 order at 6.05. First thing on the agenda is, this is what October 7th all day. I didn't want an audience for visitors. We have none in the audience. In person, do we have anyone on camera? And no. Do any people remotely or who's taking minutes? So absent comments from the visitors? Do you have the volume up on your computer? Yeah, go ahead. Do what you need to do. Hey John, did you hear me? There's supposed to be going back there. I met everyone and they weren't admitted. I clicked on the green ticket game and it says admitting that I should fail. The jury and technology system will allow somebody to watch it at a later date and understand what we're doing. But we're proposing to run our public meeting with three members of the public commission present at Lincoln Hall and one in attendance remotely. So we've already been through volume for visitors and we have no visitors remotely or in person, so we'll get that. I don't think we have any changes to the agenda, so we'll move on to minutes. And I will enter your motion to approve the September 16th. Second. Any discussion, alterations, changes? All in favor of the September 16th minutes. Just say hi. Phil has recorded his thumbs up for the minutes. Thank you. All right, so that brings us to the work session and we have Regina here again tonight to lead us through ongoing material. We have five chapters of revised LBC in front of us and some charts and I will turn it over to Regina to walk us through it. You probably want to be looking at your table to the start because I'm not going to share the table on the screen. I'm just going to share the text edits associated with each row in here on the screen. So this table summarizes everything that has changed in the state statute since your last update of your LBCs. And I think I did it even from a year earlier just to make sure if there was some stuff that didn't get captured in the last update. So some of these things are not necessarily relevant or something that we need to make a change on, but I just wanted to make sure you had it in here just so you know. So everything in here that is a statute change will be dragged into our updated LBC because it will fall? If it says yes with a Y in the third column. Okay, so the back half of us, Regina, is going to be about Bolton. Do we just disregard that? Oh, that is... Did I make it into the... A lot of it is Bolton, so I... That's why you guys have the Bolton. So I was trying to go on, why do I Bolton? So this, I just kept it in the second tab and it must have pulled the second tab when I made the PDF. But this is the back for statutory changes much further back. So if you want to look at those two, but I didn't analyze them for Bolton. Sorry, you didn't need to have them on. I'll just look at this. They're looking at... There's like, I have this version, the landscape version, and there are six pages of it. When it switches over to the other way, you can ignore that. Awesome, we're making progress. Yeah, I like this. Alright, sorry about that. So, the first thing on the list is a... This thing, whatever. I have teams on my phone too, so that's why we keep hearing this chime every time Phil does something. That's right. Okay, this is just like a sort of minor change to sort of line up agricultural uses and designation. You don't need to worry about that. Your farm is not in your state of the meeting. So, moving on to the second item in the list. So this particular statutory change was to identify a change in municipal zoning exemption. So let me share this. So I'm just... Hopefully it'll speed up. You just need to tell us why it's in here. We probably don't need the chapter and verse on the rule. If that's the new rule, then we need to comply with it. Yeah, so what I want to understand is what it means to us, but I don't think we need to do it either. Okay. As I was reading this today, I recognize you already have some of these changes already in May that we discussed in the last meeting. So this is just a summary of all the changes in this format. This is a summary associated with the state statute, not everything that we looked at. But those things have already been, for the most part, have been incorporated that I'm so far because I noticed the changes talked about in the chapters. Okay. And it says this is a change of statute and we're going to put this block of language in. Yes. So everything, all the chapters that you've got this week, and probably right now or if you've got them, hopefully you've got them emailed earlier this week. Those have incorporated the changes on this list already in text status. Okay. Okay, so that's an exemption. You probably didn't list the exemption before. I think it's up on the list then. So that's why you'll see the chocolate text there for that in chapter four. So just for example on the second item here, public utility limitations on municipal bylaws and activity. Yep. So what I'm guessing that really means is that we have less ability to comment on certain things regarding electric utility generation facilities. Yes. Right. And we actually, we got something in the last time we did the village. Municipal plan wasn't there a whole pile of things that we had to give comment on to the state about what we wanted to have the ability to say or yes, protected our ability to say things by putting it in our village comprehensive plan. Yes. So maybe this is just the other side coming back around again. But that's what I want to understand. I want to understand how this fits into what we're doing and basically what you're going to tell me is you no longer have the ability to say X, Y and Z on what somebody comes in with a solar farm or a turbine array or something. Yes. And then we'll say, but wait a minute, you know, it gives us that we have. So I assume that will play out during, you know, any individual proposal that comes forward. And does that mean they don't even have to apply to the planning commission for approval to do certain things that just going to show up? Hold a second, Robin. I think there are people waiting in the lobby. Do you see that? I'm getting that note in the bottom corner. This is Tom meeting TV to guests. See a lobby list. I can't wait in the lobby to talk to a TV guest. How are you? How are you? How are you? So many, many, I don't see anybody else. Yeah, I don't see anybody else either. I don't know why I'm getting that message. It's Tom meeting TV a few times. Yes, twice. Yeah. So that's that one. So to the question that you are asking about, John, when you did your comprehensive plan update, you did what is called an enhanced energy plan. And you put in a bunch of policies in that plan so that as the planning commission and as the trustees, if somebody submits an active 50 application. And section 248 application in the village. So solar farm in the village. You at your planning commission role, your development, your, your planning commission long range planning commission role, not your development review role, your planning role. You have the authority to comment to the public utility commission on that application. The trustees also have the ability to comment to the public utility commission on that application. You're not approving or denying at the local level at all. You're simply providing comment into their permit process. Okay. The fact that you did your enhanced energy plan. When you comment to them, you get greater standing for that comment than you would have otherwise. And I will say, and I've talked to people about this, my friend, the answer. They still look into here probably the IBM. So if they come in. Or would they come into the planning commission for a review in our review capacity? No, no, no. And this section particularly explains that in your zoning in your local development review capacity, you have no authority in that realm. Okay. We do have negotiations. Right. So anyway, as we go through the rest of these, if you can highlight the intricacies of those types of things, that would be helpful even though, you know, we're not really in a position to comment on these regulations. It's got a handle. Oh, good. Thank you. Because I can't see anything when I'm sharing my screen. That's why I can't see. Go for it, Phil. Like a solar farm or something. What about like a development that wants to put solar panels up on their buildings or something like that? Is that affected as well? Yes. Yeah. Yeah. So section 248 gets a little bit complicated because there's a lot of different thresholds and avenues for approval. But for the most part, hands down, you don't have authority to regulate those uses at the local level. Sorry. Yeah. In your building, even though we don't have control over the solar, we would have