 The call to order. We'll just have Plain and Commission, 7.06 August 6th. First deal we have tonight is public comment on items not on the agenda. Anybody have any openings? All right, very good. So we're gonna start out there. Now it's the initiative, future development and Sarah's going to give us an overview. Sure. So I think back in May from the public forum, there are some solutions identified, but there are also a number of concerns and the Plain and Commission shows some of the most significant concerns to pull out and have some meetings on to try and extrapolate, pull apart and understand a little bit better about what some of the concerns are. And so I think some of them we heard on the first, on that forum, that walk and talk that we did prior to the forum. We walked down East Lakeshore Drive. We saw some of the existing development there and some of the new development that's gone on and heard about some of the concerns of blocking lake views, some of the tree removal that was done. The image on your right is a zoning violation that has gone to court for enforcement proceedings where they did build a bigger wall than what they should. They did have more impervious area. They took out more landscaping. So perhaps not the best example of what the current rules and regulations allow for, but it really hit home with a lot of people in terms of the changing care to this area and that perhaps the regulations should be addressed for that area. So there were some underlying concerns and just some of the development that's occurring, regardless of whether or not we provide this area with additional infrastructure. And then there were concerns about, well, what would the additional infrastructure incite in terms of additional development or increasing the rate of growth? So tonight we're just gonna walk through some of those issues. I've had some emails from folks about what their specific concerns are that I wanna provide to the playing commission. Just a reminder, we are live. I will try and check my email intermittently throughout this. So if people have any questions or things that they wanna pass along to the board they're watching from home. Email is shadshaddatcoaltistervt.gov. I'll relay those as best as possible. Please put your full name in it as well as your address so we can put that into the playing commission records if you're emailing. So a little bit about where the inner bay neighborhood is. This is the area that we identify our town plan as the inner bay. You can see it's everything from Coates Island. Let me see if I can grab the laser pointer. Coates Island and it comes back along Prim Road and then back over through Diversity Hill or in Malts Bay Ave, right around Thomas Drive and Bluebird, over Blakely along the interstate and basically incorporates all the Williams Road, East Lakeshore Drive, West Lakeshore Drive and out to Goodsell Point. So when we talk about zoning districts we're really looking at this area as a whole and sort of how it functions together. But for the purposes of tonight and what we're gonna sort of zoom in on is what the sewer service area is. So you can see it's outlined in red. It's a limited portion of this neighborhood. So while I'll sort of walk you through is sort of a snippet of different zoning districts within this area. So I'll walk you through the outline of what was proposed to be the sewer service area and what we're looking at to try and provide some level of wastewater infrastructure too. So you still have Primroad over here in Coates Island and this is West Lakeshore Drive. It comes through intersection with East Lakeshore and Blakely and then East Lakeshore Drive all the way out to where it turns up into Bay Road. It forks off and this is the Goodsell Point area. It's a very limited portion. This big parcel is the Hazelut Shipcasting Corporation parcel in between. You'll see that's the only parcel really here that's zoned and up along the front is LS2 and the back is industrial. But other than that, the best way to sort of describe this area is all the parcels that are immediately touching West Lakeshore Drive from the corner with Prim all the way back through East Lakeshore and then East Lakeshore out to Goodsell Point and then this portion of Goodsell Point. So that's what we're looking at tonight. So a little bit about what the zoning is. You can see all the blue shade is your R2 district. That allows for only residential and R2 means two units per acre roughly. It's one year per 20,000 square feet in acres 43,560 square feet. So it's roughly two per acre. The light yellow, which there's only a few snippets of in the service service area at Sound Goodsell Point is R1, which is one unit per acre or one unit per 40,000 square feet. Again, only allows for residential. And then you have some floodplain right tight to the lake which is not visible at the scale. You have LS2, which is the screen, which is Lakeshore 2. You have the purple, which is Lakeshore 2. And you have this parcel here in pink, which is the back end of the Hazelit parcel and that's industrial. And you have a couple of other areas that I'll know of that border this area that aren't in the area, which is GD1, which is mixed use. And you have a bigger chunk of R1 up here in shore acres. Again, these are areas that are outside of what was proposed to be that service area. Mark. Sir, can you explain when all that area is R2, the density seems much higher than I said? So we've only had zoning since 1955. And a lot of that development occurred prior to zoning. A lot of that development occurred prior to the current zoning. So you have an area that as we run through