 That's really going to be focusing on our ETC next process and discussion. This is our planning night on our schedule. This is the first of our revised workflow, so we're trying to really focus on these activities. We have a visiting member tonight from the Village PC, so Diane, welcome. As normal, any members that show up, we'd like to have you sit at the table with us and participate in the discussions. It's just a nice thing to have you guys join us. Public comments. Do we have anybody that wants to offer anything to us tonight? I have no amendments to the agenda anyway, so we're going to move on to our ETC next discussion. Dana, want to run with us for a minute? Sure do. Sorry, it's been a long day and it started when I'm winding up. I'll calm down a little bit. That's coffee in there, right? Yeah, it is. I can smell it. Well, we're really happy to be starting in the second phase of the ETC next project. We're really glad to be welcoming that Sharon and Mark for the excellent job that they and all of us did on the draft master plan for the town center. Just to make some reintroductions, because we haven't had a little bit of a hiatus, Mark and Sharon, that's Ned. Well, you all have name plates, so I guess I don't have to do that. I do too. Yeah, so well, Ned lives in the village, Tom the town, Josh the town, Dusty the town, Shu the town, John? Town. Diane village, so that gives you better orientation. So where we left off, we have this fantastic draft Essex town center master plan. And so what we're going to do now is write the regulatory framework for the town center as we redefined it in the plan. This is what we would call being in the weeds. And a lot of time here, we don't want to be in the weeds, but at meetings and stuff like that. But this is a time that we actually do need to be in the weeds. So the people that come after us don't have to go there. And that doesn't mean that you won't have to analyze the regulations that we develop as part of this process against development projects. It just means that you are going to participate in creating the regulatory framework for the new town, for this town center. And that doesn't happen all that often, especially it can happen like in a piecemeal framework, but you guys are doing it wholesale. And that really only happens in Essex like once in a generation, joking. But 1991 was the last time that we envisioned this area of town. And then we wrote the implementing regulations. And we don't often get around to planning on this elevation and then get into the weeds that often in Essex. So this is where it's going to get really fun and really exciting. Yeah, just about. Yeah, so that's why this project is so interesting and fun. To just leave off where we got with the end of the draft town plan process is we had some community input through a focus group outreach process and a survey. And we learned a lot about what Essex wants to look like and be up there. The survey was particularly interesting. And we didn't learn anything. We didn't learn that a lot of things were totally aligned. We heard contradictory stuff. We heard that people didn't want buildings that were too tall, but people didn't want sprawl. But people wanted denser areas in our town center. So what do you do with that as a planning commission? That's really at the heart of what's hard about community planning is that when people in a community planning process tell you different things. And that's what you're going to deal with as part of this phase. You know, people say we want connectivity up there. That's great. But how do you cross route 15 in, you know, a safe way? When people that respond to surveys and as part of the focus group in the open house say, we want it to just flow as part of this commuter arterial. So these are the kind of challenges that are going to be for you. And there aren't a lot of easy answers, which is why this is going to be interesting. We were told that design should respond to views. The Village Prevent Survey told us that they responded favorably to images that reflect traditional Vermont architectural styles and vernacular, gabled roofs more than flat, but also that context and setting were important. Well, development these days can be really, really boxy. As you've seen, what we're getting up there is box. And it's expensive to do non-box, to do break buildings up into various or, you know, townhouses or cottages or whatever you want. It's not responsive to the market because it's too expensive to build. So what the market gives us is what we have up there, which is a bunch of boxes. So if we want cottages with porches, this is the nexus that you have to write this into code. And that's what's going to be so hard about it and so interesting about it. And with that, I'll turn it over. So thank you. Appreciate the opportunity to come tonight. Obviously, we'll pull up a graphic in a minute that kind of shards out the roadmap, but Dana's absolutely right. I think the step we're now in with you guys, helping you guys out, is going to be a long process. This is not a two-week sort of effort. This is almost a year effort, ultimately. And the most important thing that I will say that we will commit to is we want to understand what you want to do. Our job is not to impose upon the town the regulations that we think make sense. Our job is to glean out of these conversations we're going to have what you guys want and then try to find the best way to codify that in something that articulates the vision that you have for Essex Town Center and gives you the regulatory tools to make sure that it can happen. So it's going to be a very iterative process. And I think we'll talk about how we've sort of structured this because there was a lot in the ETC Next plan. There's a lot of information in there. I know you guys have had a chance to look at it. We've had some very substantive comments from the town, from different departments in the town, all of which is really important. Some private residents have given us some good comments as well. But at the end of the day, there's a lot of information in there. And the best way that we can think of to actually break it down into coming up with the regulations is to break down those critical things and work with you guys to understand what you want to regulate and what you don't want to regulate because you don't have to regulate everything. But when we find ourselves at a crossroads of saying this is something we should regulate or not, we have to keep going back to the vision that you have for Essex Town Center and ask yourselves if you don't regulate this or don't provide guidance to this point what happens to our ability to achieve the vision. And that's really kind of the best of complexity of this. The vision statement that's actually the draft vision statement for the overall Essex Town Center that was articulated in the plans on page 22, you have it. You know, talks about for the first time really, I think in a clearer way for this part of Essex, it talks about the architectural character as being a really important component of it. So as this process goes forward, we're going to have a conversation at some point. Actually, I can tell you exactly when we're going to have that would be January 24th and February 28th. But we're going to have a conversation about architecture and we're going to have a conversation about heights and we're going to have a conversation about form and we're going to have a conversation about those things. Again, when you guys are faced with the questions of should we regulate building types, should we regulate massive buildings and types of architectural characteristics, you're going to find there are some people that will agree with that, there are some people that won't agree with that. We have to keep going back to the vision statement saying if you don't regulate some of these things, what happens, what's the consequence of not providing that guidance and regulation to assure that it does develop in a way that you see that it's good. I will also preface that professionally I'm really pleased that even though this is still a draft plan and it's purposely draft because we want to go through this process so at the end of it we can actually finish it along with the regulations you create to actually have a very tight, clear presentation of what the community wants. But I've also been really pleased with it. Actually, I think the plan has already had some of the intentions that we wanted it to have. Some of the conversations with staff about ongoing efforts within the Asic Town Center I think are being informed by the plan as it exists today even. And that's a good sign. That's a good sign that A it has some resonance with the community and also that there's some truths in here that may be really useful and touchstones that we can come back to as we need to to make sure we don't lose the overall intention here. In terms of disposition of work, Dana talked about the weeds and Sharon will be the weed eater. She'll be working out the weeds. My job will make sure that we don't lose the vision in this process and so we sort of yin-yang this sort of effort here where I was involved more in the development of the draft plan. Sharon was sort of supportive in there. We're kind of switching roles a little bit but at the end of the day I think what we'll end up doing is bringing forward these pieces of the puzzle and helping you understand how they fit to the overall vision and make sure that at the end of the day we don't lose sight of that. Darin, could you pull up the roadmap? I think that would be a good graphic to start off with. Right there. So it's not the most attractive document but we have taken time with staff to try to map out this process for you and we are here on the 27th of September and we've got seven buckets of information that we need to go through in this engagement with the Planning Commission phase. Review of the neighborhoods and district, which we want to do today. We'll talk about what that means. Review of the site criteria, so the lot configuration setbacks, building lines, all of that. Review of connectivity, as Dana mentioned, that was one element that did come out a lot in the discussions in the ETC draft. Review of open space and recreation. Review of architectural form and character. Review of uses and densities. And then there's obviously some work to prepare for all that. So you can see we're breaking down a lot of the core elements of this ETC plan into its constituent parts. And our job will be to make sure you don't lose sight of the big picture in that but I think it's really important to break some of these things down because you may decide that you are comfortable regulating these elements of site and not comfortable regulating these elements of site. And if you are comfortable regulating some things that has downstream consequences you need to be able to understand and articulate back to you. So you don't find ourselves at the end of the day unsure as to what's happening. The other thing to talk to the staff about, and this is, you know, I think really important, is that we will come to some, we will hopefully come to some conclusions at each one of these steps. Like tonight when we talk about the neighborhoods, the district boundaries. We need to have some, I think for this process to work efficiently to get to the end point here. We need to have some clarity with the Planning Commission that that's the right direction and we're going to say yes. So we are going to ask you at some point throughout this process to vote and say yes that's what we're going to agree to. Now I know that sounds sort of, you know, Machiavellian if you will but I think it's really important because if we decide to determine boundaries for certain types of districts and then start changing them later there's really complicated consequences of that. Not to say you can't change your mind, I'm going to be clear about that but we will try to work with you to make sure that when we get the clarity from you the direction that we get from you is clear and that we can continue to march along in a way that actually makes sense. Because again this is a building process that is going to build together. Just to key off that, I want to be very cognizant that if over the course of the process we come to a new revelation, we may have to go back and leave it as something that we've