control over the building on the access to the building. So that gives us a little bit of leverage if we feel we need it. In any district or only the design control district? Any district we've always got control over, yeah. Okay. Accesses. Global funders is prime for some. On the buildings. Surely you'd find a good architect to do that. Okay. So section 243, page one, row three. So this is a tweak to language that has been in place for a few years now. So basically, this section is requiring that when you get a site plan application or subdivision application that has access on a state road, it's going to require at the local level that they give you documentation that they have contacted and spoke to be trans about it. So what this has been, this has been put in place for a number of years now because people would get all through the local permitting process, be ready to get their zoning permit, then get their section 1111 permit for access on the state road and the state would say, No. No. Yeah. It's not a good spot. So this is just trying to get everybody talking to the right people up front. Early on. Early on. Which is always appreciated. Yeah. And before, it just had some slightly different language. This clarifies the specific steps and what B-trans is going to do along the way. And it adds the subdivision review before it only came into play for site plans. So that's a good improvement. So you've got that language there in chapter five. All right. Moving on. Robert, does that go into some directives that the potential developers will get before they come to us? That'll be part of the checklist that they've got that. I don't think, I mean, that's why they have our consultants. The consultants do the work in that style. So you're not going to know whether they did it or not until they get here. And then we ask them for the letter and then they're going to say yes or no. And if they say no, then we just say goodbye. You're saying table until they come back. It's like anything. Put it on the checklist, please. I mean, they don't get plenty of commission time until they have these things. They don't go to commission time until every staff member who's involved, engineer, et cetera, looks at it and asks them and then they pass them. And we had everything in the checklist that they're supposed to do between each one. It's in. I added it to the submittal requirements for each stage in the LDC. Perfect. Problem solved. There you go. It's in. Okay. Page two. Okay. We're going to be here online. It can't be. Page two is easy because this is not really on the table right now, but I just wanted to keep it on the list. So cannabis control board, if and when S6 junction votes to opt in to have cannabis retail sales in the village, then you would want to put some language in your zoning to describe how you're going to control that. Yes. A lot of this is a little bit unknown because the cannabis control board at the state is going to be really setting out the rules of how all of this is going to work. And a lot of that's not done yet. But the question for the municipalities opt in. You don't have to opt in. If you don't opt in, you're online. I'm guessing the trustees are going to have a lot to say about this. So I've read in the first comment to very intelligent planners at the regional level or checking. Yeah. So it is a vote, a vote, a town vote. So it's not the trustees making the decision. It's the town. The town has a committee that hasn't started hasn't even started to meet yet. Right. There are the clock sticking and they're twirling their bones. It has to be a majority of those. You can't vote on something if you haven't met. Yeah. So that's that. Second row, second page. This is just, there's nothing to be done on this either. This just goes with the statutory change right below it. So in 2020, we had some enabling statute changes to housing. And it sort of caused this big ripple effect specifically for private covenants. So those have been corrected to what really was the intent, which is that private covenants cannot prohibit accessory dwelling units or small lot development that you allow in your regulations. There's not actually anything that you as a municipality need to put in your bylaws because you don't regulate private covenants. This is just on the sort of civil suit side of the world that if somebody has a problem with a private development covenant, this proves that it's illegal. So third row, second page. Now we're on S237. These are the changes to make the accessory dwelling units a little bit easier. There's a small, so the other part of this, one is accessory dwelling units. One of the other parts is that you cannot deny a multifamily unit of four units or less because it does not meet the character of the neighborhood standard and conditional use. So the idea is that conditional uses, highly discretionary people could say, it's all single family homes just because the zoning allows four units there. We still don't like it because it just doesn't fit the character of the neighborhood. The concept is that that should not be used to keep prohibiting housing development from happening. You folks don't actually need that edit because you don't, which is awesome, have any multifamily developments being approved as a conditional use, which is the only place where that standard comes in. Does that make sense? But good to know that that is out there. Part of this is existing small lot developments. So we can bring up the text here if we want to. The concept of this that's been in statute for quite a while is that for small lots that existed well before we put zoning in place, if those exist legally as an own individual lot, you could prohibit those from being developed if they were under a certain size. And I think it's an eighth of an acre. I never remember. The specifics are in statute and we can take a look at that. But the change in this statute is that even if the lot is smaller than that, if it's served by municipal water and sewer, there's no reason why you shouldn't allow it to be developed. Does that make sense? So it might be a super tiny postage lot? Sure. Lot? It exists already, served by water and sewer? Let it be developed. For the purpose of having it. Yeah. Yeah. In our code, I'm going to look at the exact one that Bisky says, if your lot's smaller than once, through no fault of your own, that can't be seen as a hindrance to development. Yeah. Where's that effect? I'm going to digress here. As you know, I've been going back and forth with the planner Burlington and the planners and one pillar about short-term rentals. And my suggestion was, if it's an owner occupied, there should be no control over short-term rentals because that does not impact rental stock. But if it's an investment property where the owner of the building does not live, there should be control over short-term rentals. And that's what Burlington just approved last week. I think it makes sense. I think some owner occupiers would take what they've got off the market if the regulations became stricter, which would put pressure on the rental stock. But not if it's an investment property where it's still down the road. Which just gives a bit of flexibility. So that's the other, that is the fourth part of this legislation is that it does enable you to regulate short-term rentals as an ordinance. It still makes sense to me that that's a separate ordinance from the LDC. Robin, if you're thinking differently than that. No, not at all. But at the moment, that's not in my scope. So that's sort of sitting on the table right now. Particularly because I envision it as a separate ordinance. But if you have a different vision, let me know. But I do want to take some time to look at the accessory dwelling unit changes that I suggested for you. Because I'm suggesting you do a lot more than what statute is required. In terms of more flexibility and more permissions to allow for additional ADUs in development in that sense. I like it. Okay, so that's in Chapter 7. I'm going to stop sharing and pull up that text. When we were working last time, we didn't even get the section 721 yet. Yeah, so that's another point I wanted to make. So I won't blame the format of your regulations. I'll just blame the format of how we're doing this. But we are reviewing things topic-based. We're not reviewing things chapter by chapter necessarily. So with Chelsea and Jim, we looked at all stormwater, water sewer stuff, which comes into play for some reason in basically every chapter of your LDC. Now we are simply looking at these state statute changes. And so again, we're looking at a bunch of random chapters with just the sections associated with the state statute stuff. Eventually, all these pieces that we've talked about will be collectively put together in one place. Sorry, it's taking me a while to get to this. What section is it? 721. Let me share this. There are a bunch of random page numbers on the bottom of this Word document just so we can find where we are. So I am on page 34. Is that 134? Yeah, wait, why don't I have one? Why does this say 134? Because that's what you put on. That's what we have on our documents. Oh my gosh, it's so crazy. When I added the page numbers, they just added I'm starting with one. That was another chapter. Oh, different chapter? Anyway, okay, sorry. 