 Meeting to order 704. First item on the agenda is reserved for changes to the agenda items and order. We all set there? Yes, no changes. Comments and questions from the public not related to the agenda are all set there. All right, so here we go. Continued consideration of amendments to the Colchester Development Regulation Supplement 44. And we'll let Kathy start right off with a agenda. It is. So most of the agenda is in order of its appearance and the regulations, except for the Lakeshore changes. That way, if anyone were to come just for that item, they wouldn't have to stay through the rest if they don't want to, so just respecting the interests we've seen. Give me mouses without a battery point 07. Hello, we are in order yet. Starting at 8. Lakeshore 3. So we did get through quite a bit of this last time. We did flag a few things specifically to return to. I'll start with the green infrastructure requirements. We were going to talk about those. If you recall, a lot of those were copied over from LS1 and LS2, they don't exist anywhere else in the regulations, except for the Lakeshore districts. So where they exist in LS1 and LS2, they are written in such a way that if you were to meet the standard that's outlined, you could increase your coverage on the lot. For LS1 and LS2, you could increase that indefinitely. Conversation as a reminder that the commission had last time was, is it appropriate to keep the same language to increase it indefinitely? I think there was agreement across the board that up to 100% was not the right number. You guys were gonna give it some thought as to is there a number at all? Or do we just require this and there is no increase? So your options in considering this are to not have a green infrastructure requirement, to have one but have no bonus attached to it, or to have one and have some level of bonus between what is allowed for coverage, which was about 30% up to some number of your choosing up to 100%. I put this one solidly in the bucket of policy, but I don't have a strong professional recommendation on. A lot of the lots that are currently used are pretty much as much coverage as you would think anybody would want. There's limited parking, it's kind of top even. I mean, especially in this district, it's very interesting, but I don't think you can really increase much lot coverage. There's no green or the opportunities that are far and few in between. Maybe to stick with the footprint you have and be happy that. Yeah. What do you think, Sarita? Yeah. I just, I'm just a little confused about, so I just need some clarification. So I was looking at, you know, the uses, you know, in article one or article 10, and I was thinking on LS four, the general categories, I was looking at that, and how that might apply, like what would be allowed in LS four would determine to me kind of what coverage, and maybe I'm way off yourself describing if I'm wrong, but like it said, roadside stands for sale of produce grown on the premises. That was not, you couldn't do that. But I'm thinking on LS four, those lots have big land, you know, a lot of land on them, and if someone wanted to do that, if it was conditional or something, then I don't know if that would have anything to do with the lot coverage or limiting it or expanding it. That's a fair question. I think something to keep in mind is that if you do increase coverage based on a use, that's atypical, that's not very common in how most towns would do it. The other thing I would caution you about is that if you tie it to use, it is very difficult to go backwards. So if you were to say, this particular use could have 80% coverage, and that use ceased to exist or become something else, once people have gotten used to that parking or they've put a building there, it's very, I'm not sure you could even legally require them to tear down that building if there was a change in use that you would have associated with something with less lot coverage. So I think it would be really challenging to tie coverage to use. Okay, so let's just say someone wanted to open up a little farm stand and grow. I mean, some of those laws look like they could grow some vegetables or flowers or something, and they wanted to have a stand and they could have a way of coming in and parking and everything like that. Would this limit their ability to do that if we decided it could be a conditional use? If you had a lot that was large enough to do all of that, my guess is you're not running into coverage issues with the 40% that was allowed. If you had enough space to do that sort of agricultural operation, your parking is gonna be under that 40%. For that particular example anyway. Yeah. I don't think it would limit that if that was a chosen use. Just on the LS4 side, I feel like there's a lot of land there if someone wanted to do that. Yeah. And there are certainly when you're talking about agriculture, quite a few state exemptions and additional permissions that exist beyond any other use. So there's some protections in state statute. So then would we decide, I'm sorry to take up time, just like trying to think this through. So when we look at general categories, if it was not allowed, could we make it a conditional use for this roadside stand for the sale of produce grown on the premises? Yeah, would it be okay if we talked about the whole table together? Yeah. If we're not tying it to the green infrastructure? Okay. Yeah. Now I'm happy to talk through it. Okay. I don't think we spent much time on it last time. So. Okay. Great. Thank you. I was planning on walking through that one because I don't think we have yet. Yep. You're getting there. Thank you, Rebecca. We're just talking about green infrastructure called LFOS 3 and 4. I agree that 3 doesn't really apply. It could apply to some of them before. It's in the larger lot. I think what we need to do is envision what those increases, what the potential is. To see if that meets our goals and missions for creating these two different zones. See if it's kind of outside our vision for it. Mm-hmm. And right now I don't have that answer. I don't know how we could go about doing that. I mean, would you look at a typical residential lot and see what that would mean and then take a look at one of the larger lots? Yeah, my guess is that that's what the 40% as of right reflects. So you already have the 40% coverage in there and it's a question of whether or not you would get a bonus on top of that if you do certain of, you know, I say especially if you're looking at lakeside, I would wager that a strong majority of those properties are well over 40 already. Probably as high as 80 or 90% of them are well over 40 on the lakeside. So I think at least on LS3 or the lakeside, I don't know that any bonus you give is really, unless you were talking something closer to 100%, it's either give no bonus or give 100, I think at that point. Any other numbers probably unrealistic? Yeah. For three. For three. For four, there's I think a lot more room to carve something out if you wish. You did consider last time maybe having no bonus and just requiring it to happen anyway. But there is a lot of space between 40% and 100. I don't know what the right number would be. The properties are also different. There's a lot of variety on the non-lake side between some very large properties that don't have much on them already to properties that sort of resemble the ones across the street as far as, and there's also quite a few shared lots. I don't know that even if I found an average, it would tell you much. On some of these larger lots, I don't know what the acreage is, I don't know if it's around 10, I don't know. If they're that large or they're even larger. I think that large one that has the condominium units is over 10 acres or close. So let's take that, if that one was 40%, you know up to the 40% is allowed, what would that look like? Quite a bit, quite a bit, yeah. You also kind of have to look at the topography of that side of that lot of rock bed underneath. It's for testing and where the water's gonna go once it comes down, rainwater runoffs and the rest of it. I think kind of interesting how much you want to allow to be built on that side, period. And what you want it to look like down the road. Yeah, 40% is pretty much in line with what I have consistently seen in a lot of mid-size, suburban developments. You know, when you're talking about your two to three units per acre type development, 40% is pretty common. It allows people to usually have a home and a few structures and a reasonable driveway. And we don't see people hit that coverage on most lots where we do have that restriction in. So if somebody comes in and wants to put in a swimming pool or anything, it's pretty uncommon for someone to run into a coverage issue unless they're on a very small lot and that's at 40%. And so I don't know if you can answer this, but when Sarah did the analysis on, this was going to look back to the sewer, what the build out would be for Eastlake Short Drive, was she basing it on the full 40% coverage? Not anything beyond it, but at the 40%? They did it entirely on density in bedrooms and not lot coverage. And so we have been very careful as we've worked through this to make sure there's not a single extra bedroom or unit that would be allowed beyond what went into that consideration. So this over 40% would not increase the number of bedrooms, which is related back to the sewer? Yeah, I think realistically you just be looking at either more accessory structures, a little bit more driveway or even just bigger homes with bigger bedrooms, but still the same number of units, just probably larger. So what would be your, what would the worst case scenario be in terms of a landowner coming in and really kind of exploiting that? Yeah, I think 40, again, 40% is a number that we use in a lot of districts across the town and it is very rare for someone to come in and say, I wanna do XYZ, I wanna put in a patio, I wanna put on a deck, I wanna put on a small expansion or a new garage, and for us to tell them no, you're over your lot coverage, it's very rare. And the times that we do that is usually on the very small lots, if you're talking about lease lots or mobile home parks or some of the lake shore lots that are, you really have to be well under a quarter acre lot to come into a coverage issue generally, unless you're really just doing a lot of stuff. So 40% is, I would say, more generous than it might sound, more flexible than it might sound. 40% it doesn't sound like we're handcuffing anybody or? Except for those really small lots and I'm not trying to pretend they don't exist because they do, they do exist here. You know, if you wanted I could look into the number of privately owned small lots that exist. That's probably your best data point. Probably most of those smaller lots already have more than or 40% in grandfathered in it. That's true. I don't think there's a lot that are. Yeah, there's going to be some give and take. I mean, 40%, it's a reasonable number, I think, by the sounds of it. We don't mind the idea, especially since we know we're not growing bedrooms, we're getting a nicer piece of equipment on our property, whatever that is. Personally, I'm not against that. Yeah. I thought we were just talking about LS4. Yeah. I mean, we're also talking about LS4. I think we are, right? Yeah, we're on LS4. We're only talking about LS4. I think what I've heard. Yeah, because LS3 we just, is it safe to say LS3, no, whatever the cap is, leave it up. Yeah, we're good. I think that's what I've heard. Yeah, absolutely. Yeah, dude, they have 40% or a little. Yeah, that's it. Yeah. Right. They probably need the rest of the property. Yeah. Walk in. Yeah, the parking in the car is part of it. Yeah, so then the question is, if you do this green infrastructure, which to be fair is not required anywhere else, including on other Lakeshore properties, so if you're talking about Play Point, Red Rocks, Porter's Point, Mills Point, there's no requirement for those towns, or those neighborhoods, those zones to do this, so. Right. Restricted by septic. So we're talking about now sewer. So we're in two different worlds. Well, yeah, we're really what you're talking about, a stormwater, right? So when you talk about coverage, so what this is trying to do is have less runoff into the lake. Sure, and you've got more opportunity if you have a septic tank sitting in your yard. Yeah. That helps out. So I think we're good. So there could be, you know, this is an extra requirement that doesn't exist on other lake adjacent properties. So you could be wary while justified if you wanna give them some extra bonus if they need this. But. Go ahead, Ed. Yeah. So is this just a recommendation from the Regional Planning Commission, this green plan that they're suggesting? I mean, there are stormwater regulations, I think. Yeah, so they've got this tool, this League of Cities in town has the tool. I don't know the genesis of including it in LS1 and LS2. I've put it here because somebody liked it well enough to put it on the East Lakeshore or West Lakeshore. So I've included it here for you to talk about. I don't know the genesis of why it was chosen. I understand it's a very good tool. It's a bonus for the land, bonus for the lake. Yeah. Correct? But it's all good stuff. And if you can jump through all those hoops and you can wanna build a little bit nicer, bigger, better, I'm not against that. And anything, just to give you some insight too, anything that impacts more than 10,000 square feet of land disturbance is gonna need a local stormwater permit anyway. Okay, that's what I was going to say. And then I don't remember the threshold for the state. I think it just changed for Becca, you know? I don't know. Yeah, it might be a quarter acre. I don't know, but there's a state threshold as well. So any of these big projects, if you're thinking this 10 acre lot, for example, if they hit 10,000 square feet of land disturbance, they're getting their own stormwater permits regardless. Okay, good, I just needed that information. Thank you. You answered that question? So I'm hearing leave the green infrastructure requirement. No bonus. Same for LS three and four. Does that represent? I think so. Yeah? Yeah. I'll shake our heads. So bye. Thank you. So I'm not gonna edit as we go. I'll just trust that I'll do it and I'll show it to you next time. The other thing going through that we talked about was whether or not there was a desire to include any sort of aesthetic or design standards associated with LS three or LS four. This was something I think you guys wanted to go back and think about, we did make some changes. So this is the draft that was edited last meeting. I've not edited that section since that meeting. Okay, so we're gonna have a question. You have a question or comment? Yeah, please. There you go. Yes, of course. Thank you. Yeah, sorry about that. So I think you guys just wanted to process that and then I don't know how much of it was word smithing or just more general comfort with any sort of shell should encourage. Yeah, we were definitely on board. Absolutely. Right? Yeah, we're still on board on that. We have a lot of discussion. We're definitely on board with the shell and show. So I think let me just scroll up real quick. I think I'm still in LS three here. Let me just confirm before I start showing you this. That's the lake side. There aren't a lot of shells in here but I wanna highlight them for you to make sure you. So, Kev, you are in article three and what page do you want? I