sort of the analysis of what does build out this area look like, you can see that it's already pre-built out in some areas. You have on certain parcels, you have more development than we would allow under current zoning. So again, it's a little bit of a mix of new development, old pre-existing development sites that have been redeveloped. I think it's worth noting that under our rules, when you have something there, you have a right to continue using it to tear it down and rebuild it. In some cases even build it a little bit larger. We're taking a look at the number of units, usually with residential, how many dwelling units are on that parcel. There are also setbacks and other things that apply. But for tonight's purposes, we'll be looking mostly at that build out. Any other questions on the zoning? Yeah. So I had down, I'm confused a little bit about the build out of commercial. Is that, how do you determine, it looks like the capacity, it looked like one million? I'll get there in a minute. So let me, let me go through the overview first and then we'll get into those numbers at the end. But I think just to provide an overview in terms of the districts, your LS1 and LS2 are actually new districts. Back in 2015, 2016, the playing commission looked to adopt new zoning districts specifically for this area. We've been working on a long range vision for West Lakes for Drive for 15, 20 years. We've taken a couple of charrettes, a couple of public input sessions over those decades. And we had a vision that we finally solidified into what that means in terms of development regulations and incorporated into the regulations. So your LS1 and LS2 districts are relatively new. Your R1 and R2 districts are relatively old. They're more traditional, just exclusive zoning districts. Your floodplain is a no-build area. Again, we have some development that's occurred in the floodplain. It's there, it's pre-existing as a right to remain. It can't be substantially improved unless people flood-proof. And you have the industrial district too, which is relatively old traditional zoning. Your LS1 and LS2, just to give a quick overview on what those do differently, and we can talk more about this later on, is the LS1 was made to be just that zoning along the lake. It was really designed to be a lakeside zoning. New single-family homes are not allowed as a permitted use in it. They'd have to be conditionally reviewed. It really gives prioritization to recreation, parks, marinas, those sorts of lake recreational type uses and decreases amount of residential infill that you can have. It also limits homes to 20 feet to the ridge along the lake. Your LS2 district is a little bit more mixed-use. It allows for a variety of commercial, I'd call it a little bit of light commercial. It was designed with traffic in mind, realizing that we only have this one corridor that goes through the area that we have capacity issues with. So no drive-throughs or drive-ups are allowed. Really try to focus on sort of the smaller businesses, sit-down restaurants with outdoor seating, office, residential is also allowed, other services, specialty retail. So it was designed to try and preserve the character of the area, enhance it. There are design standards associated with it as well and allow for infill development regardless of whether or not there are services to the area. So that's a little bit about the thinking. I think some of you were around, you're around for, yes, you're around for the district. I think you're the last man standing on that, except for Mr. Schecks. So any questions on the zoning districts before I move along? And we can zoom in and zoom out on these in a little bit here too. So you are one, I try to do this with the ortho photo so you can see a little bit of the development that's underneath. It really hugs the road in the East Lakeshore Drive area. You have Spring Hill Road up here, so you have some, and you also have Ledge. The bike path goes through up in here. So you do have some areas that are not fully developed under the current regulations that some infill could go. But again, you get into very tight-knit density alongside the road. And this parcel which goes back in here is actually Bleepar Smith Estates, which was subdivided off here and the density sent over here to the Fox Run area. Here's a better zoom in of your LS1, LS2 and industrial areas. So you can see the LS1 standing out a little bit better as everything that's right alongside the road. You have, to orient you on this, you have the Bayside Hazelette parcel here, which the town owns. You have Upper and Lower Bayside Park. You have the Campground. You have the front end of Hazelette here, West Lakeshore Drive coming through. And you have around the Bingo Hall here, and Shorakers comes in through here. And the shopping plaza is over here, the fishing access here and the town cemetery right in through there. That little snippet that's pulled out is actually flood plain that's along the creek. So I think I'll get Sarita's question now. If no one else has their questions on the zoning district. So I tried to visually represent some of the numbers. I'll walk you through this a little bit because it could get a little bit confusing. So the blue are the zoning districts. The green is what's here for development right now. So with a build-up analysis, you start by saying, well, what's on the ground right now? How many units do you have of up top is residential down below you have commercial. And then you start to apply a rate of growth and moving it forward each year. And in this case, we chose a 0.55% base rate of growth, which we maybe see now in a good