721, Part B. These are the standards for the accessory dwelling units. Are they our standards or are there some statutes involved here? Because I don't think you're all that flexible myself reading them. So you have a black and white copy. The changes you're going to see are... Okay, so the additions are underlined and in red. So statute has changed that it's not just 30% of the primary structure, it's 30% or 900 square feet, whichever is greater. You could be more permissive than that if you wanted to go bigger than 900 square feet. That's a huge unit. All the units that we're building as apartments are between 500 and 800. So I don't know, 900 is giant. Yeah, I think it's definitely pretty good. What does that do then? I mean, you can't really have an efficiency unless you have a 100 square foot bedroom and an 800 square foot living room. But then are you... The person that owns the property is building the ADU. Could they move into the smaller unit and the larger unit becomes the ADU? That's what we want to change the course. That's a whole separate argument. My point is that accessory dwelling as a thing shouldn't have a 900 square foot window. I mean, that's too big. Why can't you have a 500 square foot? It's similar to all the other apartments that are in demand up there. Oh, my understanding. Yeah, what I'm talking about is... So there's a single person living in a 3000 square foot house that has an accessory. They don't need it. Why can't they live in the apartment house? That's a whole separate question. And the answer is we're not sure that's a thing. That they should be able to go either way, right? Yes. I don't mind if it goes either way. But the point is if we're trying to be flexible and generous, then don't put these big numbers in. No, I don't think we should put the number in. You have to put in this number. You have to. State statute just changed. You have to have it be 30% or 900 square feet, whichever is greater. Oh, man. So how are they promoting affordable housing with that? They count. That's crazy. Short-sighted and didn't go far enough. It was quick. They obviously weren't talking the radio plan question. Well, if you think about what size stable family homes are, we're looking at what size should accessory dwellings be allowed to be. I don't care how big the house is. I mean, everybody who's buying or renting an apartment out there is looking for a one-bedroom apartment. And they are. No, not everybody. But you're right. But I mean, I guess what I'm saying, what if I want to turn, you know, two rooms of my house into an accessory dwelling unit, and that's where I want to live. But that's my home. That's my primary residence. So then the rest of the house becomes the ADU. That's going to be more than 900 square feet. Right. But so this is a pointless argument if the state statute is not going to allow it, because we can't. I think the state statute is supposed to allow it. Well, if that's the state statute, I think it's supposed to. I thought it previously was more restrictive, where you could only make an ADU that was less than 30%, but there's the ADU. But now I thought, I thought the idea was that they flipped that, that said you can, as the primary resident, you can move into less than 30% and rent out the larger 70% of the ADU. I thought that was the intent of the. Yeah. So that is, that's a, is a different section. Okay. That's the section that's been debated for a long time about whether it's owner-occupant. Which part? Is owner-occupant. Is owner-occupant. I don't care. And so that's on this page, number seven here. Okay. So I guess that's where I was misunderstanding a little. Yeah. So B7 says that now. It's edited to say either the single family residence or the accessory apartment must be owner-occupant. I will say you could also remove owner-occupancy requirements altogether if you want it. But that's the. That would be the most flexible. Yeah. That's separate from the size situation. Yeah. You know, and I think, I think we just have to remember that all of these different tools for adding more housing are different tools. They're just tools in the toolbox. All right. Neither one are going to be used by a ton of people. Well, here's my take because I heard something on the news yesterday that was pretty bizarre. And that is that large investors are buying houses and turning them into, you know, they're gaining control over properties just like they'd be buying apartment buildings. And so you no longer have the same access by regular buyers to get those units. And that's kind of a whole different animal. I don't know if it's happening up here. It was other parts of the country. I mean, I like the idea. In certain markets where the housing is already in demand. So they're seeing it as a commodity they're buying because that's what they do. Yeah. Well, I like the idea for you, because that would be different. That's the opposite. That's his hand up, by the way. Yes, sir. Go ahead, Phil. Not in my mind this time, Phil. We want to hear you. Sorry. I'm a little delayed. So this is a demonstration. First part of what you were saying. He's saying the 900 square feet isn't a maximum size or isn't defining a size. It says you could do less than that. So we're reading it like it has to be 900 square feet. And he's saying it doesn't really say it has to be 900 square feet. It says 30% or 900 square feet may be converted. So in theory, you could convert less than that. Right. So I like that interpretation of that. That's accurate. That takes away my concern. Yeah. Thank you, Phil. Thank you, Phil. Jen, on B4, this is Phil saying something else? No, we just took your hand in. So the accessory apartment should not be allowed in a residential garage unless there's adequate separation. In other words, fire separation. It applies with the Vermont fire prevention code, which I agree with that. Yeah, that makes sense. It's sense that it stays in or sense that? It should stay in. In theory, you want the fire separation, and it's just a layer to a sheet rock. So it's not a big deal. Yeah. It depends on the location of the accessory apartment. If it's in the instruction under the floor of Bob, they're saying you can't park a vehicle in a space that's going to adversely affect the adjacent living quarters. And it's supposed to be like that in everybody's house now already. Yeah. So I'm fine with that. I did stumble over why it appears that the detached garage is a thing. If you have a detached garage, you can do it, but you can't build it. If you have a detached garage, you're allowed existing. You're allowed to make it an accessory dwelling. But it sounds like if you want to build a detached accessory dwelling, you can't. So you would build the garage, and after you finished it, then you applied to make it an accessory dwelling. Yeah, you'd have to wait probably a certain period of time. I don't know why. I don't know why we preclude somebody building a little building to make it a... We had some of the necessary to do that. The way that we approach it with our program, community development program, housing community development, is if it's an existing structure, it's the rehab of an existing structure. If you're building new, it's then considered new construction. And it's different, there are different rules that apply to rehab and new construction. So, but where... John, where does this say what you're saying? It doesn't actually say what it... I'm only taking the opposite side of 6D. If an existing unattached structure is utilized as an accessory apartment, right? Mm-hmm. And I thought there was one other location where it was talking about an existing unattached. Are we allowed to build... I mean, I've seen people do it and they may connect it with a breezeway or something. And then, I mean, I think the general idea is they're trying to keep people from building things that don't look like the rest of the residential structures. It would be the general theory. But, you know, there are houses that have the residential structure and a garage that's on the side of the apartment, the driveway, or