 calling to order the April 4th planning commission meeting at 6.35. I'm just trying to bring up the agenda here. Well, first is always comments from the public or scheduled changes. Any changes to the agenda? I'd like to add a sub-item to development code amendments at the bottom. Something about accessory apartments. Sounds good. We can put that at the bottom. Moving on to the public to be heard. Any comments from the public on items not on the agenda? There's nobody here in person. Nobody online either. Okay. Moving on to the minutes for March 7th. I need a motion to approve the minutes. It's almost. All right. Any discussion on those minutes? Any changes anyone wanted to make? I don't know how many changes, but it sounds like you had a great discussion. We did. The presentation, the signed presentation was really great. No, it was a heated discussion. I haven't watched. Yeah, I recommend watching. I know now for reading the minutes that I will need to watch it because I'm missing parts of the discussions, but once the vote is over on Tuesday, I'll have a little more talk. Any changes? Comments? No. All in favor of approving the minutes from March 7th as written? Say aye. Aye. All opposed? Motion passes. Moving on to the business items for the evening with the land development code amendments. All right. So yeah, many parts of this. I have the memo up because I think it might be helpful to go over every piece of it. And if you have any questions or issues that you want to discuss, we can do so. So the signed regs, I really tried to go through and make a good copy in the draft that I sent out. That's sent out in word format so that you can turn on and off track changes. It's very hard to read otherwise. But just as a recap, we took all the signed regulations and replaced it with Burlington's signed regulations and adapted as necessary. And then there was some discussion last month about this. I tried to integrate the results of that discussion into the latest draft. And I also tried to clean up a few outstanding issues. So the issues that several of the changes that I think are worth noting, I totally, I re-did the definitions just to prevent duplication where the definitions are already in the chapter itself. I took it out just to match the format of what Burlington is using. Of course, this will go through review by the municipal attorney when we kind of wrap this up. And I think if there's a problem, hopefully that they'll figure it out at that time. Any questions about that? Well, I do have a question. I read through and it was challenging to read. The things are just, it took me a while to figure out what five letters in a row meant. And I just said, I don't, I want to know. Just, it's a mess. And but I was looking for the substance of what I was reading and I did not see and I'm wondering if the definitions for like governmental signs and directional signs might be important because when we talk about the various signs, which are defined, those signs, however, are not defined in the list or I missed it as I was reading it. So since we do have discussions about directional signs, you know, this might be important, especially when last last meeting you talked about directional signs, number of number 11 Maple Street, it might be helpful to to understand. So, right, there's some definitions that previously were in the sign, the definition section of the LDC. But now, now where are they located? They are located in the sign regs themselves and they see if it's a that's where I did not see them. So which is why I'm bringing it up. So under sign standards, this would be 714 section 714. Let me try to see if I can make this bigger when there we go. Okay, can you see that? So it's under under property management. This is under exemptions. So things that don't need a permit. And that includes everything under 0.5 here. Again, it tells you basically signs that are in in turn intended primarily for use internal to the property examples may include some of some of these. So at least according to the way Burlington structured their their bylaws that was sufficient to define what's what a directional sign is. Okay. So governmental signs are governmental signs. I think that's now under official signs, official signs. Okay. Those are the like men working and yield to yield the tree cutters and that sort of thing. Right, right. Highway and official signs. It's under 0.1. So this includes Yeah, things put up signs erected by or at the direction of a government agency, courts or public utility in the performance of their public duty. All right. So so in other words, you feel that this is sufficient definition. So if somebody said, well, what are you talking about? Do we get cite this as I think so. I think so. But maybe because we did have those definitions before I mean, I could see if the if the municipal attorney when at the when we clean this up when we button this up for for the bring into council that can be I can check to see if they think there's a technicality there because the other ones all seem to be defined in each category, except for those two. Okay. So that was governor signs a directional Chris, do you mind going back to the direction and all sign section? Yeah, I think that's five property management information or directional signs right there. So it says non illuminated signs to square feet or less. And then if you go further down, it says it mentions directional signs again. I just saw it when you scrolled down last time. I believe. No, if you scroll the other way. Oh, yeah, 1616. Oh, maybe that's another four. It only goes up to 14 where no. Yeah, the land to go on the code that I think that was really strange. I mean, everything was chapter 11. Do you mind just searching for direction again, the way you did it before it was highlighted. Let me see the directional signs number 16. I saw another set it looked like another section that said businesses or residences were allowed a directional sign and it looked like it was allowed to be four four square feet and it looked like so there was yes, different information or conflicting conflicting information. Okay, let's just double check here. So it is showing up. I'll go to results here. No, it's too many results to really to really see. But under exemptions, I think we there is no number 16. Wait, go back up, go back up to where those highlighted sections were there. So directional signs. So this sign may not exceed four square feet. Okay. But in the previous section, it was defined as two square feet. Right. And this, okay, this is worth checking. I will this might have been something we added back this to me. This looks like language from the the existing LDC. Yeah, I didn't I mean, I just noticed it when you're scrolling, I didn't even pick up on it earlier reading. So okay, good catch. Section 714C. Okay, yeah, I'll double check that that we might have brought this over before. Because we didn't see it. And then I think I think this might and maybe the yeah, maybe the difference is that this is an off premise directional sign. Right. And maybe the other one was specific to on the property. Right. Any thoughts on this two versus four square feet difference? Well, two square feet isn't a whole heck of a lot. Especially if you're like tell people which way to go. Yeah, it's I can default to four when if it turns out that these are conflicting. Well, and since it says it may not exceed four square feet. It could be smaller. Yeah. Okay. Because there are certainly places that need directional signs were this way in this way out. That's her thing. Any other questions about definitions? Then the next thing I I cleaned up was a section 502H. This is a development review procedures. This is approval procedures for for everything that needs approval. And then there's previously the entire sign approval procedure was outlined there. But now it's in the main sign section, which I think is actually kind of easier to use. So I just refer to it. But the appeal procedure remains the same. I kept that there. The third item, this was just a few like there were some technical fixes. I changed every mention of the word article to a chapter section. There's a one year permit expiration that's that I put back in. Yeah, nothing controversial there, I think. And then number four flags, there was there were some differences in how the Burlington rules dealt with allowing for flags. Previously, the Essex Junction rules said that kind of specified what content to flags could have. So that's that's not it anymore. But I think one point of difference here is that for commercial properties, the number of flagpoles you can have is based on how wide how long your property is. Well, I noticed that in the R1 and R2, it said you're allowed to have one flagpole. But anywhere else, you could have up to six. Yeah. Based on based on how wide your property is. So if you have a very long, if you have a lot of frontage, then yeah, you have a lot of potential for lots of flags. Yes. So and that seemed to be the only differential. So why why have only one in the R1 and R2? Well, in the R, if you if you go like, so if you set it to only allow for a flag, if you're over a certain size and no, but then then a lot of small lots would not have the opportunity to have a flag if they really wanted one. I I'm not totally sure if this is the right call. This was just copied over. I'm just I'm just curious because I mean, you know, some people might want to have two flagpoles. What if like if they want a U.S. flag and a state flag or whatever. Or I know that people have flags that are might have seasonal greetings all of them off their porches and whatnot. But so that's the reason I'm asking is that there's some diehards that indeed enjoy flying flags. I mean, you can you can fly two flags on one flagpole. Yeah, people do that. Yeah, they do that too. So I mean, it's I just I just want to understand that's all. What about a flag that's nailed to a garage or two flags that are nailed to a garage, which I've seen that was out banner instead. I don't know. I'm asking, is that a sign or is that a is that a banner or is it a flag? Well, if I think if it's not attached to a pole and we're being content neutral, and that I think that's that's a banner. Yeah, I would agree. But right now this as it's written, you can have up to two flags in the R1 and R2 district, which may or may not be attached to one freestanding pole per lot. Each flag, maybe up to 15 square feet in area, no single dimension exceeding five feet. And you have to be outside of setbacks. I think