am on... In article three, right? Page five, article three, page five. In the PDF, if you have the same version as me, it's page 41, but that can get thrown off, I think, based on. So, like I said, there's not a lot of shells and those that are in here. I just wanna highlight them for you. All sides of instructor shall receive design consideration. That's a shell, but it's a pretty broad open shell. I'm sorry, I'm on three point... One number. Oh, sorry. Number three, D three. So, this is the section that talks about sort of some design criteria. I think your direction last time is you just wanted to continue to think about it. Yeah, we didn't want anything concrete. We don't have anything concrete. I think that's all good suggestion. Sorry. Just so you know, I don't feel married to any of this. This is again, this is very strongly policy oriented. I don't think that... We're just hoping to get people building, thinking. Yeah. We're definitely in the right direction. That's our goal. I think it's pretty well stated. You did make a few changes. I know it was like a month ago. There had been something about Flat Roots not allowed. You changed that to discourage, just as a reminder. You know, I think that... I think it's fairly broad with still having some... These are really things, there's like a... If you were to look at a menu, I think there's like... You have to do some things on a menu, but it's a pretty broad menu. Yeah. I think the goal is that this ensures that you don't get a very basic box with no windows and a doorway and no attention given whatsoever to the lakeside of the road. But I think it still leaves a lot of flexibility for without prescribing that it must be a cornice to windows or... Yeah. And a DRB gets to look at it as well, correct? Yeah, they'll probably hate me for it. I'm just saying. Yeah. You know, realistically, when my staff goes to review a DRB application under this, they're gonna say, okay, here's my menu, right? And they're gonna say... They're gonna look for any of these things and do a few check marks. And realistically, if they see that none of them are provided, they're gonna flag that. And if they see that somebody included windows and any four or five of these elements, they're gonna say four or five of these have been included. And then the board can go from there as to negotiate whether that's appropriate. Yeah. I don't think it's strongly prescriptive, but it does set some expectation to not have a box with one of those elements. That's our goal. Yeah. That's our goal, absolutely. It's not easy. You have anything on that one? Yeah, just again, like I was looking at heights and fences, you know, and just the views of the lake. You know, I think what I heard from the public comment was preserving view, views. And I guess it's for me, when I drive that down that road, it just irritates me that it feels like automobiles rule that road as opposed to pedestrians. You know, just as I was coming here, it was a family of five, you know, with two little children trying to cross the road to get to LS4. You know, they had been at the beach and I just feel like the use of that, you know, access to the bay for beachgoers. I feel like there should be four crosswalks along East Lake Sheldron, you know, and I know it would slow traffic down and probably irritate people, but I just feel like inhabitants, you know, should be able, we talked about accessing, you know, increasing access. And I think it's unfortunate that people have to take their lives in their hands to cross that road. And I just would wanna shift a little bit of the thinking, you know, to make it easy for pedestrians to have egress, egress, I guess that's what enables us, to be able to cross that road and get to the lake. I'm not sure what we can do in the development regulations. When Brian Osborn rips that road up. That's not what we're discussing. But that's all right. When Brian Osborn rips the road up. No, it doesn't. That's the person you wanna grab. Because it does say, considers challenges to a result in... Yeah, some of that parking language that we talked about might help. You know, about not forcing a vehicle's rear end to hang into the street. But when I look like at Marble Island, they have crosswalks there and they're not attached to any sidewalks. They don't go to sidewalk to sidewalk. Right. You know, so I don't understand why we've put the crosswalks in. I don't know. Yeah, I... And you could find... The planning commission cannot put them in as, I guess all I can say. Oh, the plan, okay. The planning commission. Whether the town can or not is a question for a different department and a different board. Okay. But the planning commission can't just say, thou shalt build the crosswalk, unfortunately. Okay. Okay. Good. Yep. Rebecca, yes I'm... So intrigued to hear from Rebecca on the design pieces. You know, as long as it's not dictating what has to go there and I think... Do you think it achieves it or do you have recommendations? Yeah, I think if someone came to the DRB with a box and said, no penetration on the face of the street, they wouldn't get it through. Because it's not like anyway. Yeah. I mean, lacking a design review board, I think it's pretty much the best we can... Do you feel like it leaves it open enough that it allows a variety of creative approach? I think so. I think so. I think so. I heard that was another concern. Yeah, I mean, as I pointed out, things that aren't exactly flat, but maybe a low-spoke truth or something, there's ways of doing it that are pleasant looking. I'm just hoping that the DRB wouldn't really see this and say, okay, flat roofs are discouraged, but they say, you know, no flat roofs, all right? It's kind of subjective. Yeah. And it depends on who's on the DRB at the time, I think it's that. But I think it's worth a test. I think we have to do something. Is that phrase one that you wanted to revisit? I don't know how else to say it. Because, you know, most people like the cottage style, the cottage look. That's fine. I don't like to tie designer's hands. Yeah. It's worth a go, because I can't continue the way it's going. If you'd like to have a suggestion. You have to step up to the mic and state your name. Even though we're not doing that. My name's Jason, like, wait, I web on South Bay Road. Okay. Jason, can you spell your last name for me again? I'm sorry. Telepagic fee, capital E, C-U-Y-E-R. Thank you. I don't really have a dog in this fight, other than I just read through that in it. That looked to me like it said, don't be a jerk. If you're a jerk and you apply, the DRB is going to make you do something to make it aesthetically appealing. I think it looks fine. Thank you. All right. That's about what we're looking for. Okay, I'm gonna slide down. Just as a reminder for the audience and for the commission, we are still very early in this process, even though it feels like we've been talking about it for a little while, we still have to have a meeting that we would warn at hearing in. So that's another meeting that's not a hearing. Then we would have to have a warned public hearing. So that's another opportunity. That could take one or more meetings. Then there is a select board warned public hearing. So at the very, very least, there are three more opportunities to think, comment for the public and for board members as you continue to think on this or see something that inspires you somewhere. So at least three more. Just as a reminder. Okay. It's okay. Absolutely. Any other, wait? Can I ask one more question? I was just wondering about the parking areas, not expanding it or anything, but they just all seem so different on the LS3 side. Is there any way to standardize it a little bit more so it doesn't look so ragged? I think it's very hard because so much of that is grandfathered. I mean, I wouldn't change the size of the amount of parking space they have, but just to make it, you know, sometimes grass and gravel and sometimes like, I don't know, they're all different. And I just didn't know if there was a way to get it a little bit more cohesive along the road. I think that goes under the, no. A lot of her and grandfather didn't been there for enough years. And you can't ask somebody to pick up their driveway that they've parked on for 20 years and put grass there. Or stone. Or whatever the case may be. Okay. Realizing my markup was turned off. Sorry about that. So parking, did we finish that last time? You guys were comfortable with the parking? Or did you want to go back to that LS3? I can't remember, I'm sorry. So the parking, so this was something I threw a spaghetti at the wall for you to think about. It does not exist in LS1 and 2. So that's this section E here. Additional standards for all lots in LS3. No expansion of vehicle use in parking areas may be permitted unless they are located to the side of principal building. So again, this is for ones that are new parking areas. Anybody who comes in and says, hey, I want to just expand my parking. I'm still under 40%. This says, you can't put it in front of the building unless, or even to the side, unless a vehicle can park outside of the right-of-way. So you can't create a new parking area that is six feet deep, for example. Standard parking space runs about 18 feet deep and about nine feet wide. That's a little bit larger than a vehicle, so you don't open a door into people. But so we would be looking for a number if you like this language that showed that a vehicle could be outside of the right-of-way. So somebody comes in with a six-by-six space, says this is my new parking area. This would allow the board or staff to say no. You put a vehicle here, half of it is over the white line and into the road. Beyond that, it also states that you have to be able to enter and exit that space without backing onto the road. Spaghetti at the wall. I could, it's a little strong. It's meant to reflect what I'd heard from a lot of folks at our meeting about some of the issues. So this would say if the only thing you have is that nine-by-18 space and yep, it's just off the road, the only way to get in and out of it is to back onto the road. That wouldn't be allowed. This is only for new construction. This is for new parking areas. So it wouldn't impact something that exists today. It's if you come in and say, hey, now I've got eight bedrooms because the sewer is in and I'm gonna put, I need more parking. Go ahead, come on up to the mic. Give your name, please. Ken Pusey, I live on East Lakeshore Drive. So for E1, when I read that, I read you're forcing people to park on the side of their house. And when we said we valued having Lake View, well, now you're putting more vehicles, blocking Lake View by forcing them to the side of the building. So that's my comment. Okay, thank you. Trying to do better by minutes this time. So we're gonna catch DL because we do not want anything else in that road. There's no doubt about that. Yeah. So that would mean people could back into that space. Right? Yeah, I think that's something that Rebecca brought up last time. I think it looks about that about the docking. I know that there's some spaces. This is more, I went to park on exactly a building with a lot of four. You pulled in and you had to back out into the road. It's very scary. So what I tend to do is you back into the driveway so that when you're leaving, it's a little bit safer. But I thought I had something to say about backing into that. One of the state statutes, you're not supposed to back out into a thoroughfare. Yeah, you can back into your spot. You can back into your spot so you go past it and you back in and you pull out because when you're backing out, you can't see. I just happen to pull it up online real quick to make sure I was right. All right. So, and that is something if somebody does, it's almost, oh, if you wanna do that, great. But we're letting you know now, you gotta pull past your driveway and back in. You can't whip in, pull in and then back out and expect traffic to stop for you. Yeah, so it's a very dense paragraph. I think there are three decision points for you here. One is, as was pointed out, is it, would you like it to include that parking, new parking, new parking, should be to the side or would you prefer it to the front or is there no preference? So that's a decision point for you. I would like to hear on. The second is the idea of a space sufficient for a vehicle not on the road. I think I've seen a lot of head nods on that one. And then the third is, does the space also have to allow you space to maneuver off the road? Or is it sufficient to have a space that's big enough and hope people do what the law requires of them by backing in? So I think those are the three decision points. Go ahead. So what's the rationale for the side parking on the side of the house? I think it's just, it's a, it's standard language in some of our other districts about parking to the front of, and when we say side, it means not in a front yard. I guess I should clarify that. So it wouldn't be allowed in that front yard space. Otherwise, you know, I don't, I think it's about having the presence of a building. Typically, I shouldn't say just to LS3, but when you talk about no parking in front of a building, it's so that it enhances theoretically the pedestrian experience and because you are, you're feeling building going down a road and just feeling cars. That is the idea, whether or not that outweighs the concern about the view of the lake being better than the view of the house. So theoretically, you would not want to block the view of a nice structure, but in this case, there might be a competing view. That isn't, you know, that is the thing today. Yeah, so that's decision point one. So first, you have to have enough room to build a back park in front of the house. That's role one. If it was a new parking area. It's a new park area. So they have to have the 18 feet minimum. 