 pull that off. Well, he never looks so good. I understand that. But this is the way he set it up. When I go into open the meeting, I can only go into open the meeting as Brad. Who do I talk to to fix our whole setup here, Brad? Well, we don't have the IT we have at the moment. We don't have that for that much longer. So. Okay. All right. Fantastic. So why don't we look at the meeting minutes from May 7? It's not May 7. It's April 7. Actually, March 3. All right. March 3 meeting minutes. Do I have a motion to approve March 3 meeting minutes? I make a motion to approve the March 3 meeting minutes. Second. Bill. All right. Any discussion changes corrections to the minutes? I didn't see any hearing none. All in favor of approving the March 3 meeting minutes as posted, say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Abstain. Motion carries. Thank you. We're on to Regina again. Okay. So we have a few chapters to review. But really the major substance is in chapter six. So chapter six, definitely we have some discussion items. We want to go through that. And we also want to go through the land use table. Okay. Then also at the bottom of my email, there is a list of parking lot items for the future. And we should probably go through that as well because now that some things are more official, like the city will happen. And with that, if I am understanding correctly, a DRB planning commission model, it only makes sense to make those edits right now. Is that that's in the charter? Yes. That we will have a DRB model? Yes. Okay. So as of July 1st, all of us are out of a job and we have to reapply. Well, some of you will probably get back in, John. Yeah. I kind of, I think it's up to you. You'll be deciding whether you want to be PC or DRB. And going on what the CCRPC said would be a good model. I've told the trustees that you should be one person at least from the PC that's also in the DRB. So there's continuity. I don't know if you can do that. Can you do that? You can. Yeah. I was on the Thoughtful Growth Committee that went through all the various models. And maybe someone else was on that too. But we did end up saying that at least in a potentially merged community at that point that we would still move to one PC and two DRBs, right? So each community could have the review authority stay or was it the other way around? I can't remember which, but it was one PC and two DRBs, John. Yeah. So, you know, I think the stats are across the state, 80 plus percent are following a DRB model. So we're kind of in the minority at the moment. It seems to be the periphery in the south of Vermont, the north of Vermont that are not. All right. So I'm just calling up all the rest of the documents. You know, I was all ready for in person. I had everything ready. Bring any chocolate. So I'm just going to call up the email that Regina is referring to and all the documentation. But we have it. So do you want us to go through your letter first or do you want us to go through chapter six? Yeah. So that was my question to you. There's a couple of things on that future list item that we might as well just sort of like talk about right now and make sure that everybody is either on board with it being a future list item or a now item. So if it helps to just sort of start with that conversation, we can kind of get it out of the way. Let's let's start with that conversation first. Okay. So I'm going to share my screen. Robin, you got to give me host ability. Sorry, we could have been. I did that already. Regina, when you say future or now, do you mean future like not in this version of the LDC or do you mean future meetings? I mean future like not in this package of LDC updates. Okay. Here we go. All right. So can everybody see this 55? Okay. So one question and I've been meaning to reach out to Mia, but I haven't had the chance. So Patrick, I'm not sure you have a sense of where the housing committee is. So they met with the developers. They had a really good meeting and they have basically like a white sheet proposal to come forward with and discuss with us. And so I can reach out to Mia. They were going to talk about it and kind of finalize it at their last housing committee meeting, which was supposed to be a couple of weeks ago, right around the time we were supposed to meet last. But I think they're kind of now uncertain as to what their future of their committee holds because they are a joint committee. So they're trying to go through that discussion as to what it looks like between the town and the city. But I do think that Mia would probably be ready at our June meeting to come forward with that white paper and kind of explain what they've come up with and what they want to propose in terms of inclusionary zoning. Okay. And it's clear they're still on inclusionary zoning. That hasn't changed. That's really the. No, the idea they're looking at making it mandatory for construction, you know, buildouts of 10 units or more, where there would be a, I think it was like a 12 or 15 percent affordability rate within those buildouts. Okay. And so that's basically what they're kind of looking at. Okay. All right, great. Because you have mentioned before Patrick in, in a way ish, it's possible that this is not an enormous lift. If the housing committee is very clear on the parameters, we could, you know, borrow and steal other people's language and just get those parameters in. And it makes me feel better that they've had developer conversations. So yeah, Patrick, can you just give us a little, I was thinking about that today as a matter of fact, that it, my basic feeling is still number one, our problem is housing, number two, our problem is affordable housing. And I don't, I don't want to support something that I don't want to support item two without knowing what the impact is on item one. In other words, if, if we make an inclusionary rule on development of housing that actually leads to a negative impact on overall housing development, that would be bad in my opinion. So I'm just trying to find out what did you develop, what did the, what did the developers have to say about the notion of having inclusionary zoning in S exchange? Trying to recall as Mia described it, I believe they all kind of said it would be a challenge, but not a challenge that they would be able to overcome, something that wouldn't necessarily scare them away. And as long as we kept the requirements and incentives to a point where it wasn't too, like too much worth, you know, the 10, 12% of units. So think about some of the the building that was just put up with what was like 30 or 60 studio apartments right in downtown. So three of those 30 studio apartments, you know, three or five of them would have to be at an affordable rate, whereas the other 24, 25 could be at market and with no, you know, no strings attached or nothing, no ceiling to that. So they could certainly make up their difference there, you know, it's not like we're asking them to hold 50%. And the definition of affordable is also critical to the whole situation here. And I think they were, they were looking at a range from it was 80 to 120%. I mean, it was kind of a weird range because it seemed like it was close to what market rate was anyway. So you can kind of play with that evaluation and that number until it doesn't really hurt that much for the developers. And yet it may have some benefit to making more affordable housing. So I guess as long as the white paper and the results of what they're proposing is consistent with not deterring investment in housing, I agree with Regina, it's not a big lift to get that in to this round of the LDC. Yeah, if what they come forward with looks good, I think, yeah, I'm with you too. We should just kind of put it in now, especially knowing that there's some developments right ahead of us that you would like to include some affordability within knowing that there's, as Robin can attest to, there's challenges right now with one building that is trying to go in at, to be all affordable or majority affordable housing. If that one's not going to go, then we need to be creative with other ways in which to get affordability. From what I hear, no buildings in the Village Center District could have an affordable housing component, none. Well, yeah, within the triangle of train tracks. And if they use HUD funding, which isn't the only yes, that is true, you know, yep, that it just disqualifies them from HUD funding, which is CDBG and home. There are other ways, you know, especially if you're looking at like a 10% inclusionary, as some of you can attest to, like you can apply to Vermont State Housing Authority for a couple project-based vouchers, you know, and that walks in the affordability of some of those and also creates an avenue for almost guaranteed rent for a portion of that to do every month. Every unit in this building is supposed to be affordable, not just a percentage. And can we get more accounts to kind of chime in on whatever this proposal comes out as because I'd love to hear what she has to say too. We have an expert in the field right in our community, so that would be helpful. Yeah. Yeah, Mia works for her, which is helpful. Yeah. Yeah. All right, well, that's great. So number one, I think we can say that we're poised to take action on that when during this round of updates and if it all comes together, fabulous. Yeah. Okay, so chapter 11, Jim Jutros had some potential suggestions for sewer regulation changes. And my understanding is this largely was tied to, I don't know if I'm going to say this correctly, Robin, but the results of an appeal of a permit and that is still unsettled as far as I know. Right, yes. Okay, so I think we're still holding on this. Then the next three things are really in the category of, if we had all the time in the world, we would fix these up. I'm not really too concerned about these three. Your floodplain rights, they're not like bad. They work fine. You don't really let anything happen in the floodplain rights. So it's okay. Number three. Can I just add something on the floodplain? So it turns out that a lot of the village isn't formally mapped. We just had a project that needed to go out and basically touch base with the powers that delineate floodplains and get that cleaned up. So I don't know how that works exactly for the rest of the community, but it would be nice if we had a more completely defined floodplain delineation. Robin, is that something that we go out? How do