year. It's been a very slow and steady infill on East Lakeshore Drive, West Lakeshore Drive. This gets you in the vicinity, I think of somewhere in the upper teens in terms of new units per every decade. So that would average if they're like 1.6 and even quite two per year, which we have not seen. Applying this rate of growth and doing a bill analysis, which we worked with regional planning to do, what they do is they put everything into a program called Community Viz. And that says, well, you need so much space for your setbacks for, you can only have so much impervious area. You have to take out steep slopes and wetlands and a variety of other sort of constraints. And with the land that you have left, how many units could you place on it? At what point in the future do you get to the point where numerically and also physically you can't put more units on the land? And so that's an orange over here of if you go out and we looked at from 2018, 2028, 2038, 48, we went out 50 years and the number of new units that could be added during that time. And then we looked at if you just went out to the end of time, how many units could you put in under the current zoning? And then the last column in gray is new units and existing units. So how many total units would there be? So walking you through how to sort of read this and we can come back to this too. I did this with a 0.55 rate of growth and then on the next one, we doubled that. Really assuming that growth and development just took off and we went double of anything that we see now. These highlighted areas in orange or yellow, and sorry to my playing commissures, I should be pointing down below on the one for you too but these odd ones are when you reach build out in a particular area. So you can see in the top one for residential units in the LS1 and the R1 districts, in 2028 you're built out applying this rate of growth. You get to a point where you just can't add more to the land but there are some like LS2 where you just don't get to that during this 50 year time horizon. And then down along the bottom, the running total of you start with 277 units in the first year. And then 2028 you add was at 16 and you get to 293. So you're adding somewhere in the teens for growth every year, somewhere in the 16 to 20 variety. In the bottom one, we looked at commercial. And as I said, there are certain districts that we just don't allow for commercial end. You can see there's some existing in the R2 district. There's some existing in the floodplain but we really, and then LS2 gets built out pretty quickly but you take a look at the LS2 and industrial districts and those are the two that have the most potential for growth. So I think the key thing is as I flip forward that total column on the right hand side won't change the new net units. It's just the rate. So we can take a look at various rates of what if development tripled within the area or quadrupled but just wanted to give you sort of slow and steady versus a high end to start with. We can rerun this if we need to in different ways but the number of new units overall at the end of time won't change. But is it true that there's capacity without the sewer to build up to this degree? So this does not take a look at sewer or no sewer. This takes a look at just purely the zoning in the land and the regulations. So the rain would be slower? Well, so there are a variety of things that you can do to limit development. And lack of infrastructure is one of them. Lack of potable water, lack of waste wire solutions. So that definitely retards the rate of growth. But whenever you create a zoning district you have to assume at some point you will get to full build out. It's just a matter of one. So I think in terms of I think this is true with everything that you've looked at in the past is when you create new zoning or you change zoning you should always be looking at where could this lead to regardless because there could be new sewer or new septic technologies 10, 20 years from now that allow you to recirculate in your house. Who knows? But the zoning in terms of the land use plan of where we wanna go should remain that sort of steady north star. This is all a bit complicated so please questions. Can I ask a question? Just the 55, the .55% base growth rate is that a, how do you arrive at the growth rate that you use to make these projections? So I'll skip ahead. So we can take a look at where we've been in terms of residential growth rates and where we've been recently. And take a look at our array of growth. In the commercial sector, a really, really, really good year historically has been 1% or thereabouts. We've plateaued a bit in terms of housing units and housing growth. So .55 was what we've seen in more recent years townwide. And then the next one though which I'll jump to is looking at that 1% growth rate for residential, .75% for non-residential. And again, we can run these numbers in a variety of different ways, but just wanted to start with something that was sort of close to what we had and then taking a look at essentially doubling that. Any other questions so far? Just looking at the chart, some of the numbers don't make sense to me. Maybe I'm just not adding them right. For instance, I'm looking at the residential R2. Top graph or lower graph? The residential one? The upper one, yep. Yeah, R2, 2068, it says 239 would be the, what would have additional units, the total units. But in the last column, it says new net plus existing is 233, which is a number lower than that. Right, so we're rounding to the nearest decade. And so you really get to that build out somewhere between 2058 and 