18 feet, or can they park parallel? Or parallel, yeah. Parallel would be preferred. Yeah, sure. It makes it easier for everyone. Yeah. Pull in, pull out. Yep. As long as they have enough room. As long as they have enough room. Yeah, to safely pull in, pull out. Yeah. So on LS3, just in most cases, there's limited space. Do you even put more parking on the side? Do we determine that on LS3, you don't allow any more parking? You're all pretty well filled to the max as it is. Well, I suppose that's a fourth decision point that I didn't raise. Yeah, no new parking areas at all is an option. Yeah, that would also stop people from putting too big of a place where there's no place for anybody to park that lives there. So that is an option, yes. Another question. If someone tears down a building, does that consider new construction? If they were gonna rebuild it on the footprint of the original structure? Yeah, so generally, when we review those, if they have a well-established area for parking that is largely dependent on where that footprint is, they'd be allowed to keep that. If it was impervious, that was a patio, now they wanna make it parking, that's still a new parking area, if that makes sense. So you have to be reasonable because if somebody were to rebuild their building, suddenly you say no parking. But we would look at historical photographs and try to figure out, has there been creep lately that comes up, creep happens, where somebody has had a space or two associated, but in the last two or three years, suddenly they have four more spaces. So we would say that's not permitted with a tear down and rebuild. What's our requirement for parking on a regular? You mean by number? Yeah. Two. So we minimum, maximum is two. You don't have a maximum? No maximum, so we start with two because there will be no creep. You can put four out there for the fact that you can fit four. Again, this is to address the people who are coming in saying, I want more. But where they gonna put them? So what we want to make sure is, they can have all they want, but they have to make sure it's safe within our requirements. So if you can't put more because you can't get the 18 feet, how can you put it beside the house or in front of the house? When you might not say, as Bob said, you can have all you want. You might just say, no, no more. No, there's more. Yeah, that's possible. Are there any? On LS3, I doubt there's any way who need to fit it. And this language is not proposed for LS4, just to be clear. Yeah. This is LS3. This is LS3. Yeah. To me, if you look at those lots, if you've spent any time, they've got a pretty well max parked hard surfaces as you can get. Yeah. I can't think there's anywhere if you drive around and look at them to add four parking spaces. Yeah. Some of that is formalizing it. Yeah. Where it wasn't formalized before. I have an application in right now where they are proposing three new spaces. A tear down and rebuilt. Had been grass. So that, that's a good example. So they want three new spaces. In addition to the two they already have. I don't remember how many they already have. They just labeled them as new. Right. So the three new spaces that they want, as of right now, if they're six by six, you really can't do much about it. Is that right? If they already have those spaces, yeah. These are three new ones. These are three new, no parking areas spaces. Not three units. No, that's what I mean. Three new parking spots. Oh, yes. They want to stick them in there, but right now we're saying, what? Right now it's really up to you. Because they can't get them right away. Yeah. We can't get them into the right away. There's no way, right? Go ahead, sorry. I'm sorry, there's no way they get into the right away in those parking spaces. No matter what. That's important. Right, right, absolutely. So even though they want three new spaces, they will have to have enough room to pull those cars off the main road. Yes. No matter what. Yes. Correct? Without this language. Without this language? Yes. Okay. And how much did that cover you with that change? The right away line there is pretty tight. Oh yeah, I actually have no problems with controlling the parking lot, but to keep people doing it. Because you're right, people just scream in there and their cars are hanging out all the time or their motorcycles or whatever. And then they start talking before you know it. They're in danger for themselves. See it all the time. Yeah, I mean, as you guys know, I mean parking just came up with such a big issue in our outreach. And so I wanted to have something in here for you to respond to. But it's new and it's different and it's... In most cases you're increasing your parking, you're also increasing impervious surface, correct? That is true. So in this area on the side of the lake, for all we're fighting to clean our lake up to allow them to even have any more parking spaces kind of makes me how much lot coverage do you have in Grandfather Midden arrest. That's just... Yeah. All right, we'll give you three more spots in the water from running the lake that much faster. It's a tough one because you're building a new building. We don't want people crossing the street as much as possible. They'll find parking somewheres, right? I mean, that's just nature of the beast. People who come to visit, they will find parking somewhere. So they find it across the street, the neighbors in one of the neighborhoods start walking the road. We don't want that. We definitely don't want any vehicles in the right of way. So we've eliminated that. We don't want our little parking lot, right? Especially like I said on that side, right next to the lake. I'm amazed that there's somebody that can put three more parking spaces or ask for three. You're right. Every single lot, it seems, is maxed. Been there for 50, 100 years. If we say no more parking spaces, what do you have to go on, pictures? Because that's- Probably. Yeah. We look through historical ortho-photography where you can see parking areas. And what they're using now has to be off the right of way, obviously. You know, we don't, I mean, I don't know what the police do. Planning and zoning certainly doesn't go by and see. No, yeah, and I understand that part. But my idea is- And you drive down on a Saturday, you know that there's a lot of, I think you can ask anyone who lives in the neighborhood, there's probably a lot of people who are parked over. And that might be their only parking. And maybe it's that they were supposed to have one car that fit parallel, and they're like, well, we can fit three if we do this. Pull it in straight. It's tough to figure out what people have. But you can't take, you can't take the full extent of the existing parking way because then you render your home unusable, but. Or our problem isn't with what's there now, obviously. So we're going to allow that. So our problem is, what do we do about new stuff? Yeah. Do you like that it kind of states what you're looking for parking? Yeah. Same thing again. I like what that it states what you're looking for for parking. So try to make the street safer. And they hear about the view, but there's not too many properties that have a side yard that would meet these standards. It's pretty tight. Yeah. Someone would have to probably buy the lot next door to turn down the structure and put parking out. You can see that, but then you'd have cars instead of a two-story. I think largely this would address the people who are trying to formalize what they're already doing that maybe they shouldn't be doing. Sure, come on up. Linda and Al from Lakeshore Drive. Some of the properties across on L3 are camps and they're closed. And then others are homes. So how does that play in when they're talking about snow removal and all of those components for when someone's actually living there in the wintertime? How does that play into the parking piece? Thank you. Yeah, I mean, snow, the extra tricky thing is that you can't officially do a site plan or apply site plan standards to a single family home in Vermont. It's exempt from site plan review. And snow storage is something that we look at in a site plan review as a site plan standard for lots that could be, so it's pretty, it's common sense. But from a legal review perspective, I think it would be very hard to consider that because it is a site plan standard. So I think we're happy about the idea that we think there should be something. We're all looking at, yeah. Yeah, we're all looking like there should be something. Sometime, and this is the start of a direction. Now, you haven't limited anything on this other than the fact that this is what's expected. So the three new spots come in under this, you will look at them and you'll say, this is the criteria. If you fit this, you will get your three new spots. How do you feel about the parking in the front of the building? Make some guidance there would be. I personally, if you can make it safe, but just soon have it in front of the building, it doesn't bother me that much. Only because on LS3, it's such a tight road anyways. Right. You know, it's just so tight. Do you know if the sewer, like with the road and kind of looking up the homes, is that gonna either expand the opportunity for parking or we'll keep it exactly the same, do you know? That's a good question, I had no idea. I believe that the intention is not to make any impacts there. Yeah. Could we just, could we, would you be able to ask Brian like just that question? Yeah, I'm sure he's gonna tell, the intention I know, because it came up in the sewer discussions, is that they're in my right hand, that there's no impact on. There's no impact. There's no need to buy right of way. There's no need to tear down homes for it. But it's not gonna expand. It's gonna stay the same. The road is gonna stay the same with, and whatever parking people had is gonna remain the same. Yeah, I mean, I can't speak to striping if a shoulder width will change or something, but I don't think that's, but I think it's gonna look a lot like it does now. Just pressure. So just because this one's super easy, am I hearing, at least heard from Rich and maybe a nod from Sarita, that there was no strong desire to keep the side of the building? That would mean removing that highlighted section there? I'm not 100% on that. No? No. Because you don't have the room in front of your house, you know, the place you can put it is on the side. Otherwise, you're having a parking. Something has to be in there. Like I said, most of the properties don't have the side to them, but there are a few properties that you could. Well, this won't force. She takes that out, this gives you both opportunities to be in the front and on the side. But she's taking it out? No. Yeah, so it takes it out from the unless, so it says it doesn't require you to be to this. If you could put it in the front, you could. Yeah. As drafted here, you would not be able to put a new parking area in the front. I see, okay. So this would give them the option in front? Yes, if I remove that, it would give them the option in the front. Especially if they're building new, they will take that into consideration with whatever they're building. The door comes out the side, walkway. A lot of this might be a move point, too, because they already have the excellent coverage they can have. This might apply to one property on the whole street, who knows? Exactly, so. Yeah, that's exactly right. You might be working way too hard for something that they can't do anything anyhow. Yeah, that's a good point. So I think I saw, heard. Some of these edits I'm gonna make later, but since I'm right here, yeah, absolutely. I'm just gonna do it right in front of you. Yep. Okay. Let's keep going, I think. Can you just say what page and articles are there? I'll let you know when I stop. Great, thank you. This one's highlighted, but you talked about it. So this was that ceiling for coverage. You've said, so basically we'll take this whole thing out, no increase for green infrastructure. Actually, what the heck, I'm right here. But keep the requirement, I think is what you said. Yep. Vote LS3, right? You are in LS4 now. Yeah, so they're both in Article 3. I think that this is very similar language, as far as the design standards go. You didn't make any changes to those. The other, okay, so now I'm gonna jump. Because the other pieces that involve LS3 and LS4 are those tables. Okay, jumping to that section. Give that a quick save. So we talked at length. I have to show you this, but don't make edits. I don't seem to have the raw one here. Sorry, I couldn't get on the network side to put things on the thumb drive and it looks like I put the same table twice. I will zoom in in a moment, just faster to scroll. So, dimensional standards. We talked at length about the appropriate height limits. You guys agreed to leave 40 feet for LS4. That is consistent with what is allowed for the building height in R2, which is what it currently is and what's sort of in the neighborhoods behind it. LS3, we talked about, I think we'd had 20 feet in as a placeholder. What we talked about is that 20 feet does not get you two stories, unless you have a flat roof. It's almost impossible. If you are the way that we measure, so we measure to the peak. I looked at a lot of examples of basic two stories without vaulted or really tall ceilings. Largely, what I kept coming up with for a traditional two story was about 25.5 feet. Is that sound for a, sorry, 12 on six pitch? It's standard roof pitch. Is that standard? I believe so. But I'm not a builder. Yeah, so for a standard roof pitch, 25 and a half, 25 feet, six inches would get you two stories. Could they still do like on the slope, like a walkout basement, two stories in a home base? So something to keep in mind is that it wouldn't necessarily be two stories at the road level. So we measure from average pre-construction grade. So if you are on a slope as most in LS3R, you're starting to measure below the road grade. So if the road grade is here, you're not measuring it from the very bottom point against the average pre-construction. So take the four points of the building and you figure out what the average elevation is between those four and you measure from that point. And it's there to the top. So you would not necessarily on those properties have two stories at the road because you're not measuring from the road. So you'd have one story maybe on the slope side and then one story at the road. Depending on the slope. Can I try to see if I can get this right? So let's say you got a 10 foot slope. You got two points that are on the top, two at the bottom, that means you five foot starts where you're doing. Yeah. So you're five feet below road grade level. To start with. To start with. And then you're 20 feet above that, according to this. Is the bottom of the slope where the water is or where the building starts? Where the building is. So average pre-construction. And is that, so let's say place where- So you can't build it up. The reason we use that language is you can't put yourself a mound in and then build it on top of that. And say, I'm starting from up here. Yeah. So you would not be able to build up that slope. Yeah. Flatten it all out and do 25 feet. So average pre-construction. And I assume that some of the measurements from the bottom have to be so many feet above the high water mark because of flood constraints. Yes. Or else they have to meet certain flood proofing designed elements. But again, keep in mind that a lot of these are rebuilds. They use the same foundation. And so their points are set for them as to what they're starting from. So do we want to limit it at 30 feet or 28? Or because 25 and a half is minimal. You have a little bit of leeway. And again, this is making a broad assumption that you were looking at two-story buildings. Of course we were. If you are not, that's not the right number either. If you're looking at one or, I don't know, one and a half. It's interesting looking from the water how many are going straight up with like even almost two sometimes stories below the road and then two above. It's just interesting. It's just kind of very straight. I had hoped Pam and I had talked about getting onto the beach side. I'm not familiar enough with what is present on the lake side, on the lake side of the lake side. And how many are really built up below what you can see. I'd hope to bring you that sort of information, but you can quite get out there. Sounds like a boat trip. Yeah, kayak trip, maybe, let's see. Boat trip, Bob's gonna take us. So I think you need a little more than 25 feet if you are looking at, I didn't see anything less than 25.5. Steeper pitches were closer to 27 or 28. But those are pretty atypical pitches. Probably. So 28, 30? We know we don't want tight. We could be back on that one. Rebecca, does that include a base? I don't think most of those properties are taking advantage of every square foot they have. So it could be like a walk out. I mean, basement is a term that doesn't mean that much when you're tight. It could be ground level, but still living space. Or below grade at the road. But so it could theoretically be three, depending on the pitch of the, from the lake side. But you would not see three on the roadside at 28 feet. Unless you had a very flat, flat, flat lot, you'd just be really tight at 28 feet for a pitched roof. I don't believe there's a flat lot on your last three. And then most of these have a different height for a flat roof, which we didn't talk about. So you could have a second height listed. Most of them are about five feet less if you're not having any sort of pitch on it. We're doing all we can to discourage the flat roof anyhow, so why not do that as well? You're gonna go that route. 