we go out and get that? I mean, it's not really related to the LDC exactly, but it would have to engage consultants to do that, John. Yeah. Okay. So I thought that the floodplain delineation and mapping and such happened prior to our last editing of this document? We had something done, Diane, when I had to sign the village up for federal flood insurance, we weren't when I first started here. So we had to go through a process there and got us signed up, but that would be 12 years ago. Okay. So that's out of date, so we need to do it again. Yeah. I would say I've started much as changed, but it's probably out of date. Pretty much after Irene, they all got more excited about flooding in Vermont because, you know, it turns out to be a thing. And we had a project that involved a building that was on a parcel that had more than one building on it. And the other building had been, you know, they had to go out and get data that said, okay, they know where the floodplain is, and they were okay, but it didn't apply to our building on the same parcel. So we had to go do the same thing. And it just feels like, you know, if we can keep track of the notion that we should have all of these things delineated to the best of our ability, it would be good for us as develop for development in the junction that, you know, that we know, okay, you're in the flood plain or you're not, that would be great. So sidebar, but thank you. So let me just explain a little bit of what I understand about this. So the floodplain was delineated long ago in the state of Vermont, then there was an effort to digitize those lines. It wasn't necessarily an effort, like a field based effort to really make those lines more accurate. It was simply to put them in a GIS format so everybody could work with them in today's modern world. So there isn't necessarily an effort, because this is a federal program. You can't really just- It's FEMA and the Corps of Engineers and so on and so forth. Yeah. So there is very much a part of the process where an applicant, if they're in the flood plain, have to do a little of their own certification of exactly what the elevation is in comparison to the river, if you want to change something or do something different. So I'm not sure that there's a whole lot more that Essex Junction could do, but I could be wrong. And the only reason why I'm pausing is because some of the major tributaries are in a little bit of a different category. Winooski is one of them and partially that's because it's so restricted and damned. Yeah. So I'll see if I could find anything else out, but I'm not sure there's a whole- This one was actually Indian Brook and it was a parcel that's right adjacent to it on, you know, basically by where 81 Main Street is. And it just seemed odd to me that right in the middle of the village, essentially, we have trouble telling developers or people that are landowners there, whether they're in the flood plain or not. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Then, sign standards. Your regulations are not content neutral. They should be content neutral. It's just a level of effort that within my contract time period to help you guys, I can't get that done. So I think it's got to be on the next round, at least from that perspective. So even just removing the language that says what can and can't be on there? Yeah. Because you really have to, like, if you really look at and read through the sign standards, and this is typical, it's not like unusual for SxJunction, so much of the regulations are written based on the type of sign that it is. And so it really is a little bit of an effort to say like, okay, we are going to completely divorce ourselves from the thinking of it being just a sign in place for like a grand opening or a sign that might be loud. Really, it's tricky in the temporary sign category, which there's thousands of. The only other piece that I see in the signage that we might want to deal with or not, and I think this came around the last time we did signage, was the concept of electronic signs or essentially, you know, things like, the only one that I'm aware of that we actually have is at the fairgrounds. Although we made some attempt to, based on that, I think it was actually 81 Main Street, the town wanted the ability to get rid of their 1970s, you know, wood sign and have something that might more effectively communicate things to the public like your taxes are due or something, you know, and so they there was a municipal effort to allow some electronic signs. And I think the only place we said we could use that was at municipal properties and maybe that didn't even include Park Street Park, you know, it was it was pretty weirdly written and and I don't know if we've had a chance to go back to that and look at it, but essentially you had to be incredibly special to get permission to use an electronic sign. John, I thought it wasn't just the town office, I will also believe it was the rec department of Maple Street because they wanted some flexibility. Yeah, they did. Yeah, but but they they kind of even had an idea of putting on in and and I'm not sure they ever got permission to do it and I just thought, you know, overall we should revisit that scenario in case we wanted to change anything. Yeah, and there are definitely some more modern standards to put in for those just to make sure all kinds of things like that it's the right lumens at night so it's not too bright at night. It doesn't flash too often, you know, there's things often enough that people are distracted. Yeah. Yeah, okay. Okay, so then the last one on this list is this is a big one a big one and we thought we last time we talked we were going to hold this and now it's kind of a little bit there's two things going on whether a throughout the whole thing we're going to stop calling it the village and call it the city and then the second thing is well three things Robin has a suggestion of changing the membership of the planning commission from seven people down to five back down to five people to help with the quorum issue but also I'm guessing Robin that conversation sort of moot well maybe it isn't because you're still going to have a planning commission but you don't have to talk about them in the LDC anymore so that's just going to be removed from the LDC the development review board you'll have to decide if that's seven members or five members or something else. I will say that when you're talking about a DRB it is very helpful to have alternates way more so than a planning commission. Yeah can I ask a question that is maybe completely relevant at this point which is the scheduling of all this we would we aren't going to possibly have this finalized and approved before July 1st which is when you know so by the time we issue this if it if it goes out as is it's out of date on July 1st so I think we actually have to do it we have to make all those changes. I think you're probably right because this process in and of itself is not quick once you folks feel comfortable with the draft you're going to put it out for public hearing you're going to have your public hearings you're going to make edits that you heard from people during that process then you're going to send it to potentially a city council and they're going to have public hearings and they might make changes and then they'll adopt it it's it's a months. Right so in a way it's this ideal timing in that we we've done the work that we needed to do as a planning commission and yet there's this whole other update that's required essentially as editing to realign the LBC with the revised charter and and it's it's going to overlap and and because it's all happening essentially at exactly the same time it's it's brilliant I I think it's going to be fine but but it will need to be done because by the time this is adopted after all those review processes we will be a city and so I think it has to happen you know I don't know exactly what the details of that look like but but it's going to happen. Yeah the only other tricky thing Rob and that would be helpful to know is are people's titles going to change because that's the other annoying thing in this largely on the public work side because there's a whole bunch of different staff kind of identified throughout the LDC right now and will those people's titles change? Understanding is that there's no change to titles okay at this point in time. So does that mean essentially you can do a a search and replace and anywhere that it says village you just change it to city and that's what I'm thinking yeah I I hope so and I might you know right now your whole LDC exists as separate word documents every single chapter is a completely different word document yeah I'm hoping I can I don't know if anybody has an issue with this but I'm hoping I can just make them one word document and then that all of this exercise will be a thousand times easier. I would give you the flexibility to do this the most efficient way you see possible because I think essentially it's asking you to do more than was originally contracted and we got to work this out. Okay all right awesome so that's the end of the other list um so let me stop sharing I think what makes the most sense now is to look at chapter six so um let me share again sorry one sec so we're gonna kind of move through this document by the comments so hopefully you're seeing if you're looking along on your own versions you'll see those on the right hand side but I'm also going to be sharing my screen so there are a number of particular zoning districts that require planned unit developments if there are for the most part it ends up being a multifamily development of five units or more so um a planned unit development really is structured and set up as a subdivision of land it is my opinion that if there's no subdivision of land associated with a housing project you really shouldn't have to go through a subdivision review process you really should be able to just simply go through a site plan review process it's one of the many reasons why we have over complicated review processes and housing is the biggest thing to suffer from that so there's a couple of these districts where I don't really see any benefit in sending people through and I should say also the planned unit development process is even more complex than a subdivision process and so it's really an extra level of review that I don't think is necessary and to me in the village delineating