2068. Right, but you said the last column, that would be the maximum, right? Right. So shouldn't the number be the same or more? Right, and so that's one of the things that, you know, I appreciate the level of accuracy that regional planning striped to give us. If you just applied the rate of growth and hit 2068, you get to 239, but there's only capacity on the land for 233 units, we should correct that. So you would never get to 239. You would never get to 239. This may be a roundabout way of getting to some information. It may not even relate to what we're doing, but in the 214 Economic Development Report and in 218 Business Analysis, both of them when they were looking at commercial growth in Colchester, said that one of the things that's holding back commercial growth is infrastructure, including sewer. And so I also know that the commercial taxes that businesses pay is a little bit below where it's recommended that, you know, it should be a little bit higher in terms of residential. So I feel like it puts a little bit more burden on culture for taxpayers. And I'm wondering not developing, let's say people don't want to develop it. Has anybody done like a cost benefit analysis of building it up, what the commercial taxes would be? Because I'm not saying a lot of residential growth happening in Colchester. I think it's 1.3 this most recent year, which is not a lot. I just feel like over time, the tax year is gonna have to pick up more of a burden for the school and services without some commercial growth. And also the benefit of the local option tax that we would get. So one of the things when you take a look at where we're going, and this is from our 2017 housing analysis update that was incurred into the town plan, is looking at our population projections in terms of how much additional growth will we see? And we can flip back to what was our housing growth over the 60s, 70s, 80s? It was phenomenal. We jumped up quite a bit. We are growing like gangbusters. Our population has flattened off in terms of an increase. And what the demographic forecasters are looking at for the state of Vermont is actually we're gonna lose population. We're getting older. We're not replacing ourselves as quickly. Chanden County and Colchester still continue to grow. We're growing at a very slow and steady rate. But compared to Chanden County, Colchester's growing much less, has a much slower growth. Well, it depends on how you look at it. Wilson has a much faster growth rate because they start with fewer people. So if you take a look at where their population doubled over the past like 20 or 30 years, however the population is still less than us. So when you get to the point where you have a larger population, you'd be adding more people and have a slower growth rate than a smaller town that's adding a lot of people. Okay, so I explained why St. George is doing so well. St. George is doing very well. And I wish them well. So I think it's always useful to say, well, what are you comparing things to? Are you comparing apples to apples? But just in terms of trying to increase either residential or commercial growth, this is what we're up against. We, I think as you said in that business analysis, we're up against, we're looking in the state of Vermont. No matter what we do, we're only going to be growing by so much and the demographics are working a little bit against us. If you have questions about why we're still continuing to grow and add a lot more housing units, even though our population has leveled off, the 2017 housing analysis is great. It walks you through some of the demographics of our household types is shrinking. We have non-traditional households. So you have the same number of people needing to live in more places. So this is a lot of heavy concepts to get through tonight, but it all sort of impacts how we get from point A to point B. I'm just wondering if the community is aware that to limit commercial growth, they, that the taxpayers will have to compensate for that. So I mean, I just think people should be aware of that. There's a price to pay for everything you do or every decision you make, but I guess it did say that there was a lot of support for this plan. When you were developing the Lake One and the LS One and LS Two, it seems like the community had a good amount of input. So I just have to assume they support the recent plan that we submitted and the LS One and LS Two. I think there's a lot of community involvement in it. We took a lot of time and we're very thorough with it and went through a lot of different reiterations of it. So it wasn't something that we rushed into at all. I think it was very carefully considered by the Planning Commission at the time. But to answer, I think your other question too. So it's fairly easy to do a build-out analysis when you're taking a look at just residential because you can only do residential. So the number of residential units you arrive at can be fairly simply put. However, when you're taking a look at the mixed use areas, you have to make a few assumptions. And the assumption that we put forward here was equal amounts of commercial to residential. So it's balanced. It could go one way or the other and so you could see in the LS Two particularly a decrease in the commercial square footage increase in the number of residential units. Just for perspective on the total build-out and in commercial, I don't know square footage. I mean it's like hazelite, like what in terms of, what is that square footage? Like this, you know, that roughly, like even if it was just 500,000 square feet or 250,000 square feet, what is the square? Cosco's building would be 150. It's around 100. 