28 with a standard roof and 22 with a flat. That'll help discourage it even more. I guess that gives you about 11 feet per floor, which should be enough for... They're all nine foot ceilings, that's for sure. That's standard. It's nine standard. It's eight feet. Oh, I mean, now if you go into the new houses, they're all on nine feet. But for the small cottages, excuse me, it's eight feet or below. Yeah. Well, when they built the scratch, they'll go to the max every time. Yeah. So to put it in context, I did look at some of the newest rebuilds. I was gonna have to. Those pretty much hit their 40 feet. Yeah. Like 40 feet, I think. Like right. They're on flat lots, too. Those ones are, yeah, they're sort of some of them. But yeah, they hit their 40 feet. And it's challenging for us. We can't get out there and drop a tape from the top. We do ask them to certify it through an engineer who's professional credibility or the order architect is on the line, it's the best we can do. But those were permitted within two feet of 40 feet, 38, 39, 39 and a half. Yeah. Every single one of them. So if we looked at the tallest one on Eastlake Shore in the LS3 and took 10 feet away from that, that would be above what we're looking at in terms of maximum. Yeah, I mean, it's gonna vary at what you see on the road based on what that slope is, but generally. Roughly, okay. You take 10 feet away, you take a story away, generally. Okay, thank you. You like that one? Yeah, I do. Bob, yes? Yeah. Rebecca. So when you get closer to the east end of Eastlake Shore Drive where it does flatten out, you could have whatever you decide 28 feet on it is. Yep, it's kind of the intake deal. Just trying to envision all the boxes. Well, it's three store, I mean, 28 feet. Please correct me. 28 feet on a flat lot. You're not getting much of a pitch, right? Eight foot ceilings, that's 24 of it you put in space between. Yeah, I mean, it's not unusual. I mean, a lot of pitches in Vermont are steeper than 6'12". Okay. Builders like 6'12". Some get steeper than that. So. So 28, does 28 feet on a flat lot get you three stories in a pitched roof? I don't, I don't think so. No, I don't think I think so. Yeah. So you. If I had someone who might not stick a dorm around there, you know, here in Eastlake. So I heard 28 feet for a pitched roof. And I heard Bob throw out a shorter number, 23 for a flat, but I didn't hear anyone else weigh in on that. Did you want a difference for a flat? I think more flat. It's definitely, it definitely would probably look like a three-story building. It's not a flat lot. On a flat lot, yeah, with a flat roof, you could do three stories. Yeah, there'd be a lot of flat rooms. That's 28. Yeah. If we don't do anything, there'll be all flat roofs. No matter how discouraging we would like to say it. So I'm hearing 23 for a flat. When people spoke at the public hearing about maintaining the character of Eastlake short drive, do you envision that this kind of regulation would help to meet that request? You know, nothing is gonna keep it exactly what's there, but I think that the newest buildings from what I understand are a full story taller than most of what's existed there historically. I don't know that there is anything that would have hit 40 feet that's older than maybe the last 10 years. Does that sound even less? Having not spent a lot of time out there 10 years ago. Yeah, I don't know for anyone who's... That'd be the oldest, less than five. Less than five? Yeah. So I think, you know, does it get you that camp character? Not necessarily, because again, as we've said, it's very hard to define, but it doesn't let you get as far away from it. Okay. If that makes more sense. Yeah. Okay. That's our goal. Okay, so you guys are comfortable with? Yep. 28, 23, leave 40 for LS4. I don't think... Yeah, LS4 is fine. I don't think taking five feet off that's gonna do much. I don't know that there's much benefit for flat roof size, but we could do it. The others say 35. You wanna be consistent? Are we talking LS4? LS4, yeah. Yeah. So 35 for flat roof. Sure, or if it's the same. I don't know that it does much, to be honest with you, but it keeps it consistent with... It says it's 35 in LS4. Yeah, let me scroll up a little, show you something a little. Let's look at a typical R2. So R2, 40 foot to the ridge, 35 to the flat. Sorry, you guys, let's not show it on camera. Let's get it off on my hand. Sorry, yeah, I see that now. There we go. So R2, everything else distinguishes, between a ridge and a flat. Oh, there's one interesting, 34 foot one. I don't know if that was a typo. Oh yeah, I see it. It's like, ha ha, GD4 at the bottom. Yeah, that's funny. Yeah, we can be consistent with that. You wanna be consistent? I'm good, yeah, absolutely. Maybe in a future update, we'll figure it out if we should get rid of all the differences with flats there, but okay. So LS4, 40, 35. Yep. Oh, GD4 gets a little bit more. Yeah, that's the wacky one. I don't know what's going on there. Eve Ridge. Yeah. Oh, that's, no. GD3 is the form-based code, so I don't know what's going on there. We're not gonna go to X on the list. So we're just gonna ignore that one. I think that there's two more things to discuss with respect to anything on East Lakeshore. That is the table of uses. I think you guys talked about it last time, but I'm hearing, I think we made it all the way through it, but I don't know if you wanna- Definitely made it all the way through it. She said the general category. Yes. Had a question about arm stand or something. Well, some have been restaurants, cultural facilities, and marine repair services. And you did- None of those can be on East Lakeshore guys. So let me go to the top here. And I do wanna at least acknowledge both for the record and as a point that was raised, you all in your packet received an email from Rick Davy to be clear he provided those comments before the draft was out. So his comments were in response to the original draft and not. So he sent those to me before this was shared. He did raise a question about a use, I think with respect to multi-families. He also raised a question about mobile homes. Not being permitted. I will tell you on the record that if you allow a single family home, you must allow a mobile home. And then he also said mobile home, I think. Because the park's not allowed. So the park is not a P, but there was something- I do have a letter for you guys. So just to put it on the record. And not multi-family. Again, his comments came in ahead of the sharing of the building types which we're gonna get to next. And so it was, you know, when somebody says multi-family, it could be anything from three units to 50. And that's what currently existed in the regs. So I think having spoken to him directly, his fear about the multi-family was thinking about something bigger than four. But I don't want to speak for him. Other than what his email says. Mobile homes should not be allowed in LS1 through LS4 as well as mobile home parks. But again, I'll tell you. Fair housing law is very strong. If you allow a single family, you must allow a mobile home. Period. You can't choose. So you can not allow mobile homes, but only in places where you do not allow a single family home. So a little insight there. Any other comments on the use table at all? Do you want to go through them? Do you want to just respond to questions? You have questions, yeah. I mean, I was just thinking, it looks like there already is a marine repair service on East Lake Shore Drive. What number are you at? So I'm at 2.300 on page five. 2.300? I love that they're numbered. Well, the question, again, I would keep in mind, this isn't about permitting what exists. It's about permitting new uses. So if you were to allow marine sales, it means somebody could tear down their house and put it in a marine sales shop. Anything that's there as grandfathered as long as it doesn't cease its use for more than six months? This is just my opinion, but under conditional use, I'd love to see a marine repair services if someone wanted to do that. Cultural facilities, which is at 5.400. A restaurant with outdoor seating, a small restaurant with outdoor seating, 8.100. That's for the three that I... Serita, just to be clear, were you talking about the last three or four or both? I think it was LS3 and LS4. Just making a note for the minutes. There's been a lot of chat. I don't know if you've seen it. If anybody has seen it on the front porch forum about coal chester and amenities, it goes back and forth. People don't want to look... There are 15 comments on there. They don't want to look like Essex or Williston, but there's another group that would really like more amenities. Small restaurants, a coffee shop. On East St. Short Dragon? Well, they didn't say specifically. I think they said in Malibu. So we're permitted all up with LS1 and LS2 for all that. Once we got to LS3, we were more calm about putting commercial news out there. I think that was our drive. What was our drive? The other issue was like you said the Marine repair shop or something. Now you're talking about parking more traffic on that road. I think that's who we're kind of coming from. We want to discourage a lot of kind of reserve from West St. Short Dragon. Well, I think as long as one is grandfathered in, I just think there's going to be more boating, more marinas, and more need for maintenance and services. But I think a coffee shop, a small coffee shop, again, a chance for the community of East St. Short Dragon to have a place where they can cross paths with one another. People were talking about how I don't know, it just seems like the people who wanted more amenities, wanted more opportunities to meet community members. There's a place to gather, meet people. Something that I would offer you, I would recommend at this level to not include those. We've talked about adventuring into these building typologies. So when you talk about a small coffee shop, what is that? What is small? Should you wish to, after this supplement, say, boy, if something looked and felt like a single family home and served coffee, that's sort of what's my vision. Again, I'm not speaking for those who are even recommending it, but if you as a commission wanted to proceed down that path, I'd wait for another supplement where we can explore what that looks like in terms of a small shop or what its needs would be. I think it's just more complicated than you'd probably want to get into here because you probably want to talk about what is it other than just the use? Is it a certain building type? Is it no more than X-square footage? Is it which is, you probably I would recommend you don't want to hold up the other things you're trying to do now to figure that out. Did you want to comment on that? Living in Lake Shore 4, I don't feel the need to have a coffee shop on Lake Shore 3 or Lake Shore 4. If I want to grab coffee I'll go to Lake Shore 1 or Lake Shore 2. We don't need to commercialize Lake Shore 3 and Lake Shore 4. We've got Lake Shore 1 and Lake Shore 2 for that. That's my comment. Thank you. I'm along the same lines of traffic as well and making people stop there and crossing across that road that's already busy if you're coming from the other direction and you throw in, you've got a jiffy mark, a pickled perch, a piece of the Lake Shore Pioneer and the guilty play just reopened or isn't a process of reopening? Little rosies. What's that? Yeah, rosies. And rosies. Okay, so I think I'm hearing no changes from the majority for this one. The majority is. I don't want to speak for you. I just want to reflect what I've heard. For now. Yeah. Anything else on the table of uses? So, this is a so what we talked about is, again, multi-family is, as it currently exists in the regulations, multi-family is anything greater than two units. This would allow you to create a new menu for you and I keep going back to menus where you can say, boy, I really don't want a 12-unit multi-family or a 60-unit multi-family but I'm totally cool with a 5-unit townhouse. So this creates just more categories than just multi-family because it's a big jump from three to 60. So this gives you a few more tiers. I don't claim that this is fully developed. There's a lot more we can do with this. I think that it's a very basic start for things you might choose to be allowed that exist in the world between two and 60 units. We could either further develop it now if you're interested or further develop it in other districts at another time. Rich and I talked a little bit about is it appropriate to have these 12-unit apartment buildings on Middle Road? It's kind of different out there. And is there something that would allow you to have something in between where you're like, boy, you know these townhomes that exist are a different feel than a big 16-unit box. So this is a first look at something like this. I know it's your first look. Yes, that's cut off a little bit there. It would still have to comply. All of these would have to comply with the density. Yes. It's just how you allocate those four units. So there are actually quite a few already existing on East Lakes shore on the non-lake side. A shore. I'm going to get it wrong. Sandy shore terrace. Sandy shore. I'm saying it right. There's a fourplex there. I don't even know it. The brown building is over here. I think it's blue. It doesn't face the road. It sort of sits perpendicular to it. There's four units. Four units. They're set up two over two. It's really not much bigger than some of the houses that are there, but there's four. These are apartments, this particular one. I guess there are some larger properties. The idea is we don't want these big parks, right? Right. But I think it's bigger pieces of property. You could probably see a development where you could have let's say, I'm going to say duplexes out there. Scattered on the property. Anybody would look like individual homes around it, but they're duplexes. But that would be multiple units on the same property. Does that kick you into a large multiplex, even though they're a little... No, this is all about what the structure is. It's the individual structure. So we could have two small multiplexes or we could have five. And further down the road with more consideration, you might say, boy, especially on big properties not necessarily East Lakeshore, you might say we're tired of 50 duplexes existing in a subdivision. Let's look for some variety. You can have more than 50% of any given type. So this is something you could build on in the future. It's got limited applicability, I think, for East Lakeshore. But starting to have these types allows, I think, a lot of flexibility going forward in other districts and other considerations. For here what I think it does is say you can have more than a duplex on these large lots, but it's not going to be this 16-unit box. Because you did say that you liked that sort of there's a condo development of townhouses and you guys liked that. So, but if you just right