whatever. You know, not everybody has an attached garage. Yeah, so 6D is just basically saying you can't have two accessory dwellings. It doesn't matter what structure they're in. 6A is saying any accessory apartment proposed in an accessory structure that was built after the date of this code, for some reason, shall require conditional use approval. That doesn't really make any sense to me. I think you're right in your point. You should be able to build an accessory dwelling unit anyhow, anywhere on your property, whether there's an existing accessory structure and you're putting the apartment in it, whether you're putting it in your single-family home somewhere, whether you're putting it in, I think a garage is fine too, but whatever, you should just be able to do that and it shouldn't require conditional use of approval. Well, it does now. I'm suggesting a deletion that would not allow it and not require the conditional use. So deleting A would do that? Yeah. So does this stanchion phone, or as amended, would it allow a tiny home to become an ADU? In my mind, there's no difference. As in whether you build something or drive it in? Yeah, a little bit. Because some of the tiny homes become permanent. And they're permanently set up for us? Generally not, no. I mean, some of the manufactured homes too, but technically they're mobile homes Yeah, so in my mind, the way that this, in theory, should work, and I know it gets more complicated than this, but it depends on really what they're coming in and asking for, because ultimately they have to come in and ask for something if someone's claiming they're in violation. So they come in, they're either, I assume you have a temporary structure allowance in some way, shape, or form, that there can be something else there. I mean, making this up, but let's say up to 30 days. If they want to have something be there longer than your temporary structures allow, they have to apply and get approval for some other type of use. And so even if it's a tiny home on wheels, if they come in and apply for it as an accessory dwelling unit and they get approval for it in a location on that property, then it'll be. Right, and that would all be up to review for us to approve or allow. And I'm just looking at B3, that the converted dwelling shall retain the appearance of a single family dwelling, where somebody moves in temporary use or whatever, that tiny home, and then you look at the plans and you're like, well, no, that no longer looks like a single family dwelling on this property we could deny. Right, I mean, am I misreading that? No, that's a pretty powerful statement there that has to look like a single family dwelling. Yeah, I would. Why are we taking it out? And also I meant to say the other edits that we're going to look at, too, this whole concept that the commission is approving these, these really should not be approved by the commission. They should be approved by the zoning administrator. Yes, absolutely. Just like you approve a single family home, you can't approve an ADU with any greater approval complications than a single family home. So if somebody has a lot and they come in and they want to build a house, we don't even get a chance to see what it looks like normally, do we? No. So why is this all, you know, has to look like a single... Because the zoning administrator has to have some regs to go by, like your permit review. Yeah, but the regs are, I want to have a... But the regs are right there. It says in C, the zoning administrator shall approve accessory apartments within an attached balala. So it already says the zoning administrator is doing his or her thing. Yeah, I guess so. How did we end up with this whole section then? Because the zoning administrator has to have some rules of the regs to go by. Yeah, I think, I mean, all that we need to do is you still want all these standards in Part B. We just need to clear out the part that the commission is using these standards for approval because it's just the zoning administrator. Well, this might... B3 might apply to a zoning district that only has single-family homes in it, but it certainly wouldn't apply across the board. I mean, if I have an entire district that only has single-family homes in it, somehow I don't want any variation. Like somebody's in a detached garage and all of a sudden their garage turned into a... I don't know, what would be the... Or do we have anywhere that we only have single-family dwellings? Yeah, but what we've done, the one on Pleasant Street, they had to connect the garage, they had to get a garage and access report to the house. It just had to be connected. We think the approach to get connected with the fence, trellis, that's connected. All right, so it looks like it's a cohesive... I guess I would accept that. So where are we saying that... Why do we have 721? This is to give the zoning administrator a place to start. Yeah, because if you read the permit review, I almost attempted to say permit review might actually make more sense if it was B, instead of the standards, because then it's straight out forward saying the zoning administrator is going to approve these permits. And here's the standards. I'm kind of waiting for B to say that. Accessory apartments may be... It doesn't say that until C, so by the time you get to there. And here's the thing, some people put an RV in the driveway and hooked up to the house electric and water and tried to send us accessory filling in and I said, no, it's not. So people can get very creative. So can we just switch C and B and be all right? Yeah, I could put C in front of B if that's helpful. And then what happens to the second paragraph of C where it's talking about the commission or the last sentence of... First, there's plenty of commission in there the number of times. Yeah, I can clear it all out. And so what's the decision here? You're keeping this highly discretionary, must look like a single-family home statement? We don't really want to, I don't think. Well, I think we want to have a single-family district. I think that you're more flexible in other districts. We get some purposes in a single-family district. I mean, I think it kind of needs to look like a single-family dwelling otherwise it's not an accessory dwelling in it. You could design a building that was a single-family dwelling that didn't look anything like the other buildings in the neighborhood. You'd be yelling at me anyway. We would never have that. But the idea is not new construction. The idea is that the building exists and that you're going to modify a portion of it, not parking RV and consider it an ADU. But if you're converting a garage into an ADU, the garage and half of them look like a single-family residence. Well, the garage would have to match the single-family residence. The whole property would have to look like a single-family dwelling. Right. Right. Within an apartment above the garage. It would look like a garage with a mother-in-law unit upstairs or something. Something. Yeah, a rec room. Right. And B1 talks about converted, which would be inside the existing, added onto the principal structure or built in an accessory structure. So there's the whole set of options here where... But I think the point is that it still needs to look like a single-family unit is on that one property. And that it doesn't look like a duplex or it doesn't look like there are three apartments, two apartments within one. Right. That's my... There's so much room for it. I mean, I lived in a duplex that looked like a single-family only you couldn't tell. I don't know why that's a thing. Well, I think the thing is that you're warm by default. You want the ability to have some control is what I'm really here for. I mean, we do want it to be a duplex if the owner lives in one apartment. So if the understanding is that it somehow looks like even if it's a complex of buildings, it still looks like a single-family... I mean, I don't... Overall compound somehow or whatever that means. If it's more than two units, I don't think it's... I don't think it falls under an ADU definition anymore. Right. It isn't just an ADU, a single-accessory dwelling unit within one owner occupied. I think Regina's read something that Cutter did that earlier. It is different. You have two-family dwelling in your list of uses as well. A two-family dwelling is different than an accessory dwelling unit. My bigger point is just who cares? Who cares if you have duplexes in a single-family residential zoning district right now? Who cares if you have ADUs in a single-family zoning district right now? I don't care about the second part. The first part could open a bigger door. I think that would have to... If it's anything more