those at the time. That's definitely a point we've missed and should be able to fix, hopefully. Matthew, do you have an idea of how many you roughly see of those? Well, so right after Irene is when I joined the board and it was standing remotely sea walls. I mean, it was, we were doing two meetings a month and kind of needing honestly, would just see, because everybody simultaneously needed to see wall or canvaries or something for insurance purposes, but other reasons as well. And there's fewer of them now, but there's usually kind of towards the fall time, there's a glut of them where there's like at least one per meeting, maybe two, because people are planning out their winter to try and get those all in. There's fewer in the spring and summer because they don't want to be constructing during that time. It's a lot less now, but I would say, you know, probably, I had to guess, I would say six or eight a year, but it was, I mean, it was six or eight a month for a long time. I can only think of like one or two brand new ones too. It's always somebody who like has an old sea wall that was built by cave people. One question I just have, I joined out a few notes about, you know, defining sea wall, maybe defining what proof of need entails just rather than it's an overarching item, but maybe there's a few criteria in there. And then also, you know, talking about design of the sea wall, really trying to make an overall, you know, that existing, you know, contour there. One thing though that I did just want to touch on was the, just to ask a question, is if there's a wall, you know, for example, there was an application for two sea walls, one of which was more so supporting east, later on in this case, falling into a concrete and holding that land back. Is that type of wall, you know, still going to be considered a sea wall because it's enclosed proximity to the lake or, you know, are there certain standards if you want to see a wall like that that are different than a sea wall? No, no answers needed in this moment. That's a big question. We'll draw you a picture. Let me get back to you. I'm going to let you draw. I think I know what you mean. So the question is, all sea walls are retaining walls, but all retaining walls aren't sea walls. Well, yeah, but the way they're described in the regs, they kind of lump them all together. It's like sea walls, retaining walls, or other similar structures. So it's generally like a sailing or arching area, perhaps it really does need something to shore it up. Right. Yep. Well, this is just the last one. Jack, you needed the blue. Come on. Is that blue? Hold on a second here. There's some old stuff. Please feel free to talk amongst yourself. So is there a maximum or size of a sea wall that they're trying to stay within or is it just by need? Existing topography plays a big part of it. Yeah, topography. I mean, you know, topography and then the other variable is lake elevation. You know, what are the typical high water elevations of the lake or the extreme levels that maybe you, the engineers, trying to protect against? So you've got that factor on the lakeside and then you've got sort of the steepness of the terrain, landward. And then of course design, integrating the structure into all that. I mean, there's so many different configurations of that, but we have to, you know, evaluate that proof of need and it's challenging. So I'll walk you through my illustration here. But I think this kind of gets to the conversation point we're trying to have. But in this example here, we've got the lake here. You've got a sea wall going down to the lakes, mean watermark 95.5. Perfect sea wall comes up, you know, out of the flood plains. This is a rebuild, hopefully. And then, you know, you've got this wall up front. I think everyone can agree that that's a sea wall. It's serving the purpose of a sea wall. Behind the property, there's a need to hold back some land. It's still within the 100 foot, you know, distance from the mean watermark. I think what we're trying to understand is, is that a sea wall or is it a wall subject to different standards? Is the top, what's the height of the first sea wall, one or two or three? What was that? One, is the first sea wall around higher than one or two or lower than one? Lower than one. Well, it's higher than one or two. Higher? Yeah, so go with higher. Yeah, I think if it's lower than that is a sea wall. This is out of the question. In my opinion, I'm not going to tell you guys what to do, but just one example that I'll bring up, and if you guys own boats and are out there sailing, for sure seeing this one, because it looks like a strip, but it's probably like 40 feet tall, and there's this rock ledge, it's a huge just ledge, and then there's this like strip right directly vertical, and what's happened there is, there was some wave action that was causing erosion down at the base of this huge ledge, and the person wanted to do a natural solution, so they wanted to, they put these fabricated planting honeycomb matrix, I think they call them, planting matrix on there that was meant to just like hold the plants together, and those plants aren't connected to the rocks, they're usually just off, and so that's kind of like how it's resisting the weather. Now, theoretically, if you had just a foot tall wall behind that, if you're saying the second wall is a sea wall, that would be a sea wall too, even though it's like 60 feet off, so we just, but we haven't had that scenario yet. Yeah, and I think this can also be applied to not necessarily huge sea walls that are three quarters of the height of the house, but rather, you know, a simple retaining wall that might be proposed to maybe support, you know, other items on steep slopes in the short land desert. Right, so I, whoops, an example, when a sea wall is in place, not being proposed, but an applicant comes in, I want to do some grading back, backaways, I'm not going to touch the sea wall, maybe I'm going to make the sea wall a little shorter, make some space, retaining walls around my new structure, is any of that, like, within the purview or is it back far enough? And but it's within 100 feet. Yes. That's a lot better. Or even the 250. Yeah, yeah, absolutely. That's a good question. We might not have answers tonight, but that's okay because it's a little more ballistic over here. Yeah, that's a good question. It's definitely wasn't something that was not going back to proof of need, if it changed this pathography, because we really are two fall backs to make decisions on it. Yeah, it definitely wasn't thought of when we went through last, I'll tell you that, because that was part of that. That was never something we thought about. Is there a way you can have some continuity with either the design or the materials, like when you're coming in from the bay, you know, on a boat? It looks a little, I mean, I'm just a very Corvace and Seymour. I'm just a really visual person. I was just thinking that it just had some something that was tying it a little bit together. You know, I think there's going to be a lot more boat traffic coming in. And it's, I think East Lake Shore Drive, the housing looks really nice. It kind of looks like a main village, you know, coming into the bay. But I didn't, I don't know. I mean, I know it has to be functional, you know, and maybe that's all it needs to be. I didn't know if, you know, we could like have some kind of parameters about trying to make it like something that kind of made the eye just go smooth. You would know probably back and forth. Generally choosing similar materials at this point. There's just happening. There's the dimensional walls there. I mean, we've had in the last two years, we've had someone who we just wanted to replace corrugated steel, the ugliest wall in the world. And it was fantastic. But you know what I mean? Like, it's a dimensional stone. What they're talking about, dude, that's excessively expensive. And it's really nice. And if, you know, we could, it'd be like in the hospital, that's sort of not something that we can subject to. Well, it's up to you guys. That's, I think, difficult. And there's also a technical situation where, you know, things like gabions are just necessary even though they're hideous because of the nature of stormwater remediation. Historically, you've got some pipe daylighting that was put in there in the 40s. And that's, it is what it is. So you've got to have a gabion there. Otherwise, you're going to lose the whole property. What's a gabion? Gabion is one of these things where it's a bunch of rip-rap, the small rocks and whatever that's just put into like some chain link fencing that's made of these small rocks. Oh, right. I've seen that. So, you know. Okay. Just the thought. It's difficult to... Well, I will say that ever since I've been on a planning commission, everything we've done is to make sure if you own that property, you should be able to stay there. We don't want to set up so you have to sell it. You just can't afford to fix it. Right. So that's been always, always the case. Yeah. Yeah. I think it'd be unfair to tell everyone that you didn't get an open court-side dimensionals. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I just didn't know if it was some element that, you know, visually, you know, maybe not material. I don't know, you know, but anyway, it was just an idea. So this was aesthetics not mentioned as a word when they considered it? Is that what you mean? Because there's a landscaping budget for all the exactly landscape, right? And then in that last one, we looked at with, you know, overhanging grasses and it doesn't seem expensive, but it could be. It's a little pretty. It's all that one. Gotcha. Hypothetically speaking. I just wondered if aesthetics was on there. I think, I think cement blocks are discouraged. Did I read that? Native vegetation is encouraged and maximizing vegetation, but it's not really a hard, I wouldn't call it a hard review criteria. It's a recommendation really. Correct. So the landscaping review would never touch the seawall to your client? I think we're there concerned about that. It's about tree cutting. President, 25% out. We want to make sure that we're not overdoing it there when structural landscaping, then aesthetic landscaping. Yeah. All right. Any other thoughts on seawalls? Did I overhear you say that we're, that Colchester is going the other direction with respect to delegation? No, sorry, for wastewater. No changes to shoreland. I've actually, I have never sat down and compared our regulations with the state ones, so I can't tell you exactly what the differences are. But as far as I know, there has been no talk about giving up that delegation, just the wastewater delegation. I mean, I don't want, but I think it's an important benefit for the residents and the developers within Colchester that these decisions can be made here. And in fact, when we talk about the shoreland, Zach has reminded me we have to be very careful because when we're giving, given delegation, we had an actual set of taxes, a little bit different than wastewater that we had to submit to the state that gets approved. And then it's our actual regulations. It's not like, sure you can do it, make up your own rules. And so when we do any