now, that is a multi-family. And if you allow that you would also have to allow the 16-unit box. One of the things about the whole sewer around the bay was people were concerned about things like this and how many structures are going to pop up all of a sudden and because now there's sewage available to these folks. So this wouldn't change the density. To be clear, your lot, if you have a 10-acre lot, and it's roughly three units per acre in the on the non-lake side there in what would be LS4, so you get a 10-acre lot that's 30 units. It's 30 units is 30 units is 30 units, you're deciding whether those 30 units have to all be single families, whether those 30 units could be three rows of 10 whether those 30 units are 15 duplexes but it's still only 30. At the end of the day it's 30. That's an extreme example just so nobody gets worried about all these 30 units popping up. I don't think there's a lot of properties but there are some that are bigger than you think. Could it be multiple like three and six? So it could be. Eventually you might want to mandate something like that or not but it's whatever, as drafted here it's whatever somebody proposes. But it couldn't be something that's not on this list. So it couldn't be this multi, multiplex medium, five to 12 units for example would not be allowed here. Does that make sense? So what we're looking at so we're clear for supplement 44. For supplement 44? We will have to approve this to put into supplement 44 to put into LS4. So it's all going to go It's not going to look like this in its formatting. We're going to have to make sure that's part of the deal. Yes. If you don't, if you choose not to pursue this you'll have to decide multifamily in LS4. If you choose not it means you don't get those town homes that exist, the ones that you have showed favor for. If you choose yes it means you, well what you get? Yeah. So right now for solvers it is R2. Where multifamily is allowed. And we don't want the bigpox. We're all shaken. So this is the way to control that that still allow multifamily to be comfortable with that. Okay. So this is a new table. This is, this concept is brand new. I don't know that it ends up looking like this because you have to fit it into I still have to play around with how it fits into the existing structure for table A1 and A2. Yeah this will have its own but this just to be clear does apply you know there's no changes to other districts so right now other residential districts even your low density ones, your R10s already allow I shouldn't say there's no changes that's not true. According to this sheet a small multiplex couldn't exist in the R10. There's more to consider here than just that R10 being sort of your ag zoning large large lot 10 acre zoning. Yeah. I mean this will definitely work. There's no doubt this will definitely get us going. So what I'm hoping you'll weigh in on is less about the formatting and just the concept, the definitions what it means, the number of units. This is sort of new so you might want to spend a little bit more time figuring out districts. I tried to match what is currently in there so that this wasn't a huge change other than the new LS4 where again right now you could have multifamily of any size as long as the density permits it. So for us I get the definitions part. You don't have to change anything for all the other districts. You'll just blank out what gets blanked out which you can leave what's already there. If you want to put the multiplex large in GD3 it's just permitted just like now. Right? So you don't have to make any changes even though we do this. Maybe I just don't include it at all right now because I don't want to confuse. I'm not trying to dig into the other districts. Right. Maybe we do the next supplement. I'm trying not to as much as possible. Can you put it in there and just make sure the other districts stay the same. So I do need to work on I guess is what I'm saying. I acknowledge that it's not perfect. Yeah. Yes. So I want to make sure it's not but I want the idea to be understood that all residential districts and I think right now all residential districts can have a duplex. All residential districts can have actually so LS1 wouldn't allow a town house. So that's something to think about. I don't think they could exist there anyway. There's no land and they they're multi-families not allowed in LS3 anyway so that's why it's not included there. Or I mean LS1. LS1. You can't have multi-family in LS1 right now. Right. So how do we get just basically multiplex large and LS4 if we do anything we have to just not permit it. Yeah. We have the multi no we don't. Again we're back to the 3 versus 16. So I'm going to work on how to fit it in to reflect what you're trying to say. It's not what you don't say can often mean as much as what you do say so I'm trying to be careful about not having a blank next to multiplex large. So maybe they get deleted. I put them in here just to show you where it can go to show you what can come in a future supplement. But I'm trying to make sure that we're really only impacting policy wise LS3 and LS4 but if it reflects what's already allowed in other districts that's okay because you're not changing your policy it's just how we're stating it. So the way you have it written is part two or three that's in keeping one. My intention will be to confirm all of that. I don't want to make any changes to what exists. There might be appropriate ones but I don't think we want to tackle them right now. So I will check these against current zoning. I think what I'm hearing is you agree that you don't want to make any changes to allowances. But as far as LS4 in particular how do you feel about townhouses multiplex, duplex being the right types? Yeah, right? We're good with the just we don't want big box. Just thinking is it more energy use or is it more energy used by different structures? By different structures. They're built properly now, right? Right. Right. So that probably would be consideration. So any new construction will have to meet those codes. And anything subject to Act 250 to even meet more with the stretch code? I agree with you. And what about those so really what's listed here for LS1 is that you would not you'd allow single families and duplexes. This would not allow townhouses or multiplexes on LS1. No duplex. Or LS3, I'm sorry. Right. Does that sound in line with what you would like to see? Yes. There's basically no more than two units in a building on LS3. You know, do I see big boxes coming? No. Do I see somebody creating one floor living a triplex? Yes. Absolutely. So just to be clear and on the record you would not want that. Right. Because I could see studio over studio over studio. Right. I just want to I just want to highlight all the implications. I'm not trying to make it a leading statement. Yeah. And one design of the other doesn't increase traffic. It's 30 units. Whether it's 30 units. So that probably would be a change over what's allowed today. If you had a lot large enough to fit three units there's not a lot of them. But if you did you could have you can have a stack of studios or something or one bedrooms. But no. That's what I'm hearing. Okay. For LS3. Are you happy it wasn't down though? I am hearing that there are some on East Lakeshore. I don't know if they're legal or not. They're stacked. But I get calls on the lakeside that there's apartment over apartment over apartment. Actually I think there's one that's legal. I don't know anyone. I think it's a there's rentals. Year round rentals though. It's apartment. Yeah. There's a basement unit. Yeah. There are not three stories at the road. There's a basement unit and two above it. Okay. That's all I have for Lakeshore stuff. All right. All good. All good. All right. Moving on. Okay. Thank you again. I know the list looks really long. I promise you that many of them are very technical fixes. They're like hey we missed a word or we some of them do our policy. So I will make sure to highlight which ones are which. And I did reorder them so we can just go down. Are we back at the very beginning? We are up to B for B. Okay. Yeah right at the beginning. So these are throughout. I did highlight this for you last time. This is just a reorganization. So every single district had a paragraph for municipal plan permanent uses conditional uses relationship. Where it said the same thing 54 times. I deleted them. Put it in once at the beginning of the document. Hopefully we can save five or six pages that way. That's really all that B is. Okay. Where something was specific to that district I did not delete it. I left it. So this couple of districts has additional standards for GD4. Those in G4. Okay. We're up to C. Updates to the process for zone change requests. Guys I got to tell you when we did this policy in February of like how do you come back in for a request I had no idea it existed in here. So you guys adopted a policy totally my fault that was contradictory to what's in the regulations. I don't know why a policy existed in the regulations. It did. So I deleted all that. That is in 203D. Let me show you. And just referenced your document. Zone change request. So this said it was this whole thing about a written request and there's a public notice and defer and it's contradictory to the policy that you adopted. Delete, delete. Want to move on until you give me a thumbs up? I was trying to You can take time. If you can just give us the page and the article where we are every time we change. Yeah, 203D. Your page to article 2 page 4. Thank you. Now there may be some of this that's worth pulling back. I'm not going to like delete it but it's worth pulling back into your consideration of a zoning change request policy but it's odd to have your own policy exist in the regulatory document. I think you should just have it as a separate policy and reference it. Yeah, that's why we did it. Basically when you started. So I think you're good to take it out. And this says you can only hear you're only supposed to hear you're supposed to change your zoning within 6 months or something of adoption of a town plan. I don't think that's what you wanted. Don't we have like 4 zoning requests? Change of zoning requests Probably a few you kick to the fall. We'll pick up back. Does that have anything to do with this? No, I didn't know this existed to be honest with you at that time. That feels like we separated planning commission from DRB days. Yeah, I think it's appropriate to pull this out. They were all intertwined at one time. There's not necessarily bad criteria in here for consideration but just have it exist in its own document. Okay. D So accessory structures it is really when members of the public come in most people do not know what zoning district they live in. Accessory structures exists in our table of our dimensional table as its own column. Several columns actually. It's been fully dependent on what zoning district you live in. Now we know within a single zoning district every lot can be very different. And the accessory structure dimensions having tied them to a zoning district we're creating some real inequalities that are better tied to what your lot situation is as opposed to your zoning district. So for example to say that ag that's not a good example but an R3 can look very different if it's a 50 acre lot than if it's a half acre lot. But this would give you that 40 foot accessory structure regardless as it exists today. Plus it had all of these columns and so when members of the public came in just for a shed I think we're expressing feeling really overwhelming because in another district it's easier for them to just know can I have a shed or not and how tall. So a lot of this is consolidation of those columns in the table in the dimensional standards table I tried to keep them to match what was in there whether I thought they were appropriate or not I tried to match them to what was already in there what I did include that's new I'm sorry. I'm going to scroll down but I'm not on there yet. 2.06 I'll give you a page in a moment. Thank you. As soon as I get there. Page done. In article 2. Yes. So minor words along the way I'm not going to point out everyone cannot okay height was just a movement it's nothing new sorry highest points of the structure shall be measured from average pre-construction grade that's not new text it was just moved so it shows up as new about do you say page 10? That was 2.06 so I don't know where 2.06 okay. 2.09 we'll get that cleaned up. Page 12. So we've added in sort of a purpose statement for accessory structures that's something that's come up a lot like what makes you know can I have an accessory structure with nothing else? No. It's not accessory at that point. That question comes in a lot. There was also a lot of cleanup you guys made changes to this as part of supplement 43 that is confusing people including all three of my zoning administrators because of the way it was written I think it was meant to clean up something else I don't know all the history I've run this by every person in my department who will implement it the idea is the same the language is just a little bit different in how it's spelled out this is about exceeding the 50% so that was in there but it's just written differently um rather than spell out in the chart 20 feet for accessory structures and most of the districts this says you're 20 feet and less there's a difference between a flat accessory structure and a pitched one those were already in those charts what's new here that I think was intended by saying more rural districts can have a taller one this instead says a parcel that's larger you still have to I'm sorry B B these are the 1, 2s and 3s so the number matches what was in the chart already what has changed is how do you get bigger than that how do you get bigger than 25 feet for an accessory structure keep in mind accessory structure includes everything from sheds to detached garages these are taller in my finding than other communities but I did not make a change to that I wanted to stay true to what was in there in some cases most often they're actually included in the primary structure we see more of them in than detached there are a lot that are detached but the majority that we see are within the principal structure we have a case where mother and father have adult children they want to move into the main house and mother and father want to stay on the property they want an accessory structure they want to be separate but not in the same building that's coming up we're seeing more for sure so this accessory structure that would if they were detached but it doesn't apply just to an accessory dwelling unit because that can exist but I just don't think you're talking about heights the height so again this wasn't meant to change what was in that chart it was meant to capture where do you get more than the standard so the standard of 25 feet for most how do you get more than that you get more than that so you think about a shed there's an example I've been sharing like a pool house I recently visited a property for an inspection it was a large lot six acres I sat back from everybody else there was nothing else around this enormous pool house it was beautiful and it looked really appropriate on that site it didn't stand out it was probably almost 30 feet tall that same pool house on a quarter acre lot on a single family ranch looks enormous and has nothing to do with the district I think it has everything to do with the lot and its size so that's what I'm trying to to