I mean, I think it's fine by me. Makes sense. I just want to understand. I think it was just copied from Burlington. But just because we're acquiring something from Burlington doesn't mean we shouldn't understand why we're actually acquiring it from Burlington. You know, does it make sense here? I don't know. Sometimes some things from Burlington don't make any sense here. No, I agree. Yeah. I was more saying that we copied it and did not discuss it at all. Not that I remember. Yeah. Okay. So if we're all if you're okay with that, then the next thing I changed was something part about neon signs and adding a permit requirement for neon window signs. So other window signs don't require a permit, a sign permit, but neon signs would and that would just allow us to be a little bit more careful with making sure that they're under the 20 I think it's 20% coverage limits. So the the one commercial business that has a neon sign and just about every window they have is perfectly fine because they are within the size limit for the windows. Correct. Okay. As it's written right now, that is, yeah, that was actually one of the examples that would put up. Yeah. Well, that's why that's why I'm asking and the fact that it's not in the VC district or neon is allowed in the VC district but not in others, but it appears to have neon it's not in the VC district yet. Right. Right. So and that I'm reading the room last time it sounded like the planning commission members here that made it seem like it was that the general direction of window coverage and whether or not you can have neon signs outside of the the Village Center district remain the same as what's what the LDC currently says. So that has not been touched but always up for I realized that we're attempting to migrate the VC district down Pearl Street. So I mean, it may indeed encompass that. Are we? I don't think we are. Are we where we move downtown it was neighborhood district? What was going down? Oh, yeah, the NDA. Yeah, but that's separate from that separate. Yeah. And I think last time we did we did mention that like, I don't think as the as those areas get denser, we would we wouldn't want illuminated window signs shining into other properties. So street facing seems to make sense. But I don't think I don't think there was any there wasn't any edits of those of that sort yet. Right. There wasn't any sort of is that is that in there at all about street facing for illuminated illuminated window signs? No, it's still just percentage percentage of window covering. So which I think is fine for now. Thank you. I'm not saying we need to do that. That was just part of the discussion as well. Right. Yeah, I remember reading something about street facing. We discussed that. But yeah, there's I didn't intentionally put in anything about about street facing versus not street facing. I think outside of the village center district. We'll get there. Here, window signs. I think this is it. So right neon window signs shall we shall require approval approval through a sign permit. Um, BC district remains the same one sign unless you're on a corner lot, then you can have two. Okay, any I'm just wondering if it would make sense at this point time since this will be approved and become as the LDC in action, would it make sense to include that it should be street facing? And then it's already there. Should be street. The neon signs, you know, I would think that you'd want to have the, you know, let people know that you're open toward the street. So what if you were so what if what if you were a business that has a parking lot at the back? Oh, good point. Yeah. Yeah, I think I think what we're trying to do is we're trying to eliminate a light shining into someone's property. Like that, like that's what we're trying to address is like a light that's a nuisance essentially shining into a property. So how do we how would we Well, do you have an example in mind of that? After being being a problem in in like in this jurisdiction or somewhere else, because it seems usually neon signs, unless they're really big, aren't nearly as bright as just a regular non-compliant porch light. Yeah, I don't think we do, but I would assume it's more of an issue as the denser you get. And if the intention is to move denser, that's why I'm saying I don't know if it's something to address now, or as we get denser, I'm just saying it would it can see it being an issue. Because the other part, the reason I also bring it up is that somewhere in here I read that whatever was out of compliance now would be grandfathered. So if something was out of compliance, and we grandfathered it, then we're basically stuck with it. Until somebody replaces it. So if it is out of compliance with the existing LDC right now, then then it's still out. If it is legal right now, but then the land development code has changed so that it is illegal, then that's grandfathered. So my only concern with that, I can I can see the rationale behind trying to avoid a nuisance. I do think the wording would need to be done really carefully so that you don't have you aren't accidentally prohibiting something that's like clearly necessary for the business, but it's not significantly impacting people around. Yeah, I mean, I could see doing it as you know, we did the time frame for the string, like a time domain for the string lights. Yeah. I could see it being like that. So for any any illuminated window signs that are not facing the street, they have to be off by a certain time. I don't I don't know. It's not like it's like a problem for trying to find a solution for a problem we don't have right now. Time to business hours. Yeah, it could be. It's just even then like if it's a rule that is difficult to enforce. Right. It's and we don't know if this problem exists. I'm not sure it's worth having to put that in right now. I mean, it's there there are limits on how bright the these illuminated signs can be. And they, you know, as somebody who lives in downtown Burlington, where there where there are some signs and they are there are left even when you live, when there are residential areas near there, I don't find them to be very, very much of a nuisance. But open to suggestions. I this can also be something that you put on the back burner and just if it becomes a problem, you can try to fix it. But of course, with that approach, that that business may be grandfathered, you know, once you have a problem, but it's not a huge, I mean, I feel like even if it's a nuisance, it's not the biggest nuisance in the world. Bigger problems here, I think. Sure. Yeah. Okay, so multiple freestanding signs on large slots. That's that's another thing that that was discussed last time. I added. Okay, so right. So basically, I put back that the allowance that we currently have in the LDC, it just seemed to make sense for the two larger strip mall properties that we have. In fact, for the second sign, I increased the allowable size just a little bit with the hopes that all those temporary janky looking signs could encourage those to be brought into compliance. Any issues with that? More key signs. Oh, yeah, that this is something I thought up afterwards. Yeah. So anything within the design review overlay district would have to be reviewed by the development review board seemed to me like a design issue. So yeah, sandwich boards. So we were trying to figure out solution to the fact that sandwich boards are everywhere but are almost always outside of the 15 foot distance. There's also the provision that said that they are only allowed during the business hours from the discussion last month that that provision was kept. There were some suggestions that we moved towards what South Burlington is considering for the 15 foot requirement. They just say within a reasonable distance. I thought, well, if we say either 15 feet from the front door of the business or from a vehicle entrance or pedestrian entrance to that property, I think we covered what we need. There is also a requirement that each that is sandwich board not be placed within I think 15 feet of it under sandwich or something like that. Yeah, something like that. Yeah. So this one is definitely sandwich boards are an enforcement. Yeah, it takes enforcement effort. But we do occasionally and we have occasionally been out there at least sending out letters to people who are non-compliance. I used to work in South Burlington. And yes, I had one of those sandwich boards out. And yes, it probably was within it was out of the free because being in the mall, you couldn't exactly see the things. So it would be out there. 15 feet from entrance and whatnot. It's probably better than where they're placed now. So I would go with it. I think it's doable. The big catches within business hours, I think for a lot of places. Right. It's your example of the BFW, which courses out there 24 seven. You know, it doesn't. I mean, the version that sign gets changed, but the sign itself seems to be permanently located there. Right. Yeah, I think we should definitely talk about that. I don't think that is a sandwich board. That's another kind of thing. But that's something that might deserve some attention. I think everything here though, in terms of enforcement, I think rules should be written so that if my department goes out and enforces hard, which we could do, usually we don't do because they're a higher priorities or because of political reasons. But we could. And if we do, you should make sure these rules are written so that you wouldn't be sad if we go and tell a small business that they have to do something differently. Yeah. No, I like the addition of the pedestrian or entryway to the property that makes sense that I don't think we discussed last month. And I do maintain that I like the removed outside of business hours, which is Yeah, because I can think of like the one like post office square and whatnot. We have the hallmark store always has a sandwich. Yeah. I mean, it just lends itself to a little bit of a cleaner sidewalk, a cleaner viewscape, streetscape, if you will. And then if you get a freak storm like we just had with some high winds, it potentially prevents some of those from getting blown all over the place and then never picked up or whatever it might be. And I also agree with the enforcement thing that you just said, Chris. The priorities aren't always there, but it'd be nice to just have it there. So you'd have some strength if you needed it. Right. Okay. Next item, walls, wall sign size limits. This is something we talked about last time. And what I heard was that there