than accessory dwelling unit, that would have to come from a family community. So a duplex? Yes. Yeah, because I mean, let's presuppose that they took a big... We still had a Victorian that was under itself and not split up. They wanted to split a Victorian into two, three, four, or five parts. They command just like they did on the Barteris. Barteris, okay. But it still looks like a single-family residence. It still looks like that Victorian. It has not been so altered that it's not a character. A character, and it seems a character. We can't get this one. As soon as it's more than two, it's an apartment building. Phil's got his hand up. Go ahead, Phil. What if I... I have to mute like that. It's a filler as a black Sabbath. That's right. Oh, there we go. So if a single-family dwelling is converted, one apartment is added within that single-family dwelling, how does that not change into a duplex based on the permit? I think it's based on B1, where the standard of 30% exist or less than 30% or 900 square feet of the property qualifies it as an ADU. And then it just goes before the zoning administrator for approval. Yeah, and if it was a duplex, then we'd come on to the auspices of the Department of Fire Safety as well. But once it's converted, it just stays as an ADU as opposed to becoming a duplex. Yeah, right, definition. So that would be like having somebody convert their basement into an apartment. Would be an ADU conversion versus... If it meets that, that's 900 square feet of property. Yeah, then it falls under this ADU definition. Versus... So, oh, sorry. I can say something, but I have to... I can mute. I can mute Phil, Phil. I'll mute the TV. Perkyville. Okay, so this does start to get pretty complicated, but it really is... It's not complicated. It's always on the applicant. They need to figure out what they're applying for. So, if they want an accessory dwelling unit, and part of the reason why they might want that is because they only have enough room to put in what's kind of spelled out here as an accessory dwelling unit. One might apply for a duplex rather than an accessory dwelling unit because they don't want the owner occupancy requirement. Right. And so that is really where it kind of comes down to two different applications and what they're asking the village for approval of. But in reality, when we're starting to just... Well, this has been in place for quite a while. Anyway, the accessory dwelling units versus the duplexes, because you allow them in a bunch of districts, they're very slightly different for a lot of reasons, and it really comes down to what the applicant is asking for. And if it's a duplex, if it's allowed in the place that they're asking, because if you're in R1 or R2 today, you can't do a duplex. You can only do an accessory dwelling unit. That is a great little cheat sheet, and I just wrote it all down. Love it. I can mute myself, fill that if you want to chime in, see if that answered your question. Yeah, that apartment where you convert space in your existing structure to have an apartment, but then there's also the AU where it's a whole new structure or a rebuildable garage that I think kind of mentioned as part of the current year, where I think we want to look at also, like, set of access dates like that, that sort of AU as well, what we would look at as a planned transition. So for me, it sounds like if it's an existing structure or even a detached structure, it's pretty straightforward if we get into somebody's proposing to build something and call it. Then we have a few other considerations to run it through, but basically comes back to the same concepts that are in place for the existing ones that needs to make sense, and we all have to believe the straight-face test that it looks like a cohesive single-family dwelling when you're all done. And as long as that test is relatively flexible, I think we should be okay. And I would also imagine that if the zoning administrator says, you know, this is too close to call, I'm going to send it to the planning commission to have it finalized. So they have the chance to do that, and if they don't feel comfortable, something is following. They don't have the chance to do that. An accessory dwelling unit needs to be approved in the same way as a single-family home. So the way it would work is that Robin would have to deny it if he does not think it meets the code. And then they appeal it to the planning commission. But in the permit review here, it says, since C, it says the zoning administrator may defer any accessory apartment application to the planning commission for review and approval. That's before a state statute just changed. Yeah, I think the state statute's trying to take that discretionary piece out. I don't know, but did that also account for new construction if somebody were to build a two-car garage? Yes, so... Oh, because I'm muted. Sorry, Phil. You couldn't hear anything that was going on here. We'd like to keep it that way with Phil. Should your hand still be up, Phil? He just put it back up. Yeah, he's trying to get our attention. Okay. Sorry, Phil. So we have been talking about how... if accessory dwelling units can be treated as they were before as the current regulation state, which is if the zoning administrator is feeling like, uh, not sure this is really meeting the intent of the code, I'll send it over to the planning commission. I'm saying that that is no longer permissible. I just did it another way. Accessory dwelling units have to be approved by the zoning administrator. If the zoning administrator doesn't think it meets the code, that would be a denial, and then that could be appealed to the planning commission. Who approves the construction of the two-car garage? That's not 500 square feet. Well, but if the plans for such included in ADU above, that would fall under this. But I'm just wondering, like, is that wherein lies the difference that... New construction versus... Yeah, I mean, I just defined it through hide and CDBG, because that's what I know. But, um, I mean, I'm just thinking, like, we can't deny the ADU going into above a new car... a two-car garage, above a garage under new construction. Who approves the construction of the garage? Is that us, or is that the zoning administrator? I don't know. I'm asking the question. It's a good question. I don't know the answer. We could approve or deny the construction of the garage, but we cannot prevent them from putting in the ADU above it. Yeah, so the... I think you can build up to 500 square feet without a planning commission thing. It can be moved administratively. Yeah, so... So that's 20 by 20, which is a typical garage. It's 400 square feet, so you've got a little to play with. So somebody could come in and build a two-car garage and get an administrative permit and then reapply it and change something into an ADU. Or if they applied for a 20 by 25 garage, we can't prevent them from putting an ADU above it. What is the... Do you have any comment on that? I mean, I mean... Yeah, but the point is that if there's a rule, somebody's going to figure out how to, you know, work with the around or through or over or under or something. Oh, yeah, because I think the guy down on East Williams Street has got... God, she must have had a bunch of amendments to... I thought he had a garage, but then he put an additional on top. But now he's got some additional in front. East Williams Street? Yeah, East Williams Street. It's been growing for... It's an interesting project. I'm just trying to think about the way... He still doesn't have his siding on, so until he gets his siding on... The state statute currently... The way that it was put forward is that we have less discretion over the approval or denial of an ADU. But where we might... I'm just trying to figure out what the lines are for our own purposes. And that if somebody came in under the definition of building their garage within the framework of what the zoning administrator just stays with them, we have nothing there. But if they build a garage that's larger than that, that has to come before us, as long as the structure is less than 900 square feet, we can't prevent them from putting in an ADU. Which is great. The point is, if you're trying to be flexible and encourage or generate more dwelling units in various forms and fashions, then this is all good, right? I don't care how it is. If they comply with the regulations and you've got more housing units out of it, that should be fine. I really think it's really going to help people if it's being able to the property owner, the owner of your car, if it's a smaller unit, that's huge. I think that's great, especially for people as they're aging and want to