reflect here which I think was the intention by going by district by saying something like an R10 a ten acre lot ten acre zoning what we're finding though again is that the zoning district doesn't really match up and you can't stereotype them in the way that you think you can somebody brought up to me the other day that Marble Island most of Marble Island I think would be something similar to like an R2 and it's something like an R10 which I'm not trying to rezone here but it's not ten acre zoning and it would allow even on a small Marble Island lot that 40 foot accessory structure so I think this is just an attempt to say that it's more about your size and your distance than it is about your zoning district don't you have to put some criteria in so you're consistent so they're still in there so it still says you have to be three acres or more you can't just stick it up by the road it has to be to the side or the rear if you're going with something extra large it has to be 50 feet from all property lines so if you're going with this 40 foot accessory garage, shed pool house you can't just stick it right on your neighbors property line no matter how large your lot is and if you wanted to add a bedroom that would kick in the septic the wastewater permit if it's an apartment well actually any additional bedroom but yeah I did try to make an exception for barns and agricultural buildings where it wouldn't matter if you're a lot I don't know it's probably redundant with state law it probably doesn't need to be in there but I just wanted to make it clear e yep there is a limit but it's one of the tallest ones that's allowed without being on a large lot where is that so this is three and nine so it is page yep I had it wrong well I don't know 2.09 article 2 page 13 thumbs up for now move on I'm good e very very simple we had very inconsistent language we said accessory house we said a bunch of things state statute uses accessory dwelling unit adu I tried to just change all those that is article 2 page 14 on to 15 so it's just all about consistency there no substantive changes okay good I'm going to move on so when you do this do you change your definitions as well I think yes I think I listed definition on this one right and definitions 12.02 yep so it was changing the definition we take two seconds you folks that are sitting here we're discussing LS 3 and 4 right this is all just homework for cleaning things up if you don't want to sit through the homework part of this and just fixing definitions and stuff okay just wanted to just want to make sure okay so there is the addition wastewater permits shall be obtained prior to zoning permit that's been our practice we were surprised to find it wasn't actually listed here so we're just saying you have to get a wastewater permit an accessory dwelling in it an accessory dwelling in it and you want to add a bed I mean if it's just a pool house without any facilities that's fine does that if you already have a septic that's set up for that that's a no brainer right say you have a three bedroom house for bedroom septic yes you still have to get the permit it might just be that it's no problem getting okay that's good because the question comes up people will transfer bedrooms they may have a four bedroom house and they're like oh we're going to turn one of these into a storage space and build the apartment above the garage so that comes up you still have to get a permit it's just easy and there's no cost okay perfect that says this is new 2.10 B I'll give you a page in a moment I'll give you a page 17 yes so quick quick history on this one if you have a foot a fence above six feet you have to go to the DRB fences if you've ever tried to buy one generally come four six eight foot heights a lot of people get six foot fences I think 90% of our fence applications are for fences we had a gentleman nice gentleman came in was extremely honest in his application had a six foot fence panel and the post was two inches taller because they mostly are some inches taller and if anyone were to implement this by the book we would have to deny that the fence is six feet tall the posts every eight feet are two inches taller I don't want to have to not implement the regulations and I sure as heck don't want to implement them so I tried to just fix it here so I just tried to put something in about how we're measuring this gentleman in particular also said I don't want to put it at the ground I want to raise it up an inch so I can weed whack and it doesn't get dirty cool that's what most people are doing so but then again his fence became six foot three instead of six feet technically I can't put my signature on it so this is just to try to clean up common sense I think it's common sense I'll leave it to you to disagree with me I don't like it I'm sorry I just well specifically in LS one, two, three, four is there any way to say the fence has to be so you can see through it so it can't block the view of the lake I mean that's just the thought you know about again getting back to people I mean I just have seen communities not in Vermont but you can't see any of the water you drive for miles and there's just fences yeah if that's something you want to explore I would say either you'll have to give me some time or include it in your next supplement I think it would be more complicated than you think in how we write it a lot of people get this up for practicing yeah yeah it's not impossible to write but it's trickier than you think because you have to talk about where the fence is front yard, side yard it's just it would take a little bit just in terms of just in terms of trying to fix our views for people I don't know if it would just be in LS3 you know but again just I have seen miles and miles of fences where people can't see the ocean they can't see the water they're denied access to the view so it's always a balancing act so I could save it as a discussion point for the next supplement I would say if you were to take it up as part of this supplement remember every week and every day that you delay actually adopting this I get the application in for the three parking spaces in the 40 foot building I have an application right now for a 40 foot rebuild it's in so we might have to just have it good enough for now let's come back to that it was quick I didn't think it was a big deal are you guys okay with this one okay so it does give them a little space off the ground a little space for caps okay see you told you some of these are quick nonconforming use this is policy let me get to the page page 18 Bob you're good yep so right now says if you discontinue a use for six months it's done kaput this says you might be able to extend to 12 if it's actively marketed and stuff I think COVID has changed a lot of thinking the real estate market is wacky especially for non-residential uses I don't pretend that this is an easy one or that it's a no-brainer this is policy I don't take any offense if you think six months is plenty so again if you have a use right now that's nonconforming I'm gonna just raise the Porter's Point store I don't know the store on Porter's Point road is it nonconforming use whatever it's the apple deli whatever it was six months after that stops it can't be a store ever again it is a residential neighborhood residential house six months when you're trying to market something like that right now is very challenging this would allow them up to 12 months if they're actively marketing and it's not just a blighted vacant site again makes sense I appreciate that this is a policy change and I don't pretend that this is how long is that starving vacant just out of curiosity would this apply to them so they have demonstrated use periodically it would apply to them they are not considered they've not exceeded their six months they are currently allowed their shop use that's what I can tell you to keep within within every six months had to do something to demonstrate its use what does preclude somebody who has something on the fence they're not sure about so once a month they rent it out to somebody as a business and have a business in for a month and can do this month after month after month after month or every six months policy to continue this forever so they can already do that so then if they can already do that why do we have to expand it to a year why not they've got six months put something in there for a month if you need to to continue I think it's for the people who aren't trying to skirt it who are actively trying to market something if you honestly want to get ready your thing your property you walk away and it takes you a year to get rid of it you don't want to play games I'm not attached to this just to be clear I'm just asking to control things out there if somebody loopholes sometimes it gets taken advantage of that's what's going on to get through the six months so we go to 12 give them some leeway without having to play games I hope and it's perfectly okay as the decision making body to not be okay with this one so is COVID the reason why six months is not enough time now or is that like in any world it would be 12 months so I think it's about the not residential right now right is booming everything else is not and so it's just it's the market from what I understand not a realtor I don't think 12 months is more fair for a business owner I think if it's not abandoned that's you don't want something to sit abandoned hold on to that use forever do I feel strongly about it absolutely not it's something that was that's been talked about on more than one property and it's been in draft form since even before I got here so I wanted to include it but if you say you just don't know or save it for later or no we cannot what happens after 12 months and the building sits there they can't market it as a commercial piece of property anymore what happens it just still sits there yeah they would just try six months give them a little bit more time to market it and sell the property and get it used again basically what we're trying to do yes we don't see a ton of it I mean most stuff is conforming in use again this is only use not the dimensional structure of conformity no I'm just trying to think if it's not conforming use it doesn't sell into 12 months it's going to sit there calling the park until someone can market it as he's a property dick and be made into a residential yeah in this example I think it was also a concern that I understand for west lake shore there's some uses that some people had said boy this is not really kind of what we want new stuff being built as but we're okay with the you know Bob's repair shop I don't know if that even exists we don't want a new repair shop or a new gas station but we're totally cool with the one that's there if that were to stop it could not be reborn yeah there's some old school properties that would be shamed clover house is already gone the clover house that must be was that a non conforming it was that must be way down now so the place that used to be a forest shop on west lake shore drive that could never be a forest could never be a business again that's a commercial yeah that's an OS too that property's okay clover house was just residential yeah so this is anything where that use is no longer allowed could be the opposite it could be residential and commercial yes the same and a few of those exist I don't know this stays in times like 12 months goes by pretty quickly so commercial property you know six months is just sometimes it's barely enough time to get a for sale sign out yeah I'm okay with it I'll run with the flow there you go you're all good H is extremely simple 2.15 Bob do you have the page I didn't get to H yet unfortunately 21 it starts out if you're talking about the potable water supply which is a little change we're on septic right yeah so this is just again I sat down with our wastewater official and we realized just how few tie-ins there are with the expectations for wastewater so this is really just trying to clean that all up straighten that up tie-in what is expected for wastewater into the development regulations the problem is if they exist only in the ordinances only the wastewater official can require them so if it says for example you need a permit to get a septic tank great you need a permit from the wastewater official to get a septic tank and here we can't require that you have that permit to build a new house so this is just trying to connect those activities that take place either through DRB or other permitting to some common sense wastewater permitting needs and that's what is H there it's just connecting it to chapter 8 there was no connection to chapter 8 previously that is the chapter of the code of ordinances attempts about septic there's nothing here that is substantively different than is required in chapter 8 we're just linking it to these requirements so if someone a family sells their home to a family member transfer is that property do they still have to go do they still have to go do they still have to go figure a way that septic transfer would have to be inspected that is a state wastewater regulation that I'm not touching respectfully so we have delegation here but we follow the state wastewater rules so they determine them again what this is is just putting what's already existing in clear language I just tried to pass legislation for that but it didn't go in with the state I update reference to building code we called it the building and the building code it has a new name now the building code and building safety ordinance that's page 23 nothing earth shattering but I'm trying to be thorough and listing everything that's been changed another not earth shattering one J there was a discrepancy in chapter 4 the scroll here so the heading of chapter 4 heading of chapter 4 went gd1, gd2, gd3, gd4 that's great then you get into the text it goes gd1, gd2, severance corners so it's just gd3 is the severance corners form based code district so it's just just clarity nothing substantive just listing in here to be thorough K704C we get to really scroll I'll get you a page in a moment are you on K? yes it's like 30 page 30 talking about signs action district 704C article 7 article 7 yes so this again just pulling things in line having sat down with our wastewater and stormwater experts this is just stuff that they've been looking for for a while says that states stormwater rules allow for exemption of stormwater management systems to suffer now it's clear nothing substantive thumbs up vehicle charging stations okay substance that is 10.01 this is the first of three that were remanded from supplement 43 when you get to it can you blow it up because I can't read it yep it just scrolls faster when it's small article 10 page 4 it does change that article 10 it does I'll fix that article 10 page 4 okay substance substance substance okay so there's a few things this one is a little bit different but in terms of how it is shown here because I wanted to show you a markup of the current regulations and a markup of your previous markup so history you guys know better than I do from what I understand there was language that the planning commission included for electric vehicle charging as part of the last supplement that went to the select board who said why is this here nobody quite knew so select board says we're going to kick it out of this supplement you guys talk about it am I doing okay Pam you guys talk about it figure out if you really want it there and bring it back to us so electric vehicle charging stations