should be a difference between signs that are set back behind a parking lot versus signs that are up towards the street. So this draft is pretty generous still, but it says if the sign is within 50 linear feet of the nearest public road, then the sign size limits is 80 square feet. For reference, the big lot sign, the sign that says big lots is, I think, around 120. So, you know, this would make it a little more reasonable, but it's not, it's not being, it's not, I don't think this would be by any stretch overly restrictive. In fact, when new ski has much smaller limits, I think there are more than 40 or something like that. Okay. Oh yeah. And I haven't done that. I haven't updated the photos yet. I will do that before final copy. So yeah, here we go. This is, I think, something that's the VFW sign. I think that's the only situation where we have a property that does not have direct street frontage, but they like to have a sign that's out there. And it's a non-profit's veterans organization. I mean, we haven't been mailing them anything, but they also have two flags, by the way. Truth. They do have two flags. Right. Actually, at least the flags, they might have more depending on the day. Sorry. I guess my question is, is that I'm not sure how the, how the mall there is configured is, is the Northfield and VFW separate properties? Separate properties. Okay. Versus the mall itself. Yeah. So these are the, these are the properties. These, these are the, these are the parcels. These are the lots. So would playing devil's advocate here. So, you know, Northfield may have gotten, you know, the signs in the building plus the standing sign there, but do they have, do they have a permit? Can, can another business allow another business to sign on their property? Well, they can certainly sell them space on their own sign. So if they wanted to make the Northfield savings bank sign half as big and then dedicate half of it to the VFW and either give it to them for free or charge of money, it would be in their legal rights to do that. But short of that, I mean, I don't, I don't know if they have a handshake agreement or anything with anybody or it should be also noted that that the land, the property is owned by Gabe Handy along with the whole mall. So it might have just been an agreement with him. But regardless of agreements, I mean, I think if they had, if the businesses that were involved had agreed, what should be allowed from the municipal rule? My, yeah, so my question was the way our sandwich board rule is written now intended to be written. Would a sandwich board be allowed there because it would be 15, I'm assuming that's the vehicular and pedestrian access to that property? Yeah, it's true. It wouldn't be allowed. I mean, it's on, it's on the, it's on the other lot. So I'm assuming they would have to get permission to put something on their lot, but a sandwich board would be allowed there for that business. That's a good point. I think, I think as it's written that, that might actually work. So this would exceed the, yeah, that's not a sandwich board clearly was there. That could be a viable solution, but they would have to take it in, which I mean, I don't, that's a lot of work. You know those little dolly things they work wonders. That's what I used. So I mean, they can have, so, but what kind of a sign is this? If this is a sandwich, then what is it? I think this is just, this is a, the closest thing this would be is a freestanding sign with changeable letters and that you could, you could probably permit this if you made it a little bit nicer. If the, if the Northfield savings back did exist, you could, you could probably have something similar. Well, the only thing that I was looking now, I can't find it. There's, whoops, here it is. Under section G, discontinuance and removal, any sign advertising and activity, business, service or product must be removed. So I had kind of a question on that because this seems to be advertising and activity or service or a product, to a certain extent. But the question I had is whether or not business should be included in there. This is a separate item, but did you find it? Yeah, it's right here. I think, right? So this is, so this side, their sign is advertising on a service and a business, an activity because they're advertising to fish fry. Right. So does that mean when the fish fries or the letters for the fish fry need to come down? Well, I think the question is, what does this mean? I think the, the intention, this was, it was more for businesses that closed down. So like the dominoes building should not have a dominoes still on it. But the way I read it is that you can't have a sign outside your business that says, for example, we're having a fish fry because that's a sign that's advertising and activity. It's, it's, it's a little bit confusing to me whether or not, maybe I'm just misreading. No, well, it says you could sign advertising within 60 days of the activity. So must be removed within 60 days of the activity. So if they were having the fish fry on August 6th and they still have things on there to about August 20th, it wouldn't be, it wouldn't be until December that it would need to come down because the activity, well the activity is a little old at that point. But if they were, you know, fish fry on a regular basis, they just need to change the dates is to keep it current. So under this they could do it. They could do it. But they don't comply with recent, well, it's also how you define activity because the fish fry sounds like an event. Right. And an activity could be like, we're fixing cars here for like, we're like, that's well, the activity could be a sporting event where we're changing oil for 10 days here, 30 days. I don't know. That's, yeah, it's, it's definitely a little big. But I think the crux of this issue is that that's the Northfield property. And under the rules, they would not be able to permit both of these. Right. That's the issue. But if they had a sandwich board closer to the entrance, it would be allowable. Well, the sandwich board couldn't be within a certain distance of the Northfield side. More than likely the sandwich board could go across the driveway. On the other side. On the other side. Where the other crosswalk is and probably go over there. I think there's already something there. Well, there's a lot of things over there. I'm sorry. And that wasn't at last month's meeting. So I'm playing catch up on these specifics. But when we're looking at the definitions of the signs that we've absorbed from Burlington, is there something prohibiting because the Northfield sign is a monument sign in my reading. Right. And this would be a freestanding sign. Each description specifies you can have one. Is there something saying you can't have one of each? Unless, unless it's, I don't remember them saying that. Because they're all talking, they're talking about like, they're, when they're talking about the number that you can have in the descriptions they're talking about, you can have X number of this type of sign. I'm trying to see if there's something that says like, I don't actually think, but I don't actually think this is, this would be considered a monument sign. Oh, I'm sorry. I thought it was continuous. Yeah, I agree. But I guess, right, theoretically, that could be a kind of sneaky way to get around it. They made a monument sign. But is that DFW sign on Northfield's property or is it in the right away? Um, hard to tell. Because if they put it on the other, if they put a sandwich board in the other side of the light pole there. Yeah. Another creative solution would just be to help DFW get a silence and compliance. Like either we help them Northfield Savings Bank get theirs into a monument. Suggesting there could be some ways to do it. But if you look at also on the other opposite side, the other corner of the entranceway there, the sign, the freestanding sign or the strip mall there, I mean, what if, could we approach handy and DFW and say, Hey, can we jack that up a little bit and allow the DFW to advertise right on that freestanding side? Just on the other opposite corner of the entranceway, but it's still actually that could be right. That that could be a viable solution now that the size limits have gone up a little bit for the second, the second freestanding side for these larger properties. So yeah. And knowing that it's a veteran's nonprofit, it would there be a way that it could be assisted as well? It's not whenever we're trying to take it down. We're just trying to assist them getting me into compliance. That's the whole point. I mean, the other part is, is that it's talk about permanent signs, I mean, in the same property, there is a permanent real estate sign out. And yes, sometimes there's business that's being some right now. There's no businesses space empty, but the sign is still out there. So it seems to be somewhat of a permanent closing for that. With this DFW one, I would say it doesn't bother me. Again, coming down to the idea of enforcement and the amount of time that the city has to put towards this sort of stuff. If it's, there are no complaints, then we let it ride for a while. And if it does become an issue, then we can begin to work with them to get into compliance. Right. Yeah, I think as long as there is a viable pathway towards compliance, I mean, that I think that's, that's what the planning commission should make at this point. I think we've established three pathways. That's sounds good. I mean, I can just see to the people across the street going, you let them have that, but you didn't let me cut wall there. They're competing across the street. They're competing across the street, you know, two different grass strips. I don't blame them for putting there. I understand why they're there. It's just that we're trying to get them in compliance. So that's all I've got for sign regulations. I think at this point, things should be in pretty good shape. Is there anything else that's No, no, I'm signed out. Actually, me too. Okay. The next item I have here is just an update on the electric vehicle charging requirements. Yeah, at this point, I don't think it would be it would be a good idea to to move forward with the trying to do municipal regulations. We can that can be revisited when South Burlington figures theirs out. And also we can see how well this kind of this the softer approach works. I mean, and when I was reading this, of course, being on the planning commission, when we were giving applicants guidance, we were usually saying that that they needed