a project as five residential units or more as something that's like bigger and scarier that should have an extra level of review is way too small of a threshold in my perspective for um for housing in the village so my suggestion also I'll just point out in some of these sections the purpose of this section is to say that a planned unit development should be reviewed for the standards that are specified and these standards are useless standards they're not really saying anything when you when you read what they were saying so given that for the first two that this comes up for multifamily one and multifamily two I don't think you need this I think we can take it out we can definitely allow somebody to apply for a PUD if they want to there's no reason not to because a PUD does give you some flexibility if you need it but I don't think we need to require it so let me just show folks real quick where MF1 and MF2 are so you can get a little bit of a sense of where we're talking about yeah I would be in favor of that in general because what I'm in favor of is is helping people understand why they're applying as a PUD because every time we say well it may be you know the things come in and we don't know if they are they're not or whether we required it or we didn't required it and that's confusing so I think the the tradeoff has to be very clear that you should be coming in as a regular development unless you choose the PUD route for an exact reason like you're giving you want something and you're willing to give us what we want to get it right and and that language has not been clear and it would be great if we could clarify that like I'm just taking a note and then the last thing I'll say that part of my reasoning behind this too is if folks remember we're adding that design review overlay into these areas so the MF1 so folks know it's this stretch way out here at the end of Pearl Street MF2 is on Lincoln Street it's this kind of brick brickish sort of looking space here and here and that's it and that's it so what we're saying is that we will let you present as a PUD if you choose and in order to make that decision these are the rules this is what we want yes and particularly here in this change we're saying just because you're in one of these two areas and you want to do a residential project of five units or more you don't have to go through PUD approval and that would mean that you're going through the development review under the normal rules yeah and so and the overlay we would have design review as well in those areas yeah and and really what that what it ends up doing is if the residential developer who's coming in wants to sell these units they want to subdivide literally subdivide so they can sell parts off then yes then they go down the subdivision track if they don't it's all going to be maintained collectively under one ownership ownership structure in the future it's a site plan with the design overlay well it's the design overlay come will come into play either either path but so it's a it's a PUD review with with five or more units on essentially one lot all reviewed as a community that needs to have the whole picture figured out and then if they're going to sell individual units are they what do we call them postage stamp what do we call that the I mean you could even condo eyes I mean you could condominium eyes the five or more units on a given lot and let people buy them like condos but but the overall development is regulated as one thing right yeah because condos aren't necessarily those don't necessarily require a subdivision of land right those are almost a different legal structure that's without town there is no municipal authority in that well structure there's usually an HOA that governs the overall entity and then within the HOA structure which I guess we normally get to see the the rules the rules apply to the overall parcel and it's up to the HOA to enforce them but within that we don't really get involved with who's buying what part what property and what they do to it right yeah and that's very common in many places happens all the time and I don't know those lots there's a lot of development happening along that little stretch there on this guy what yeah there's there's quite a bit going on right now and you know most of what we're seeing you know physically as you drive by are fairly large developments you know some of the lots may need to be joined together in order to make any more of them but we're you know there's some pretty big apartment units going in there okay then next up on the list is the multifamily residential three so there is also the same requirement that if you're doing five or more units you have to go through a PUD and MF4 MF3 and that is this area so this is grove street central street can you guys see my cursor yep okay um then east street king's court oak street church street kind of tucked in here these two orange they're kind of hard to see because they're very close to the yellow those were the only ones that gave me pause because that I'm not sure if this is true but in my perception these are a little bit more of a kind of more residential area and would five or more units feel like a very different use and should it get looked at a little bit more I'm struggling to think of any locks that are big enough to support five or more units yeah they're all pretty little they're pretty small and it feels those when you drive down grove street for example you don't feel that one side's different than the other you know one side is yellow and the other side's orange but when you're driving down there you don't feel any difference John yeah remember that we had a request to rezone a lot and I thought that was in the grove central street area it might be but from what I gather we don't normally rezone one lot at a time well this is true okay and we had denied that but it would have done probably what could have been a five unit development in that spot they had wanted to do um if I remember correctly it was like on the corner near the high school on on central if I remember right and it is somewhat open okay I think it's like yeah well most of that lawn is is got infiltration chambers under it now after their last water management program so I don't know exactly what they might be able to do there but I think the issue is like I I'm only seeing a couple of lots that might support five units but we we have the density issues and and the parking issues that could be resolved on a lot that would give somebody enough space to do five and and I think in general we're trying to support that you know in in theory we're trying to allow increased density where it works and and it's mostly a functional lot size at that point because they would be coming in what you're saying is instead of the normal rules applying they would be able to come in as a PUD and get some other arrangement and yeah then we ask for superior design or something you know that we've asked for with the PUD yeah so what what I'm suggesting is right now the regulations require them to go through PUD what I'm suggesting is they would not be required to do that they would have the option to do that if they want to I think that's fine um now I have to completely correct what I said before because I'm just realizing I got confused between these districts we're talking about multifamily residential one it's this white and orange circle pattern and then multifamily residential two is this tiny orange circle pattern I lost your cursor sorry so never mind about this blue hatch we're not talking about that district I'm sorry and never mind about this red area we're not talking about that okay we are talking about these white and orange places can you see my cursor now on west street yeah all right so we're talking about here here they're kind of scattered all over the place this back here off a south street over here behind pearl street off a prospect way up here at the end of Athens so actually when you start looking at these lots they're large they seem to match some existing already large developments that are in right right so there might still not be very much more there's the autumn there's the autumn pond there's break yard and like a woods tons more and the one at the end of camp street that's a you know a bunch of condos down there yeah I don't see there's a lot of open space in those there because they've already been anything right but what I guess what you're saying though Regina is if they so choose in the future to subdivide these off they would have to go through this PUD process with us even though they currently are potentially developed for the most part but if they wanted to subdivide sections of them yeah he's trying to tell us they wouldn't necessarily have to go through PUD they could choose to go through PUD but they don't have to yeah if we made this change I still think that makes sense and I think like John says that just adds that makes it simple simpler about the PUD process that you can choose to do it because it offers you something and it offers the village something the city something yeah okay so I'll make that change then and then let me just make sure we're clear so the multifamily residential three that is still the same thing those are the orange that we were talking about and it it makes sense to make this change there too where you would not be required to go the PUD route yeah it's really more of a carrot right I mean if they want to do the PUD because they believe they get something then we believe we get something too right so that is I think that's fine I don't think we should be making people do a PUD just just because I think we should offer that as an incentive for them to provide a higher level of development design whatever it is okay all right uh just making these notes and then getting down to the next section so let me just stop sharing for a second it's just easier to see only screens okay so now we are getting ourselves back into the village center district changes um if you've got this at home we're looking at page 75 but let me share again um okay and we've we've talked about these changes before but let me just sort of get quickly go over why we're doing them uh under the purpose we wanted to bring in the concept of the design five corners plan so we did that this demolition section is just redundant there's a whole other section down below that talks about demolition um I'm kind of Regina yeah before you