I think part of the reason that it also got kicked out was act 250 so typical residential building standards energy standards do not include stipulations for electric vehicle charging however if you are subject to act 250 you are subject to the stretch code which has a requirement for electric vehicle charging stations so originally I said well fine act 250 is going to take care of this for the same thresholds that was included it doesn't need to be in here and then I realized there's corners it's part of the growth center which is exempt from act 250 review so if you want this in there in most places it will be governed by act 250 standards for any property that is subject to it except in your growth center which is probably the one place if you're going to have it anywhere probably the place you want it so back to the red line red line your full draft is the 789 that was the draft as part of supplement 43 that you sent to the commission what I am recommending here to bring it more in line with the stretch code and to simplify it is to still require the charging stations for residential properties of 10 units or more 1 per 4% of spaces the piece about having them convenient to the main entrance I removed I can tell you as somebody who drives one just to be clear you don't want them in the most convenient spaces and most places don't want to wire them in the most convenient places because they will be parked in by other vehicles they will not be reserved if you put them in the prime spot you'll almost always find a Toyota Tacoma parked in one have one of those too so I'm not picking up most people so that is a professional recommendation to remove the location element that you want to include them I would not force them to be in those prime spots they could still be there if somebody wants to put them there but I would not force them to be there this I also deleted this language of only electric vehicles may occupy charging spaces that's an enforcement issue that's a weird thing to put in a regulation it's not a designed site plan element how much prefer it the way it's written out in the previous so residential only have to sever its corners then because it's not just residential there are also commercial buildings in there commercial buildings do not have to provide yeah it's a good question so it's still I guess you could say multi-family projects with 10 units of residential or more I think that the idea and if you read a lot of studies I do read a lot of these studies I sort of keep up on these most people with you include multi-family because these are the people of the heart they're not having garages they're not having a private space most vehicle charging is done overnight especially if you have just a level 2 charger or even level 1 most people are not at businesses long enough to successfully get a charge again I drive one I don't plug in at Hannaford it's not worth it to me I don't plug in here either and most charging is done per the studies at a place that you live again I'm not tied to this if you'd like to bring it back a recommendation that falls in line with the stretch code the stretch code speaks only to the residential component yes the section A-4 multi-family developments 10 units or more they don't include commercial there's no charging stations like not that there isn't it's just not required as part of this particular code you're welcome to require anything you'd like I was just trying to be consistent I'm just curious who pays and I should know this but who pays for the electricity I've seen different models some places will offer free charging and some places will require you to use a system like plug share or there's a couple different systems so you're either charged or you have to pay or Tesla has its own yeah free ones are harder and harder to find most places you have to pay I have found three ones I know about this is St. Alvin's parking garage you have to pay with a parking spot City markets was free for a long time I don't know I'll put that out there City markets free at least my word commercial is because I'd like people to spend more time in stores you know and spend money in cold chest I don't know if that equates to that but that's why I would like in around restaurants or places where people could go shopping so that they while they're waiting to charge they're not just sitting in their car yeah well this mandates level 2 charging which is not the slowest but it's not quick probably you're only making up on a standard level 2 charger in an hour of shopping 10 to 15 miles of charge I do it anyway if I'm at City Market because it's free but well you pay for it there somewhere that's true I do I do pay for it somewhere but so do you will those chargers the fast chargers are a different ballgame and most of those are Tesla chargers but because you can sit for 20 minutes at a you know at a rest stop get a coffee chill out and you're good to go you know you've just about replenished most of what you need they're pretty rare and that's not what's specified here I shouldn't say they're rare they don't fit most electric vehicles so in the future let's say 10, 20 years in the future would they have to be replaced the chargers or could they descendingly enough they could just be upgraded to be a fast charger is it something you probably would have to be replaced it's a different technology, it's a different plug I think we digress I think we digress so no I'm just trying to think about a little ahead you know I mean so we don't have to if they could just be upgraded it might be worth it some day you may have it in the road so you're driving down and charges as you go and see that see that's Prius right that's Prius so Michael here is to give you something back that was more than a baby step thoughts on that one thoughts on that one I don't have a lot of thoughts on that one myself I I think myself I'm a different thought that if you're going to build this these big apartment buildings the customer base is going to drive these guys to put some chargers out there somewhere if you have a commercial base Tesla is going to come in and rent a little piece of property and throw some down so this is fine with me throw them somewhere from the residential that's where I am go ahead in the spirit of let's get moving not try to pressure you but yes keep it as red line red line red line squared all good for the select board so we don't have to hear about it again I didn't care about as much then either as I do now hands at least heard my spiel maybe they may change it all completely but at least onward onward this is another common sense extension m 9.04 h 4h so this says I dream of a time when our regulations you can just go to the table of contents and click on them working on it 4h so this says your major subdivision elements expire after a year anybody who has ever seen a major subdivision be built knows it doesn't doesn't happen in a year no um so this is to extend that 9.04 h there it is so change it from one year to three is my recommendation I think it's a very common sense approach your deck permit doesn't expire as fast as your whole subdivision permit doesn't make a lot of sense to me um I haven't any problems with that not bad I just think it's reasonable building out a 10 lot subdivision in under a year yeah I don't it's got a mind of its own hopefully they'll all fix themselves once I will check them as I accept all the changes eventually bicycle parking another remand 10.01 k I think it's page 9 or the bottom of 8 bike rack shall be clearly visible to employees and visitors who are practical and safe they should be located in the proximity to the main entrance of the building okay so multiple cage 9 so this one I think was also remanded because they're like what is the point so sorry this is not a red line of a red line there was a lot more to this about having a plug-in space for the bike racks as well and having it there was more language I've slimmed that down I think that what some of the feedback was is that having a plug in for your bike racks was just unreasonable it just seemed like a lot I don't know I wasn't there as part of it so there's not going to be any charging for bikes not required I got you on that one I think it should be required I have to admit on that one which is crazy to me is the whole world has changed the bikes they're everywhere now we're going to have people have to drag them up their stairs and plug them in but we're going to let them out of their car we're going to force them to put plugs in it's a little goofy which I'm good with the rack they don't care they have to drag them up the stairs so I was just trying to I understood that I wasn't here I get it this was not one that Slakward was willing to move forward one but wanted something not just residential all parking areas so it's really when you're out there in the bow it's not I'm going to probably hit you guys in a future this is a very short bike parking section I have a lot of big ideas that I didn't want to hit you with here but that I think will be well appreciated I'd like to return to this one in a future supplement I think there's some good stuff being done with bike parking I think Colchester's behind on it um it's moving fast it was just more than I think we could put in here but I'd like to I have it practically written I'm okay personally does it include charging? the next supplement part of it and also part of it talks about what bike parking is a big part if you've ever tried to anywhere it says you have to have a rack have you ever tried to park your bike in one of those wave racks you might as well not have one you'll go places and people have them tied to lampposts because lampposts are better than a lot of the racks so just parking is also problematic because we don't define what parking is and people buy the cheapest racks especially movable racks that are there on day one and don't exist after day three right? so there's a lot of problems with bike parking that we can fix that are cheap and easy for developers but that make the world a difference one simple thing it's like to be visible and people start using it it's amazing if it's not in the back door where the kitchen staff hang out on their lunch breaks we need it just to be out of the shrubs and I hope that hopefully both of your ideas on bike racks so I have a lot of things I think for now this is still something but I fully acknowledge we could do more just some good enough for now yep okay to bring it back in the next supplement sure I got ideas commercial vehicle definitions another one that was remanded so this is the third of those three 10.01m part of what happened here is that it was trying to make a fix for one particular problem and not really considering the bigger part of it I have said stuff to people who know things about commercial vehicles so this is highlighted because I didn't think it was the right number length I'm going to change to 16 feet I'm going to do it right now and a height of 10 that from what I understand is the standard size of your typical residential plumber no CDL no we're not talking big box we're talking this is the guy who works at an electrical place and takes his truck home at night so you can walk into it but it's not parking attractor trailer or something that requires a CDL on a residential street I just wondered if it could be if possible if it could be screened from neighboring properties I'd be upset if I'd have to look at that like just Joe the plumber coming home at night like yeah I mean if possible I'm not making it a requirement well if you have limits on how you can have a fence and a truck's 10 foot tall kind of going to defeat the workers then anyone else want to I get the screening thing but honestly I don't want it to go more effort than you have to if you park his vehicle and his driver next to his house make use of it every day I'm okay with it I've been I would have to deal with people that work there they're respectful if they can they're business people they don't want to upset their neighbors either at least the guys I always doubt would they'll do their best and they might even build something on their own without us having to regulate I can tell you that I live in a pretty traditional neighborhood there's at least two people who work for electrical local electrical companies two plumbers, one guy who does lawn care their vehicles don't look much different to me than the guy with the F-250 next on the other side there's smaller than you think I think smaller than an Oklahoma although RVs that's true about trailers in it we're going to talk vehicles does this also step on the toes of people with trailers or does that a different no so this is trying to define what a commercial vehicle is so the other problem is we talk about commercial vehicles a lot but we don't define them so that's the other part of this so then the question come up well what about the guy who delivers for Domino's is that a commercial vehicle what about the Uber driver is that a commercial vehicle so this is trying to make clear what is and isn't and very clearly saying that the Domino's guy is not a commercial vehicle it doesn't matter that he uses it for commercial purpose it's still a resident it's still a passenger vehicle but if you start to have these 24 foot box trucks that you park at home every night that starts to be a problem so you're still allowed to have one this was about more than one commercial vehicle again I wasn't here for that original discussion but I understand that a big part of it was what is a commercial vehicle and what's the right size when we're talking about it I thought they were only allowed to have one yes they can only have one oh ok they said they could have one no but this is also what is a commercial vehicle to make clear what you can and can't have so can I have a 16 foot truck in a 30 foot trailer it's a combination so no just curious cause now again this is something that is sort of a commercial vehicle so I don't think that I don't know that you're hitting 16 feet on a on a standard passenger truck are you oh yeah a regular pickup truck oh yeah it's probably 18 but you're still taking basically it's a cabin chassis that's a commercial vehicle so I think we're ok yeah essentially I think it was really only a problem in one particular case I don't think that it had a lot of drive outside of that request which I understand sort of fixed itself where did you find the definition for 16 feet cause you're right pickup trucks are kind of longer than somebody who owns a lot of trucks 16 foot would cover a base truck which is 16 to 18 how big are the egg trucks those go a lot better 20's yeah I don't pretend to be an expert so I talk to other people 16 will cover almost everybody 18 feet I'm noting 18 feet is a standard parking spot you can see these vehicles parking on the spot so you should push a little bit beyond it yeah and you don't want that U-Haul truck this is about Joe the plumber Maria the electrician being able to bring their vehicle home at night and not have that cow as a commercial vehicle if you want to go to 18 feet it's no big deal a couple more feet gives you the guy with a 4 door if it's a standard parking spot that's a good reference point yep okay we good with vehicles yep yeah it's crossed out I know it's hard to tell I'm going to format these later I don't know it's like a thank you I do see it it is crossed out but I'll clean it up photovoltaic systems this is very simple there's nothing substantive what it's trying to do this