changes to that section, we have to be extra careful because we probably have to bring that back to that same authorizing agency and say, hey, we want to change this, please approve it. And in fact, we're talking about one as part of supplement 45. The fix is not in that section. The fix has been to add definition in chapter 12, where they didn't exist before. So we talk about, for example, a degree of encroachment, we don't define degree of encroachment. And so in order to better clarify that, we have put that into chapter 12. And we're very careful what we do within 7.03. I never get section numbers right. It's a huge weakness of mine. I didn't look, I promise. So we do, when it comes to the shoreland stuff, we are, we have to walk on different, a different set of rate, a different process than we might otherwise. And we have to be a little more careful. I'm not saying it couldn't be approved by the state, but it is an extra layer of approval that doesn't exist for most of the rest of our regulations. And on the topic of shoreland, there's one other part here which is the 10% increase in the margin of structures that, you know, is a conditional use in the shoreland overlay I just want to flag that because, you know, there's been a couple of proposals in my time, one of which it comes to mind is one that was out of Coates Island Road where they wanted to enlarge a deck so that they could have a landing of the earth stairs. And, you know, right now the only item that's, you know, considered by the board So Zach, very quickly, can you for, especially a lot of the new people, tell us what that 10% means? So there is, in the regulations, you know, an applicant can come forward and apply for a conditional use review to the largest structure in the shoreland overlay district. That's that 100 feet? In the 100 foot zone from the Mead Watermark. And, you know, you're really looking at, sorry, sorry. Please do a cupcake. Frosting. So you're looking at, you know, 10% of that primary structure excluding decks, porches, overhangs, stairs, really 10% of that primary structure. So if you have a really small camp, 100 square feet, you're looking at 10 square feet that you'd be able to apply for. Usually you see it, you know, like a small deck being applied for, or, you know, an increase in the size of the deck to accommodate the stairs, in the case of the Coates Island application. Right now when the board receives these applications, they're looking at, you know, an additional criteria that, you know, asks that an applicant demonstrate that the enlargement cannot reasonably be accomplished without further encroachment due to topography, shape of the lot, or interior floor plan layout. Ultimately, you know, I'm wondering, and I've heard from the board that, you know, they might want to see some more justification for these, but that being said, I haven't heard it too explicitly. So I'd love to hear from you about what you think, about those requests. Or what you'd like to see go into those requests. That's the last one I remember. That's the most recent one now. This one has a lot going on. Some of it is clarifying the regulations because it's not entirely clear what gives you that. What was the language we talked about earlier, Zach? Like what qualifies you in some way? We were talking about proof of need. Proof of need, okay. So there's that. And some of it is also just policy. We talk about 10%. We have seen homes in this area where 10% gets you a modest size 80-foot deck. 10% in some other areas is a pretty significant encroachment into that 100-foot shoreland overlay. So part of this might be a policy question. It might be a good time to reaffirm whether or not you mean 10%. Do you mean 10% of anything up to any sort of cap? Maybe 10% up to a cap. So I think there's a lot you could unpack here if you choose to take it up, at least at the very least in sort of clarifying what need means as Zach has said earlier. Do you need a deck? Where's the level of need? But definitely a lot of questions there, I think. We've even seen people who, whether intentionally or not, have added extra square footage so that their 10% is now bigger, taking 10% of a bigger number. We've even seen it in a decision that was a little problematic because it had said, we'll prove how much land you have later and then you get 10% of that. I won't say much more because I think we're still actively in litigation over that one. So I think there's some movement there. There's some fair discussion from a technical perspective and from a policy perspective. Maybe there is no discussion. Maybe you're all sitting here thinking 10% is perfect. I don't see what the problem is. So there's a lot of ways you can unpack that one. Before you go, I'm going to poke Matthew to pass the plates. I don't know that it's a planning commission's business, but what Kathy Anna said is right is that there's some kind of trying to gain the system and claim that the floor plan is larger than it really is or incorporating a shed in the square footage and kind of the strangeness like this. And I want to say at one point we asked them to go out and re-measure it or send Derek out or somebody out there to actually go ahead and take a ruler. They were saying that it was like a football field, but it's clearly a postal stamp. Whatever you guys say, Lou, but it's definitely a point where we have to be appealing quite a bit. And this has come up even in recent discussions. Is it 10% of what the tax assessor says you have? Well, the tax assessor says what he sees. He doesn't say what is permitted. So is it 10%? We talked about this with the planning commission just last week. Are we talking about permitted spaces? If you built something five years ago without a permit, okay. Probably not going to count. But what if you built it 20 years ago? What if you do you get to count that? They were measuring the outside of the building instead of the inside. And it sounds ridiculous. That's the level. It definitely doesn't sound ridiculous. You get to make sure everything every inch counts just about. It's difficult for an attorney as well because they say I have 2,000 square feet. I don't know what you're talking about. Look at the tax record. Again, the tax record is a notice of observation. The assessor goes out. They write down all the rooms. They say you have this. They don't call us and say, hey, because there's a lot of properties in town. So I think there's without a doubt anything that we talked about. There's probably some benefit in clarifying when we say a percentage of what does that mean? Is that approved to base or not? Food for them. Sure. Doug? So we'll go down now into subdivision standards. And hopefully this first two will be pretty quick. But one thing I wanted to note here on 905. So 905 is generally where a lot of the developer view boards produce standards for subdivisions. So any subdivision made as proposed gets reviewed against these criteria. In one case, but actually in a lot of them, 905 is the suitability of the land. This is really where the board is looking at what characteristics are on the land that should be accommodated, avoided. You start to see building on below shifting, lot layup shifting based on where different resources are on the land. We've mentioned here rare and irreplaceable natural areas as defined by the Vermont Non-Game Natural Heritage Program. Really one simple update that's actually kind of brought forward through some interested neighbors on a sketch plan proposal up in Matthews, is it's technically a significant natural community is the term they're using. Any maps are going to say significant natural community. Then there's an environmental currents report that gives more information on what that means. So it might be worth an update here. That's a pretty simple one. But just wanted to flag that because it really comes up with almost every subdivision. What was the term you just used? Significant natural community. Something written down here, what is that? I believe it's the term that Vermont Agency of Natural Resources is using. But we don't apply that anywhere as of yet. We currently use rare and irreplaceable natural area, which I believe is lumped inside of that term. So it could be something we're looking at to see where those distinctions are with the two terms. Just to make sure that any resources that the board relies on correspond with the rating. That one seems simple. Is that as simple as it sounds? That's a simple one. Alright. 46 people. Moving down the list to building envelopes. This happens again in a lot of subdivision reviews. The building envelope is generally the area of developable land within a lot. Could you zoom just a little? It's really small for us back here. Originally I can. You can zoom in on my face. No. Yeah. I'll allow it. Actually, yeah, you can. You can. You definitely can. You can change the scale in on little pre-dots too. Yeah, you can. There's like your own computer. So let me scroll down here. If it helps, I have the full draft of the regulations right here. Okay. So this will only help for a moment. But building envelopes. This section of the subdivision review criteria allows the board to designate building envelopes. Generally looking at restrictions, things from streams, wetlands, the general setbacks of the district. But one thing is, there's a requirement here, that language that says that parking areas need to be included within a building envelope. And then in the definition of building envelope, it also includes set dates and stuff. Which I know has come up about what it is during the structures. Some applicants have asked that. And I think, you know, the board definitely wants to make sure they're on the same page about what should be within a building envelope. And the reason I applied parking areas is that I believe under Article 10, there's a requirement that those only need to be five feet from a property line. Not within a building envelope where a structure can be that close, but a parking area can be. So maybe there's some truing up to happen here. But I definitely want to make sure that, you know, the board can express anything they've heard about building envelopes. Especially with the setting systems. And it's not. But any questions from the Planning Commission on this? So we basically want to punch that out. And we want the building envelope to be tight enough. So it's structured. That's what we're talking about, basically. So if we pull out the setbacks, we're still worried about structure, not the actual parking area. As septic, as long as it fits somewhere in the lot, we'll worry about the building envelope. Yeah, so you might be looking at changing the definition of a building envelope to exclude certain, you know, things like a parking area or a setting system. Okay. A pool is considered a structure. Pool? Right. Yes. That's what we're talking about. We do maintain that in the building envelope. Mm-hmm. That's all right. You do? You definitely want to keep that? The building envelope, you think? A pool? Well, I think the term building envelopes is a little bit different from what I think you're thinking about. Building envelopes is the area in which you could build. Right. It's not an actual structure. It's just an area to