to follow the state rags, which, of course, I think encourages but doesn't compel. Nope. Now they change now. Now they compelled it. Yes. So at the point I was on there, it was it was encouraging them to comply versus now it's more stick than current. So I don't see why the DRB couldn't continue to say, you know, you need to follow state you know, requests and appliances, which would keep us in compliance with that. Would it not? I think it can be mentioned that like that you should follow the state. But yes, but the VLCT's lawyer was saying that they don't think there's a parent authority to condition permits on on a state requirements when you're a municipal board. I was I was a little confused by the statement here that the be issuance by a municipality of a certificate of occupancy for residential construction, because we do we do issue certificates of occupancy, right? Yep. And we do ask for a certificate of compliance with the with the residential and commercial building efficiency standards. But that's it's the self certified. Yeah. Yeah. Exactly. Yeah. Yeah. Essentially, we don't have the teeth to enforce it. The state has to enforce it, but we're at least collecting the certification, the self certification from the developer that they that they did this. Yeah. Well, and, and strangely enough, even the state, at least they don't have they don't have procedures to enforce it right now. It says in statute that's enforcement is through the next person who buys that property and then finds that it was not compliant. And even though their certificate said it was, then they can sue them back for the money it takes to retrofit into compliance. Well, we're at least at least by requiring that we get that certification, we're essentially protecting the future buyer from fraud. Because that would if they self certified something that wasn't true, that would be fraud. Yes. And as a part of the development review process, I mean, I'm always happy to ask about the the the location and placement of anything on a site as a part of the site plan. So the way for the last few applications that have come through, I pointed out that the CBES has some electric vehicle charging requirements. Where are you planning to put the electric vehicle chargers? And then so far, they've been like, Oh, yeah, need to or whatever. Yeah. Yeah, I think reminding them that this is now going to be required as of July 1. In theory, if they're like, we don't want to do it, it's not if we can do it, but I don't think that happens. So the next question about charging stations is that do we do we or does the state put up a sign that says, you know, please allow cars that need to be charged to park here? Because then we have a car that likes the park on the other side of the fire department, which is our only charging station. And this gentleman likes to park his truck there on a regular basis, which allows doesn't allow anybody with a charging vehicle to go and charge because he's parked there. Right. So there is a sign there that says electric vehicle charging charge. I don't know if it says electric vehicle only the the CBS and RBS have some verbiage in there to say that you're supposed to have a sign that says no parking other than electric vehicles. So in terms of, yeah, I'm not I'm not sure there's anything that I'm asking is the city in compliance with the signage that's required because there's someone who's obviously oblivious to the fact that they're there and I guess propelled vehicle and it's electric charging station. I need to remind her being a good good tag and Samaritan. So so I can check on that. It wouldn't be a compliance issue, but it might be something that because we that if it's associated with the the CBS and RBS, there's nothing that the city is doing at this point that requires a new certificate. Although actually in theory, maybe the the Lincoln Hall renovations might trigger that. But I can look into that sign that wouldn't be too hard if it was a it was a matter of changing a sign it might be a little more difficult to actually go out there and take it again. Well, I think I think it's a matter of talking at the correct department. Right. But other than that. So sorry, Chris, back to your example. If a developer said, oh, no, we're not we don't want to do that. Then they would still have to provide a self certification correct of that in order like when they when they get the COA. Right. Yeah. Okay. So in other words, if they didn't do it, they'd be lying before. Yeah. Right. You can give them an angry glare. Yeah, we'd be like, you know, your finger we know you're doing the fraudiness, but we can do anything about it. And the state has no mechanism yet. Okay. I think more likely, if there was any pushback, it would be there and they would say their interpret their interpretation of the RVES or the CVS is that it's not necessary or something like that. I can imagine that. Sure. That makes sense. Yeah. This is what it's we're not right. Right. Okay. Any other questions or discussion about EV judging? Okay, so this is no other than I'm disappointed. We can go over to Seth early to tell me get there. We can certainly revisit this based on how, how it's actually going with the new developments that are coming up. If they're doing basically. Okay. So the next issue is something that came up with an actual permit application. So food trucks and trailers. So far right now, they're supposed to only operate for little just under six months to qualify as a, I think it's a temporary, a temporary structure, a temporary use in a temporary structure. So this has been, I'd say not, I think the previous administration has not been very strict with this, especially throughout COVID. And there have been several businesses that across the streets that have started up and actually, you know, been successful. So yeah, I guess the first question is, does it make sense to allow for food trucks and trailers to operate for longer than six months at a time? Well, you gave the example of Nomad. It's no Cuban sandwich shop, essentially. And those people have invested in that property. So if they had to relocate after six months, that would be a major financial burden for them. That is actually exactly the reason I brought this up. They were, they were the applicants. That's that. Well, I don't know if I have a solution for you right now, but this can be discussed. Yeah, I had a long conversation with them as well. Not about this, but about their business. But it seems to make sense to have, if we wanted to essentially have a temporary structure food permit that they have to apply or renew every six months, minus a day, that that would essentially be driving them into compliance with whatever other regulations have to be going on at the same time. So if the purpose is to have them operating in compliance, that would drive it to be in compliance. You know, if it doesn't, if it degrades, let's say that Nomad thing would degrade and it wasn't in compliance anymore due to habitation or something, then it would be in jeopardy. You know, I think of the sausage guy around the corner for me. Okay, he's there and he's not there. I mean, as he moves from event to event. And, you know, he's not tied down, but allows his business to move to where the activity is. So they theoretically, I guess, could unhook things and do the same thing if they wanted. But if the, if the compliance permit is that they're complying the standards, then that's, I think that's the tenor of what we're trying to get at is to have people in compliance. Is this in the memo, sorry, written, is this what's currently in the LDC or is this amendment or is this like potential change? Oh, there were supposed to be colors here. So this includes, this includes potential changes. I actually had, I meant to have, there were track changes on for just the parts I added, but it didn't show up in the PDF. Because this, this all seems to make sense to me. Like this, this seems right. Like you can get consecutive renewals as long as nothing falls out of compliance. Yeah, right. So yeah, a lot of problems. Because I was assuming that's their, their argument is that we only get six months. It's not really, and who knows if we can get extensions. It's not really investment friendly for a business. Right. So yeah. Yeah. And it is, it's an approach that is supported by other members of the Development Technical Review Committee. So one option that, that I thought of was just permitting something like that as a permanent structure. Because like they could apply for a site plan, just a typical regular site plan, but according to our regs, they would have to hook into sewer. So I was like, well, why don't we, we could make an exception for that and be, and maybe food trucks could just be exempted as long as they comply with sewer treatment, something or other. But the city engineer and, and the, and also Chelsea Mandigo, the water quality superintendent both thought that it didn't, that didn't make as much sense as just having them renew continuously. So I think, I think that makes sense. Yeah, I think the renewal makes sense. So just out of curiosity, so that temporary structure, they have gray water and they have obviously food waste. Is that all self-contained? That is self-contained. They have to take that off site. And under, under the LDC, they are not allowed to dump that down the toilets. They have to bring it like straight to the, the treatment plants and, and pay a fee. Okay. Like same as, you know, septic tank. And the food truck went off. So I have their own can get their own waste. They have their own container. Yeah. Yeah. All good. All right. Yeah. I think just the general premise that you include in the memo of like similar to sandwich boards, but just like given the encouragement that we as a community are trying to put towards small local businesses, the example of Nomad of being able to start in a space like that move into a broken water structure. Like that's exactly the type of dynamic that we're hoping to facilitate and encourage in this community. So, yeah, the whole, every, the fact that the track changes were not, it was kind of not, I think it reads well. Excellent. Yeah. And I have, I do have that version on now that does show that the track changes. They have really good fun. They're the new one. Yeah. I haven't tried it yet. I haven't tried their human sandwich, but I hear it's very good. It's the best one I've gotten. Yeah. I had their, I had their tacos, but I didn't try this much. Okay. So the next item here is a kind of a technical tweak that came up during the development review process site plan reviews. And that is kind of a, that is the allowance for tandem parking spaces. So tandem parking already exists for single families all the time with the driveway. We just never, it's just rarely allowed in multi, kind of multi-family buildings, but that is starting to change with other municipalities just especially when you're trying to encourage the development of like two or three bedroom apartments and cars. They tend to have more than one car, but this is a kind of creative, cheaper way to, to squeeze that in some, some weird layouts sometimes. Any? My, yeah. My question was for section D there, tandem spaces must be assigned to the same dwelling unit. Any thought on how this might play out considering we only require one spot per dwelling unit now? Well, it is for the whole, we say that's an arbitrary one, one space per dwelling unit for the entire development, but it could be that there are some, some of the units are two bedrooms and some of the units are studios. And let's say the average studio has half a car. Okay. Yeah. So it would allow them to be creative with their space making. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. That makes sense to me then. Yeah. And the reality is most developers are going above one space per dwelling unit still. Just based on market demands, 17 park, for example, that is something that's, that's going to see the final site plan review in two weeks. They have, they have more than one, even though they're having to build underground structured parking. And that's expensive. They're still doing it. Where's 17 part? Domino's building, which shouldn't have a domino side. I couldn't do the side rates. I was wondering when that was going to get developed. I was wondering when the building was going to be brought down. Are the dimensions, is that like a standard? Is that some sort of This is 9 by 34. So nine. Yeah. So that's just double, double of regular parking space that we regulate. But this is a, the wording here was copied directly from Willis. Yeah. 34 just seems long, but I know parking spots in general tend to be pretty big. Yeah. And it's encoding. Well, it depends on the vehicle. I mean, you could, if you had a travel camper or these micro buses or whatever, you could get into 34. Oh, what is a truck? It's an American day. Oh my God. Trucks. Okay. I mean, sub trucks. Right. I know. No, I'm just saying if the intention is, is for developers to be creative, they, if you made it a little bit smaller, and then they're able to fit a couple more spots, they're like, well, we can cater to the eco-friendly vehicles, but not into, in these tandem spaces, but not, not to F-150s. I can double check it. Yeah. I don't know. I just, Burlington is also at this length. Maybe, well, if there's, if there are other jurisdictions that have a shorter standard, we can go with it. Yeah. My property in Burlington, and there's this, there's technically, it's technically two parking spots. And I've always had three tenants and they've always fit three cars in the two parking spots. So that's that's why I'm always like the parking spots always seem really big as defined. Well, unless you had F-150 or 250. I have the tandem, it's tandem. Those are tandem parking spots in my property. Okay. PUDs. This is something we mentioned at the very beginning of what opened up the whole, whole discussion about LDC amendments. So plan unit developments is a way to get around dimensional startups. If you're trying to be creative and like, one, some would argue that PUDs are only necessary if you don't have good zoning regulations. If your setbacks are too restrictive, because this is, this, this is a little bit subjective, but this, this avenue exists for a reason because a lot of municipalities had very restrictive zoning. In fact, we, we have somebody right now, I think 132 Pearl, who is applying by through, through this use of a PUD application. Same with Robin Way. That's the, the development with six houses in a kind of narrow lot that's, that's off Mabel street. That was a PUD. So the PUD rules right now are written so that the intention is that you go, you have to go above and beyond to kind of qualify to bend the rules for, for setbacks and other dimensional standards. But they're also written with detached houses in mind. The biggest issue here that makes it difficult to apply to multifamily, multi-story buildings is the, the private outdoor space requirements. And it was saying it was like 700 square feet or something. Yeah, 750. 700. Yeah. That's like bigger than my fucking. Well, expecting a spot about this size behind somebody, in other words, you can put your picnic table up or whatever and have it space to do it. If you have only 40 square feet, I don't even know if you could put a hibachi on the, on the balcony. I can't get away with it with firecats, but, but at least to be able to put a couple of chairs out there. I mean, and that's that, that was, I think the rationale was that has people have a small yard that was their own. That's why it was 750 feet. Right. But so this is something that I, this is wording I came up with. And you might want to look on the screen for this one, if you don't have the track changes version because red indicates what I made up. And this is certainly, we never, the commission did not discuss this in detail. So especially these dimensions, I was thinking that it would be nice, it would be useful to have as an alternative to outdoor kind of yard space, private yard space to just allow and encourage balconies for multi-story buildings. And I looked up the average, the average size of a balcony. There are smaller balconies out there for, and there are bigger ones. I thought 40 seemed like a middle ground. And that's, that's what, that's why I went with that. And I said that for the ground floor units, they should just actually have a little bit of private space. But I didn't make it very big because when you have a multi-story, multi-family building, you might as well be dedicating more space for common use rather than right keeping it. Yeah. Just what about just like a common green? Or is there something? Yeah. Yeah. My thought on this is we definitely should adjust this to not restrict multi-story buildings because that's a shame that it's written that way right now. But I'm not sure a deck or balcony is the way we want to go either. I don't think we just want to then just restrict a developer into building, having to build balconies for every single unit. Yeah. And I'm not sure that's what we want for the junction either, like a multi-story building with balconies for every unit. I mean, it could be nice, but we could, I'm thinking of, like what you're saying, like a common space being the whole point of a PUD is to be really creative like rooftop decks for like, you know, for residents. If you're going multi-story, I don't know, but just being a bit more creative with that. So there's already a requirement for common open space. I didn't include the entire thing over here. That's what the dots down here. Yeah. The PUDs always said that there needed to be both common and private open space. Now, I don't know of what I've observed from other cities as a result of regulation or just market forces, but if you go just north of here to Montreal, almost, like, I would say more than 50% of the units there have balconies. And I mean, personally, I think it's pretty nice. I've lived on the fifth floor with balcony before and eaten outside on many nice days. But that's also very subjective. So I'm happy to hear everyone's thoughts. Oh, there's a building across the way here that has balconies or they appear to be balconies. I think this building here also has balconies in some spots. But yes, the PUD I thought was supposed to be creative. And that by saying shall, you really have restricted it because there are some places that perhaps a common space might be more lucrative for the tenants and the owner than having private balconies. So it's a matter of I keep hearing John say, okay, we need to have the the best idea presented. So how are we going to get the best presented? We've already said, you will have balcony, you will have DAX. We're not allowing any creativity to occur because I'm already prescribed it. So I guess that's I mean, I'm going to win on the side of balcony is just hypothetically, because I agree, I have lived in places in much denser urban settings and have really personally felt the benefit of even a small outdoor space that is connected, both for being able to be physically outside, even though you're still in your large building, but in your personal space, but then also to thinking about like, how people use that for, say, dry and close in a way that they might not be using a common space in the same way, or it might create tensions if we're all trying to just so I think I appreciate you pointing out that there is the already the 15% common space. And I think that that really is there's a lot of creativity there. I guess personally, I was like, I was like, yeah, balconies, like, do we need the ground floor to have the 100 square feet piece? You know, could we make it, could it be what is it, 40 square feet for all units? And then have the common space speed with the real focus of where we want people to be created. And I just to be clear, I'm not saying we necessarily need to eliminate the the option of doing balconies, but also providing maybe alternatives that allow for creativity. I mean, I could see coming up with something that some sort of like maybe the developer comes up with a creative alternative that allows for a common some sort of common space that is the is equal to the like the whatever 40 square feet per unit is like, here's our here's our alternative from doing balconies we've provided 20 we've provided percent 400 square feet of something. So would that be in addition to what's already required to 15% requirements under C? Because I would I would think every developer if I would say that, oh, we're already providing fantastic common open space. Skip, we're gonna we want to skip the balconies. Um, I'm just I'm trying to think about what I consider be, you know, the um, an example is when I went to London to visit my daughter last year, we stayed in an apartment complex and our Airbnb that had a balcony and they had a common space. And it was nice every morning to go out and have my coffee on the balcony and look at the skyline in London. And it was nice to know that there was a place down there where