push on um is it possible to have that design five corners um hot linked so that uh so someone can go to the design five corners plan and see what that's what we're talking about that is possible it's a little bit less of a common practice in regulation um but we can probably do it um it might just move over time and then this will be broken but I could probably at least put in what I'd be be more inclined to do is list the actual url okay um so that whatever you do it that if somebody's reading through it and they are on a computer they want to click on it and find out where it is they take them to the document yeah right we'll do it that's that's yeah well however however it works to me it's kind of like we're talking about a concept and I think if somebody wants to know what that concept is they should be able to get to that yep that makes sense um okay then we've got um some change to language in here that just tries to better define the um the historic structures concept so before you had this sentence in there that was just a fragment and didn't say anything documentation from the state division of historic preservation documenting a building's eligibility for the state or national register of historic places nothing um so I'm just trying to sort of clarify in here that um this is how you would define buildings that are exempt from the historic preservation design standards yeah it's a little weird because to be eligible all you have to do is be 50 years or more old and and so that pretty much is every structure in the village at this point right and and that's a rough bar to you know you need to have somebody go out and decide whether it's contributing or not or whatever it's kind of a pain um and I guess so it just as long as we're talking about linking things if if map two which is the historic districts is the link to the map that would be awesome right you know what I mean like we have a map that we we did for the village that lists all the buildings that we think are important historically and and it exists and it would be really nice where we're talking about what's on the list I just have a link to it yeah right okay um this only applies to the village center district though right yeah yeah yeah um and to be clear right now on this language it's only the village district we do have the overlay down below that we'll go through yeah um so is this helpful what I put in in terms of what makes a building exempt if it's already been delisted um or if the Vermont division of historic preservation um finds that it does not meet the criteria um or two it gives the applicants an opportunity to um work with a qualified historic preservation consultant to come to the village and make the case because these guys the state office is really not in the business of just making these determinations for any old person who wants to come I don't mean old person any anybody who wants to come in and ask them for that they're in the business of figuring this out for active 50 and the other programs that are run through the state office not necessarily to help a um municipal review process figure out if somebody's eligible or not so part one would just be because they have that information otherwise that might be because they were required to go through active 50 or something else or two they can secure information from a qualified historic preservation specialist I'm fine with that okay okay then we took out again this kind of weird connection from a PUD to these um buildings on these streets we talked about that a while ago um we clarified this concept of height that it's really a maximum of four stories in the village center um as opposed to this adjustment that could be done just to keep it clean because I think it's pretty clear that's where the village is now on four stories um got in some language here on um much more of this sort of like pedestrian walkable bikeable kind of concept so when we talked about this before this is sort of similar language that we fixed in the planned unit development section because the planned unit development section was just sort of really squishy like not clear what was required um over there we said at least one or more we could say more than that for the village um like require all four or require at least two of these kinds of features I think there should be some flexibility because not in all circumstances will these four things be logical all right so let's just look at that for a second let's look at of the four you have listed and and you know ideally we could have six or eight of them but we have four listed are there any of those that we would not want to have show up in one of our village center projects right and and I'm thinking uh you want the pedestrian access so a should happen no matter what um pocket park um not everybody has a chance to do that the covered bus shelter you don't need one on every parcel right uh shade trees okay maybe you could do that one you know I I might like to see that list fleshed out a little bit more but I think you want to probably go after two at least two of those items whatever they are and the list could be longer does that make sense to anyone yeah two is what I had in mind right from the gecko as well um shade trees pocket park I feel like could be the the two that kind of go back and forth covered bus shelters I mean unfortunately our public transit system in the state is not as robust as it could be um so you're right I don't think covered bus shelters make much sense it could be an art feature or uh some kind of a you know a pedestrian friendly uh installation of some kind you know it could be a bench could be I mean right well that kind of robin well we were trying to get a fountain put in on on a recent project you know just you want something that attracts you know like john I think that kind of falls and gives them a way to engage and you know maybe it's a byway panel or or it's a some other you know historic plaque or something and then everybody may each property may have a different way of saying why they're unique and what's interesting about them and and and what they want to provide as a community asset and and it doesn't want to be the same thing on every parcel it wants to really be open to interpretation but I think it's fair to ask for at least two yeah I was just going to say sorry it falls in line with the be there where it says pocket park or similar amenities as you were speaking on so it's just listing out more examples of what those similarities may be that they could provide as a public asset go ahead Dan there were there were benches that were along pearl street that were removed and I understand why unless they were provided by the property owner and they just decided it was you know but it um some of them were close to they weren't necessarily covered but they were close to where people were waiting for buses so it was convenient um but those have been removed um I I didn't pay that much of attention to them okay but now that I've been um in the disabled category I actually find that I actually like would have liked in some cases had some of those benches um because of uh because of my injury to my leg um it you know so hate to tell you but some of those covered bus shelters are actually a bench so it is kind of nice to be able to sit down um you know when I can't do the the distance uh we don't have a lot of them and quite frankly um the bus bus that is running the covered bus shelter even if it's not on a PUD or whatever might actually be it might be nice for us to encourage those because quite frankly some of the reins and things that we've been getting it would be advantageous to our walkability piece um to have to have these bus shelters act as double duty here um but um just speaking for someone is a little more appreciated for benches than I used to be do you that do you have any sense on um Pearl Street mostly I assume how many are there any covered bus shelters for the bus stops today um yes there's one uh in front of post office well I guess it's not post office who owns across from post office square right in front of max and planet yes yeah yeah planet fitness I guess is is more of um that then the next one on Pearl Street is way down in front of one of the handy properties okay really so there's nothing in front of the Champlain Valley Expo there are their benches but there's nothing covered nothing covered no it's their benches well sometimes they're covered in trash um but that's nothing covering we were lovely well it all depends if they put the trash can out or not okay I think it's the fairgrounds that does it and they don't put it out 24 7 okay it's out occasionally um somebody rolls down a carriage down there um and um I guess it's just a matter of one of the stores becomes and fetches the carriage again but a lot of people because of the bus requires no open containers on the bus a lot of people are depositing open containers of drinks usually or leftover food containers as they've been waiting it's um as we're becoming a little more sensitive to uh green up day which is this weekend um it might behoove us to um ask for hate that I actually have a public trash can um as a possibility so that we're a little neater um that yeah so right um you know some of these things are I think this list pretty came right out of design five corners but some of it is not necessarily as I'm thinking through this within the um authority of a private developer right like GMT is going to be very specific about where covered bus shelters should go mostly because they're ultimately going to have to maintain them um so maybe we kind of I get what everybody's saying that we really flesh out more of B so that makes sense and then um I think we could probably make C a little bit more generic in the sense of depending where you are make sure that you've got rest rest spots that are you know covered in some way they don't necessarily need to be um tied to the bus but it could be a bench with a you know big shade tree over it or something yeah yeah wouldn't that form in the definition of a pocket park right that's in B the might I mean a pocket park tends to have a little volume to it if it's if it's just a bench tucked along the sidewalk but it happens to have some nice shade trees around it or near it or over it you know you could uh you know it'll be fine so it could be a you know low wall or something that just happens to define the edge of the development um that