find where you could build. Correct. So anything in that envelope, the house, a pool, a shed, all that has to fit in that envelope. And your wastewater, between your wastewater and your gas line and your well, they have to be certain distance away from each other. I think it just concerns me not looking at the wastewater because there'll be other elements that have to play off of that in terms of distance and within that building envelope. Yeah. You know, wastewater systems, I think I would definitely want to kind of champion about it, especially with the return of the delegation of the wastewater program to make sure that, you know, we've been operating under having that local delegation. So including something like this in your subdivision review makes a lot of sense when you're also in the town with that regulation, regulatory authority, let's say where seven systems are going. But that means that it's a little bit out of my wheelhouse, so I want to make sure that, you know, the board would still have the jurisdiction to require the seven systems to be looked at. Oftentimes that's a separate review process. And you're right that you, you know, the placement of those systems often relies on where other well systems are in the area. I think that this regulation is well intended. What it's trying to say is that, especially if you have a very large lot, that you are not spreading out development all across it. If in, within this, as it's written here, the board finds that they don't want to see, you know, your garage set way over here and your workshop here. And all of a sudden you take, maybe this will be something that comes up more as we get into an open space plan and anything that comes out of that. If there's any, you know, fragmentation language, it would give the board the authority to limit that sort of land consumption on a lot by saying you have the ability to restrict that, especially if one portion is a wetland or even a non-regulated natural resource. For example, a good stand of trees and we say why are you building, why are you cutting all these trees down to build your home and you could be doing it over here in this open area. So I think that the idea of it is very good. It gives the board that authority. But did it also come with some unintended consequences? We'll see. And specifically for subdivisions where there's multiple homes that they're trying to fit into. Yeah, like the spaghetti lots is where a lot of them are, like, what is a suffix? Is it a structure or, you know, where is it? So they're trying to, they're trying to fit the maximum number of holes into this lot where, so they've got, you know, the road going right through the open land, you know, the strung along it. You guys have dealt with that. Thank you very much. But, you know, along the back side, you've got your building on to open, then the septic systems like push way out to the property line. If they're a mound system, is it a structure? Yeah, it's a structure. You want the, do you want to be able to, because I know you guys usually like the black and white. So now we're talking about a gray area as far as an envelope and Kathy's talking about this, he has this piece of property and he wants to start spacing his, whatever he's building around. Did you want to have that to say, no, we'd like to see it pulled in? Do you want to get invested in that? Because that's starting to push towards designing you. How much does a person, when they have their property, how much leeway do you want to give them? I'm big on property rights and you want to build it out. That's your toy that you want to build. Kathy wants to get all over me on that one. No, I don't make decisions. I do want to just give you food for thought. I did take a picture tomorrow. It's a very nice picture. You should have seen the drawing I did at the last planning of the meeting. It was awful. Oh, okay, hang on. You did that on your computer. Yeah, it opened up paint. I didn't even use MSP in the last 10 years. MSP. My first time. Okay, so I think it's on the pink land. So I think that where you might see this come up, or it could come up, maybe not, but my commission's not so inclined as that. I'll go back to what Matthew said about some spaghetti lots. So if you have, there's two sides to this, we're going to spin. A lot, right? And so back here, here's your road, maybe it's East Road, maybe it's, you know, I'm trying to find some places a little less developed here. And you do have these lots that come in, right? What a standard like that would do is allow the board to say, and let's just pretend, a beautiful forest in the back. What this would do is allow a board to say, your building envelope doesn't extend past here. This is your, we're going to set building envelopes like this. Because otherwise, what you might get, you will get probably is a very long driveway. The house and pool and the kids play structure and everything else. And then you have all these long driveways and no more trees. Which, if so inclined, could create concerns around stormwater, natural resource, forest, fragmentation, all kinds of things. That's why somebody might want to do it. Obviously, the reason we're talking about this is it might not be the case. Rich in the whole planning commission may say, I don't see the problem. So building envelopes do become important. What you do want to attach to them though with some sort of standards, is that would be very open-ended. This would allow the board to say, well there's a forest here, that's my reason. But maybe that forest doesn't exist in the next similar project like it. Is there a reason needed there? We also see, imagine just one of those spaghetti lots and then some division of that. Because those are existing all over the place. And so, see one on the left, the single spaghetti lot. And they're going to subdivide that into three parts. So that's the one, like on Watkins Road, where that's where we kind of closed. So you're way close. Your buffer zone is very close. Your buffer zone is very, it's regulated, but it doesn't leave you much in the middle. And then your building envelope has to sit outside of that, but your septic may be in the buffer zone, which is allowed. But does that building envelope have to include the septic? Because if they conflict, it's not super clear. Sometimes it may be difficult to determine if the septic should be in the building envelope. Because the septic will depend on soils. Since soils aren't great. So we're getting close to another system on the ground. I mean, there could be a distinction there. I would say that since this is something I do in my profession, in other towns that aren't delegated, the septic system generally is not considered a structure because there are setbacks in the state rules that prescribe where the designer puts it. Regardless, Mounder? Yes. Well, they differ, but yeah. They differ based on whether it's in ground or Mounder. In this case with the forest, this field is septic system. I think there's lots of ways to write it. If the commission said, hey, we really want to, only if necessary, only if there's absolutely nowhere else to put a septic system, because then you cannot build a home and you're probably going to qualify for some sort of variance, then you can put it there. So there's lots of ways to write it. Yeah. Similar to what the driveway ended up sounding like. You're still allowed to do that ridiculous driveway down the shared, the common land, if that is the only way to make the project work. Of course, the planter and me wants to force them to have a shared driveway. And not two of them, but that's a different conversation for today. So it seems like maybe there's more to discuss down the line related to the open space planning. But is there a quick fix? Well, the quick fix might be understanding the town's limitations in regulating where septic systems are right now, especially with the return of the delegation. So that one, we'll see how that works out. There could be definition updates as well to remedy that. All right. Moving on a bit down the list here, 905J Strings. Now, this is really one to just kind of start a discussion tonight. And it actually, anything to do with this section of the regulations usually gets pretty significant input from the Department of Public Works, because it's related to compliance with Chapter 14 of the Code of Ordinances related to streets, roads, specifications and standards related to roads. One thing I did want to point out, just because, you know, it's something the board sees a lot, is under number four here, there's a threshold that, you know, when a driveway or a road serves more than four units, that driveway or road either needs to be public or planned to be designed to a public standard. And sometimes there's been instances where applicants will come in for a four-unit minor subdivision and then come in for a, they'll get an approval and then they'll get a final amendment approval to add on, you know, a couple more units at the end of the driveway and get a waiver from the Department of Public Works saying, oh, in this case this doesn't need to be a public road. And, you know, in those cases we really want to make sure that, you know, you want to have consistent regulations up front. But also understanding that maybe that four-unit threshold is a little too low based on what development, you know, the town might accept being at the end of a private driveway. So regardless of wherever we end up. Zach has said this a whole lot, kinder than I would have. Are you guys understanding what the issue is here? We can draw it out. Right across from Milpawn Road. Wait a minute. Something, what is the Anise Court across from Milpawn Road? That's mountains for down. Yeah, so across from the upper entrance to Milpawn Road, across from there there's a little something where they did exactly this. They came in for four and they came in for three because they wanted to make it a public road. So it's an intentional map just to be clear. So you do four, you get it in, you might even build the road out. You're like, oh, the road's already there, but I can fit in one more. I'm not really going to make it a public road now. So this is happening frequently. Yeah, because that waiver's been given so many times, it's not even built yet. Honestly, a lot of times I get approval and I come in like a couple months later. Plot amendment. And it's a very tough thing, I'm sure, for you guys because you're like, would you have reviewed it differently as they started with five or six? Because they're ever in a case where you have a strugly at serving five or six houses now and then they say, oh, why isn't this a public road now? Ask the town, I think it's a public road. Has that ever happened? I'd be surprised if it didn't. There's a whole lot of discussion as to what the tipping point should be for a private versus public road. I'll sit down, I'm sorry. And I think that what I've heard from members of the board especially are that let's just say what we mean and mean what we say. If it's four, let's mean four. If it's five or six, let's just say that up front and stop forcing us into this awkward waiver discussion. So let's just mean what we say. And then there could be a whole debate, as Zach