already voted on because it doesn't make sense with regards to something we learned going forward. So that's, I mean that's... That's a fair caveat I think but I think that just in general we're going to try to get clarity with the Planning Commission so that we can keep moving the process along with some assurance on our side that we know the direction that the Planning Commission wants to go. How that might sort of manifest itself is we're meeting with you almost every other meeting, so you're planning meetings obviously you guys are meeting on your own, the other meeting. So there may be moments in other meetings where you guys have to continue the conversation with staff and that's fine, that will happen. I think and I'll jump on that again as well we have a line item on every meeting or on our scheduled meetings to do follow up so we may be in a point where we may not be ready to vote on something tonight but I think we should commit to voting on that at the next meeting and closing it off and not letting it carry over unless it's really drastic I would ask that us as a group commit to this closure of each topic if not on the night we discuss it then on the subsequent meeting where we have room for follow-up discussion I don't think we should let these drag out unless there's an absolutely solid reason to do so but that way we can not let something get to cycle for a full month before we get back to it We would appreciate that because I think again that would make it just make it work and it would be easier on staff too to make sure that we're all sort of moving this in the same way Does that make sense now? Because I know you've got you want to drive a lot of this I don't want to No, I agree it's important I think we wherever we can we need to act then so that we don't lose the thread I think you know we need to keep that going and even sometimes you know two weeks or four weeks we The goal should be to close each subject out the night that we discuss it That should be our goal but we do have time built into the next meeting to do a follow-up so I don't think we should vote because if we're not ready to vote we don't vote No, no absolutely and I think some of the meetings some of the some of the tasks like architecture for example and uses actually we're anticipating two work sessions with you on those particular topics because we know there are going to be a lot more things to deal with and and I'll also will say and I think you can see it from the previous work that we did in phase one we're flexible about this so if we have to reassess some of this as we move along we can work with staff to do that that's not it we're trying to map a road provide road map so they're all working up the same road map but if we need to reassess that road map because of other external factors then so be it Going into sort of the next part of this I mean one of the things one of the one of the assumptions we are making in in this process is that the goal for the regulatory framework goal for this outcome of this project is going to be some new code that will have more visual accompaniment to allow for you to communicate architectural character and form and some of the other things that were sort of brought forward in the ETC next draft plan so we're making an assumption I think it's a well educated and some should already had some discussions around but the what the what the regulation that you're going to create it's going to look like is not going to be what you have today it is going to be more informative and visually informative to the outcome you're trying to achieve so we built in some process around creating the graphics and the sort of supportive materials that help you do that obviously the plan was written to provide a good starting point for that but there will be some additional visuals that we may have to create to allow this to happen and then the last thing I'll say is and Sharon please jump in after I make my point the last part of this is the regulations part of this is we also including in that housekeeping they're calling it and Sharon can speak to this at length but we have not found a code in our lives I've never seen a code yet that couldn't could do with a little pruning and that's the case with yours there are things in the code today that just we know by virtue of time or you know things have changed that probably need to be looked at our job will be to identify some of those things and that's where staff will come in I think in large measure to help us we'll identify what those things are so that they can work with you as well to sort of get through some of those housekeeping items well yeah I would say that both the zoning districts that will be proposing as part of this project don't exist in isolation from the rest of the town and the district tables or however they end up being don't exist in isolation of your other zoning and subdivision regulations so part of that audit is to make sure that any changes that we make in this section are reflected elsewhere in the ordinances unintended consequences are not what we want to try to get to and that ranges from looking at the allowed uses if we decide that you don't want them in the center districts then we need to make sure that they're accommodated somewhere else looking at some of the subdivision standards and things like that to make sure that they're everything's consistent across the board and that actually takes more thought than you normally think when you're just starting with a bylaw amendment so that's why we proposed a full audit of the regulations in relation to what we're proposing under the master plan and then the second part of that is the other thing that's really important in there is the development of some model research so we're going to come back to you and this will be something we'll probably do relatively soon come back with you to you with some ideas models that you can see of what we think the regulation can become because visually and just sort of you can sort of feel it because I think that's helpful for you know if you have an idea what the end goal might be in mind it helps you as we have these conversations sort of make sure okay I see where this is going I got a roadmap and I also got a sort of reference point so one of the thoughts was we'd actually come back with some some model regulations you again not we're not going to copy them or use them necessarily as code but to help you see the pathway forward. I would say too that the master plan we recommended a hybrid approach based on the feedback we got originally so you know in that range is what we looked at range from a full like form-based code because we were asked to consider that which would be a totally new model for the community but again it's something that we can present in terms of what that would look like to going back to just updating what you have now in terms of your zoning district tables and your design review overlay district and I think what we're proposing is that we look at a combination of those two that's specifically tailored to ASICs so that it's both familiar in terms of how you use it in the future but it also incorporates a lot as Mark said a lot of design elements that will be new under the proposed regulations. Yeah and the one thing I think you know certainly welcome any Plan Commissioner members input but the one thing you should always be asking us is if you don't understand something or it's not clear or you sort of you're feeling like you're just not getting it let's talk about that because at the end of the day you have to know it and our job is to make this your regulation not our regulation so it really you need to be comfortable with it you need to feel like you can you know in the future apply it you know clearly and uniformly with consistency and if it's not clear through this process then I don't think it's going to get any better afterwards so let's try to head those things off at the past so to speak. Any questions so far? One thing I just want to mention is we didn't really talk about public input into the process because we had hoped we got a lot of that as part of the master plan and we are using that master plan as the guide for this but in terms of this process at minimum you know the public can participate in the planning commission's work sessions and once this is done the bylaws such as they are will exist in a draft form so there also be time for public input after this process so I just want to make sure that people don't feel like they're cut out of the discussion. What do you thought about like fire testing some of these things once we go into all the way areas and say what would you do with this? How would this break? How would you interpret this? Could you do something that we weren't looking for? I think that you know Paul was on the steering committee for the EDC draft and I think he did provide a very valuable role. I'm just wondering like in relation to unintended consequences. I don't know that we I'm sure you guys can but it would be it would be worth it in my mind to have somebody who hasn't been doing this to look at it and see what they could do with it. Yeah no I think that's a very good suggestion and that's actually pretty common. I mean you know see sometimes that's that's the engineering department in a community or a town you know a town road crew. We found that a number of times you know we wanted we asked for this and all of a sudden oh you asked for this and now you're allowing this because of the way you asked for this. I think that the only the only caveat I would put out there again it's not it's not I think is the the the feedback you want needs to be focused I would think would need to be focused on do you understand what our intentions are right not necessarily if you're asking a question about the consequence of the intentions that's a different matter because that goes back to the planning commission's purview like you guys so I see that I'm not too worried about how to ask it yet because if we want to basically I want to see if somebody can break it right as simple as that how we ask why I want to get around it because I want to and more like you're focused you know what was our goal with this what was our intent is that you know is our design is our intent valid or is the way we're crafted it valid or is there a loophole or is there a something that we're gonna have to live with for 50 years or 100 years because of something it's just something that's really beyond is are we doing something that's so unrealistic that people are just gonna throw up there yeah yeah I'm not looking to get granular on it I just would like if in this process there's an opportunity to fire test these concepts with I don't care who it is you know we've seen a lot of people come through Paul's been part of this from the beginning that's I threw his name out but just as a as part of our process so certainly at some point ask Paul as a member of the steering committee to comment I would say we get pretty well formed maybe in the like public comp closer to the public comment section sort of thing but anyways that's that's not a very good question that's a very good suggestion chairman I think the other thing is that there's also all the other little elements that were sort of breaking this down there may be times in this process where you want like site criteria for example maybe one invite some certain folks there to be part of the conversation around this because at the end of the day exactly right I mean at the end of the day you guys have to be comfortable that this is going to do the job you wanted to do to achieve the vision you've established at that so if you need if you need additional eyes on this to help make me comfortable that that's a great thing to do and the good news we have a pretty good roadmap I think we can be can give people enough notice and say you know John for example you know we're having architectural discussion on the 28th of February next year could you be here for that because you would have John Alder you'd have some thing to say that would be useful to hear yeah yeah not to put a lot of overhead on it but just I think that would save us some grief yep the other thing I would say on that point is and you know you know there is I think built into this some moments where there may need to be some pause and reflect as well so we just need to be