downsize. They don't have to leave their property, but they can rent out to a larger portion. That's phenomenal. The only house that lives is at the apartment above the garage. It's upstairs. Anyhow, the evil cabinet. All right. I think we're in good shape here. Thanks for putting up with us. Now, I'm going to stop sharing that. Because there is a whole other section, 502, on how these are approved. And will our own housing committee get some update on the moves that we're making to improve accessory dwelling units? I guess I would be able to rob them to keep them under who should kind of ask where they're at or just maybe remind them. I would just put it out there for there. Isn't the 502 and the 511 discussion as to 511, the one that has the ASL, should this be merged to where it was? Yeah, 511 and 502 because of the subdivision section. Yes. Okay, hold that thought. We just got to get through the rest of these accessory. Maybe I'll answer the questions you're asking. Okay. Alluding to Diane is that we just went through everything about accessory apartments. But somehow over here, section 502 part I is a whole other section about approval of accessory apartments. Can we just refer them to the other piece and strike the whole thing? I don't know why your code is as complicated as it is, honestly. It helped us with the code the last time. Anyone remember? I don't think it was me. We did piecemeal. It was not a total commitment to review the whole thing if we didn't check. The idea was we were flying around waiting for the time to catch up. Right. Now it's coming back to bite us. It's a big effort to unravel this complication. But really for this section, just trying to kind of, for the most part under number three, refer you this section over to the standards under section 721. So all of that mess, which is a lot of it, is not right with state standard anymore. Anyway, it was gone. And then number six, again, this was bringing in a conditional use for this, which you can't do. So basically the whole rest of this, six and seven, just needs to come out. And then the other would see it in one place. And then you've got your appeal section. So if somebody doesn't like the decision of a zoning administrator, it's appealed to the planning commission. Yeah. And then the expiration, again, is weird, because it refers to these as a, you get an approval before a zoning permit. It's weird. Some of these sections are weird. So there's no, you don't do any kind of like staff approval that doesn't, that isn't a zoning permit, do you? Yeah. So it should, it doesn't need to talk about an expiration of the approval any different than an expiration of a zoning permit. It's the exact same structure of approval. Yeah. So you're going to clear all that up for us. So that's the changes in that part. Remember, this is, this was put together by a committee and then redone 10 times by separate committees. Yeah. We're looking at rewriting the whole thing. Yeah. Which makes sense, guys, because we write the whole thing. So we have a camel of how many humps? Too many. And what we wanted was a horse. So, God, I mean, look at the chapters. This one says development review procedures for five. And then seven is general development standards. So they're not, they're not really the same, but. I mean, I don't, I don't know if we, if I could figure out some kind of clean way to just take an axe to a lot of this, I will try, but this is a big effort. Yeah. The whole PUD section has been something that we've kind of chewed on for a number of times. You know, it's 502 and 511. But after all this stuff is removed, there isn't a whole heck of a lot left. In five. In five, in five, in chapter five. No. It's just a placeholder that mentions that in the overall scheme and says, go see something else. Where we're going to tell you how it works. Well, yeah, it says, go see the zoning administrator. Yeah. Like any other good government document. In circles. Fuck stops here. Well, so the only other option is to take the other location in chapter seven and move it into this one. And, you know, then it's all in this place. And not the other place. Yeah. Well, unfortunately, this one is procedures. The other one says standards. So they're not really the same. This one says what you should do to get one. The other one says this is the standard that you need to meet. So they're not really the same even though they're really redundant. So let's clean this one up. Let's clean up five and let's leave the standards where they belong. And just say C721 for details. Yeah. Okay. Do you want to go back to the list? Yeah. I have 730 and 734 on my clock. And I'm hoping to call it at 8. Okay. So everybody's on track with time. All right. So now we're back to the table. And we're moving on to page three of the table first row. And this is simply, we don't need to go to that section. It's just that the recording fees went up. So your fee schedule already had the recording fees correct for just paper. $10 to $15. But it didn't mention that my lars are now a $25 recording fee. So I just added that to the, that thing. Okay. Next thing on here is the survey, survey flat filings and digital survey requirements. We addressed some of these in a lot of the different sections that we talked about with Chelsea, but I'll go through and make sure in the other sections that we've got that in there. Third row. I have to read what I wrote here. It's that you need between daycare facility. I know that our regulations say like six, and this is the state piece that you're having says eight. Right. You don't say, you have a different cut off. Did you just say six? Six. Yeah. So I think we need to switch that to eight. Yeah. I think that's the main solution. And this one covers group home and residential care. It doesn't look like it covers daycare. It's just, it's not daycare as in children daycare. Right. It's just, it's, these are the homes that again, you can't treat them any differently than a single family home. Wow. Stunning. So we'll change it to eight. I think we already treat, we have one on Lincoln street. Yeah. There's another one on the way out of town towards Wilson. Okay. Reviewing the one on Lincoln street. Yeah. Hard center. Yeah. So it's over. Yeah. Over at the end of frosty. Yeah. Um, there's something. I think I wanted to do add, add, add space or something. Yeah. There was one that we denied actually just last year. Yeah. Yeah. The one that's now moved towards, uh, 40th an hour. That's now in your consideration by the town. I know it was, um, Giles Willie, which was a nearly applicant. Oh, okay. Was it a little, let's treat that. So this is, this is the other thing that you have in the definition that I don't really think is quite right. So. Statute requires you to treat these homes like single family homes. Your definition says family care home shall mean a facility which provides for care in the owner's residence. That is not the point because it's not going to be the person who owns the house is not likely to live there. It's going to be like an organization and they have residential care workers in there, but they're not. The owner is not. It's not like somebody's hired a full-time nurse to take care of them. Right. This is a group home was serving up to eight. Yeah. Unrelated separate. I think yeah. Recovery housing. The reason 10 there is you've got more than one category. This is what, I mean, it's also, um, I mean, there could be other properties to meet. There should be. I mean, there's you've got all the other home occupation type things in here. Well, is this like I'm being, I'm recovering from an accident and I need a place to go or is this I'm a recovering from a substance abuse. I need a place to go or something. I read it as the latter that it's a recovery home for up to eight people. It's not a nursing home for you or something else is going on. Okay. Okay. That's good. Yeah. Okay. I understand. And the residential care. I just be interested to see what they're looking at for a definition because in the light safety code, it's a, it's a category of a bunch of things. Yeah. And, and it's related to healthcare, but it's not quite because healthcare is all different category. But once you have kind of people who are, you know, they're sleeping somewhere and are either able or not able to self rescue, you get all kinds of fire code regulations. But I don't know that this is after that. This sounds more like it's saying, look, if somebody comes up with a need for a halfway house of some kind, do you have to allow it? Like you would a single family home. And I think that's kind of, you know, that's saying the community probably needs this and absolutely need to allow. Yeah. Okay. So