is 10.08 page 27 page 27 yep on the bottom of it page 17 what we're going to do is clarify state law says if you're connected to the grid we can't regulate you so we had all these standards in here but it wasn't clear what it was talking about actually regulating what was the page called page 27 page 27 thank you it's also clarifying language it formally said solar collectors for consistency statue in chapter 4 change it to photovoltaic systems this is making clear that even if you are connected to the grid the town has the ability to regulate roof mounted systems with respect to fire access so just making those clarifications we do them all the time they're super easy and then this makes clear that these requirements only apply to those that are not net metered or connected because it wasn't clear and people were like why do I you know you're not allowed to do this and they're right we're not if you don't connect though we have all the rights in the world I did change it I knew it's had 10 feet in height for a solar panel that seemed really short when you can have a shed that's 40 I'm recommending 20 feet you'll almost never see these but if you don't connect you can have a 20 foot panel instead of 10 yes? wind turbines had some weird language sorry so why is it you want to regulate the non metered systems more than the metered ones what's the rationale for that it's not about wanting it's about state statue state statue says you cannot regulate not metered why do you want to regulate non metered systems presumably so that you have some boundaries in place I didn't create it it was in there I'm just trying to make it taller I don't like stuff that restricts people using renewable energy this will give a more this will add to it this will make it easier for them we agree so the language is not new the language was already in there I was just trying to make it simpler less restrictive it's getting late at some point maybe you'll remove it all together but I'm not trying to reinvent solar wheels what are we up to wind turbines wind turbines yeah so this was weird setbacks can be reduced if the property owner says yes the adjacent property owner you never want a standard in your regulations that relies on neighbor approval you need to be clear and unambiguous so I've deleted that we say that you have to have a fence we don't say how high the fence is you have a four foot fence around a pool you're already saying you have to have a fence around a wind turbine let's give it a height I put four feet again I'm not trying to make up whether it should have a fence you already have that in there I left it nothing else there those are pretty straightforward water and wastewater I think S and T you can just combine it's really just again clarifying the connections to state wastewater regulations there's nothing substantive yeah so this is the connection to chapter 8 in saying that the wastewater official might say that the project is exempt from permitting pretty straightforward 1105 same thing it's what do we need to know to issue a certificate of occupancy previously we didn't have language that said we didn't have any sort of wastewater system built now this says more about what's required for certificate of occupancy we do an inspection right now we had almost no standards these are the same standards we're currently using you have to meet what your approval says not groundbreaking a little bit obvious but it was missing design certifications we had no requirement for them before for wastewater now you do anything? no? okay that wasn't on our list I think that was T 1105 1104 the number was wrong thank you but you have something under 1105 1105 okay expiration let me have oh that should be 1104 and 05 same idea of expirations I extend from 12 to 18 months a little bit more time for a zoning permit people pull a permit for a pool they're back-ordered they can't get them constructed in 12 months your deck sometimes longer and again this isn't completion this is until you've reached substantial completion we didn't define that so now we've included 50% of the budget's been committed we had to have something it's not perfect but pouring a foundation is not 50% of a new pool but it's very difficult to define what substantial construction is did you say you build a foundation and slab and they walk away from it for a while after 18 months but if you build your foundation and slab you frame it you've committed a lot of your budget to it you're good takes you longer that's fine well once you reach 50% there's no extension necessary so it doesn't expire yeah same thing under there definitions this one I realized definition of in I realized when I was looking at the uses for LS3 and LS4 I looked at LS1 and LS2 our definition of an in previously set up to 60 rooms so everyone had this idea for west lakeshore of a cute little in so you look at the definition and you realize that cute little in allowed 60 rooms I don't think I wasn't here but I don't think the intention was for a holiday in to exist in there so I am proposing a change in the definition from 60 rooms there with me I'm on each to 20 to, did I say 20 I can't remember 20 it's a number at the wall if you feel like that's still too much or too little I looked up the definitions in other areas I found anywhere from 12 to 30 what's the difference between in and out over there well there wasn't much before this but I think that the hotel has a number associated with it as well and facilities I may not have looked into that one too much because it wasn't allowed in the lakeshore anyway whereas in is that was the only reason I caught it this doesn't complicate their B&B at all their B&B couldn't be 20 rooms now and maybe hotel could use an improvement but at least it's not allowed in the lakeshore district but in is 20 is still a big number I think I think but 7th quarter one of those buildings was originally supposed to be again I don't know if it will be in operating did it get built I thought it did get built it's never got operated isn't it those three big I think one of them was permitted as a dorm for the pharmacy college yeah it was I was part of that deal they built a building but not the in it was a dorm and now it's sparkling yeah the in was actually I think it was like 20 it was you would have been right there right it was a ballroom it was a whole thing about ballroom dancing they were going to fill the in it's a thing it's a huge thing yeah so they come into the thing and build up this so this one came up when we were talking about the sewer line and people were fearful that West Lakeshore would become Lake George and I was tasked with looking at we could actually be allowed there we would keep telling people don't worry it's not going to be all the stuff and then you look at the things that were allowed there and you saw in of 60 rooms and we're like we've been telling people it's going to be cute little stuff and so I think this or some proposal to limit that more is more in line with the intention so in is allowed on LS1 that is the lake side just to be clear I don't think the intention was ever to allow 60 units of lodging I think even 12 is a large number for an inn yeah kind of defeats the purpose of it being an inn I have 3 hands I have 12 hands on separate lots on separate lots separate ownership and separate ownership it ends in this now we're talking about a structure of this particular area so how do we feel about the size of this particular area right I agree 20 might be a bit much just seem pretty clear to me that 60 was not what people intended I mean you want it viable you know I mean imagine if somebody decided to buy the property where the little lakeshore pioneer breakfast places right there and they banged 60 little units in there I think even 20 kind of changes the character of what you're shooting for there or some of the old Jake DePorge's property I did look around at other definitions and other communities around the globe I didn't specifically look at like the mountain road and stow and looked at small versus small versus larger I'm just thinking of like what actually exists isn't it I could do that but I was just trying to cut it down for 60 well I don't know enough about LS1 you know what else is out in there is a cool tale about an LS1 not an LS1 now I think it's a conditional use no more than a certain number in LS2 even Do you have any idea how many ends with let's say 20 rooms could be put into LS1 not a lot of large properties left but there are a few like there's some rebuilds that could happen like the Comcov area is a 5 acre parcel and the Pioneer deli parcel is 3 acres maybe where the Denison hairstylist is right there I'm not sure how big that is but that could turn into I think that's all one lot right I don't know if it's separate buildings separate lots it wasn't sure yeah I think they're all the same lot but they're a fair sized lot I think you'd be looking at redevelopment and that's on LS1 12 seems small though 12 seems like a small building today's world 16 sure we're negotiating on a size for somebody I think a small hotel would be yeah since this is not the final why don't we just leave it at 12 for now we'll do some research ourselves and when we come back before we push it as a final we can say 12 is not enough or yeah we're good yeah highlight we'll figure out a number it won't be just LS1 it's not the only place we allow it yeah let me um I'll do more research on it I just wanted to throw it out this is one of the first things that I changed like six months ago that I've been sitting on I think we're in agreement prior to the sewer vote so I haven't really returned to it since then but I could do some more nobody's worried about the 60 number because it wasn't never going to happen but now we're in a different world it was just it was hard to sit through the select board meetings and talk about what could happen when people were fearful and say oh yeah 60 units yeah oops so I think what I can do for you there is I'll compare it with a hotel and I'll just try to get you some local quick examples of what does 20 look like versus 12 I'll just go and figure it out real fast online stone I'd actually drive to stone yeah but if you want to authorize a field trip I'm totally totally good with that too um excavation I'm not even going to point it out it's just to exclude work exempt under state permitting it doesn't count as excavation excavation is an important word for what requires a permit um grammatical organizational zoning map oh sorry I guess I should have talked about that one as part of so there is a map it basically shows exactly what you'd expect for LS 3 and 4 it's divided by the road um I made no changes to LS 1 and 2 just as a reminder it does extend on to East Lakeshore as we um when um Phyllis when Phyllis is here she reminds us of that because she's on East Lakeshore but she is in LS 2 but it it reflects that it's available here I haven't heard anything that it does overlap with the sewer service district which I think is important when we talk about density so the new sewer service district is not just the properties it's any property with frontage on that road so the LS 4 for example does extend back if the property has frontage so if it's a large property it doesn't cut the property in half which is not what happened with West Lakeshore larger properties like the hazelut property are cut LS 2 does not extend all of like the hazelut property for example it stops at a line that's pretty consistent across property boundaries that's not the case here yep that's it very good we have to have timeline yeah you have to talk timeline um meetings are typically some form of calendar here first and third we didn't get off, we're on third so your next scheduled meeting will be August 2nd if we do 2 in August you're looking at August 2nd and August 16th I have historically which is why I ask so it's not a holiday no officially so proceed with August 2nd definitely do you want a copy that is clean enough to warn for a public hearing a future public hearing I would think so right we're pretty good yeah yeah you have to just come back I think we're pretty close so as a matter of procedure if you're very close you could make those amendments I would suggest making them live and then you warn that draft for a date certain but it does it's going to require it'll require a lot of cleanup I'm on vacation a little bit so why not shoot us an email in a week or so and say hey we're going to be able to do it we've got to pull the reins back that way there's no pressure on you to get it all jammed in and we'll know what's going on I'm actually not hearing on a second how about it yeah why don't we hold the second but I'll connect with Rich is there a rush I mean is there somehow if we don't get it done is something held up I think we need to get it done to slow down some redevelopment of places along the lake shore your concern is to have something ready to warn you need to have everything you need to have the report there's a full report that has to be written you have to have all of the other things that are not included here the cover sheet the appendices that's that's going to be a that's going to be tough so the alternative is to pick a date the following week or to look at August 16th and bang it out 16th now you could have a meeting on the second to finalize things I could have somebody from my staff come Zach is great with the idea that we warn on the 16th for a date in September we still have a meeting but I don't think I'll be able to get you a version ready to warn because the day you issue the warning you have to so we'll have so we'll have a good copy so we'll have a very good copy and we can look at one last run right change our hotel change our hotel change our hotel or in that works I'll actually be out of it there you go figure out how many rooms I got I will yeah that'll keep us on track so you guys are going to hold the second and the 16th and that second meeting will have only that on it and even the second I'm going to keep very light for you it's just going to be here are the things that are left it's mostly a clean version yep you'll talk about the last bits of things and then it will still give us two weeks to get a super clean version ready for yeah that's all the other stuff that takes time yeah yep so by the 16th I'll have a report that has to get submitted I'll have all of the other attachments and pages that exist in the regulations that you haven't seen there's no changes to okay a lot of appendices and tables what date do you think it would be in September it depends on the newspaper cycle so you have to have 15 days warning but they don't always publish the day you call them sometimes you need like a seven day lead time so I don't know but I will come prepared with that date because when you warn it you have to warn it for a date certain when you have meetings every two weeks and there's 15 day warning it might be a month so it might be the end of September sounds right we're all good thank you guys thank you a lot of work not quite but it's pushing in yeah and we're not done yet but the next two I promise will not be long and then you'll have the public hearing which might be very long this is very good August will be light stop updates is that necessary here good on stop updates I don't have anything I might but I didn't prepare anything that's fine that's okay minutes of June 1st we need a motion I'll make a motion to approve second I'll in favor I'll make a motion to adjourn second all in favor