working with staff to do that and it's our intention to work very closely with staff throughout this project process because we want again at the end of the day we want staff to be as equally comfortable with understanding where this regulation is going to go so that they can provide you guys eventually with the best input as to how development is achieving the objectives okay so I think that's the roadmap discussion it would be good to do now is be that maybe we can just sort of focus a little bit on the on the district boundaries could you bring up I think it's page 24 of the draft sorry 24 that's the one all right yep so as you may recall from April we had one of the one of the kind of constructs within this planning process was to do was to break the ETC up into some neighborhoods and for the parlance of our of our conversion from a plan to zoning regulations the idea would be that that these neighborhoods will transform themselves somehow into districts zoning districts now whether they co-opt existing zoning districts or they become their own zoning districts that's hopefully something we'll have a conversation around but the idea was that you know we felt that the ETC wasn't one place that there wasn't one you know one district here there was unique characteristics within the entirety of it and that there may be some value in breaking it down into some pieces so that we can capture some of that variation and variety that's actually what's going on today because there's obviously different zoning districts in the ETC but I think that this planning process resulted in maybe a little bit better clarity as to where maybe some of those boundaries were going to be we did have some discussions you will recall about the conservation recreation district that was probably the one that was the most discussed with the the planning commission there was some concern about the the conservation recreation district in part because of there's property ownership issues related to that there was concerns about sort of whether that was going to not allow at this part of the ETC and this is this is Tower Road for old-stage roads or comfortable where we are there was concerns that that there wasn't enough opportunity there that discussion also as you may recall brought into the into the discussion the fact that we know there are a lot of wetlands on that particular area and that the our consensus again whether this is the planning commission's desire or not but our consensus was that there wasn't a lot of development potential there anyway just because of the natural resource constraints that exist that being said I do think that coming up with some discussion around that would be useful because if again if that decide if we decide to not even include it in the new districts of the ETC that's an option you could just say well that's going to revert to the underlying zoning and and that'll be it or we could change the boundaries and adjust them accordingly or we could stick with the plan and and deal with that just to be get everybody reoriented a little bit too in terms of the district so we have the mixed juice district mixed juice south district which is here which includes the bulk of the Essex town center Essex center shopping center and and the rest of that real estate and we also have the mixed use north which was across the across 15 we have the residential district which encompasses the the bulk of the traditional single family residential development as well as lands on the this side of of old stage road and then we had the still never found the great name for this but the transitional commercial district which is basically where the price chopper is and it's the it's the interstitial land between the historic center and the mixed use and residential area so this is that it's brown what does brown do for us we don't know we're going to find out but the idea was we we recognized in the planning process that there was a very distinctive you know historic center as I said that's already codified in zoning and there was this and there was this this you know area in between what we can argue is a very you know very mixed use environment from this historic center so there was this sort of interstitial land that had characteristics of commercial development but also some potential for residential infill and some potential adaptive reuse of existing buildings from residential use to non residential use and so we felt that it had to it it seemed to be evolving and now it exists in several districts the idea was to consolidate it the zoning districts that exist within that area to make them work better together right and integrate the development process in that area and part of the part of the the impetus for that was you know there's a lot of curb cuts on 15 here and the idea that if we brought it on to one neighborhood slash eventually zoning district we could have a little bit better control over how we provide access to these properties as that evolution continues as Dana mentioned you know the connectivity across 15 was a big issue and will continue to be a big issue and you guys have already taken steps with the green belt and other efforts to make to facilitate better crossing of 15 in this area there's a little more definition old-stage rose got a crossing point there's a little more definition to it when you get into the transition neighborhood it was just it's been kind of left to its own devices it's kind of evolved as it's evolved so there was a I think a good rationale from the connectivity issue to bring the to consolidate the district around those different districts into one then hopefully through this regulatory process speak a little bit more clearly as to how do adjacent properties develop so they provide one curb cut that shares access to both lots and and that we limit curb cuts and that we we take a look at the uses that are there and make sure that there's not uses that are actually you know work against you relative to having a lot of curb cut use like things like drive through banks for example again not to say that we're going to you know not say drive through banks but that is a use that does drive the need for access so that was kind of the rationale for that and then the bulk of you know the bulk of the southern part of the ETC is conservation land and we don't really see any particular need to modify that very much other than potentially again taking a look at it in terms of how it speaks to things like recreation there could be some improvements in the language around the uses that are allowable and you know again more of a modernization of recreation versus saying recreation is not already being used in some of those areas because it clearly is but recreation in 2018 is not the same as it was in 1988 you know or 1975 for that matter so that's just some things you want to point out? Well just that the current zoning and we sent you the kind of evaluation I did of the proposed against current zoning but the current zoning is based on the 91 master plan and back then a lot of this area was undeveloped I think what we've tried to do in this is basically one reflect the pattern that has developed since then to recognize that but also to allow for a little bit more development especially in the mixed use north and the expanded residential north of that so the boundaries were defined basically both in terms of the vision of the master plan but also to recognize what's happened on the ground since 1991 Is the area that's sort of yellow? That is north up is north yes. And is that part included in what you're talking about? This is a neighborhood within the ETC yes. When you say mixed use north you're talking about the purple. And then the yellow above that is new too. Right now it stops at Old State Road. So it allows for a little bit of new development. The other thing we looked at was relationship to the sewer core obviously because in the areas where you do want more dense development that will need to be supported. We pause just for a second. If any of you have questions please don't hesitate. Right now this is really entertaining questions when you have them. I don't want you to lose it. Paula was a great example. Do you have a question to ask? Because we're up to lose it if we forget. Hang on Paula, right behind you. Are you the same person that was at the May meeting? You had an orange jacket on and I watched the whole thing. Were you here at May? I was here all year. Thank you. There are so many changes. I'm in the green and brown area next to Saxon Hill. And we are not 1991. We're very heavily used recreation area year round. Keep going. I think the issue is whether or not this should be mixed use north or mixed used west or mixed use northwest or mixed use left or right I think there's a... We need to differentiate between those two areas. Yes. We do need to differentiate. Let's talk about that for a second because I think that's a really important point. We did articulate in the discussion in the draft master plan a fairly different land use pattern in the southern portion of the mixed use district versus the northern portion of the mixed use district just without getting into the weeds. I'll let Sharon do that. I'll do the weeds but I will say it relates to the vision for zoning the purpose statement. So when you're looking at these districts I think in chapter six it outlines the vision statement for at least four of them. It does. That's what we would be translating into for zoning in actual purpose statement that defines the reason for that zoning district and why it's different than the other districts. It just needs to be labeled separately. So characteristically though I think the idea was that Dana was mentioning that architecturally taller architecturally more diverse probably architecturally larger mass doesn't mean all those other things that are important don't get ignored but just generally speaking more density here, less density here probably a greater proportionality of residential versus more mixed that's kind of some of the characteristics of that and the idea the overall idea behind them is that they kind of work symbiotically in terms of supporting an economically valuable valuable mixed use environment so that this area could provide a little more residential density to the whole of EDTC to make any economic activity here better and it's pretty close to walk it's pretty easy to get to all of those things with the right design and a consistency of applying pedestrian spaces and all that would make this a very functional living environment relative to the overall EDC but we felt like given the location its prominence to the 15 and its proximity to some of these natural areas and such that it couldn't be as dense as this but it could certainly be more dense than it is today just as a overview so is there an overlay that you can do for the sewer core with this map I think actually this living in the village there's only a couple square yards that aren't on the sewer core and so we have everything that has sewer core that we're on really regulating just so you have that context so my question is is that sewer core in the history that I know of the town has always been a stumbling block and halting block as to development and further expansion of any economic activity in the town whether it be residential or commercial so unless there is a sewer map what's going to be allowable sewer that goes with this at the same time same map that because I can't make that assumption that one corner is going to have there's a perk or not that's a good point so just to be clear on page 17 of the draft we can go back there after a second but this portion of the ETC is actually in the sewer core this land is in the sewer core and your point your bigger point there's been some very substantive conversations at the April discussion published April discussion planning commission previously about the issue of the sewer core and I don't know there's been resolution of all those issues but I think it was a fairly well established premise at the onset of this project that it's kind of chicken and egg that if you want this vision to be realized this vision can only be realized if the sewer core supports it that was the fundamental mistake one of the fundamental mistakes of the last master plan was it didn't get the clarity around the need for aligning the sewer core with where