you could congregate with people, have a drink or have an event. That's very nice. But when I think about like building across the street, also a PUD doesn't have to be like an HOA or something doesn't have to have some kind of management group within it, like a condo association. When I think of, again, common space, I think about a pond. I don't think of McGillicotties. And if you're asking McGillicotties developer to put a balcony in every unit, that's going to be a significant cost to the developer. Well, trying to think about what constitutes a PUD. It's very different. If you're talking about autumn poverty, you're talking about building in the village center. Yeah, it's very different. So And do we define that as a PUD? No. So a PUD is something you only need to go to if zoning really doesn't work for you. In fact, we don't want to see that many PUDs because that kind of shows our zoning is broken. Well, you can get density bonuses, right? And now there's all these new density bonuses. There's one density bonus there that can be available. But the main thing is kind of going against dimensional standards. Setbacks is one of the requirements that you could skip if you go with a PUD. So it doesn't need to be good enough. It doesn't need to be useful for everybody. But I think it should be written so that it is for these edge cases where the current setback rules or whatnot are too restrictive, there's a way around it. I can imagine one way out of this debate is to reduce the requirements for if you're going to do balconies, not 100% of the units needed. We could save 50% of them or something. And then, yeah, maybe that might make it easier and still squeeze out some benefits. Is the current example the desired bonus is the setback bonus? Yeah. And the issue is that it's restricted because not every unit can have open space because it's a multi-story. Yes, that's right. Yeah. I can see that in some of the buildings that are here in downtown that because they've put parking on the ground floor, you wouldn't have to be able to have a residential unit on the ground floor. So they wouldn't be able to get the 100 square feet. It wouldn't be possible because of the layout of the building. Yeah. So... Well, maybe that's the first thing we should deal with. Does that not make sense? Because if it doesn't make sense, I can just take that out. Well, what I'm saying is that in some cases, some of these buildings here right now don't have ground floors. They have first floors. They don't have ground floors. Ground floor is either an A in office that manages the building or it's parking garage or it's businesses. So having a 100 square feet of air... No, but that would be for residential. So in your case... Right. There's the residential. It doesn't apply. It doesn't apply. Right. I mean, is it conflicting the 750 and 100 right now? I try to make it not. So it's basically... I kept the 750 because nobody told me to take it out. But it's saying that if you are basically trying to build just rearranged single-family houses in a weird shape, yeah, you got to do 750 because that's what the land development code has always said. Does that make sense? I don't know. But I made a car bound so that... It only applies to multi-unit. Right. No, I mean, I like this the way it's written. I think having you're on the second, third floor of a unit having your own private space and I think it allows itself for creativity because it says include private outdoor space such as a deck balcony or similar something. So I think it allows the creativity to be there. I don't want it to default to or defer to common space. So then what are you doing? Making a rooftop deck with 40 square foot squares and says here's your private space. That doesn't also... That doesn't seem necessarily fair to me. I like the way it's written. I'll look to you for direction. If the commission likes the way it's written, it's fine. It's fine. I think we talked about... Yeah, we can always... This can always be tried. It is possible once if this passes, it may be reviewed during the transit-oriented development study because they're doing a review of all zoning ranks that affect that corridor. Okay. Oh, a few other changes with state statutes. That was kind of a mistake. Multi-family three. I always assume that the density limits there would be much higher. But right now it says you're limited to three per lot and state statute says you have to allow four. So that's just be changed. Certain uses, hospitals, emergency shelters, they say the municipalities cannot regulate other than for certain instances like... Well, as you know, you can only regulate for dimensions or something. It has to be a permitted use everywhere. I'll just add that in. So then the last item I have that I wanted to add on is a new thing. We're encountering it right now. And it has to do with accessory apartments. So accessory apartments were invented as a way to increase allowable densities at a time when it was mostly single-family homes that were allowed. So then, I mean, I don't know if anybody was around when that first became a thing, but they were pretty restricted. I think there was a lot of pushback even to allowing one more unit in your backyard or back of your house. So then the regulations ended up being crafted so that you have to... The person living there has to be related. That's how it started. And then it got loosened a little bit and they were like, well, the person doesn't really be related anymore, but at least either... But the main unit has to be... The main house has to be owner occupied. And then the last round of land development, total amendments, we change that as well. And we're like, not only either of the houses have to be owner occupied, it doesn't matter which one, you can live in the smaller unit at the back if you want. And this is, I think, in line with state statute now. The state statute requires that it can't be so restrictive, but it still requires... It still allows for some restrictions. But the main thing that remains kind of an issue is that based on the state's definition or a common definition of accessory apartments and accessory dwelling units, they have to be accessory to a single family house, a single family home. So state statute doesn't specifically say that you have to define it that way. It just says you cannot restrict somebody from having a separate accessory dwelling unit that's detached from your house, from your single family house. But then our land development code says that it should be... That the accessory apartment is accessory to the single family house. In this case, we've got somebody that's trying to turn this garage into an apartment upstairs. It would make some changes to the interior, make it up to code. And you wouldn't even notice it from the outside. That building's always been there. But this house, the house at the front is currently a duplex. So right now in most zoning districts, this is the R2, you are only allowed one principal structure. So we don't see a way of giving them permits unless they go through a whole PUD process, which may be something that they could explore. But yeah, I want to see if the Planning Commission thinks this makes sense right now that we're under the four-unit limit, which was the intention of the moment. And within one building, you could have built a bigger building, you could have four units in there. But then they're proposing three and we're saying no. Because they're not even trying to touch a duplex. But it's because it is two... That's right. So just for clarity in our LDC, we say an ADU only applies to a single family. Yeah, well here it is. Accessory apartments, we don't call it ADUs for some reason. We call it accessory apartments. And it says right in the purpose that it's to allow for small apartments within or pertinent to an existing single family dwelling. Oh, there's an existing single family dwellings. Some grammar issues there. That's our loophole. Yes. Yeah. So yeah, it doesn't actually say that much. I mean, it mentions single family lots under here, but we don't really have single family lots anymore because everything you're allowed of four units in every lot. But I've asked around, I've asked around other planners in the region. And there seems to be a general agreement that ADUs were meant to be a pertinent to single family homes. And that when it's a duplex, it's not a single family home. Maybe it doesn't make sense. But maybe they think the solution might be to allow for multiple buildings per lot. And that opens up a hole. If I looked at that lot, it's already got three buildings on it because you've got the house and whatever configuration it's at, it's already got an addition on it. You've got the garage with the tin roof. And then you've got the building behind, which is a three bay garage house. I actually think I might be mistaken. So I think it is actually the same lot, but I actually think it might be this larger one that they're looking to convert the upstairs into living space. But regardless, they got this, this was grandfathered for whatever reason. They were allowed to have two structures. One of them might have been a barn before. But you were always allowed to have a detached garage. Well, I could think of a building up the hill from there that had, if it hasn't been divided, it has six buildings on the property. So one of them being a set of apartment, two of them being a set of apartments. So I mean, it's in the neighborhood, literally. But it's the Morrison's old property. But it's just, at this point in time, they'd have to go through a PUD to get that pass through. Because our rules don't allow that conversion without the PUD, as I read them. But it makes sense to put housing, it makes sense to put housing there. It does. It literally does. My opinion is that there's no problem with it. And I think the relevant question to ask is that we no longer have single family lots anymore because of the state statue that allows duplexes and triplexes in any district. So I think the question, Chris, you're asking is, do we change this to be allowed in any residential or to be allowed where duplexes and triplexes exist, right? That's right. Yeah. So then I think the ultimate question is what are multiple units, I mean, multiple buildings per lot acceptable if it's under, if you're under the total number, I don't know, four total units or something. Or is it actually permissible to, does it make sense to say you can have a fourplex as per state statute in the main building and you can still have an ADU at the