said, you'd want to include your public works department. You'd want to include your select board, of course, because the differences between a public and private road are not insignificant, both in how you construct it and then how you maintain it afterwards. And there's definitely pros and cons. We've had this discussion internally at multiple levels many times because there are definitely benefits that come from having private roads and public roads and it's not for I think planning staff to even weigh in on other than to say, as we're hearing from members of the board, let's just be clear, whatever it is, whatever that number is, let's mean it and let's hold to it. And if four is not the right number, let's make it the right number. If we did decide to take this up, I think the very first thing we'd probably do, obviously, secondarily to talking to our public works department, is probably get an idea of what are other towns doing. I don't know. I know I can only speak to another one that I was familiar with and our magic number was nine. Anything more than nine became a public road. Anything more than three, as you know for me, 911 has to be a road. But where do you draw the line between public and private? And it's not just numbers. There's more that goes into it. I think, especially if you're talking about not just a residential street, but I think it would definitely benefit everybody from the board to the public, to the development community to just know what the right number is. And it seems that four may not be it. It comes up often, definitely is not it. You see the rules keep getting pushed. My flavor is after you've seen it enough times, you know, that's not the right number. And without speaking on behalf of the public works department who is not here, I do know that it's nobody ever wants to be in a situation where they're constantly having to grant waivers. So I think they've at least shared that with us that I don't think they love that either because they're constantly being asked and having to make, not by you guys, but by anybody who's building, and they'd rather have a very clear standard as well and keep waivers to be the unusual, not the norm. And it'll be an interesting debate. I think it's one that will, if you take it up, get quite a few people out because there's some very policy heavy, and I'm going to sit on my hands and let you guys do it. It's tricky. All right. So keeping an eye on the time. I do think we could do planned unit development standards pretty quickly. I want a lot of, you know, high discussion points. Maybe Matthew might disagree with me. No, no, no. I think these are like, hey, they're like, you know, a primer on the first one here. 907D, you know, there's certain waivers and reductions that the board can grant when an application comes through, subdivided land as part of a planned unit development. Those are pretty clearly listed here in this, you know, table 907D1A. That being said, I do want to just first note that for any application to come in for a planned unit development, they need to have at least 1.5 acres of land. So the first item here I just want to, you know, point you towards at this table is there's some language in this table related to a three acre threshold for projects over three acres. You'll see it come up. And in these cases, you know, looking back historically, the threshold for planned unit development used to be three acres. So I think the DRB wants to make sure there's some clarity and just understanding if that is a threshold at which there's additional considerations for granting with a public road frontage reduction. Or if it's just a carryover from the previous threshold to even get it to this level. And then also on this, you know, just taking a look at these, you know, you know, reductions and waivers. And, you know, if there's anything that stands out, any questions you have planning commission about how these are being applied? I'm sure the board, the development review board, we have to answer some of those. So that's how we, you've been looking at it though. I guess the 1.5 and then they come in over three, you skip down and say, this is what we want. Well, so one thing I'll provide a bit of background on is that, for example, public road frontage is something that can be reduced or waived by the development review board. Very often, those lots that are at 1.5 acres have very little frontage. Not enough to support two or three units they might be applying for four. And the board's then, in that case, going to be tasked with saying, does this, you know, lot that might need this reduction the most not qualified because of the three-acre, you know, language here. So I'm happy to re-explain. Really, the main items are, the threshold to get into this review is 1.5 acres. I think the board just wants to make sure that any reductions or waivers they're granting under this table are for the right-sized laws. So they shouldn't be granting one because it's only something that could be granted for larger re-acre laws. They want to make sure that they can. Correct. So we'll take, we definitely will take a look at that. So we went to 1.5, that was part of that. So we went to 1.5 because we're all about the infill, more housing, the whole thing. I don't know if we really discussed this three-acre part, honestly. So we definitely should revisit that. It just seems like, what's the impetus for having this at 3.8? Yeah. If it's what you meant, then awesome. If not, probably something. I think it's an oversight. Alright, so maybe something important to say. Yeah. We'll see. Moving down the list a little bit here to open space requirements. One item that we, I just think might need a bit of clarity on. So for certain projects under this review, there's an open space requirement. The threshold here is, they're required except for those properties under three acres or five units in size. In the language here, you know, do you want to see open space for properties that are over three acres, over five units or for properties over five units over three. So that end or the ore can be tricky at times where someone wants to add another, you know, unit to a large lot. So it can be two units, but five acres and they might need to open space requirements. And then I do want to get to recreational amenities. So Matthew's ready to take this one away. Oh my God. I think we hit it on the head with the example of the St. Michael's College. You can't play housing trust. All of this existing infrastructure and buildings are all there. They're trying to transform a dorm basically into some housing. And they needed to have a recreational amenity just because of the nature of it. And it was just a building in a parking lot and they're trying to figure out how to account like this other access to a bike path and what they're doing. And they ended up spending money on putting in ultimate Frisbee goals in between like the breezeway. You can't make this stuff up. Like half the width of this building or like of this room, little Frisbee Gulf, you know, thing and then like a parking lot on either side and you see these Frisbees like whipping along, right? And into windows and all that kind of stuff. They were kind of snookered into this scenario where they had to provide something that was definitely not a benefit. It was kind of like to fill a gap. So I think it... And you know, there's another one. I don't think it's here, but it was a closed one now where this person needed a recreational amenity because they were changing the five-bedroom farmhouse into an apartment. It's right on... right off of Lature, not on Lature, but on Lature Airport. And they were struggling to figure out what kind of amenity they needed. And you know, even though on this property they had a fire pit and lake shore access and roof propony and two barns and an art studio and DQZ. All right, you have the opposite problem. But you know, it sort of is one of these kind of things where I think the... Yeah, what is this really about? Maybe... That would should be like that. I know over the years the Planning Commission has downgraded a lot of the recreational necessities. Got real pocketparks at one time. All those things, you know. It comes a time when, you're right, some things get a little ridiculous and why do we still have it? I think anyways, yeah. You think it's really nice to have playgrounds? I mean, I know we have some great playgrounds, but I mean, I just think it's just nice even just having a small playground that the home owners can bring their kids to and meet up with. But I just wonder if it would have... And I didn't mean to cut you off, but there is some complaint specifically about the playgrounds because the Homeowners Association has to maintain them and the liability insurance is excessive. So I'll just mention, I totally agree, top lots are great, nobody wants them. Yeah, the insurance I was just going to ask about. But could they do something where maybe they didn't do something on the land, but this is just... poor breakfast to put up with this, with my thinking. But like where you could, you know, people could build segments of a bike path. You know, it might not be on the land or anything like that, but that you could just, that would meet that requirement. Like a trail or something, you know, to hook up to a bike path. 99% of the time that's what happens. They do a cinder path. And it can be, we've had some pretty silly cinder paths to like, you know, they're right. I mean it is, like, sometimes. Anyway, but with this one specifically, there was no option other than to put everyone's property and lives at risk with a frisbee golf course in the middle of the parking lot. And a jeez into it was, I think, public. So there was a public park. Oh, interest. Basically that. That's what I was thinking. It was right there. They had that huge park off Doulton Drive. And that serves that area. We were wondering if it should be an exception for even if it's developed but the recreational, it's already there. And that came up. We're on the path. We couldn't be in a better position to leverage this. But yet, we need to break a bunch of windows. Oh, for real. So I hope the Planning Commission does take this up because I have spent a lot of time thinking about this. I have a ton of ideas to throw at you. Yeah, there's no doubt. This could be a fun discussion. I think it's fine. It's one of the pieces that I've always enjoyed running the most. Scaling is important. Scaling and recognition of adjacent elements. Because there was a time, I was on the right board for a long time. And there was a time when everybody wanted their own little parks. They wanted their own little amenities. And they would drive the right board crazy because we were running all over the place. And then one by one they were closed off. And the idea was just like this, we have parks all around. We shouldn't have to have, every single building has to have its own amenities. So you're in tons of change. And just one other thing I'll kind of mention to you, almost you hit the nail on the head, when there's one of these that happens to be adjacent to the lake, they can claim the lake. But they don't own the lake, right? They're just near it, enough. Or if they have access