you can sit on and there's there's all kinds of ways to pull this off I think the point is we're trying to give the developers some uh direction in you know how they might go about dealing with this requirement okay and now we'd like to see at least two instead of one yeah and you know this is really to set the bar somewhere so that even the people that aren't thinking about how they're going to make their property interesting and unique get a little bit of an oomph uh in the right direction you know I think some of the projects that we've seen come in recently the larger ones the designers have been uh suitably um inventive and and creative and how how they want their project to actually deal with people that aren't inside the building and it's been really nice to see that but other people just uh developers may not have as much experience with that and we need to give them a little push yeah okay all right that makes sense um so all right architectural elements or features uh storage areas service areas trash accessory structures and parking areas shall be screened from view um just to have a question of whether that's um enough or do you want to be more specific that um parking has to be to the side or the rear I think isn't that language already in some of our other um in some other places like all right I'm downtown it's not like I feel like I shouldn't see a car I know I'm gonna see a car I don't necessarily mind um that the parking is obvious I think you know what the screening might be is is open to some debate I think what we're saying is don't make a nuisance out of it and and if you you know we are supposed to be putting the parking behind buildings or at least to the side of buildings um in most of the village center areas we've we've been pretty careful to say that the building needs to address the street and so I don't know that we're really gonna get into trouble with this okay it hasn't been a problem in there that that uh you know I think we're generally clear about that the the the the principal arrangement of the street to the pedestrian ways to the building to the parking I would agree with that John yeah okay sounds good um all right again still in village center district we had this PUD um section in here um I don't think it adds any value again shouldn't require subdivision in the village unless the subdivision is necessary um okay then building height is clarified okay that's village sorry might need to oh no we know we're not going that far highway arterial district this again has a PUD concept for commercial PUD um some of this is a little bit of a relic also because um PUDs used to be defined in state statute as different ones industrial commercial or residential that was taken out long ago not seeing any value in this again it should just go through if it's a site plan it's a site plan if it's a subdivision of land it goes through subdivision um if there's any issues with those just stop me um okay looking for the next comment um so transit oriented development we talked about making some changes in here broadly talked about making some changes in here um then we talked about adding the overlay district design overlay district to this area and so we decided that's probably going to be good to test that out and see if you get what you need with the overlay added um again taking out this require this PUD piece in there so I noticed that you left the PUD the PUD may approve you left it in a couple of the ones above transit oriented I just not wondered why you know if we're taking it out do we take it out everywhere like it's in 607 in the MF MU2 district yeah I think I was inclined to leave it in in those sections because at the moment it's a requirement um so you just change it to may instead of okay yeah and this these ones what that talk about a commercial PUD the commercial PUD is no longer a thing yeah um so it felt cleaner to take it out but it's still sort of it is true even without us saying it that anyone can apply for a PUD um so I could go either way I could I get the concept of being consistent about it from one section to the next well I'm just it is in that realm of clarity so uh if if you think that it's okay when you read through it that it might show up in some districts but it doesn't show up in all the districts as long as there's something in there that says doesn't matter what district you're in you can apply for a PUD here's how or this is the rule um that's fine but let's let's just take another breeze through that not tonight but um as you're thinking about it is if if it's okay to take it out and most of them the real question is you know why'd you leave it in a couple yeah that's a good good point okay um scrolling agriculture PUD it made sense to me to keep this this is just a totally different world out there down by the river there's some real logic in the way that this is crafted and described that it made sense to keep this as is it's got a density bonus like that actually is logical floodplain we already talked about that um here's another one of these PUDs so now we're in the mixed commercial use district um i'm gonna say um to delete this also but i'm keeping the part about you could apply to it so i'll just run through this again just under that same comment um but i did just want to confirm that in the village Robin you might need to answer this question can a person put more than two primary structures on a lot without subdivision because sometimes that's why a PUD gets kicked in unnecessarily and if that's what they want to do and the only way for them to do it is to do it as a PUD then that's that brings back the may all right so that it gives the developer an idea that it's possible if i want to do that i have to present this as a PUD which is allowed and these are the ways that they're going to review it under a PUD application i gotta show them how i'm giving them something don't let me do this otherwise it's a standard thing yeah right so that's fine i mean it's it's the cared it's the incentive piece that is important otherwise don't come to us it's a regular situation yeah okay um and if that's the same language that you want to use on all of them so that all the districts know that it could be a PUD but you gotta play the game right you know yeah okay all right so now here we have the design review overlay district folks probably don't remember because it's a while ago that we talked about this but before it was one section and we were sort of trying to talk about design review plus historic preservation and one section it was confusing so first of all that has been split out um and so it's clear the purpose of the design overlay infill redevelopment carry out the concepts of design five corners and pedestrian friendly atmosphere so i think the demolition issue meaning you want to regulate and prevent people from demolishing structures is only important if it's a historic preservation structure is that true um as in if it's not a historic structure we don't really care that much if it gets torn down right i mean would this prevent a pit from forming none of it prevents a pit from forming um it raises the bar for for i mean a lot of what we talk about in our regulations in general is conforming uh or being compatible with the surrounding historic character of our village and and the underlying assumption is that our village has a historic character and and so um in in the sense that you we spent some time talking about whether or not a particular structure or not is eligible for or deserves a protection given to historic structures um you know i think all that's tied together and you may or may not agree with somebody that you know just because it's old means that it's historic but it gives people pause and a time to decide not just by right you get to tear it down you have to actually convince people that for whatever reason um you know that this is a reasonable thing to do and and that's a that's a good thing for the village because tearing something down is sort of inherently uh it it's invasive and and we don't know exactly what that's going to mean until somebody proposes it for a given structure well john i have a question for you yeah okay there are some final buildings um in the downtown area from our automotive past some of them not been so lucky as the firebird okay but some of them are a little more um shall we say trashy uh to get right out there yeah but even the firebird if if push came to shove and someone said well we want to take that down and put up something that doesn't look like a gas station they got converted i don't know that we would say no you can't that's a historic you know gas station well there there there were i think at one point in time there was a gas station if not on the corner of five corners but or within half a block or a block of five corners there were so many gasoline stations downtown that quite frankly um if anybody didn't have gas but it's there are some of them that still exist and uh they are by definition historic because they're they're definitely over 50 years old um so i i i look at i want to see what they want to put on the build what put the put on the site yeah not to keep that building you know if it needs to go to create a different project um i i don't want to see his just because it by definition historic i won't necessarily want to stop anybody from creating a new entity there yeah i don't think that's what it's saying i think regina kind of touched on it before when um you know we were looking at the ways that something could be taken off the historic list which is y'all decided or you got somebody of professional skill saying it's it's not it might be eligible but it's not historic so that's one way or that um somebody else has previously delisted it by saying guess what you know this is this is just an old dilling big deal right uh so um yeah and just to um i should have started with this so what we're talking about now when we're thinking of these questions is the overlay area so we're not talking about doing anything different in the village we're talking about now that we're going to subject development on pearl street and all these other arms out of the village um we're going to subject them to design review and we're going to subject them to the historic preservation standards and the historic preservation standards are only going to kick in if um your historic which is um not the easiest thing to define but if you're historic