you want growth so I think again to the acknowledge that the plan has actually had some value thus far that conversation is starting into happen which is good the other thing I would say is that we have and you can pull this up again during it's on page 17 but the sewer core does include bulk of the more dense areas of the ETC the question that I think it has not been answered yet is how much allocation can be applied in that you know the boundaries the boundary that's important but there's also the availability of capacity and the allocation of that capacity we've had a number of discussions on that and I would like us not to get derailed with sewer capacities in future so forth because that really I mean Dennis has done a lot of work on that and to some degree I think related to your chicken and egg you got to we kind of have to come up with a plan and then work to try to enable it so the sewer has always been a factor but it's not necessarily something we're going to solve at this table so I don't want to get too deep into it well the only reason Dusty that I bring it up is that if you can plan to your heart's content but unless you've got some reality how far out is this plan going to go? I understood. Okay so I mean it's you know we can have pie in the sky and we can talk about a lot of different things is the vision 10 years the vision 25 is it 50 is 100 so you know as Mr. O'Leary will definitely tell you is how much is it going to cost is depending on how much he's infrastructure he's willing to put in any developer will tell you that and I'm sure that they have since you guys meet almost every week it feels like in your skin it's every two weeks you know when you know doing that so I mean that should be it definitely been part of our discussion is what I mean and we had I think the last time we spoke about this it was a quite a lively discussion about you know what's realistic versus what you know what do we want to see versus what could we realistically see we're not going to solve it here but we are going to potentially drive the conversation with public works and developers and so forth to set some of those targets and Dana if I'm missing the point please jump in but we're trying to drive we're trying to drive change and not just maintain status quo because status quo doesn't work I think we are right here at the point where we need to consider this and I think that needs to be part of this process that Dennis needs to be brought to the table and I think that we have to talk about allocation versus batteries and the select board needs to be brought into this conversation and if it's not here when? As a real practical example and I think the point's a good one but a real practical example if again we're not saying this is the recommendation but if we wanted to say to require a minimum density in any of these potential districts I wouldn't feel comfortable proposing that unless I felt like there was a reasonable probability that a developer could actually get the sewer density they needed because they couldn't achieve so that would create a really useless zoning regulation so I think there is but I would agree with you in premise that there is a little bit of chicken and egg and I think we've got to push this forward a little bit so that we can feel comfortable that the we have to put something in front of engine public works to set a target can we get to it? How do we get there? Because otherwise it's only going to be this is what we can do this is what we have we can't do any more than this so we've got to find a way how do we get there we had this exact conversation do we ask for what we can have right now or do we ask for how do we get to where we want to be and that's I think the question we're trying to get in front of public works this process is going to happen at different tables at different times and hopefully some at the same time but we're going to be in meetings with Dennis and the select board and so Dennis and you guys are going to have to go and talk to the select board and the select board hopefully is going to come to some of your meetings because in terms of integrated planning in Essex right now it can't be this linear thing where no one participates in isolation a ring with ropes and pads and that's how we're going to make these decisions yeah I mean it's sort of different than the way we often do it which is the planning commission does its thing and then we take it to the select board and it does its thing we really need to be more integrated this time but to just make a very clear point I think in back to the districts and the boundaries of those districts is that I think there does need to be a there is alignment now on the way these lines are drawn today with the existing sewer core boundaries so there is alignment there which I think was purposeable on our part we wanted to make sure that there was not a gaping hole like we're not suggesting higher density in areas where at least the boundary didn't exist so I think that's something the planning commission should think about and say in terms of you know that should be the way we approach the districts in the ETC we want them to make sure they are respectful of either the way the district is drawn today or perhaps how you think it should be redrawn in the future that's I think that to me that's a very good touchstone to get to it's like there's clarity around that so I'm curious is there an overlay first of all that shows the existing map we have not overlaid those yet no and that's we will do that so I think that's pretty critical because I know like for example that you're taking away some of the historic preservation area and without being able to see that here unless I'm literally pulling up the map on my computer here it would be good to have those discussions as to like okay why was that decided why was this decided what is this going to gain us like the orange section there you're basically combining what was previously the mixed use commercial and the mixed use planned unit development so we'll be nice to have that discussion okay let's like why are we doing that and I think if it's expanding at all maybe the same size combined but that would be I think that would be the kind of thing would be a productive discussion so you're absolutely right about the mixed use that was the intention was to bring those two together as Sharon was mentioning there's a lot of overlap in those two zoning districts basically to integrate the planning and development of those areas better your question the brown area you know right along 15 where it's all sporadic neighborhoods and then business districts well there's a lot of neighborhoods along Allam Martin Parkway and all of Allam Martin Parkway residents use the green area for recreation not that you don't need a sewer core you don't need a sewer but when you're talking about blending because it's not 1988 anymore what is it going to look like I just wanted to comment that Allam Martin Parkway, Seth Circle, all that area you know by that 289 you know that area all the way to Saxon it's like we feel like we're one district even though you haven't divided between brown and green I just want to point that out that all of us tend to use that green area for recreation I'm not sure that we're including that in this well I know but I just wanted to give my two cents that that part of 15 all the way to the Jericho line is a community even though it's so sporadic with businesses and health homes that I just wanted to throw that out for I think I can walk through this really easily yep so this is the existing zoning districts and I think the point was raised so just to get everyone under his butler's corners here 15 historic center can you zoom that up just a scooch yeah that's better yeah that's the one we had sent over to okay can you just zoom that up a little bit more on that that'd be great here we go if anybody's red blue green color just to give everybody some orient a little bit so this is the interchange this is the existing center here's that residential district this is the center district I believe and so one of the things that I think it's important to recognize and this goes back to the point that Cheryl was making at the beginning of this is the unintended consequences of changing districts the ETC boundary itself doesn't line up with the zoning districts they're not coincident which you know again in hindsight 2020 would have been nice to make that line up but they don't so there's actually an ETC boundary that does not actually line up with the existing zoning districts so there are some interstitial areas outside of the ETC that would be the historic district for example that we're going to find ourselves having to deal with the consequence of that there also is and this so this is the purple here it's light blue mixed use yeah so this is already this is the PUD mixed use north that's already basically zoned in some ways for that same use but you can see it's the same as the balance of the Essex Town Center it's also the balance of what the Lang Farm property so there was a reason we came up with the idea of changing sort of that reclassifying it so that it had a different characteristic the one big area where sort of again changing looking at on old stage road is this parcel these parcels here was looking at those as being contiguous to and near the ETC but not currently as dense as they probably could be and being able to provide some residential growth there recognizing there has been an investment in crossing and walkways and all of that to accommodate that so and then obviously looking at the balance of this this is the the center district you see the center currently goes up you know quite far north and that that was part of the intention discussion around whether that conservation recreation district boundary made sense because that that was at the heart of that the fact is that today it's called the center district and we were suggesting that it's it's planned intention was not consistent with the rest of the center district that it had to be it was something else so I think that is really important part of this conversation and you can sort of see the balance of the consolidation of these zoning districts to that transition kind of came out of the center district came out of some of these other districts and yeah residential business which is this one here and the the high density residential I think right yeah so there's a it's it's kind of recognizing that there's a this patchwork of districts in this area and it covers most of that land the other thing I will say the district boundaries that are presented on the in the draft DTC plan do follow property boundaries we were very clear with the fact that we didn't want to do the old 100 feet into a property we're going to have an arbitrary zoning boundary because we thought that's we know from our own experience and certainly talking to staff that's not usually a desirable thing so alpha helps orient people a little bit more about the sort of the underlying zoning and how that kind of transform a question on the property line so there's a bit of background for us it sticks up to about 15 but that yeah the map make sure just the DTC boundary map there's two other properties in addition to that similar question yes I think again that was I think that was a recognition of of the pattern that's evolved and there is a sliver of land you're right there is a sliver right of way that actually so it's a pretty gnarly ravine it is a gnarly ravine yeah and I think that was part of the discussion is that we didn't feel like there would probably be much development there anyway but for the purposes of keeping the districts boundaries a little bit clearer that it made some sense there so Mark just to the left of where you were right about an inch to the left there's a property that extends into yes right there yeah and that there's that long section right now that the proposed boundary is cutting off that does belong to that parcel to the right that one and then on the other side of the street other side of 15 the north side of 15 that extends both half in the brown and half in the green if we go this route we have to acknowledge that we're splitting properties yeah I thought there was a bit of to take a look at the zoning I thought there was a pretty good there was a boundary there maybe that was a in