to it. That's the amenity. And so, I mean, but it's just a verbal barrier. And on the opposite end, are you finding that you have enough protection in the regulations for very large developments? I know that a lot of, one of our most built out quadrants of the growth center, do you feel, I know maybe a lot of you weren't on the board at the time, but it's pretty light on amenities. Do you think that was a result of the way the regulations were written? Was it a result of a negotiation? Just didn't produce what we'd hoped it might? Or maybe you don't feel it's light at all. It's got a taut lot. So that one's got a really interesting story to it. Because originally they had the big soccer pitch in the middle. And there were some really cool things about there, for community access and amenities. But as it began to get built up and carved up, what you began to realize, and the people came in and they were poising this, they're not wrong, but each building has its own association and its own liability, and the people in that building have a pay for pools and this. And there was one, there was one whole building which just wanted to like burn the pool down. I mean, it's made of water, so it's super simple. But they didn't want it. And so it's, you know, having something that's at the macroscopic scale, I feel would be better and, you know, preservable than that. But it's really difficult to fit without having a much larger picture of the zoning in general. But I suspect from everything I've heard, is that you don't necessarily want the end result to be, that you have, oh gosh, what, now 555 people living there and a tot lot. You know, is that, and if you're watching Patrick, I'm sorry, I'm not picking on your development. I think there's other stuff under development. But if that, if it were to be done tomorrow, if building was done and nothing else was to come, is a tot lot sufficient to serve 555 residents? And a syndromes. And a syndromes. It's actually, yeah, I'd give them a lot of credit for that path. It's why, you know, I think you can see who's still up. Yeah, we'll talk about that syndromes. But I can think of one in my area where it was like, it was laughable. Yeah. It was a syndromes path to along the road, but the wrong way, and it just ends. And it was all rewind. But even that walking path that they've put around there, I mean, I see people on that all the time. I mean, as soon as it was built, people were walking on it. It's very widely used. You could, you know, put other trails on and connect them, you know, to trails. I mean, they could just be walking everywhere around there. A couple of cross. The growth center had requirements for recreation when it was just from being the growth center. Do they have different ones? Then additional or? I thought it was because being designated as a growth center. Yeah. There's certain amenities that you had. That's a very sore topic. Yeah, I know. We're going to hold off on that one. Oh, yeah. I have to go to the downtown board next week. Yeah. That's a good example. I think you have the Symbian top lots on privately and publicly, you know, next week. Yeah. Yeah. This isn't a day care one. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Oh, there's a day care one as well? Yeah. Caroline's has a, Yeah. A private one. There are no reasons they don't use each other's. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So probably behind the fence. Yeah. So our problem to fix is more of these outside the growth center, these buildings that need something. And what we're putting is not worth anything. I'm hearing that it's, it's really just not right sized that there, it's being required of properties that they don't really need it because, because it's already immediately adjacent or the property already has other things that don't technically meet the definition. And so maybe it's partially broadening the definition of what type of amenity can serve this. Is it truly intended to be 100% recreational? And what do you call recreational as a community garden recreational? It is the middle of July, in my opinion. Yeah. Well, according on our record deal, anything is arts, gardens, everything's recreation and we include everything. On the other hand, the airport park, the village park, Colchester pond, all those pieces as big as they were. The idea was you build, you go to these parks. They don't have these little pieces around. So we shouldn't have to worry about this building having to put in a frisbee because it'll be big monster one right here at Bayside, hopefully, whatever we need. Some kind of like financial mitigation really. Right. That's what I was thinking. Add to a fund or something. Right. Yeah. So scaling I think is important. And I think that that's probably what's missing right now is a better, just better scaling for what is expected out of different levels. And proximity too. And proximity. Because the one thing to say, Mike, you're right about scaling, absolutely. Yeah. And I think you've grown centers that seem to be compelled to. Anyway, but at this one, you know, it is at that scale. It's right there. It's on them. I mean, you can't be closer to it. Yeah. For sure. That's for sure. At least you get a little credit in my help. I mean, it was a hard conversation. That one we really struggled with because we all knew that it was good. But it wasn't good enough. And what they had to do was just like, I can't believe I'm making this. Well, thank you for the discussion on it. The last two I promise are pretty sure. And they're ones that, you know, I think it's just been somewhat noted. First one under 10.02 parking lot lighting. Let me go with them. The board had an application just to upgrade some lighting and there was a discussion that occurred about linking when lighting is on based on hours of operation that after the closing of business, you know, 75% would be required to be turned off under the regulations. So one thing I do just want to point out is where that link is 75% of all parking lot lighting pictures show up and turned off no more than one hour of closed business. Just was kind of a point of just an interesting part of the conversation during the hearing about only one phone all these lights at night, you know, from a safety perspective when is your business open, all that tenant business, different hours of operation. There was some stuff to wade through the board there. I think just maybe taking a look at the intent of the lighting regulations, see if there's a way to carve out something or, you know, saying that's not the intent of the regulations. The intent is to make sure those lights are off at night. So I think, you know, just taking a look at that there. And board members, anything else to add there? Does having lighting actually, I mean, do we know it prevents crime? I unfortunately do not have an answer for that. I'd be curious, you know, because I hate lighting, so. I think it's widely accepted. There's a whole school of planning called SEPTED that I'm familiar with, which is crime prevention through environmental design. Lighting is among them, but also, like, where are you putting your bushes? Where are your trees? So there's a whole, like, as a planner or plan reviewer, there's a whole lot of stuff you can do or think about that a lot of us are not thinking about. I'm not aware of too many people actually including that into a set of regulations because it can be really cumbersome. So I think that the belief is there. Somewhat common sense that people are less likely to do something directly under an overhead fluorescent than the darkness. But it could be a motion thing, right? Yeah, I look at this in part of what I'm also thinking is, you know, who's enforcing this? I don't know. Well, I mean, the one that strikes the mind was actually way long ago for me that they were up on a Brentwood drive, way off the milking board, right? So we've got a bunch of industrial areas up there and some of the businesses are in there. And we had a nice couple in here who were establishing a business in there just kind of like manufacturing modern pop tech stuff. And the woman was really unhappy that the lighting had to be turned. This was forever. So this is not crowds. It's already in there. But she didn't feel safe having the... And they submitted a whole lighting diagram with the lumens and all that. And she had wanted in the winter specifically for the lighting to be able to remain 100% on for the past... Because they're business hours, they were manufacturing. Hey, so whether or not it actually does... There's a safety issue, I think, to a certain extent. What? Because within the building I would think people can, you know, manufacturing, oh, you know, a fire alarm goes off or something goes off. You know, there's people in it now, even after business hours, I would think. That's an interesting one. I didn't even know it was in there. You've never seen it? Yeah. I mean, this had come out most recently, actually before, which is a mixed use area. And this decision was closed, so we can talk about it. But it was one where, I think actually during the hearing, a member of the public was happy that the lights would be on at night in some way, or at least later in the evening. But, you know, regularly in the planning and zoning office, we do get calls from people who are looking for help because their neighbors' lights are on at night. So, you know, we hear both sides of that. So maybe there's a compromise here. You know, there's something else that can be done just to, so we're getting the desired outcomes here. But it's also a huge topic. Was the main concern of the light pollution? Is that why it was written? There was a time when that was. It definitely was part of an active 50 deal, but that was a problem. They were worried about the lighting straight down, making sure nothing was bleeding out anywhere. I don't know. I think it's a good discussion. I think with the crime rate up everywhere, more lighting is better, most of these commercial establishments especially. Grocery stores, some of them have very dark corners these days from some of our lighting. And they have, we have had problems. So I can sleep at night. Without light out. And one other thing, the board is well-trained now. They heard a presentation from somebody requesting an 80-foot tall light panel. That was cool. That was quite... I learned a lot about spread of light. We asked about how high the panel did, so we could really dive into it quite a bit. Before you think it was like manufacturing, it was the sports field. Yeah, it was really cool. The technology is awesome. Yeah. This wasn't like... I mean, the things they could do, it was like a magic trick that they were showing. I mean, it was very cool. It depends on what sports, I mean, they're illuminating them together. It was the light contractors doing this. Yes. Makes sense. The other item here under article 10, and just to round it out, is other landscaping. Give me one for a second while we get to it. I think I saw 10-04. Creative. So, under 10-04-E landscaping plan, you know, generally, most landscaping items are very straightforward with development view board. There's a budget requirement that sometimes is stormwater requirement. So, mitigating