then the historic preservation standards are going to stick it kick in for the design overlay i don't think we need to talk about demolition as a um threshold for kicking a project in to um threshold for kicking a project in to design review because just the fact that they're coming to you for anything that they do is going to bring in the design review standards um because they're in the expanded district yeah yeah though i guess somebody so here's really where it would come in all we're talking about here not an historic building out here on pearl street if they want to demolish the structure like before they have a redevelopment plan and so i think the policy question to ask yourselves and to work through here is is there any building on pearl street that or any of these other arms that are really important to keep the structure as is that aren't historic so my feeling is that the reason we want to do this we want to do this overlay district is to kind of have an input in what these these uh streets look like and having a say in whether a building is demolished or not gives us that that say i mean an empty lot from a demolished building can be just as unattractive as a ill designed building you know i'll pick on a couple of buildings that we all kind of know but uh one would be the old village i think it was public works which is now hamlin's uh engineering office yeah which is really a couple of garages in an office building tied together you know it's like that's historic for a lot of reasons but if somebody said well i'm going to take it down and put something else there would would you say no that you can't do that you know or or the apartment building that's next door that's also historic by definition of being old but you know the the most memorable thing about it is that somebody used the signboard as a as a you know place to put out their thoughts every day was you know more controversial than the building ever would be which i yeah i agree with you john and i think if someone were talking about we're going to take this down and put something else up i agree with you but we're talking about someone's going to say i'm just taking this down and i don't know what we're going to do with the space right and then you have a pile of rubble or an empty lot that sits there for five years unused um in some ways you don't want to see a blighted building because at least there's something there that's historic to look at if it was a historic building with some integrity or whatnot and do we stay anywhere else well like burlington you basically can't take something down unless you have a plan to put something back and you know the obvious hole in the ground the side um the the notion is that that you're supposed to have a plan and you're supposed to tell the municipality how long this is going to take and and what the new thing that's going in is so that they don't get subject to having a hole in the ground and that's in their rules i mean we we have to do that when we tell them we want to take something down so do we have anything like that in ours that says if you're going to take something down that you know it isn't condemned by the fire marshal or the the the city engineer that you know it's unsafe or it presents a public hazard um do we have anything with it that says no you can't just take something down you have to have a plan i don't know if you have something like that robin do you know if you have something like that because it almost that kind of things sort of tends to live in the ordinance world as opposed to the bylaws from my memory we do if the village center district if somebody wants to take something down then they have to get uh a written report from the historic consultant the department of historic preservation at the state confirming that you know the building has no value or it's not structurally signed i believe it's in there somewhere yeah but what if it's what if it's not historic at all do you have like a condemnation i mean i'd like to see within those that design review overlay um that if something is slated for demolition and somebody wants to do it that they come forward with some form of rebuild plan plan first even if that plan is as simple as we're not going to leave an orange fence around it we're going to put in a small pocket park while we decide what we're going to do in the interim at least we know that the site is somewhat usable and friendly to an extent and it's not just a big orange fence around a lot i like that idea thanks oh i have a question for you guys and that there is currently a building on perl street that's being used for a fire department practice i saw the uh they're saw it on television um that they were or or facebook or one of the various i saw it in video form and it was like i went hey this is fantastic that uh that somebody decided to use that to donate the property to do that but how long does fire department practice go on um before the building needs to come down and last time we saw anything was a guy that had a proposal that said hey would it would you be okay if i thought about something like this and it's like well we haven't seen anything past that proposal we've on the other hand have seen that the fire department's having practice over there so how it's um you know when when do we expect you know something to come in because you can only practice in building for so long wasn't that part was that the building that was demolished to put up the new structure that's currently under construction no so the fire department went in and practiced before no that that that was a few years ago yet no this is a totally new building this one's down closer to where i live um and so as i drove past today i went oh yeah okay yeah i remember this one engulfed it with flames um so it's it's like how long is it gonna go um hey i have to drive past it's near kfc um who's still working on their their ground yeah what exactly is happening there they're not changing the building so we don't get to see anything about what they're doing i i have no clue what they're doing with the building other than the fact that that they're having fired fire trucks come in practice um but we haven't seen anything that they're okay when somebody offers a building to get practice which is fantastic by the way for the community but it'd be nice to see that they've got an idea of what's going in after the fire department's done with it and i don't see anything in our code is that it doesn't need to be an ordinance or does that need to be in the land development code that you um because eventually it will you have to be demolished it won't be habitable because it's been directed we don't want to see something with smoke coming out of the windows and plywood all over it we you know it gets too exciting that way um okay oh and i'm kind of going is he gonna do both buildings or are you gonna do all three buildings but robin do you know i mean don't you know about all this stuff like if something has fire department practice going on wouldn't you know that somebody somebody's made a deal generally not no how is that possible but they're not doing anything it's not in the village center and we don't have any but they're not doing anything they're going in there they're practicing putting on a fire they're leaving there's no memo that goes around interdepartmental elect that says by the way where we'll be practicing on some building on pearl street don't don't be alarmed no but there should be i'll bring that up next time the department had made in china i mean i i wouldn't really think that there's anything that happens in the village to a building that you don't know something about ah sorry sometimes we find out afterwards as you know well yeah that would be a mistake but in general i would think that you guys would be pretty aware of the stuff okay so i think that answers that question um all right same question on the site features that you want to see so again we're in the design review overlay district not the village center features um at least one or more do we want to say two here as well and then i can clean up the be and see in the same way that we talked about up above yep i would support that yeah it makes sense to me okay um okay um no we already talked about that up above not a problem uh okay then now we've got this separated as the historic preservation overlay district so this is essentially the same as as i fixed things up in the village center so you'll see map two is referenced the description of um exemption and then everything else in here is basically the same as how it's written and so here's all the more complicated demolition stuff associated with historic structures and does that apply to all the buildings in the village that have been listed in there's 400 of them or something um and not just something that you can draw a line around that says this is the village center so the way that we're talking about this so again this is this particular language is not the village center outside the overlay um so applicability for demolition alterations additions redevelopment of buildings within the boundary that we talked about the new overlay boundary yeah and within the historic districts on that map two or listed on state or national register of historic places okay so basically map two kind of brings in the historic districts um or if you're listed um because there there's a drawing and i don't know if it's technically a map or not but it's a it has a number next to all of the historic properties and is that map two yeah so um if you really zoom in here um you can kind of see that the historic districts are um they show up out as orange if they're in the village center so it's it's the historic site it has a little building on it yeah so the districts themselves are pretty all encompassing there might be a few circumstances where there would be a structure like i'm seeing this one right now um on prospect street the structure itself is outside of the district so that's a good point john like we could also state to be clear that we also want to talk about structures that are listed on that map two and you're right all of that's on map two the these districts are on it boundaries plus all of the individual structures i'm just it's really more about the structure itself than it is about some contiguous mapping because they don't necessarily all fall into a nice little package yeah um so does that mean you want me to just