the previous one you can show the both of those were contiguous in the zones that they were in both of those two parcels so in general I guess let's kind of walk through these if we can in turn you know the question on the center district is you know I think the center district actually goes over well this is I think pretty consistent with the center district I got that right we extended it further down we did extend it further down right we did and that was partly to recognize the fact that there was already some historic properties that were not incorporated in the original there was a question that came up one point earlier in the discussion about actually going a little bit further because people felt that this was kind of the gateway and there was a discussion about well it wasn't technically in the ETC but it might be good to from a perspective incorporate that in because then at least the character will you know kind of flow along with the character I'm not sure what the planning commission thinks of that I think there's some merit to that and then as it goes as it goes to the west this was one we really had a kind of a it was tough to figure that out but we looked at the our analysis looked at the sort of the character here and there kind of was a break point as you got to the shopping center where you know there was some remnants of historic structures but it did sort of peter out the further west you went and you know it's not to say there isn't a few there are a few properties here but very less so and it got less it got more less intact so there was a point where we just we sort of looked and said okay based upon the characteristics of the of the structures and the form and you can kind of almost see it because all the buildings sort of line up you know there's a fairly consistent setback from the road their scale of them is pretty similar in here and as you get to this point I think this is the pizza place somewhere around there yeah okie-hogies yeah there's somewhere right around there there's a transition and that transition sort of got into this trend this is where it became the transition commercial and some of these other uses actually have subsequently turned to there's the you know there was the tempo now is now a commercial enterprise continue so there's some things that are there's a more commercial orientation to some of this so that was the rationale for that I think that again looking at the underlining zoning there was a you know the the center district as it originally was encompassed you know encompassed all sorts of all sorts of this but it really felt like it needed to line up better with with the historic center itself and also where the overlay the scenic the design overlay kind of fits yeah and that's another consideration in this is that there's already a design overlay for the historic center and we wanted to make sure that that wasn't sort of misaligned with the zoning itself so if we were to extend ETC section more southeasterly on 15 off the top of your head I wouldn't want to introduce another type of zone what zone what color is here yeah I would actually continue that with the center district honestly I think there's a good argument to be made that as you come on 15 and you get to this the you know they get to this intersection sand hill road intersection right as you get to that intersection you know there are a few properties there but I think just characteristically I mean you're seeing the historic center so I think it's a it's a gateway it's an arrival point yeah same thing school is up there on big speed hill road are also historic across the street so it's actually stands up if you really wanted to get to it short one is iris street but it's still part of the historic center as opposed to why this place sorry I'm wondering why my pointer is not working it's my water bottle yeah that's a good you know I think that's a good question again this depends on what going back to the earlier discussion making new districts if we decide we want to make new districts and give them the definition of a purpose that actually aligns with your goals and what are the intended unintended consequences of expanding it out beyond its current piece I think that would be something we can look at but you know I would I would argue that the arrival points into the sx town center from these directions are very important and the school is a very important sort of you know to me I live in Fairfax so I drive down 128 and this is when I first notice I'm in sx travel really so I think there is a good argument to be made to say extending it to here and then you know the question where at the school that's there may be a little bit of discussion around that but the school is a good reference point in my mind at least the buildings across the street are the historic as a center district historic as a center district there's a building across from the school that was part of the the school the school that's on big speed hill right up there almost needs to go up to Iris up to here that's right through here doesn't it go up farther through here isn't it right there I think it is right there so again I think one of the things if you look at I think this is a good time to look at the what actually has evolved versus what you wanted to evolve discussion and I don't know there may be a historic house or two but I think the character of this area is decidedly not historic historic if you like the 1950s I suppose 80s okay it's not quite there yet yeah so I just think it's like you know the exercise is not always about just capturing all the historic buildings but trying to find where do they come and assemblage to sort of say something and also where there might be redevelopment or changes over time that you want to sort of make sure don't make unintended consequence a really bad outcome there and I don't know if again I don't I mean I could see the school is not probably likely to change in the near term but as a way of demarcating the arrival point I think that's a good reference point on a main road into town okay Ken because one of the things that the zoning regulations can do is talk about what happens when you get to these gateways and if somebody does do something there could be language that says you got to take some care in the design of your improvement because we have it a gateway so we don't want you to turn it into something that doesn't fit that character so I think I mean I don't know what the planning commission's purview is but I think there's a good argument to be made to sort of extend it to the south to this 15th sand hill road intersection and also probably to carry it further on 128 to at least the school at least in a corridor along this and try to find the property boundaries that fit that you've got a natural natural point as you come around the corner going west first come around the corner yeah I mean that's where it opens up and this land is boy every spring I go down through here it's pretty wet so I'm not sure there's going to be a lot happening but above it there might be above it there might be yeah there's not a lot of development happening on that side you're not affecting much in terms of planning the consequences and as we say it's a good physical boundary but question of how far north and south do you know if you're trying to align it with property boundaries these are pretty deep these are pretty deep they go back quite a ways okay that sounds like some very least I think the boundaries of the school property would make sense because that's not if you're looking for a demarcation that's a reasonable starting point because it's not it's there the other one that was a little tricky was figuring out the boundary between the transitional commercial and the mixed use south and it does essentially line up with the boundary between the residential business district I think it's pretty much the same line I think it maybe cleaned up a little bit but I was as we were looking at it we certainly you know we could certainly see you know there's no reason to say that it could go into one or the other I mean there's sort of a it's kind of an arbitrary line in some ways but that was one area of transition that we noted so what's going to happen with state property? not much I think that you know that I mean right now the only there is a high was a high high density residential is in is right here it's just south of 15 basically north of Sunset and going out to the by-path or rather Saberbrook Road Saberbrook is medium density right now so if I can point with the mouse apologies this is Saberbrook Road and then where you have the boundary right now is the edge of the residential business district right so sorry the high density residential is on the north side of that so yeah so Saberbrook gets rolled into into the into mixed use south but in terms of density you know it's probably actually up zoning it relative to density and all like but it is so up zoning it from this perspective and providing a little more flexibility to use is now it's built out largely so I don't imagine that would need a lot of changes but over some time that could allow for some redevelopment or until there's a field down by 39 yeah down here yeah I do have certain open space requirements on that property because of the subdivision but I haven't found some much clarity as far as what that could be used for it seems like there's a little more potential development even today so to up zone it might lead to a little more than what scale is there but we have to look at that specifically once we get to the density and the design parts of it so that might be a question we revisit as far as boundaries if we find that that's unsatisfactory that did come up in some conversations as I recall with like the concern about the field and its value as a quasi recreational space I know there was some discussion at one of the public meetings about that I think it's important to remember recognize that and again I think that Matt the draft tries to do this in the number of instances is that there is a hope that there will be recreation and open space throughout the ETC in a totally different form than what is existing today or what might be perceived as being recreational space but there would still be recreational space in any of these districts of different types and open spaces and such so whether this remains as a field or does get adaptively reused or redeveloped into something else my suggestion by presumption is that there would be some requirements to make sure that there is functional open space associated with that, albeit probably not an open meadow there's another lot though too, Bernie Yendo that comes off Safebrook Road, that one there this guy, yep these also did come up as well and we specifically put them into the recreation conservation I think as a result of some conversations with the rec director about that about the idea of wanting to make sure there was some provision for future recreational opportunities within the ETC that may be more aligned with the community's recreation objectives he's been an active landowner who's been looking to develop his project so I think that's a question that the planning commission should think about is and we can come back with maybe next time doing the overlay of that so you can see that a little more clearly but that would be something I think we could discuss more as should this be should this be more associated with the mixed use north or south or should it be something else because right now it's largely what medium density residential I think is the bulk of it also to go back to the question of how are we aligned the district boundaries with the property boundaries the area in the south part of the sabre development is the boundaries don't align with property the property boundaries exactly because we decided that those steep ravine areas are not developable even if they were part of that property and part of the mixed use so that's why that decision was made as far as where those open rec recreational pieces are that can also I don't know if we want to look at those too as far as where those property boundaries are and make sure that they're not spot zoned yeah we don't want to, there's a couple things as you look at it with some time behind us I think this is one where there was some accommodations trying to be made to reflect some of the