stormwater in-site and applicants might include plantings to do that. But one item that was pointed out somewhat recently was under landscaping plan. There's a requirement that plantings in the LS1 and LS2 districts, as well as the Shoreland Overlay District, shall include a variety of primarily native plant materials informally arranged in naturalistic groupings within their areas. And I think one thing I heard when the board was reviewing an application against this standard was that even they didn't really know what to do with this language, just related to assessing whether or not, you know, the landscaping provided met, you know, anything to do with a variety of primarily native plant materials that informally arranged. You know, obviously, you don't want to look like a manager in landscape area, but, you know, there might be some more specificity needed here. And obviously, you've got the Lakeshores 3 and 4 districts, too, so it might make sense to assume these there. Any other endings to add from the board members? That looks like a compromise sentence right there. Yeah. Yeah. They're big on natural, but you're right, it's pretty vague. I mean, like, majority native plant materials might make sense. Yeah. There's something that, you know, we can, as staff review a landscape plan against. Yeah. No invasive species. Yes. Is there a list of native plants? That's the other right there. It has bound on blah, blah, blah. Same headless species. Yeah. So the realist, the real issues there, the naturalistic groupings. Yeah, informal arrangement. Informal. It's big. No tree bingo. No. And I think also, you know, with these Lakeshore 1 and 2 districts, some of them are pretty far from the shore and might end up proposing landscaping. That includes other species, not even visible from the lake. So just trying to understand if the distinction is, you know, to keep native plantings at the shore line. You know, if that's where the Planning Commission wants to go, I think the board is totally behind that. But understanding that there might be other properties that get pulled under this regulation. That might not have that as a product. So it leads to interesting discussions. Get it out of my head. Someone had mentioned during that session, specifically, is this closed? Yes. They could just drive by in a van and just like, shot plants on a log and drive away. But that's informal. I want to get that person credit for that. I didn't bring that up. I can't get that vision out of my head. So we'll have more discussion on this one. Yeah, I think, you know, some clarity, I think, with WL4 is not reviewing applications. It's important. Well, it's right by Bayside Park. It's right across from Park. It's one of the ones, so there's a couple that have been turned into little, like, big hotels. Not hotels, but like, AirVV or whatever. It's one of those. I believe that one in particular was one that had gotten in before the change in the hotel and the launching of the plan. So that won't be allowed in the future because it's four units. I don't have the thresholds on top of my head. Do you know what I want? For an in? So it's an in. It's not a four unit residential. Yeah. The most substantive change that was made was to put a cap on the top end. Previously it had been like 60 units could be considered an in. Didn't even need the word holiday in front of it. 60 units was an in. And as part of the last supplement, the planning commission brought that down to 20 units to be an in because ins are allowed. And quite a few zoning districts where a hotel or motel would not be. I think the idea is an in is understood to be smaller and more intimate. And the definition just wasn't matching up with that. So I don't know what the minimum number to be an in is without having it maybe four, six, four. So there's a new definition of in that didn't exist prior. No, it existed. It was amended. It's not a new definition. Yeah. Yeah. And maybe in three years we'll be circling back to this one and you guys will say six, who are you thinking for? Is it perfectly fine in? Talk about it then. We're getting so many. I think the idea of six, by the way, is just so that you didn't have an Airbnb calling itself an in. But really all it did was divide itself up into four little units, four kitchens that they've put in and called themselves units. Six is a harder thing to reach in a unintentionally. That concludes my list. That means that. Anything else? Thank you. Thank you. And so we did talk about this being annually, but it does not mean that this is the only time to flag things. Zach and I are in constant communication, probably much to his dismay as I stand in the doorway saying, Zach, Zach, Zach. So board members as things come up, relay them to Zach. We work through all supplements. I talk through all of them with him. He knows everything the planning commission is doing. So if you ever just read something in the paper or in the agenda and you're like, what is this? You'll always know. And if there's anything else you want to pass along, it doesn't have to wait for the annual meeting. Good. Got to tell you, I can't thank you guys enough. I know it's an extra meeting during the month, but very informative. You know, it used to be this was all one board. And since we split it, communication is a primo. I mean, to find out these things that we put in and we thought were great and don't work. And how to fix it is a benefit. There's no doubt. Yeah. We appreciate it. I mean, and you guys get totally a mulligan for all this stuff where it's like we, you know, reading it. It's, you know, you guys really are doing an excellent job for the community and it's what makes Colchester such a wonderful place to live in. But, you know, circumstances will involve the tease out a little, you know, nuances here and there. And being able to close those gaps is good. Anything else from anybody for all good? Yes, I just have to say this and I know it doesn't have anything to do with probably our boards, but I am so disappointed about the sailing center leaving Colchester because I feel like that was just a really unique resource that we had. And, you know, I just don't know if there's anything to do to kind of prepare for that, you know, happening, like you said, maybe have a fund or something for these, you know, so I don't know if that would have helped if we had some kind of fund where we, the town could have bought that property, but that's just a shame, you know. That's a big part of the bay is those sailboats. So that's just my two cents. We don't need to figure it out now. Do we need a motion to adjourn this far? I guess we did adjourn the joint meeting and then I would also recommend that you, you know, schedule it in maybe a five minute break. Absolutely. Is that okay? Would you like to? Oh, joint meeting. Don't we do more than the planning commission? A second. All right. All in favor. All right. You're adjourned. It was nice meeting all of you. Thank you. So we are officially back on meetings at 831. Discuss draft amendments, the Colchester Development Regulation Supplement before we. Okay. So there's a well-seeing the agenda. I'm going to click on the attachments. We'll make it bigger. So what is new since last time? Not much. A couple of important things I want to highlight though. Because we are getting close to a warning hearing as anybody who's been through this process knows, we have to, we are required to do a report. We call it the report to the Department of Housing Community. I have affairs in here. Development DHCD. And that is now attached. You did not see that before. It's pretty short for a supplement like this. Sometimes it'll be a lot longer. Basically want to know that you're not. I've referenced this before when you've had some requests that say, hey, we want to completely rezone this. And I say, that's not in conformance with the plan. And the report will ask us. So this has asked us, are you in conformance with your plan? That's attached here. Hopefully everybody's read it. This one's pretty short. So that is new. Also new. We talked at length about a draft definition for degree of encroachment. That's been updated. I'll get to that in a minute. Don't worry. That brought up a whole discussion, some of which started here in this room, about footprint. We did not define footprint. The pertinence is also not defined. Although we always had a list every time it came up, such as hopefully this will shorten that up a little bit. And then there is a definition for building footprint. But if you read that, that is not at all the definition that you were talking about in terms of footprint. It's really intended, I think, largely for flood zone stuff. And so we just did a quick update there. And I'll cover all these in a moment. So these are what is new since we talked last. The other thing that's new, which hopefully is handy because you guys have watched me scroll and scroll and scroll through 300 pages of regulations. I've included a summary sheet for you here, which plugs those things into... I'll come back to this memo. Hang on. Supplement 45. I made you a nice little index. So for anyone seeing this for the first time, here's just a little key about what strike-through means, what underline means. Why do we have some red? Why do we have some blue? And then why do I have some highlighted in this summary here? So I have that just so that you can see the text that relates to each of those four letters, A through D, and how they're categorized. So I won't go through all these. You've seen them before. But most of these, as you can see now in one place, are just to show where those Chapter 8 changes are made. These are all under A here. Update and reload that. So almost all of them aren't really substantive to the extent that they just talk about getting rid of those connections to Chapter 8. If you want me to slow down at any point, holler at me, but there's nothing here new that's since the last time we talked in this section here. So all of those in blue. And then if you want to see the actual text, I've given you the article and page. So if you want to see it in context, you can go there. So I'll scroll through those quickly. That was the bulk of the amendments. There were a lot of those, but they are pretty much all the same. Letter B, conveniently in a new color. Green is everything that we talked about for our site plan applications. Those look like they're a lot. I will remind you that that's because a lot of it was moved. When you move text and track changes, it makes it looks like it's deleted. But really they were just relocated. The substantive change was about adjoining landowners and how they are notified. We talked through that and nothing has changed. So the references are all there. I didn't put them in directly because they're long and they're just strike-throughs that have just moved text. Quick changes that are still included here. This notice requirements, that's new. That's 745, not new since our last conversation. Next section was the language about setbacks from public infrastructure as a reminder. These are the pieces that the Department of Public Workstaff has asked us to include in order to reduce conflicts between private above-ground temporary structures largely and below-grade