say if you are on that list i think so because the list was developed by you know qualified professionals that went around and surveyed all of the things and they said okay these are your village structures that should be identified as you know contributing or eligible or what have you so i guess i i don't want to leave any of them out and and it's not necessarily just because you're in in a boundary that you can draw a liner on how often is that list updated um i never it's the full effort was done in the 70s yeah i don't know that it's ever been updated and you know of course buildings are older now and they you know there might be some other reasons for something to be deemed uh historic but um at the moment uh that's the you know fairly uh that's probably the best thing that we have yeah and the you know the upper echelon is if you're actually listed on the state and national register that's a relatively small subset yeah um the other stuff a good amount of it of it has probably lost its historical significance but you don't really know that unless you've gone through the process um so i think it is important to be able to give people this number two option where they can you know make a case for themselves without getting that decision from the state yeah okay and i'll correct this up above as well so i think that's it on this chapter um in terms of questions um um and i'm just want to mention that's 10 of 8 uh are we uh i'd like to call this at 8 if i can um you said was there a another chart that you wanted us to pay particular attention to yes the land use table the land use table okay um um so this is um the word documented in the email is chapter six table 620 which i think actually you have to update this um so uh we just talked about a couple of different changes in here um one of them was the concept of duplexes so um we're talking about the r1 district and the r2 district today only thing allowed there is a single family home and an accessory dwelling unit um what we've talked about when we were in the depths of the accessory dwelling unit conversation was also potentially considering duplexes being allowed in r1 and r2 um essentially the differences um are that uh for the owner occupancy i mean sorry for the accessory dwelling units uh there's a owner occupancy requirement for a duplex that comes off the table for a duplex it's also not tied to the parameters where the accessory dwelling unit is in some way like secondary or smaller than the primary unit um essentially having the duplex just allows more flexibility i'm all for it i'm pretty sure there are duplexes in my neighborhood already in r2 yeah i think that's fine you know a lot of times you can't even tell if there's an r2 you know if there's a duplex uh you know i i don't know that it's all is exactly obvious when uh you know it just depends on the architecture of the structure whether you even notice that's a duplex or not so i'm okay with that dianne you were some of the better better ones have been the ones that you don't recognize that being a two distinct units that people have have done a very good cosmetic agriculture of making these duplexes look like a single family home but it's got it's got two two two side two driveways on two or sides or whatever uh at that uh some people have done it well especially with the adus are coming in where they've added it in it actually looks like it's it's just enlarged the house it didn't really divide it um some people have done it well others not so much um but i i think if we encourage people to do it well however however it goes you know i would i would say let's let's allow it to happen um um because that that would allow that more housing to happen okay um so would folks like me to think about we'll have to put some thinking into this but would you like me to establish a specific use standard for duplexes are you talking about the unoccupied piece talking about um so you know you have a whole section that describes an accessory dwelling unit and and how that works um we could create a section for a duplex that sort of describes from a design perspective that it um has the look and a feel of a single family home and how that's done is you know a little bit more complicated but it could be like you can't have two separate garages for duplex or two separate driveways or something i don't you know yeah like you could still you could have two garages um to try to avoid like you know garages up front to totally separate with the structure kind of joining them in the middle so it really looks much more like do we have anything like that for the other districts where we allow duplexes and then do we change it for all of them right that's what i'm gonna do that sort of hesitating i don't i don't i don't see it being a big issue for myself i mean i agree that some of the best duplexes do look like single family helms but then you have some old duplexes that are clearly duplexes but are also very nice to look at so yeah yeah it could be something where we just we you know allow this to happen it's not likely to happen all over the place it's not going to be a ton of them and then you kind of assess and if there needs to be a um some kind of design standard put in after the fact then you can think on how to do that fine what's going on with daycare facilities down here there's a whole okay so there's a lot of conditional uses and said they're okay so this is tied to the correct to the edits that we made in the definitions that align with the state definitions for homes that are used as daycares up to eight whatever they're called eight students have to be treated as a single family home you can't review them as a conditional use but then when you get higher than that which is the daycare home in your definitions that um i think if i have this correctly that can be uh treated to a higher standard if you want to um i guess the only question i would have is if if that aligns with the language in the building code for when you have a daycare that can be a home daycare versus being considered in the next category of of you know review and authority and i and i don't think it's eight i thought it was less than that like five or something it used to be six and it was changed to eight changed to eight um so you you could take care of seven unrelated children in your home and it's still considered you know like a home daycare but as soon as you go to nine now you have a state-regulated facility with different rules it might be once you go to eight new rules seven and under yeah it depends on the it depends on the age of the kids is what it ends up being is that there's requirements for so many different it's different depending on the age of the kids that you have that you have at a younger age you have to have more uh attendance um than the older kids um so i'm not sure what good i'm i'm a little fuzzy when it gets beyond that um i'm looking it up for you now okay so the daycare facility is the bigger one and you're right the way that you have that before is conditional use and you can still have that the daycare home is has to be treated like a single family home and you're already doing that that's fine we just changed the numbers and the definitions to meet the state statute requirement this recommendation is totally separate from that sorry now that i'm reading my comment um just suggesting that daycare facilities because of the need for this use i'm suggesting that you just review it as a site plan not a conditional use so that would open more possibilities for small operators to exist um it doesn't necessarily do anything different other than allow anybody who wants to do a daycare facility which is the larger one um they are given a less subjective review process um and it's still all the same things that review under a site plan though you're going to look at parking you're going to look at how the site is laid out you're going to look at all of the things um you're just not going to look at things like is it compatible with the neighborhood which is a highly subjective question yeah that's what that's my suggestion um i'm not like you know a hundred like i wouldn't break my heart if you decided you wanted to keep some of these as conditional use and maybe it makes sense in some zoning districts to keep it as conditional review but in some of them like the mixed use areas i'm not sure it needs a conditional use review or for that matter that the overlay for office space either from home office why would why would we be using that conditional we're already allowing an office to be in there or the village center i mean to me and we would make it be natural for having a daycare facility where we're trying to get people to live and work right i don't find it me yeah the yeah and the only one that maybe again in the r1 in the r2 like do you only want to allow the smaller daycare homes in those districts but the rest of these are fine as a site plan approval as opposed to conditional use very part is that the r2 r1 and r2's probably have large enough backyards to have places for kids to play so um i i'd kind of go no i won't restrict them i'd really like to have those kids outside playing every so often um so if somebody's got a space to do that well yeah and it definitely it you know it still means they have to come for approval they just don't come for the highly subjective one yeah um okay uh and then are there anything else nothing else in this land use table um so 803 um a lot of the stuff in the other chapters was not really a whole lot of controversy that's not to say that you don't want to look at them but i think it's okay if we don't look at them um tonight you guys might want to be might be interested in what the fee changes have been suggested um but if if you want to stop now that's fine well or do you know i do have a question for you to think about for 803 um my question when i reviewed this was how does how does this affect small strips of land i know that there was a gentleman that went around and i'm sure if he sold them to the village or the adjoining property owners but he had for one of a reason bought lots of little small strips of land throughout the village um and i know that he had a few other in my neighborhood and i don't know what has happened to those but how would how would this affect that i don't really know they would still be um i guess unless you had any real concern that they wouldn't be that they shouldn't be developed at