natural resource constraints but also some of the goals the community had for recreation so I think we're trying to find the right way to do that but you know it may be I think bottom line is I think there was a recognition that there would be up zoning if you will on portions of the property that may come at the expense of down zoning and others but the net effect would basically be the same level of density or maybe slightly more level of density so just where that density would be applied yeah I think it would be good to have more density but it would be good to have some connectivity to town forest yeah and that certainly did come out in a lot of the conversations that we had with folks about you know like this is if you're going to have a trailhead it would be nice to have a trailhead down here so that back to the open space requirements for any sort of higher density use would be a very good example of an open space that them dedicating a trailhead to the town forest would be a very good thing to get out of that process okay so let's pause and circle for a few minutes as I understand our charge this evening is to sort of give you guys some clarity on whether or not we agree or like this or what we want out of it so I want to put some framework around this and I want to touch on this issue and on this endlessly all night so just sort of as a taking the general temperature what is the commission, Diane I'd like your opinion on this as well what does the commission feel about this approach and this general structure knowing that we've already talked about asking to have the town center space the historic area whatever we're calling it it wasn't what you it is okay to have some degree what do folks feel about this approach so far Ned I'll start with you I don't have any objections to it I think it's probably pretty good I worry a little bit where the dividing line and Mark referenced where that cuts off with the brown commercial district in the middle there extending the historic district is fine I think as we develop a plan what we develop for the historic district is actually going to be one of the biggest challenges we have here just because of the nature of what's in that area and how it could develop with traffic and everything else in there fine you sure? I don't want to lose your voice on this one Josh I philosophically like the approach and I really like I think I was on it advocated for it actually expanding the historic center southeast and just the whole idea of the gateway and then phasing up as you drive along 15 I'm very supportive of that concept I like it a lot Great Diane what are your thoughts? This is what happens when you come to our meeting you get put at the table My personal opinion is that the historic center should be expanded to the gateway areas I think you should color in the properties that extend help here and here and these guys is to be appropriate colorations I mean these are landforms not to be developed versus the never ending ravine that's in there so to make those realities this show what you're looking at which district is going to be recreational or is it going to be the mixed used upgrade to Saybrook and just bite the bullet and do it John I got to remember this is definitely it's more of a learning experience I find myself not really knowing what I'm approving versus what was in place before so that's just my perspective I can appreciate all the work that's gone into already having discussions with what seems to be the appropriate people that have that expertise to decide what we're cutting into and what we're expanding and whatnot I can offer much in those areas unless I really dive into the weeds of the details that's kind of what I feel like if I was to review this in depth I would look at the existing zoning regs pull up medium density residential and see okay where are we changing that and then look at what defines that today versus what we're defining in this paragraph here and seeing okay is that going to match up and still do what the original intentions were for me I feel like I'm just learning valuable and what I'm seeing I like what I see obviously a lot of work has already gone into this I don't have anything I guess well I think you've identified a few points that I think are valid one you want to see more about you wanted to know what the comparison is by this it sounds like that's what I heard really what's the net gain but from what I've seen in the draft plan it's totally different in how the planning is done and I think that's intentional for a lot of good reasons but it's hard for me to compare what the way things were previously done when it's so drastically different to the new direction compared to that with some of the later discussions and I'm hoping it all comes together again I think it's just me being relatively new to the commission I want to remind you again if we can say that we like something now and if new information comes out further down the road we can come back and revisit and say we want to do something different so I think your point of looking for more information or greater clarity down the road is fine generally I like the layout I'm a little nervous about the area to the northwest of Old Stage Road getting a lot of density there but I understand one of the things we have to consider in all of this is that there's some available space there to get more density in this area so just a little on the fence on that whole idea as far as extending the historic center district I kind of like where the line is now seems like a pretty good delineation I totally agree there's a lot of buildings and properties that are extending out towards Sandhill Road and maybe a little further that could be included in there but we've got to think about what are the implications that we're going to put in in that area are we scooping up some historic buildings or historic properties and what are the consequences of that on the rest of those problems this is kind of a nice delineation where it is I think the gateways are good on Alder Lane there so I'm not opposed or anything I'm just saying I think it's okay the way it is actually one point to that and that came to mind is do we know if there's a cost associated with changing anything so like to John's point if we think something is kind of okay right now is there a cost associated with making even a minor change to that whether it be redefining that area you know I'm talking like hitting costs and everything you can say cost to whom, cost to us, cost to landlords to the town essentially whether it be through having to redefine that area and what not and if we look at the cost versus benefit of is it really worth our time and effort to make that change we may decide quickly that no it's not, let's not mess with this let's leave that piece alone and same with some of the densities when we look and we say oh this could use more density well when we look at the current regulation is it even coming close to what it's right now and if it's not is it worth our time and the money associated with changing that right now if I might share just to raise a really good point there is a discussion to be had as to whether or not you need to change the existing zoning districts in the entirety I mean you could make an argument one could make a reason to argument that just doing the mixed use north and south district probably has the biggest bang for your buck because those are the areas where there's probably more likelihood for redevelopment there's probably more likelihood for higher densities where some of the architectural discussions that the master plan brings forward will have the most probable value I'm not saying that that's the case but you bring up I think a reasonably good point that you could decide that the existing center district boundary and underlying zoning and everything else is maybe with some tweaks is perfectly fine and that there's you know more resources put or more effort put towards some of the other boundaries so I think that is something to be thinking about as we move along with this process just one little point what's funny about this map is that this looks so big but if you look at what the town has designated as is a growth center if we were to look at this in the context of the town as a whole it's not that big and so we don't want to make the mistake of under densifying this area this is where your services and your infrastructure are so we need to keep mindful of that and then if you know if you were thinking as a regional planner then it gets really crazy I mean this is where it's going to grow not only in the town but in the region another good point to just echo Dana said the other thing that happened as a result of this draft is we've actually made the ETC smaller it used to go all the way up to the Bay Packs of Tower Road and Old Stage Road and that was partly to recognize the fact that well we really don't want to build out Essex to the peak there but also by making it smaller and concentrating the density in a tighter area some of those other sort of side objectives like improving connectivity and increasing the likelihood that the economic activity could be vitalized and stuff would actually improve I just wanted to go back on this for a second because I'm in favor of this a couple points I've made up I don't think we should be cutting properties in half all those properties both north and south that have extensions into their cross and dual zones the other ones across from my development I'm concerned about expanding the historic district too much I think we could say both sides of Alder Lane because there's historic structures and so forth and you're not going to do a whole lot on either side of this designation I don't see a lot of impact on that I'm a little concerned with doing anything outside of the school property on that side of 128 because that is if it's school property it's covered anyways going too far close to the St. Hill intersection we've got the Catholic Church on one side but you've got a lot of relatively current residences and historic residences across the road from that they are 1960-1970 vintage homes understood but that starts once you get into the intersection at the intersection of 15 and Sand Hill the other ones are the only other thing is that the Sand Hill road intersection is a more natural break I don't disagree with that but we're not talking about that but visually as you come into it there's a change in direction when the state project comes through to put lights in that intersection what's the scope of that going to be we can pull up to where the intersection is going to be it goes to the state AOT when they design the intersection so how much benefit are we going to get from that Sharon? I agree with you I think the historic district should just stay where the boundary is the fact that we did reduce the ETC next doesn't quite seem I don't know sit right with me that we're going to extend it other places and reduce it where it was I think that might be a trigger for some people in those properties but I think I definitely like the idea of trying to reduce split zoning districts but I just don't think are those properties in the historic district are they on the historic register I just think where it is is we had a discussion at one of the ETC next meetings where we were talking about the historic district and you know there isn't much there and you've got the Montessori school, you've got the old Fred's IGA there within this designated historic district it's hair appeal but that was Fred's IGA that's in where it was I personally like the boundaries also just because it's not part of the historic district doesn't mean that that Route 15 Sandhill Road intersection can't be a gateway it doesn't have to be the historic gateway it can still be an ETC gateway so it's another point to consider a lot of bikers and stuff I don't go from Sandhill Road we're all so athletic people with baby joggers from that Sandhill Road those babies can't go that far when you get them jogging my husband with our daughter went a 530 pace on the stow bike path there almost kills him when our daughter was 6 weeks old but anyway my point is it would get some connectivity with all those neighborhoods so the other piece that I'm questioning on this and it doesn't sit well with me is to have those two little blips of the residential recreation