back and make it a vibe? Well, we still regulate the size of the ADU, right? Yeah, the size of the ADU would still have to be applied, right? Because it would be the percentage of the main building. If you want to treat that as an ADU. But the other policy approach to this would be to say that you could just, you're allowed to have multiple buildings per lot. In fact, that's what Burlington's Neighborhood Code is doing. They're allowing even in low density neighborhoods to buildings per lot. They're saying four units per building if they mean certain, you know, dimensional, if it's big enough, basically. No, I mean, that's, I guess that's kind of where I was trying to formulate it in my mind, right? An ADU, I think the intent there is to be as even statewide, a single family home with a single unit. And then you have that accessory dwelling unit aside from it. If you're now into the duplex, triplex, adding an additional unit, even if it's an ADU, like now you're adding, it's increased in density, but I like the way you put it was like that extra building and allowing multiple buildings per lot, which then would allow for them to even make the apartment larger than what the regulations are for an ADU. Right. I think I'm more beneficial. I would rather go that route and keep the ADUs for a single family. Going away from the ADU route though, eliminates the owner-occupied aspect of it. So in this situation is one of the one of the units owner-occupied? It would be, yeah. But it does offer a complication and as it stands right now, if somebody builds an ADU, they live in one of the buildings for a while and then one day they sell the property. Person who buys it wants to rent out everything. We have to basically revoke this Theo for perfectly livable space because there's no, yeah, because it's not owner-occupied. Which we've never had to do, but that's also maybe on a complaint basis. We wouldn't know. But does that make sense anyway? If the housing, if the space there exists and it's perfectly livable. It made sense before duplexes and triplexes were allowed everywhere. Although I'm just going to count on myself here and think to myself, what if you did have somebody who had a large single family home decided to build a detached ADU, move into the smaller unit so they can rent out the larger unit and then split the larger single family home into a duplex? Which is, I mean, essentially, to some extent, this question in. Right. Why would we want to potentially admit that sort of housing situation? Yeah, we would actually kick that person. Like, you can't live in your own space. Yeah, which doesn't seem very good. Well, before it used to be a prescribed means of how things were subdivided. In this case, we're taking it back instead of going forward and saying we're going to subdivide, subdivide. In this case, we're just saying it's already subdivided. Why can't we just move forward with it? I mean, if the ADU, the unit that they're proposing meets the dimensions of an ADU, you're only allowed one for property. You're not allowed two ADUs. I don't think it's okay. Well, Patrick, so what you had proposed earlier of going towards a route of allowing multiple buildings per lot, someone that has already built an ADU but then wants to not meet the owner occupied requirements or the ADU thing doesn't work anymore because they want to divide the main building into a duplex. If you then change the rules to allow multiple buildings per lot, they could just repermit that space as just another unit. If that was allowed under zoning. So, how did the building next door, which is, I believe, three or four apartments, how did that get created? Yeah, something or other, yeah. I don't have that. I don't have the history of that. I don't have a history for that either. It existed. Somehow, somebody did. Obviously, if the lots were all the same size, that was two lots, three lots that were combined. I'm just thinking in terms of like, if it is the ADU and that the property owner would need to live on the property. If they decide to vacate, they would have to then forfeit their ADU unless they come again and say, hey, could we work something out that get multiple buildings per lot, in which case they could get the additional permit. And that way, or if we go allow this with an ADU with a duplex or a triplex, but also move forward with the other idea of having multiple buildings per lot, that would give, I mean, that just gives people more options, more housing options where they could then choose to create an ADU and then in the future move off the property and allow and get the property repermitted as multiple buildings. So why does this have to be ADU? Why can't this be a PUD and create? This probably could be a PUD. It's just, we don't, PUDs are kind of for edge cases that that zoning doesn't work. But PUDs are kind of high bar in many ways that you're supposed to not hand those out easily. And it would have to meet all that criteria. Right, all that old space. And I would think with the new laws that have been put in place for ADUs and even R change in the LBC, it's probably the most cost effective way to add additional housing. So to go through all of these other permitting steps, you're creating potential future restrictions and then making it more challenging to add housing unit into the community. I'm not opposed to going the two building route. It just seems like that might be like a big piece to bite off right now. Like it seems like a big, that would be a big change. I don't know if the will is there to make that change. But changing the accessory apartment language to allow on a lot with a duplex and for a triplex seems like a bit of an easier squeeze. Because you've got I'm looking at this and there's not how much coverage is that thing really assuming it's not all that wide. And that how much of this how much of this lots already covered. It looks like it's more than half. I mean, I don't think either of those other buildings meet current code standards. Right, you couldn't build those two right now. I don't think probably not about our standards. So yeah, I think they have to I would assume they have to stay within the footprint. Right. So the garage is too close to the building next door. And I think then the back too is probably too close. Probably, you know, I don't know what's above that and I see something circular or whatever. That's a pool. Okay, there we go. So I could draft up something along the lines of allowing ADUs to be pertinent to triplexes, basically, that would probably, I mean, I would check with other experts to see if they think that wording makes sense or is an I'm a state statute. And if it does, in theory, that could be an easy way out of this situation. But I think and it might be a big bite to bite off. But if we were to imagine what zoning might look like to allow two buildings per lot, what would it like? But what would make sense? Keeping it, would you say two buildings per lot and go and go with what Burlington's doing? Whereas four, you could have up to four units per building? Or would it be like, well, let's get let's keep within the four unit limit right now. But if you have if you wanted to lay it out in a different way so that it's it's in two buildings, that's that's allowed. I would say it's it's maybe a big thing to bite off. But it actually makes it a lot more practical for some of these these properties to add more housing. I totally agree. I just think that's like, we should get city council like have a joint meeting for that. If we're going to go that route, that's like, yeah, yeah. So I mean, that's a big that's a major change to development in the city, right? So like city council should be behind it. We should understand there. And according to Fannie Mae, the portable housing deterrent, 80 years only 180 years permitted on a part when they're talking about selling a unit and financing or affordability only 180 years permitted on a parcel for primary dwelling unit, 80 years are not permitted with two to four unit dwellings. So it doesn't work. So according to Fannie Mae, they wouldn't that wouldn't that wouldn't work as an 80 year. Maybe the only solution. Yeah, I mean, I'm all forgoing the two building route. I think that makes sense. It makes it creates more housing. Yeah, like what we want to do is just one of those things that's like, at the end of the day, I want to make more housing as accessible as possible. Yeah. And I think this is a good case study, because this is a good example of based on how the city has been built up, like we just gonna see more more this type of question. Right. But yeah, I think I think that it's definitely I agree that it's a question that council we should involve council on. And we should talk through but this is a great opportunity to right kind of dive in to now that we have these increased. I'm sure this is not the only lot that's possible has this possibility. No, I think we're going to see a lot of this. I think we're going to see a lot of of this. I mean, there's a lot of lots that are this one looks like kind of next next door, you know, the lady subdivided the property and has a right away driveway across to the back lot. So how would this be different? You know, I'm going, yeah, she's got the house in front and she's got the house back and you know, the throwaways going across. And then I see that that same configuration here except that's right now it's a garage in the carriage house. So I think either way, the city council is going to is is going to have a role in in this. In fact, it's it's ultimately city council's document. Um, the planning commission just needs to come up with recommendations and even recommendations could be like, well, there are multiple options to this. But I think it wouldn't be a waste of time to to to put together a draft of something that might be a lot to bite off if, you know, it's a conversation starter and worse because it wasn't get scaled back. So if if I think if the commission is open to it, I can I can explore some, you know, wording for something that I think it would be reasonable but but would be pushing it to allow more housing. Well, how would this be different if this was a single family home that suddenly wanted to become a triplex by adding building another section of this house? How would that be different? Still a singular building. It's still a singular building. Right. There's actually a really if this if the building was closer to the to the main building, I would have actually suggested that connected with a little roof and a little