public infrastructure. So don't put your construction trailer or your porta-potty right on top of our water main. It'll be a problem. So that's what's in yellow. It's a nice golden up there. It is a very ugly yellow on my screen. Nothing in there is new since the last time we talked. Okay. Now we're getting to the part of new stuff. Gray. Article 12. Okay. So I want you to see this. I'm going to pull this also up in the summary of new stuff is here. But I want to remind you that the reason that this even came about is because there is a section in 703 that says you can't increase the degree of encroachment. Okay. So you can't increase what? You can't increase this thing that's here. The degree of encroachment. Okay. What is the degree of encroachment? So I spent a lot of time with this one. So this is what I have to present to you. It looks worthy. Let me walk you through it. So we wanted to make sure that when we talk about the degree of encroachment, we're talking about two measurements, that linear distance within that 100 foot, as well as how much stuff you have in that 100 foot. Okay. Should I illustrate? Hold on. So we say the linear infringement. So you cannot increase the linear infringement into the lakeside zone. So lakeside zone as quoted here is the same language the state uses to refer to that 100 foot. So that's where lakeside zone comes from. That is that 100 feet. So you cannot increase your linear infringement into that 100 foot by the closest point of the existing non-conforming primary structure. Let me draw that out for you. This part of your structure is within that 100 foot or lakeside zone. Let's just say this is 100 for sake of argument, this is 80. So the linear infringement means you have some point of your house at 80. Nothing you built gets closer than 80. No matter how much of it we're talking, nothing gets closer than 80. And I think that was already widely accepted by people with the most liberal definitions. You're never going to get closer than 80. So then the next question that comes up, so we get past the linear infringement. Then we talk about the square footage of the footprint of the same structure within the lakeside zone. So let's just say you have a thousand square foot structure here. 800 of it is in that lakeside zone. Lakeside zone. You don't get more than 800. Whether you shift it, move it back, you don't get more than that. And we talked at length about what does it look like if that did that, right? You don't get to build that out. Makes sense? This is what we talked about last time. So I think there was very good consensus of what we meant to say. What is the right text that says it? So the square footage is 800, right? Square footage of the footprint. And this is where we're going to circle back to footprint because it was part of our conversation of that structure in the lakeside zone. So footprint. That's a deck. It's not 800. 780 is 20 and that's a deck. Footprint. Okay, got it. That's a footprint. Footprint, newly defined. The area. And part of this, I just want to tell you, it looks a little wonky. Like how the heck did you come up with this? We have this dictionary of, it's actually really handy. It's called like... It's something like the blue book of development definitions. It's widely accepted nationally. So we looked there. And part of this comes from that, although we adjusted it for ourselves. So the area encompassed by the structures, I think what it had said is our wall, our image foundation wall for clarity. At ground level, excluding appurtenances. Footprint. I'll let you think on that for a minute. Because we've spent a lot of time talking about this. Could you say, as appurtenances, as defined here? I think it's up there at the bottom. Right above again. From the degree of encouragement, though. The linear infringement is a little confusing. If I were reviewing this... It is. You have to really... There was no simple way to write it, other than to keep putting the words back into the replacement form. So we wanted to say, you can't get any closer. But because the way that the shoreland text is written says, you shall not increase this. So it's almost like having these double negatives. Right? So we want to say, you can't get closer. But that's really hard to fit into a definition. So the linear infringement means... The linear infringement means how far into that zone you are. So you can increase how far you are in. Yeah, I understand it. Because you're explaining to me now. But if I were reviewing it to help someone... It's a mouthful. Yeah, I don't know if it would help. If a water word is linear, it's what closest to the water. If that line or area is closest to the water. Because linear... That's awesome. If you know what I mean. So it's basically linear. Is linear the word that... Yeah, okay. Fun linear. Oh, there's something else. Yeah, I think what we're trying to do with linear is to separate that from the square footage of the area versus the perpendicular. That's probably not the best word either. The intent... Maybe there is a better word, but the intent is to separate it from the square footage infringement. It's the linear one. I think having a diagonal helps. Perpendicular helps? Perpendicular does help a little bit. But I think the diagram, a good diagonal would help. I would go to Kathy to have her explain that to me. So I'm open. Yeah, I know. It's not awesome. But it's so... I apologize. I took a bite of a cookie at a time when I was eating most. Sorry, I thought I called on them. I'm such a jerk. Initially when Kathy and I were working on this definition to propose to you all, we realized that we needed to address the linear portion of this. Structures can't get closer within that zone. I'm struggling a bit with the perpendicular. My mind might not have been there, but can you explain the perpendicular word to me? I don't know if I like it. I can't defend it. It might not be perpendicular, depending on the way the house is situated, or whatever that footprint could be at a corner. So the perpendicular might not always be applicable. There is a way to put in a figure to let people know exactly what we're referring to. One thing we were trying to avoid was putting a regulation in the definitions. Definitely not wanting to hide anything in there. The appendix just has a bunch of diagrams, right? What letter it is? I believe it's B. B. So there are a bunch of helpful diagrams in B. So a diagram could get slaughtered in there. The tough thing about that, though, even though I think it's a fantastic idea, you do want to consider this is ready for warning. Should you want to do that? I don't have a diagram ready. You would have to delay that warning. Freud would be drawing on that right here. I can change a lot of text, but I can't give you a drawing tonight. Which is fine. That would just push everything back on our schedule. So we can circle back if you wanted to do that. If we can't come up with a better definition, it ends up the best definition we have. If somebody has a better idea. You kind of have a definition that you know that's how much you're coming into beyond that input mark. The linear. I read it. I could understand it. And the square footage. Those would be two important things. At least we have something in there. Yeah. And if you have to improve on it later, and the DRB finds that they don't understand it either, then we'll come back and address it. But at least we have something going forward. I think you could swap my hand if I'm wrong here. If they warned this draft, or some version of it tonight, for the public hearing. At the public hearing, they're entitled to make changes. So we could include a diagram. I just can't, you're not allowed to consider it until, I can't circulate it amongst you or anything. You could consider it at whatever date you want a public hearing. So we could plan to do that. You just can't warn it as part of, you can't do it as part of this. You agree with that? Yeah. I only, so it would be a change to a different part of the regulations that hasn't been warned. So it would include a new bullet point under this, or not a new one, but under this it would be, you know, the sections that have changed, and then appendix B as well. So I don't want to get us into a false start situation. So you can make changes to warned items, but that would not be able to. So if we come up with something different than linear, we could bring that up at the hearing and possibly change that, that at the hearing. If you don't change the meaning, but you change the word, is that possible? If something comes up better. So, do you think this drawing doesn't put a few words on it? I feel like you label the lines, but linear infringement. So, okay. The issue of the linear that you just don't feel like it's perpendicular to the lake, is that the issue with the linear? I feel like it could mean a few different things, yeah. Because if you're looking at the point that's close to the lake, that's your point, right? Correct. So you just don't like the word linear. I don't love it either. I can't think of another good. Right, yeah. I can't think of a substitute, unfortunately. But if we're seriously considering adding a diagram. If we can, if we can, then I would have to do the next round. So I was talking to Pam here about using distance. The problem with that is you want to remember we plug this into, you can't increase something. If you say distance, you don't want to say you can't increase the distance. Because you want them to increase the distance. You don't want them to increase the infringement. What infringement? Infringement is just another word for an approach, really. So, I do like the idea of a picture. Kind of what I'm thinking about doing is drawing one out for you guys to look at tonight. That's what I was going to say. We could put that in right here, whatever diagram B, and this is diagram B. And that would be good to go, correct? So we would, let me just make sure I'm getting a good collection of everything we have to do to make this happen tonight. We would have to, everywhere where the list is, we would have to add item E to say appendix B, right, updates. Because that's where our images apply. So we have to update the report as well. So I'm keeping track of this because this is what you'd want to put in your motion. Right. Can they amend D, which is currently says new definitions including, and then change that to be updates related to defining shoreland to rear encroachment, including changes to article 12, and appendix B. But at that point E is just, it's not at work. If we're already going to change everything. So this is in the morning, in the report, in the summary. Most of which is fine to just put in your motion. But you do, you should see the photo or the image. So, this is all we have. Rich, how do you feel about a five minute cupcake break while I get my crayons? I mean, everybody on board with that, that's the question now for us, is do we want to change this for that linear? Have Kathy put this together? And then we put in our warning tonight with these changes, or do we go in what way have? Or you could, don't take it at all. But I don't, I definitely don't think anybody wants to take that. Or you could hold your February meeting, it