in that intrude into the conservation recreation I almost just assumed just wipe that and call it conservation recreation from my own personal point of view I don't like seeing little blips because what are they going to do with that different than this recreation being the key piece on that I don't know where that delineation is it's just for clarity it just leaves a little blip in between the two either make one parcel that's residential conservation or make everything conservation recreation it would be my thinking on that just for clarity for the future people looking at this and they're not having to go out there with a sex unit to try to find out where exactly it is and get a survey out and you're one foot into the conservation recreation or you're one foot into the residential recreation so what would the unintended consequences be of that no residential in that spot so again I think Tom's question about is that private or is that town forest you know does that mean if that's the case then make it all the same whatever the whatever Saberk is it bothers me to see little isolated cells one versus another and I don't know the exact answer but I'd almost rather see conservation because we're kind of on the flip side of that on the flip side of that though say if it was incorporated into the mixed use south you know there are development constraints in that part of those properties there are constraints right so from a practical perspective you're not going to be able to put much there in all likelihood but you might be able to use the density to apply into other parts so there is some potential value of you know making that keeping it mixed use north or south because you can apply that density and then presumably that would become the open space or the you might end up getting the same result I just don't like seeing little blips I'd rather see as much contiguous I believe that is the boundary of the forest if I'm correct in my GIS data that was in the forest in that case then I would advocate more making it the same as the Saberk section so you could use the density or whatever there's a logic to that obviously with that ownership pattern where was the planning commission on this area here curious to see what your thoughts are that right now is largely in the center district we're considering that to be residential recreation so you know again we're going to work out density and all those other things from a master plan level the idea was that this would not this would be lower density and would not have the same characteristics as the transition or the historic center there's just lower density again there are a lot of wetlands and other physical constraints in there the question was if we allowed residential using planning and development or something to be able to transfer the density to allow higher density in the areas where it's suitable for development you could get some pockets of development but not you know the whole thing is actually going to remain as undeveloped so back to what Diane and John were both asking about is that parcel how much of that parcel is the entire parcel within the sewer core or any of it yeah and actually that's a little more complicated because I think they have a touch the sewer because some of that I think northern portion of that I believe have a master plan on file that can't be executed because it doesn't have sewer right there is a master plan that includes portion of that extending north yeah so this is in the sewer core that is in the sewer core yeah so it's basically everything that we've got outlined in front of us that's in the sewer core yeah the sewer core goes up here it does include all of this it does include this it goes across the street it includes all this I thought the sewer core didn't go up old stage yeah it's on the page 17 so it's on the east so that might lead us to that section on the northwest of old stage that might want a different designation 177 if the sewer core never expands to that have it already mapped out for some use low density residential or whatever yeah so yeah so this is that property we're talking about yeah and here's this is towers road old stage road so that additional expansion to residential is not in the sewer core the bulk of it is so that's a big that's a you know for that particular property we're suggesting a fairly substantial change and it's a change that we think is supported by the fact that it's probably never going to develop to the density that going back to your point about what could it develop on paper today versus in reality there's a big difference yeah I see the reasoning behind that you don't want to prevent the sprawl too right you want to force it to be more condensed right and the you know that the concern is that you know there's I guess there's a I'll say when misinterpretation or you know there was some thought that they the feeling that they could probably develop more densely than they actually could really achieve at the end of the day when you start looking at the constraints on those properties and we got some mapping from ANR that I think to my satisfaction showed significant encumbrances on that property and so even though again if you did the mathematics if you did the mathematics based upon the acres and zoning district and said oh look what we can do the actual number you would actually get to is would be substantially lower so I think our the plan that we sort of suggested reflects that and probably ends up at the end of the day giving that giving a density there that actually would be achievable based upon the natural research constraints but there was concern about that yeah it's part of the original golden triangle so it seems like it's residential recreation it's a lighter green lighter green well and that's you know they think the point there is that that's a new district right so how you want to define that is going to be what we can do in this process that's the only section on your district yes well there was the two little parcels that we've just talked about retaking I might even consider taking that section on old stage up here yeah I'm concerned about putting that in the same designation as a parcel that already has sewer and can be built that would be a place that we might want to change in the future you know call it one thing today and then be prepared if we don't get a positive response call it something different at the end of the day because logically if you're going to have density it's not a bad place agree and we started putting houses in there there is there I mean there is a again this you know the other thing to think about is the sewer core boundary is not sacrosanct either so you couldn't I'm just a consultant I can say that but I mean it's true it was originally created it can be changed I mean it's the way things work right so you know it is conceivable I can not suggesting that this is a thing that you should do but it's conceivable that you take away one area and apply to others that better fits your desired land use so again I'm going to circle up again because I don't want to run out of steam we want to tonight we want to tell you whether or not we like the neighborhood if there's an area that we want to expand that might be a question that you walk away with you know what would be the consequences of this or not have I don't hear clear consistent agreement to expand the historic section even though the concept of a gateway is good expansion of the historic section I don't I haven't heard clear consistent support to go beyond what's here we've talked about I've talked about getting rid of those two little blobs of light green that really is all I've heard for changes on this I heard a couple other things making sure properties don't split also I think what we can do for your next meeting is give you an overlay so you can really see where those boundaries are I think that would be really helpful for this discussion Sharon did we did include the summary table maybe we can dumb that down a little bit in terms of acreages well to make good decisions but you know it sort of caught the weeds on it simplify a little bit just to concentrate a little bit on the acreages so you can talk about the net balance of land in districts today versus districts in the future that might be helpful so you can sort of see how much is shifting from one to another we can send that to you guys so you can have that for your next discussion I did hear correct me if I'm wrong but I did hear some consensus around the idea of looking at the historic district boundaries so maybe the way to handle that is to blow that area up a little bit and give you a little more detail about where all the property lines are and some of the pictures of some of the uses and stuff so you can sort of make an informed decision around that we shouldn't be splitting the property lines just to expand for the sake of expanding it that's as much for the sake of clarity I think I'd like to ask the commission to basically vote on whether or not we like this concept it's not an absolute lock but I think you've got some clear takeaways is that legitimate is anybody can we talk about the light green for just a minute absolutely so it's right between to are we trying to protect that or are we just saying oh since it's wet we might as well make it we're calling it residential so we're identifying it do you guys have density numbers we do instead of as compared to straight residential yeah the density was very consistent with the property just east of can't tell which street this is but this portion is the open space area for the residential subdivision here so this is deed restricted yeah this is not developable part of that is also my one is that zoning wouldn't really affect that see that whole parcel out there that's all part of that subdivision about a third of it about a third of it I can't remember exactly what it's called we anticipated in that area a maximum of 46 units I think is the number yeah yeah one acre yeah yeah but what we've been talking about we're talking about extending the parcel that's brown up a little bit to cover some of that this goes up but if you're not that you're not splitting property then this green section here should adhere this is part of that shouldn't this be same color as this and put that deed restriction on here because no right I'm seeing this is the end of this development period if you're telling me that this goes to here then this section here is part of that it's just deed restricted as to if it's going to be can't be built on but it's part of that condo association or whatever it is landowners association then it shouldn't be it might be permanently recreation but it's part of that property it's primarily zone R2 same as that so that's not realistically showing your zoning and I think it's clear we're going from the planning area concept to zoning districts so these are normal things that are going to happen yeah so I think that's a good point this is part of the zoning district so we're essentially going to be cutting that light green in half taking about half of the space away because there's also the chunk on the bottom conceptually try not to split property lines what's the big problem with splitting property lines I actually was looking at it from a point of view of single landowner from a development perspective but the two properties as I understand it the two properties that I had originally pointed out one both in the north and one in the south of the demarcation were single landowners and by splitting it we're having a direct impact on a single landowner that may or may not allow them to do the development they were looking for well for anytime we make changes we're going to impact landowners I understand but again I was looking at it from a point of view of a single residence not a development where there's a developer that's coming in that can either absorb or deal with changes but if I've now lost the ability to do something with my property as a single owner what's the impact to me single house single residence sort of thing but if it makes a lot of sense to have the line where it is the one of the demarcations here was the old railbed and so again from a logical sort of break point it felt like that was a good thing out there that would actually help sort of define some of the built spaces again also the back of the price chopper