little covered walkway and call it one structure and they'd be fine. So in some ways, it is kind of stupid that that that's not, you know, that there's a distinction that we say what if it's touching, it's fine, but if it's not touching, it's not fine. But of course, there's a it would lead to more housing, which is good and also could be controversial. Okay. So, you know, not the buildings haven't been moved. Okay. What what would stop them from moving that back carriage house up front? I think then it would be out of cost. Okay. Well, I mean, yes, I think then it would then you'd have to be into into new into the updated code and then you have all the steps back. So that would apply. So the question I would have is if they took that one down and put the instead of the two cars there or whatever, they would if they put it that way and ask for a variance, if I'm taking that building down, they wouldn't create any more built on or paved. I'm worried at this point in time with the amount of coverage they've already got. It looks to me just ballparking that they've got at least 50%, if not more. But I don't think they would be able to expand coverage. Yeah, they can expand coverage. They have to stay within right. Which is why I'm saying if that building got moved up to the driveway instead, you'd have a whole bunch of tandem driveway going on or they actually make that that garage actually workable and had two spots. It's you know, how much of they explored in in this. Well, I think there are a lot of things they could theoretically do to bend over backwards to make to fit within zoning regs that aren't really made for this. But that every every hoop that that somebody is being asked to jump through, if it's not actually to the benefit of like if it's not in the public interest, it is just something that is preventing housing, in my opinion. And I think if it's if it's acceptable for for a building that is attached and is the same size, like, and there's maybe there is no reason why it shouldn't, that that's that the answer wouldn't be the same if it was detached. So, I'm just saying me reconfigure where the buildings are. I mean, it's yes, they could put it's it's the mean the cost of that a lot more costly to do that. Okay, so you have the you have the cost of and if you rationalize this to what is it going to cost to retrofit and they're going to have to put in more coverage because that's grass lot up to that building, which means more than likely it's going to sidewalk if not another driveway up to it. Not everybody likes to drive across the grass when it's six inches, 10 inches of snow. I don't think you would have to put I mean you could put a walkway, but you don't need to change your parking. But I'm trying to figure out how to have this reconfigures conform to our lot coverage allowance. And they will have to make decisions as to how that will go because right now those are pretty stringent. We can move things and tell them they needed. But I think what we're trying to decide right now is which I think we may have just come to the conclusion that we're not going to classify it as need to you, but we'd be okay saying that we can move forward with multiple buildings for a lot that would allow for housing. Yeah, they would still write and they would still need to come into code, they would still need to figure that out, but right now we're not trying to decide that for them right now. We're just trying to come up with the wheel. I think talking to the council, if they were our friendly toward having multiple buildings on the same lot, because usually we don't need to solve their loss problems. Now, well, the other solution is that they divide, can they divide that lot? That's what's usually happened in the past is that the lots gets divided. Yeah, I think I think Chris, you said it right as a conversation starter and I'd like to see like, yeah, go for it right up, write your thing and then we'll use that as like a conversation starter with council, but I would want to see it as a not something that we just write and then hand off and they do their own thing. Yeah, and I think there are different ways you could the planning commission could recommend something in a different way. You could recommend something and say, this is, we really thought through all of this is all good, just go for it. Yeah, or you could say we've thought through most of it, most of it, I think it was technical tweaks. There is one thing that should take a close that deserves a closer look. We think it's a good idea. And I think that is a perfect way to move forward with big changes. Yeah. Great. Now, the nice thing is that two of the council members had been planning commissioners in the past. So they're in the mindset. Oh, right. Moving on to member updates. Mural grants, unfortunately, is not moving forward with the way I proposed it last month. Way ambitious and trying to get that thing written in a week. I just didn't happen, but I did meet with the homeowner and he was overly enthusiastic about something being done with that copy in a mural, some sort of any kind of public art being placed on it. So I'm exploring other avenues of potential funding to see if we can't move forward with it in fashion or we just wait 10 months and start writing our east end of ourselves two months as opposed to one week. Right. Thanks for exploring that. Yeah. Sorry, it didn't come to fruition. I'm quite disappointed. But I will, one thing I didn't mention to you is in talking to him, when he purchased the property about whatever it was 10, 12 years ago or something, he said he thought the town on the wall. That's what his understanding is. He was impressed that the city even came to him to ask if we could do something with it. So that's where we're at. There are a variety of towns that I've driven through in Vermont that have murals in the downtowns on wall. Oh yeah. Yeah. Probably a lot of them through the Vermont Arts Council, which is what I was trying to do. I'm about to say some of them, if you didn't know what they were, maybe you could ask them how they accomplished it. Yeah, I could probably certainly could. I know the woman who runs the grant program at its council, she said this would have been a perfect fit if we had gotten it and continued to explore other avenues. Yeah. To your point, like 10 months isn't that far away? No. No. So like giving us time to prepare a good application potentially could go faster, right? Yeah, I think so. But yeah, but that's the intent. It's just some kind of public art to welcome people along this. It's still a great idea. The one thing I thought about with that wall is that you actually can't see it very well because it's on a curve and it's on the inside of the curve. But maybe it's all we've got to work with. At the moment. Yeah, I mean, there's another concrete wall here and then we talked about the large building behind our corner's beverage or something because you can see it from the road. Maybe there's a mural or something. So piece of art on that. Well, the last time we had a mural was actually at the train station. It was drawn by high school students. So I mean, you know, people who come and visit us, we get the train. Obviously, it's the whole bunch of stuff. There's more opportunities there too. So we'll continue to explore opportunities there. But when I drove in one day just to see if I could see it, you know, the black wall, I think if you had something on it, it would be visible. You wouldn't be dominant, but it would still be visible. Yeah, I noticed everything I tried. Yeah, I have visions of what it could look like. Yeah. Yeah. Thank you for approaching the property. All right. Vision and strategic planning update. Is that that there for you, Scott, even though is there any update on that? There's, yeah, there's an online survey right now. Hopefully everybody's done it. The results, I'm not sure when they're closing it down. I thought it was two weeks that we're gonna have it open. It might be a little bit longer. And I'm not sure when they're planning to address the council. I thought it was in April that they were going to present to the council. But I'm not sure that's going to happen this month. I think if I understand it correctly, it's still supposed to be later this month that they did the address the council. Yeah. So that would be a presentation of everything to date. Right. And then as a separate base, there'll be work with staff and council on prioritizing the action items under that. It would be nice if we could be involved in that. I will, well, since we're responsible for the comprehensive plan. Right. Yeah, I'm not sure. I mean, it depends what level. Because there might be decisions there, like whether or not to really try hard to resurrect the housing commission. Things like that. I mean, that might be something that needs to be decided at the council level and maybe with the input from staff. I don't know, but yeah. No, no, I understand. There are certain decisions that have to be made by council. But there are obviously priorities with, there are things within the five, six pillars that maybe drop because we're not involved in the discussion. And I'd like to see at least a line with the current comprehensive plan. I will just, I will try to bring that up. And you may also have a chance to bring that up at the next steering committee meeting. Okay. All right. I have another member update. I was recently appointed to the Vermont climate council's subcommittee on rural resilience and adaptation. So I will list of all the members. There are 15 members plus staff. And there's a good representation from people from green housing organizations, also from Vermont or Green Mountain Power and other energy sort of weatherization programs like heat, which is in the northeast kingdom. So I'll make sure that if there's anything relevant coming out of that, then I'll report back to the planning commission. I think one of the reasons they wanted me on it is because I was representing, or could represent a municipal government, to a certain extent. Great. Staff updates. Yeah. So you might have already heard Jennifer Marble is no longer working here. We are looking for a new planner. If you know anyone that might be fit for the bill, send them my way. Are you going to advertise for that time? We have already been advertising where we're going to be interviewing actually the first round this week. Wow. Thanks. All right. That's the lock. A motion to adjourn. I will give a motion to adjourn. Second. All in favor. Aye. All opposed. Motion.