150,000. Just over 100,000. Okay. Like I didn't know what Cosco's building was. Yeah, that's helpful. Thank you. Yep. Say Bibbins is probably around more like 20. You want an example of that? So that helps. Cosco helps. See how many buildings or how many, how big your buildings, what you're looking at, what you're thinking about, right? Yeah. So you can see that really where you're adding new potential units is going to be your LS-2, which is that new zoning district, and then your R-2, which is the area along East Lakes River Drive. Those are the two significant areas. You get to, at total build-out, 113 units. And 51 of those are an R-2 and 60 of those are an LS-2. Can you explain again what that net new units column represents? That represents that point in the future where you reach full build-out under the regulations. So it goes beyond the 2068 timeline to just sit fast forward and everything's built to the last square inch that it could be built to. And for commercial square footage, if you take a look at LS-1 and LS-2, those are relatively small. It's that one split-zone industrial piece, which adds in the 1.3 million. So in terms of, as you look to possible solutions to limit growth, rezoning the entirety of that parcel might be something potentially to look at. But then we lose revenue. Again, we're just looking at, in terms of the development concerns about too much massing, what have you, all the things that the playing commission usually looks at. But if you could get his name and have, sorry, but would you come to the mic? Tom's sitting right next to the mic so the camera guy got him. But, apologize, if you could give us your name. Alan Sexton, Malice Biavna. Now in the beginning of the presentation you mentioned there were some properties in Williams Road on East Lakeshore. That it sounds like there's zoning violations there? Yes. Now that's one example. Are there punitive actions being taken against? That's currently an environmental court. We're going for a court ruling on that. You are, okay. So people who are intentionally trying to violate or maybe not intentionally, who knows? You know, trying to get away with something. Who knows? But my concern is, as far as planning goes, you know, or is it, how is it that those structures were allowed to be built, such as they are? That's certainly quite different than what was there. So the current regulations do allow, as I said, if you have existing use there, a single family home, what have you, you can knock it down and rebuild it under the current regulations. And the current regulations allow you to go to 40 feet in the R2 district, which those are in. When we created the new LS1 district, we decided to limit it because of concerns about lake views and what have you. But the R2 district along East Lakeshore does not have that limit. It doesn't. So that's something planning could address? I think that's part of why we're having this tonight. Yeah, that might be a good idea. I grew up down there and I, you know, I mean, as far as I'm concerned, the lake there now is cleaner than it was, and I don't want to date myself with the 70s. But I'm concerned when I see, you know, I was coming down Williams Road the other day and when I saw this big green wall, that's a big concern. That's quite different than what was there. You know, there's no trees, there's just this big green wall. That to me is going to create a problem, you know, and, you know, if zoning's being violated, then, you know, permit, I can't do it on my property on Malice Bay Avenue, you know, it's got to be a price to pay. And, you know, it shouldn't be the bay that's paying the price. Thank you. All right, thank you. I'll flip to the higher growth rate. I'll walk you through that a little bit and still see you get to build out, Rosancially in the LS1 and R1 pretty quickly in 2028. R2, you get there in 2048, and you don't hit build out at all during the 50 year time horizon in the LS2 district. If you take a look at commercial, again, R2 floodplain, you're there immediately, but in 2038, you reach build out in the LS1 district and it still is LS2 and industrial that you don't get to at all during the 50 year time horizon. So in terms of, if you wanted to imagine a faster rate of growth, you could just imagine that you build out that LS2, the 42,000 square feet, a lot quicker, or the 1.3 in the industrial district within that 50 year time horizon or something of that nature. Again, you're taking a look at a higher rate of growth where you're adding close to, I think, 30 units a year, which the town of Colchester as a whole adds right now somewhere between 40 and a good year in the 50s for new units total, town-wide. What really springs us up and can fluctuate us is the Grove Center. We have a new building about, I think the new building is 29 units is coming online. We issued in the past year that will jump us up. So that's the most that we see in a given year is one new building at Severance Corners that will tip the scales that way. So we're increasing this rate of growth to these decade intervals in terms of putting a Severance Corners at Blake Shore. So this is in terms of why 1% might not seem like a whole huge rate of growth, but we went to something that we couldn't imagine going beyond. Was there consideration when I'm gonna jump into the sewer because I'm curious what Sarita just said. Was there consideration during the sewer proposal on the cost or the local option tax coming in from the commercial use if there were no infrastructure constraints or if the sewer went through, would that benefit? I think I'm gonna answer my own question, but