the new definition is totally different from our previous family care home. So whereas the only residential part is the owner. Doesn't sound like the people who are at the family care home are actually living there. Whereas the residential care home sounds like there are possibilities of people living there as their residents or temporary residents. They sound like they're two different, two different things. My misinterpreting here. What do you mean? Two different things in terms of what? Well, I'm looking at chapter two. Okay. Chapter two on page eight here is the family care home, which is the first time that this comes up, which is what you cite, just 201-C. And it says family care home shall mean a facility which provides for care in the owner's residence on a regular basis for six or fewer adults at any time, excluding residents of the dwelling. Whereas the new definition of residential care home or group home, which I think is being different, to be operated under state licensing registration serving not more than eight persons who have a disability as the fine in shall be considered by right to constitute a permitted single family resident reduced to the property. So is this residential care home like a family care home? Is this the previous definition of family care home? Well, neither of them are actually in our definition. No, they're not. So I mean, right, which is why I'm kind of going, okay, so how do I label this animal? Well, we need definitions for those and they need to probably come from the state somehow, whatever they're intending this to mean. Yeah, you need those two definitions in there and I assumed, so this is not a new statute. This has been around for quite a while, but so it seemed to me that the closest thing that made sense in your regulations was the family care home definition. But I don't know what else family care home would be and I don't know, it seems like the two could be accomplished in one. But we could also just add these other two definitions in as a separate use. And then I would say that we probably want to look at the ones we do have in there and see if they're also going to trigger some requirement that we treat them a certain way or not. Because, you know, why do we have them and we need to look at all of our definitions again. Oh my gosh. Sorry. Yeah, I mean the thing is you wouldn't want to review something. If we have these new definitions in, you wouldn't want to find yourself in a place where you've reviewed something as a family care home and done it against Fair Housing Law basically because it wasn't done properly if it really is something that falls under those state licensing requirements. Yeah, I don't know. Okay, so I don't know what the state licensing, what they're allowed to do with that license. Okay, because family care home, I look at it as being essentially it's a day care, a care during the day, whereas the group home is definitely can be overnight. There's a definition right about it. The resident owner has residents there, whereas the family care home sounds like they may be temporary or temporary during the day thing. Right, so it does be. The definition of family care facility right above that definition help specifically mentions halfway houses and similar facilities. Do we actually maybe have them separately? Yeah, that's the one. They don't need to coordinate that because one says six and one says seven. Well, okay. But is that helping with the distinction that you're trying to make a little bit? Yes, I'm trying to wrangle this, yeah. So I think the family care facility is what's being talked about in this new state statute. Right, yeah. So we just need to tie those together. Based on the way we define it. Yeah, yeah. Yeah, and there needs, well, the idea is that you're defining a relatively small one, which is what can get approved as a single family home, no greater review process, or a larger one, which you would probably send through site plan review. Okay, so we need to make family care facility in our definitions. And some all have in principle use group home or residential care and defined by the state, right? Yeah. That's a subset of what that means. Just defined by the state and time of application. Yeah. Because it may change halfway through our code line now. And seven or more adults needs to change the date. But yes, Robin, you're probably right. Make it over then. That's right. Like you said. Sorry. I had something. All right, back to the list. Page three of the table. So on farm businesses and help and hemp cultivation. So this statute allows you to regulate an accessory on farm business. And basically it's defined as a little bit of a larger operation than just smaller accessory on farm businesses that really fall under the state's agricultural rules. And there's no local approval of it. So by putting this into statute, it gives the municipalities the authority to start taking a look at some of these accessory uses that have been put in place. I'll say like a way that you know, or some of these other kinds of things that have helped farmers diversify. And they've been helpful in the grand scheme of things, but they start to get into uses that typically in municipality would be reviewing. So that's kind of the concept behind it. At first when I was reading through this, I'm not really sure how necessary or important this is for as extension to put into your regulations. How many farm parcels do we have? Just the one, right? Yeah. And most people can't find it on the map. It's the biggest parcel in the building. They've never been there. You don't know how to get there. It's insane, man. Although apparently a lot of people walk there. The adjacent neighbors. Yes, probably. Yeah, I will say that the wedding venue conversion and farm properties are huge. It's skyrocketed over the last, let's say, five years. Absolutely. And the state now actually, the fire marshals have significant regulatory interest in what's happening here. It's a giant public assembly building that used to be a barn. Well, the CCRPC had a general meeting with one in Jericho a few years ago. Yeah. Took me an hour to find it, but I lost three times. I know. Once you know where it is, it's right there. Yeah. It's right off the interstate, but I didn't go that way. The background starts. Oh, yeah, right. I've heard about that one. And I can't find it either, but it is right there. Yeah. Yeah. And also, you do have an agriculture sales activity use definition up here in chapter two. So I was like, oh, maybe you're kind of addressing this in some way already, but then it shows up nowhere else, as far as I can tell. So I don't know. It's not the easiest thing to add in only because you've got to sort of, well, it's probably pretty easy. You could just say more intense than how they defined it in statute, but. At time of application. Yeah. At time of application. I know there's been various debates over the years on CVE and how come it's not maybe subject to the same requirements as everyone else because it's an ag property or a husband or is allowed to be or something, even though it's, you know, generally a business of some kind. So it could have been in there for that reason. I don't know that we ever resolved that. And it's more of the trustee's kind of arranging things with CVE. But as a, you know, it's a whole separate discussion. Right. So a few folks, if you want me to try to add something in or. I mean, could the green space to the left? It's a Firebird Cafe. A piece of eyeball. A piece of eyeball. Could somebody really enter or something else? No. Well, I'll say no because. Anything can be used for ag. And it's not. I would say it would be prime ag lands and contaminated. It doesn't seem to fix it. I'm not happy with the whole prime ag. Crazy. Let's open it down. All right. I was powering up for her last eight minutes. Oh yeah, I was down. You want me to add something in or no? I'm going to stay away from it. Thanks. That's my recommendation. Don't add anything. Okay. Don't add. Excellent. No need to add. Okay. All right. Page four. Top row in the table. Economic development bill. So this is just really weird. It defines affordable housing. You have to define affordable housing specifically in your LDCs if you don't regulate it in any way, shape, or form. So as an example, if you were to do a inclusionary zoning ordinance and you were going to require developers to do some form of an affordable housing component in their project, you would then want to define what you mean by affordable housing. Yeah. Without that, there's no need to have to keep an affordable housing definition in your LDCs. Here's why I think it's in there. We do offer density bonuses and other incentives