just pushes everything back by about two weeks. So let me just quickly go to, what's the concern is that the public, like someone applying for a building permit, wouldn't you explain it to them? I mean, so, I'm just trying to think what the problem is. I do think an image will be helpful for everyone. I do think it's a great idea. Whether or not it's... I just don't want to see us rush the supplement with these little pieces and then we miss something. So we did that through COVID once already and I do not want to get invested into that again. Oh no, and you know I'm very careful about this stuff. I don't like to... I don't know what happened to my... Oh, there it is. We scroll down the bottom here. I have no problems with the picture if you're confident. But if it's a concern personally, I would say I would take this and move on because like everything we... I could draw you a picture in about five minutes. I think it's very basic. We just need labels and you need to actually see it and it has to be the same thing. We could edit the photo once we make it. It could bring you a cleaner version, but at least if you have something that you have approved there's a concept where there's no substantive changes and you approve that part tonight. You know I could take a hand drawing of the same thing and turn it into something with a little more finesse. Straighter lines. Straighter lines. But I could get you very close to that in about five minutes. All right, so we need a motion. Take a five minute break. Okay, I'm making a motion that we take a five minute break. Second? Second. All in favor? All right. Anyone have a second? Yes. All right. Back in session. So now where are we at now? Okay, so everyone has had a chance to review the drawing. The drawing represents what you would like to include for the morning. Yes? Yes. Okay. We will get that in there. Okay. Do we want to return to definitions or are we... Yep, continue where we at. Okay, I've briefed you on the last part of the footprint. Correct. I know ease, this is not the definition. Building footprint already existed in our regulations to distinguish that from footprint, which is that a quick line that says this is distinct and separate from the definition of footprint. Somebody who looks under B for footprint, I think they found everything. This cross-reference allows us to avoid that confusion or not to be substituted for each other. And you can see the building footprint here is very specific to a plat, which may not be the case. We're talking of pertinences. We went through the actual definitions as we've discussed against, taken a little bit from that book, the visible functional or ornamental objects accessory to and part of building structures. They include decks, porches, overhangs, and stairs. Typically not considered finished spaces. This is just building that all together. It's where you can find them in the place. I'm not going to go through it. All of those pages are listed. So, the motion that I have recommended should you choose to take it up. Before we do that though, we just want to talk, we just want to make sure you're at least seeing what that would look like if you do. I'm likely not having a meeting with February 7th in return of that later, but you would not be able to hold public care any earlier than February. I'll put the 23rd there again. It should be the 21st. I leave for vacation I think. I was wondering about, I was wondering, it's a Thursday. The 23rd is a Thursday. I'm like, do I? The 23rd is on my brain. I'm sorry. I'll be going somewhere else. So February 21st would be the public hearing with plenty of time to get that into the newspaper. If you hold and close your public hearing on the 21st, that would allow you to deliver that on March 14th. Now again, there is some wiggle room here if you weren't comfortable tonight. We're not talking about a delivery of the supplement to the select board until March 14th. So theoretically, you could, without messing with the timeline, have a public hearing on March 7th. That sounds like it's necessary. March 14th delivered to the select board. The last time you did a supplement, the select board really heard the bulk of everything informally. That evening went through everything. They warned the public hearing immediately. Of course, they may not. But this is what they've done most recently. If they do that and warn that public hearing right away, that would be held April 11th, which aligns very nicely with the wastewater regulations, which would change April 1st. And then, I guess I didn't include this here, but if they hold their public hearing on April 11th, it would be fully effective. 21 days. That's a 21-day effective date. So it would be effective by early night or late March. That provided you have been updated here to include more updates. I might be separating the adoption report. That tip of pet technically will be sent to DHCD from you. You are the authors of that. I'm not as far as the adoption report as per your vote. We'll say that that would be amended to include ID. And because it's not at all substantive, there's no changes to any of the parts of the report. When the report asks you, is this in compliance? There's nothing actually being added other than illustrations. I wouldn't change anything other than to update the list of amendments. No other text changes to that report. Does that make sense? Or you say you're not going to add ID to that? Oh, I am. But only from the standpoint of... Oops, you know what I'm talking about. I got the point first right there. So the only update to this will be to add... This was fixed after this. By the way, I do have this posted correctly. So this is ABCA. I did sense fix that in a different draft. It would be ABCDE. E would be this new figure. But the rest of this, there would be no changes to it. Everything here on this second date will remain the same. So we're ready for a motion with necessary changes. Correct? I can show you the motion. Yep. I would recommend. It is your motion, of course. Feel free to amend as needed. Whoever is making it. Okay. You ready? No. Okay. Okay. I make the motion to accept the amendment and adoption report as amended this evening to be included in the public morning and district report. I second that motion. All in favor. Aye. Motion passes. Scrolls again. Thank you. Okay. I'll make another motion. Yep. All right. I make a motion that we warn for planning commission public hearing on February 21st, 2023. The proposed amendments to the Colchester development regulations known as supplement 45 and as reviewed and amended the evening of January 17th, 2023. The amendments would include adding item E to list to the list of amendments, which will add to appendix B, the figure illustrating the degree of encroachment definition. Second. Second. All right. Discussion. All in favor. Aye. Aye. It is to quickly take a look at your meeting schedule that we were just in because you have to make a decision on whether to hold February 7th or not have a meeting. Skip. Skip. Skip. There we go. Because that's your regularly scheduled meeting, I would see no harm in making a motion if you're okay with that. Sure. Okay. I make a motion that the next meeting of February 7th that we do not meet until we have the public hearing on February 21st. Second. Second. All right. There we go. All in favor. Aye. Aye. All right. We can discuss the rest of this. This is just so you have it. The last item, I think on the agenda. Will you be able to send out those new dates to us? Do we have more new dates? I feel like things were moved around a little bit. No? Is it just the 21st? I could send you something which confirms the decisions you just made not to hold the meeting on 7th. I'll send you the actual dates. I get that. I just didn't know if we had moved some of the March and April meetings. Yeah. Okay. I'm okay. So included in your packet on item nine, South Burlington land development regulation. So our report had to be amended, but at least we did it. You'll see that there's an email. South Burlington has their own updates to regulations. They forgot to notify a budding towns. They've already held that hearing. But I think it's important to still have it. I like to read it. Sometimes there's cool things worth stealing, borrowing, or saying never ever ever here. Nothing really stood out. We do share a border with them. This is extremely tiny. There's nothing in this set of amendments that would have any effect on Colchester. As is my practice always, I share them with you in case you find them of interest. Recommend any action on it. But if you want to, you can file a statement with their planning commission. File a statement? You don't like something? You want to provide public comment, I guess I will say. Okay. At this point, I guess it would go to their council because Sure. I'm not aware of you guys have ever done that. No. They're probably still good. It's an option. Yeah, we're still good. We're good. Still good. Minutes of January 3rd, you had in your packet. Yeah. A few interesting typos. Second page. One, two, three, the fourth paragraph down. The last, are you getting it up or? I do apologize for the quality of these. I tend to talk so much that I don't write. And then I go back to my office at 10.30 at night and I try to do them. I usually do a very good job. It just says some of this, I think was not caught. That's all. Okay. Which page would you like to? The second page there. Okay. The second paragraph on the bottom where it starts, LaRose. Okay. LaRose presented several scenarios. Robust number, discussion resulted in unanimous direction that the staff interpretation is what is and should be intended. That no new additional square footage should occur within the 100 foot protection zone and under, there should be no circumstances. Yes. Okay. Should any new land development occur closer than already exist on the parcel. Is the rest of that okay? No. That paragraph. That paragraph. Okay. The second paragraph after that one. The next paragraph it says members were in favor of language that would allow full rebuild of an existing structure. And we're clear that the preferences that were not approved non habitable living space, such as decks overhines and porches could not be converted in this case to habitable living space. We should be saying non habitable or think what I was trying to do is apply the not to both words. But if that doesn't read correctly, we can rephrase it. Okay. I see what you're doing. Okay. That we're not approved and not habitable. Yeah. But if that doesn't read clear. Or that that we're not approved. Or we could just get rid of habitable all together. That's probably because I'm not sure habitable is really what we focused on. I don't even know if we have a definition of habitable. Would you be okay to just removed habitable? Yeah. Yeah. I'm not sure the answer. Yeah. Okay. That was it. Thank you. Just make sure you're saying what we wanted to say. All right. Thank you. Anyone else? Make a motion that we approve the minutes from the meeting of January 3rd as amended tonight. Second. Second. All right. All in favor. Aye. Aye. Motion passes. Aye. Now we need a motion to adjourn. Oh. Motion to adjourn. I second that. All right. All in favor. Aye.