all well quite frankly a lot of maroney 10 feet wine uh yeah he had enough just enough property to um make sure that he would be involved when that development went on so you have to buy him out or something else this is like still a thing you think around i'm not aware if he sold them off or if he still owns owns them i wonder if we could search for lots that are smaller than this um let me see about that anyone saw patrick's message yes losses mic and speakers he's trying to figure it out um okay i can i can look at that um diane but otherwise you know the the point of the change in state statute and the thinking generally is that um when you're in a place with water and sewer does it really matter that your lot is an eighth less a little bit smaller than an eighth of an acre like you should be able to still build on that um so that's the that's the concept of it right well i just i it's just that i i don't know what the status of that gentleman's land holdings are okay um i would think do you remember his name because i might be able to search um stark clanges okay let me see but you know i don't know um you know like i said 10 feet isn't really buildable a lot but right i would and i would not have thought that that was an issue so 10 feet wide yeah yeah he owns a lot of pieces just the okay i have a subject set back to enough so they wouldn't be able to build anything on it yes yeah right like i said they draw these spite strips little uh yeah i could call that um i wasn't aware of them until but you know it's i'm kind of going it's you know any home i mean eighth of an acre gets to be really interesting a lot of it in my development is the sixth of an acre so yeah a little smaller than what we got here but um okay uh so up to you john i could keep going through things i could stop talking um i'm losing my focus but uh i think i think what i want to do is i want to go back to section so all those new sections of section six and see if we have any comments but i'm going to do that myself not as a group um and then i think this is a good time for us to stop and and pick up again next time that's my feeling anybody want to second me or overrule me no i'll agree with you can we add an additional meeting since i guess we technically lost one in april um we kind of did so uh i mean why don't we continue to meet we could meet every two weeks there's not i mean we're supposed to have two meetings a month just because we don't have any applications doesn't mean we throw the other one away let's just keep going yeah that's that's why i'm putting it out there like yeah let's maybe we can plan on we've got stuff to do that um you know needs to kind of be sorted out and into the best extent possible um in hand before july 1st so that you know we can say at least we've got a we've got a draft of what we thought we were doing and now we just need to tweak it to you know update it for the new city uh rules do we have a prayer of making that timeline probably not how many more meetings do you think we need regina to get uh kind of through all the final finalized draft sections well so you've got the chart there in the email and so you you know you basically have looked at everything the other chapters that needed tweaks um are really uh from chelsea um and so some of them are real technical we'll just get those cleaned up that's that's fine um but otherwise there are there's nothing really that huge i think the drb and the city switch should not be hard and they don't need to be talked about really right it's just gonna happen there are lawyers that figure that out we don't really get to say yeah um then the other stuff i mean the um the real outlier for me is is the housing stuff the inclusionary zoning stuff because in theory it's very simple but and you know you guys have the july one deadline in terms of just like wanting to have your ducks in order for when you're switching over to a city but also i don't have that much time to keep being at the table here promote my contract and we have other projects that kick in on the july first for us in the next fiscal year so i have to just keep kind of tight on this all right good so i what's um i don't meeting every two weeks works for me because we can just kind of let's let's motor our way through it and and be done so i don't know if we we probably even if there's no application can we just warn a meeting for two weeks from now or do we have to jump through some hoops to call it a special meeting or or what happens i mean i don't have a problem warning something for two weeks but but somebody reminds me that i need like six months ahead of time i gotta tell everybody i'm having a meeting so no we're we're supposed to we're supposed to be scheduled for the first and third thursdays of the month it's already pre-worn by the internet we just need to declare that we're having one the the agenda can just say that we're we're continuing our work session yeah i think terry was trying to get agendas yeah in the newspaper but for these agendas you don't need to so all right well i'm just gun shy from all the warning deadlines now so i know they're a lot longer than seems to be 15 days you know anyway let's let's let's get it scheduled let's keep going i want to finish this up uh i i like the dialogue and discussion that's going on i think we've got a great working group here and i say uh keep them keep them coming let's get it finished so okay i do want to bring up one thing and i'm sorry i missed you guys for the past like 10 minutes whatever happened with my computer i lost audio i lost video um i there is one item i do unfortunately want to uh bring up and revisit from uh chapter seven and it's around storage sheds and being um located a minimum of eight feet from the property line um i agree with patrick if it's a small lot um it destroys your backyard completely yeah i mean i'm i'll just say personally it affects me i'm looking to put a shed in my backyard and it's only going to be like a seven by eight by you know seven by nine whatever a small shed but to put it i have a fence around my backyard and to put the shed eight feet from the fence yeah kind of puts the shed in the middle of the backyard and i feel as though having a standard like that especially in an area residential areas where we have a lot of small lots um could be prohibitive um for a lot of folks is there is there some kind of rule that i mean i know a lot some some sheds have gone up in our neighborhood that look more like they're on skids you know like there are a couple of concrete blocks down there and then you know they can essentially be moved at any time by anybody else anybody um i'm not even sure that that setback rule applies to something like a temporary well it probably does but i would also in crime i mean you used to see this all the time you know like between you know be a fence down the middle and there'd be a shed the foot of foot from the fence on both sides right you know if it's not a principal structure nobody's living in it it's not you know one's full of gasoline the other one's full of matches you know you probably right and i think it's still robin correct me if i'm wrong it still needs to go through a permit process so it still have to be registered and permitted um and so it yeah i have to declare that it's not going like in the front against the street that it's going in the back corner of the property along a very issues permits for sheds yes and is there a 500 square foot uh like if it's over 500 square feet it's got more of a purview than if it's less yeah if it's over it's over a certain size then it has to come like a 10 by 12 shed a 120 square feet and it's not a permanent really a permanent structure with a foundation underneath it and all the rest of that stuff i i would say that we're you know may not have a whole lot to say about those yeah yeah i've always had i've always had a problem with it i'm glad it's currently written in our ldc um storage sheds within any residential zone district must be located a minimum of eight feet from the property line so i guess i'm proposing that we kind of revisit that section and see if there's a way to um tweak that language a little bit to make it a little bit more flexible and and these are kind of standalone things these aren't like foundations attached to your house no all of a sudden your house is now closer than five eight feet well my neighbor's garage is within arms distance of my the side of my house but that's a different conversation for a different time yeah okay i'm all right i thought these things went to the zoning board for variance approval or if we didn't have the application they could go to the zoning board but i think it's just better to have a change that says if you have a small lot if your back lot i don't know is less than 20 feet you don't have to be five feet from property line i'm just making it up five foot five i mean traditionally these kind of sheds were on the property line you know and and it's it's just not uncommon in uh most residential communities to see that like usually the argument is hey somebody shed is three feet in my property you know and that's just the way it is because it's been there for 100 years one thing we'd have to make sure you know that the um the shed cannot you know cannot be located in such a position that stormwater runs off your shed roof under the neighbor's property would have to have something yeah sure yeah it causes potential issues there yeah that makes sense no it's just something that i noticed as i was going through the whole process of wanting to put in the shed and then realizing that being on the planning commission and being non-compliant probably is not a good look so um yeah i i think if we have a some caveat about permanence and you know foundation type or lack of and um uh size limit uh you know maybe there's a way to get through this okay so is that something maybe i don't want to belabor this conversation too much later tonight but um in two weeks from now if i highlight it and we can kind of tweak some language around it sure thanks so maybe you could bring us something and we'll take a look at it patrick sure sure sure i can work on drafting a little something keep it short oh absolutely any final comments for anybody very much i'll take a motion to adjourn please a motion second i'll second all in favor all right hi hi marine's adjourn thank you all very much and um i guess we're back remotely in two weeks