for people to try to put in affordable housing to get some bonuses. Okay. So I think that's why we wanted to find why it's in there, even though there's no requirement to make them do it. We do provide it. But I know that the housing commission is looking at inclusionary zoning. There's a strong idea of things to come. So it would make sense for us to... So let's leave it in there. The question may be, is that the right place for it? And is there a better place for it? But I think we want to keep it in there. Yeah, because it does sort of show up oddly in two different places, but then there's not really a lot of reason to keep it. Yeah, so it's related to PUDs, where we're offering developers an opportunity to do away with some of the normal development restrictions in favor of something else. And in order to incentivize that, we're allowing some things. And so that whole concept has been difficult to regulate and difficult to get our point across in previous versions of our language. And so we are looking for help on that. But the goal would still be to promote something we're interested in by giving the developers more leeway. And it's just the clarity of that language that I think we're struggling with. So the question as a being is, should affordable housing be under general definitions, or should it stay only under transit-oriented development? It should be general, because we don't really want to pin it to one place. No, I don't think we should pin it to one place, so it probably needs to get moved. But I thought it was in the PUD sector, not the TOD sector. No, it's in the PUD, which is TOD. In terms of the definition section, it's in TOD. But it really needs to be in general. So it's in PUD section in any history. Right. And if you want to get rid of the TOD section, we won't. Some of them. Is the way to streamline. Yeah, trust me. Well, it currently allows that. They only changed that regulation in the billed Senate. Okay. They left the other two, not knowing that they did that. Well, nobody in the other two was complaining about that. No, it's complaining about global boundaries. Next row, permitting for planting projects in the flood hazard area. They added it into 516A to explain the exemption. I don't really know where this came from and why. I think it's basically under this other permit, and if it is under this other permit, then it's exempt from local review, is the idea. Is this like a hemp farm, or is this a water garden or something? Like erosion control, like concept. But in reading through these sections, so the flood plain section, out of date. Is it a little bit out of date? I thought it was new from our last time. Okay, so maybe it's fine. You just didn't follow the, like it's not in the full model form, which is fine. It doesn't need to be in the full model form, but in my reading through it quickly, to see whether it lines up or not, just because it's in a different form. I think that came from Jim. So if you have any suggestions for us, we'll entertain those. Thank you. Well, one suggestion, which we don't really need to give too much detail tonight, but new structures in the flood plain are at base flood elevation. I would recommend that you put them at least one or two feet above base flood elevation. Yeah, absolutely. Maybe more. A lot in the flood plain anyway. Yeah, I thought we were. Yeah, we won't. Any new buildings in the flood plain at all. I don't think it's necessarily that you're allowing new stuff, but there are some exemptions. I don't remember which chapter this is. I don't remember. I don't remember. And the flood plain isn't that big, right? Yeah, probably. Still talking about it. Yeah. Jim, do you have anything in the flood plain? Mostly far. Yeah, that's why I just thought it too well. But it goes right through the middle. The village has a flood plain associated. Yes. And it's gone higher and higher. So I think as we, you know, we've watched that and anything that's around that, and I've worked on properties on both sides of that thing. And you have to be really careful that, you know, exactly where you are and what your elevations are. Yeah, I think we should have a zero-tolerant strength and consent. Okay. It might have to do a little bit with the wastewater treatment plant in the flood plain. For the windows, I don't know. That's a great question. It might be. I'm talking about new development. Yeah. Well, they might need new development sometimes. Well, we're going to be as public exam for months there, aren't we? But they shouldn't be exempt from the flood plain. I don't know how far up it goes. The flood plain is regulated a little bit by insurance companies and the Army Corps of Engineers. Right. One of the first things I'm going to go up here is to sign up. Where's the map? Yeah. I'll check on that more. We don't need to talk about it too much more now. And it's 8.01. What? Until how long do we have left on your computer? Okay. But let me just go through the rest of these real quick. 8.15 or when her computer dies, whatever happens first. Three pages real quick. The rest of these basically have no in the columns because we don't need to make an edit. There might be some better ways that you can do some natural resources protection, but it's a big project. I really don't think you need that. I think you're going to need some urban stuff that we've already been talking about. But I don't think we need to go down that natural resource avenue. Then there's the piece on the sign regulations, which I haven't been able to edit for you yet. Anyway. It's okay. And then Jam Golf is back to the natural resources thing too, which is, I don't think we need to focus on that. It's not within my scope of work to do on this round of edits. Anyway. Okay. So that's that. In the email that I sent over, I just included Manchester and Burlington sign regulations so you could see kind of what I mean by content neutral sign regulation. But we'll get yours updated for that purpose. Okay. Make sense? Yes. Thanks. So homework for next time includes the, are we still going on a topic basis, or do we want to start going through section by section? Well, the next time we, I promise Nick will be discussing. Yeah, but you know, he should be, that shouldn't be two hours then. Somehow we need to have like a, you know, time frame for that. Terry Sanju has proposed changes. I know that. I'm not sure. Yeah, we didn't send them over this time, because we weren't going to talk about them. But they're, he has actual text edits, I think. One thing that you need to remember is mission as defined by the trustees for the tree advisory committee is to advise on vegetation, on village on property, and to advise on trees on private property that may be a danger to people on village on property. There's nothing in their mission statement that says that they comment on applications or anything on private property. I haven't read the whole thing. I thought they were dealing with street trees. That's on village property. Yeah, but there's nothing that says we can't reach out to them if we want their input. So it just depends on which direction the missiles come in from, right? So we want their input that we should be able to ask for. If they want to tell us what to do, that's different, right? Then they only get to do that when they're, as far as their purview has been given by the trustees. Yeah, so I mean, they have a lot of great input, but the question is when is it required and when is it suggested? I'm looking forward to hearing from Nick and seeing where we can improve our, I mean, we've already got a language in there about when you need a landscape architect and what happens with landscaping and, you know, so. Indigenous. There's a lot of good stuff in there. I'm not sure that everybody that comes in here does it still, right? And when we get it and when we don't. So, but our neighborhood in particular has a whole lot of new trees thanks to that group. So I'm pretty sure they're doing a nice job where they have the opportunity to see it. Yeah, I mean, I think it would be great if some neighbors had an issue to train on their property. Assuming that that's what we're all interested in. There could be other ways that could be helpful too, and maybe that's a chance for us to talk to them about what we, you know, might have info. Okay, so any final comments for tonight? This has been a lot of heavy material tonight. This was good. All right. I will, that's 806. I'll take a motion to adjourn then. Make a motion to adjourn. I'm waiting for Phil to second it. There it is. All right. I have a motion that has been seconded. Any discussion? All in favor? Aye. Motion carries. Thank you very much. We're adjourned. Super.