kind of fit along that I think that point that was just raised though I think is an important one to recognize that we don't have to you know you don't have to follow property lines but there is I think a good reason to do it it just makes it easier for the developer whoever it is if it's a professional developer or a single family you know single property owner and it also makes it easier for staff as they sort of look at the built outcome but you don't want to play if it doesn't make sense if there was like a real compelling reason to not do that where a portion of the property was in conservation and a portion was in residential I'm thinking of we made a regulation that allows the planning commission to determine how that property owner could pick yep with the exception of this area though for the most part I think you know a couple little pieces down here for the most part they do follow pretty closely to the property lines and we don't have to worry about there's not like overly large lots so that makes it a lot easier so having a single zoning district in the covers a single small a lot just a small lot with multiple zoning district is really challenging because then you have to figure out not just which one you want to pick but you know if there's two conflicting ones then what do you really do and that can have a real profound effect on the outcome weren't the two property owners if we're still talking about the green area yeah that area weren't they in agreement with what was sort of decided and we were talking about I don't recall any agreement from the property owners on the north side and I'll leave the property owner that I was referring to on the south side's been involved with this Jeff Lyon and Sally Flurin my recollection was that Jeff I think the chair last time said be part of the process keep coming back and we'll talk about it that's my recollection going to your point lives in the yellow section and I do a garden and husband Brian was telling me that green area that you suggested should be part of the yellow like they don't allow hunting I guess in that whole green area because all the houses it's just a field you know near their house but I think you made a good point that you marked yellow so that conservation people know where the boundary is you know if they want to hunt on the rest of it they'll know that a chunk of it is part of the yellow because my client lives right on that edge of that green area but in yellow and I think it's a really good idea what you said well it gives you a false sense of what's there right people need to feel safe just to be clear all this area is within the no discharge zone so there's no but I'm just going right what my client told me but when it comes to recreation space and you're looking at it yes it may be recreational space by deed restriction because it's declared open space which you know period so you can you've already said that you can't build there so if you know you need to know those pieces right now I'd look at that and say okay you could do something with that but no now you're telling me you can't do something with that it's part of the yellow space okay it's it needs to be part of the yellow that makes sense just playing devil's advocate though I mean I understand it from a property standpoint but from a functional recreational use you can develop it for types of recreation so the recreation residential district may allow more types of recreational use and again it would still be restricted by whatever the deed says but there is a potential that you could do more for recreation in that district than you could in a residential district so again it's also defining what uses what types of recreation are going to be allowed within that parcel so as an example is it owned by the association but what if the association wants to develop for types of recreation that may not be allowed in the residential district that's the point I think is the in the other point it's like it could come back and say okay we want to turn it into a park that's something that again the recreation residential district probably would allow for the development of that as a park I don't think that would negate their open space requirements if it's use was a park so I don't know what the specifics of their agreement are but but you may not allow for a larger scale park as a type of open space within a residential district the definitions really matter there because I mean I think that's one of the things again this process will one thing we will be getting to it's on one of our agendas is talking about open space and parks and there right now you don't have enough clarity and types of those things to capture all of the possibilities that go along with them so I think there is you know you're absolutely right I mean as it functions today it's open space for that plan to develop but I think Sharon's points also true and that if at some point they would like to say then say the residents go we really want some sports fields to do there in that facility and they all the neighbors they want a ball field a soccer field it's not foregone conclusion that you could actually do that under the residential district today I think you could for that development though not open to the public but that's my point maybe they wouldn't want to open for the public so that's the kinds of things that I think that would you know that's one of the reasons I think that in trying to capture that relative to a neighborhood the idea was that that portion of the ETC would be largely focused on lower density residential would there probably be some accommodation for recreational assets I guess my point is that somebody's backyard all these people in here this is their backyard so do you regulate what they're going to do in their backyard you've already regulated what they're doing in the front yard now you're telling them what they can do in their backyard although you already told them that their backyard can't be done anything but what it currently is so why not put it here because you've got this spot I'm assuming that's also needed open space that was green at one point but it's yellow now so how is that different they're both open recreation but one's yellow one's green it's defining different types of open space and some would be allowed in some districts and wouldn't be allowed in other districts so it become a type of use and it be important to make sure that whatever that ends up being that if it's more of a regional recreational use it probably wouldn't be allowed in a residential open space district would you guys be willing to be able to feel comfortable if we identified areas such as that parcel and the parcel that's currently purple if we were to say tonight we like this plan but those are going to be dotted lines or those are shaded areas for the time being I think there's validity in everything we've talked about so far we may get further down the line and Diane this is like what John was saying we may get further down the line and say it makes sense to have that be yellow or hey it really needs to stay green I actually think that's a good approach use dotted lines for a bit I think that area and the area to the southwest of not southwest point first off yes we don't you know that's the purpose of these discussions there's something we can't lock in I think what I wanted was hoping to get tonight I am hearing this is that generally speaking the disposition of these districts makes some sense and that you know there is this again we haven't talked a lot about the mixed use district but it sounds like we've got some general agreement that that's okay that's what I'm feeling that the mixed use north or northwest or purple district is a reasonable starting point for the boundary for that I would have called it west because we don't really have a west it is west of sure is the planning commission okay with this I would like to remain as a dotted line or shaded that would be the one that if we don't get positive reception to discussions about sewer core then that I think needs to be a different destination okay great great so that's the conversation tonight we wanted to have so I'd actually like to formalize this to some degree as we go through and I'd like the commission to put out this final whether or not we're in agreement with this stage with what we've talked about tonight I don't care that it doesn't have to be a super formal this exact map but that we've gotten to this point we like what the staff has done we like what our consultants have done and we've identified the areas that we want to either call out for potential changes in the future or things we want to tweak a little bit is that anybody concerns about doing it that way we are visiting so this one you don't get to vote in but I've been very appreciative of your engagement on this so I'm actually going to put the motion up that we accept what the consultants have presented or as presented tonight with the qualifying statements and discussions and we encourage them to keep going forward and we'll look forward to the next batch and the next modifications any additional discussion on that if I want to tweak at it all to make the I think this has already been said that I think what's going to be critical is when we get into what I think is the next meeting is basically a review of the site criteria that's when we discuss about the requirements for each one of these sections that we I think we've all acknowledged that it's possible that I can say now it doesn't make sense that something needs to be divided up so I do want to be able to essentially treat these like a check box as we go through that we're done this piece done may not be completely done but I want to know that we're done for tonight we can this is an accomplishment so all those in favor of that motion what do you want? did you want to continue to explore expanding that or leave it as is I think the question and I think you heard that there's some consideration of is there any logical or is there reasonable expansion and contraction whatever but it's right now with the idea that it might be appropriate to expand it to some degree yeah and these boundaries will not be finalized until the final zoning districts are approved this vote does not finalize this is really just to acknowledge our discussion tonight and to say that this process we're good with this process okay so we've already had it moved and seconded so all those in favor aye so again this was this was automatic response this really was just to confirm or affirm that you guys are going this was a good direction and staff and you guys are all moving in a way we're supportive of dotted lines give us some more work to do too I think yeah with staff Dana Darren anything from your perspective that we need to take away it would be nice if we had some feedback for the next meeting just if we had some verbals or something about if there's any ideas on the expansion of the towns I'm going to give you some of those overlays I think I'll send that to staff so you have it for your next meeting yeah we'll do some research on you know your voice changed what are you talking about I just wanted to say I'm really liking this floating in the moment idea it's good to know where the tea leaves are flowing you know it's true so is there anything else that we want to touch on this or do we want to get to minutes and other business I'm looking at Dana for this or Darren or Sharon I think we're good for tonight so Mark, Sharon thank you very much I hope we can keep being this effective do our best to make sure it is we're not going to guarantee being yet cooperative full disclosure I'm on my planning commission I know it rolls alright so where are we on the minutes bringing the dots that's not talk dots I'll get in trouble probably they have a mouse that's really super tiny when I dock it at work it goes to the monitors you got the minutes anybody got the minutes he's got it okay take a motion of the minutes from September 13th so moved by Tom seconded by Shu is there any amendments to the minutes that anybody wants to offer any corrections all those in favor of the minutes as written posed minutes carry other business had the notice of public hearing for the solar that you're very familiar with now on bird bushies good take a motion all those in favor oh do we have a second in favor hi we are adjourned