would that benefit the payback or the revenue produced with the local option tax? It could and I think what I tried to describe in staff notes is there are different reasons for doing different types of build outs. This is a very different type of build out than any sort of financial analysis. This is purely looking at what the worst case development concerns are. So this takes a look at if you pull the lid off of development, what could happen versus I think a lot of the financial analysis that we've done about how to pay for the sewer was taking a look at what's the worst case scenario in terms of users and payback to ensure that there would be that payback over a certain time period. So obviously if you hit this rate of growth and you had any indebtedness or payback, it would occur a lot quicker and be financially better. But you got a plan for the worst case. But there are obviously reasons why on a development end in terms of community character, you might not want this rate of growth. But that's a trade-off. It was based on permitted, we're going to do septics or sewer, whatever we do when we're assuming that we're going to be able to put some type of sewer septic or was this based on what we have for land? So this is what we have for land and the development regulations. This is regardless of infrastructure. This is taking a look at just if you applied the development constraints and you can run the analysis with taking a look at septic suitable soils. But we chose not to because part of what the planning commission is charged with looking at is waste wall alternatives. So if you believe that there will be a solution found, whether it's community septic or sewer that would address the waste water concerns under our current development regulations, what could occur with the land that's available? That's one more question. Is the community center the capacity for a future community center figured in the sewer capacity? So in terms of the gallons per day needed? Yeah, I guess so. So there was the existing gallons per day needed. It was around 80,000. And then the future build out of that area was around 120 that was needed for the entire area. I believe that there was some consideration given to the build out of the town parks as part of that future analysis of the 120. I assume the 120 goes based off of these, this growth. It's a bit more complicated because this just gives you commercial square footage, your bulk, your size, how big of buildings, how many buildings could you have? It's a little bit more of a stabile and dark when you're projecting sewer use because it's like, well, are we gonna have a hotel or a restaurant or are we gonna have two hotels and five restaurants that are your bigger water consumers? So I wouldn't really necessarily be the best person to speak to that build out analysis that was done for needed wastewater capacity and flow analysis. Is the land build out making sense? Sorry. The community has agreed to this. The community has said, we agree to this plan, these rates of growth. I'm not sure what you mean. Well, in the town plan, I'm assuming because it was accepted to 19 town plan and this is in the town plan. This, these graphs are not in town plan. Not the graphs, but the possible future build-ups, the total build-up, the community supported that and supported the heritage plan, right? So the zoning districts were at the times the R1 and R2 are old. I'm not sure when they were fully adopted, but they've been around for quite some time. The LS1 and LS2, when those are brought forward by the planning commission, I think we're not very contentious by the end. I think there was community support, but I'd like to sort of tease apart what you said a little bit more. The town plan gives that sort of vision for the town. And what the current 2019 town plan says is, no changes in the LS1 and LS2, those are two relatively new districts. But it does say, planning commission really needs to take a look at East Lakeshore Drive during the term of this plan. But then two years of adoption, the planning commission needs to do something with East Lakeshore Drive because of the concerns like what you heard tonight. And so I think communities actually said they want us to take a look and fix East Lakeshore Drive. I'm not sure that there's necessarily community support for the rate of growth, but I think there is community support for some of the zoning in that area, but I think there needs to be, as part of any planning commission process, when you take a look at zoning, I think you need to go out to the community in a much more expanded way than just tonight and say East Lakeshore Drive, where are some of the concerns? As part of any sort of rezoning process, we usually start out with those mailings to aim people that we possibly are going to impact direct mailings and invite them out just to that issue. We're looking at this one particular issue very broadly within the context of wastewater right now. So I think it would be deserving of a larger community push. I don't mean to talk so much, but I guess one of the concerns I have, that why the sewer was voted down was this perception of growth, commercial growth, more traffic, and I'm just confused in terms of do we need to go back to the community and say that's a possibility with, whether it's sceptic or it's another form of wastewater treatment? Because it seems like that's a reality in terms of what is approved would be growth. It might not be a rapid growth, but I'm just wondering with the community if we need to go back to them or not. Our task is too narrow, still. Our task is still too narrow for that. We're still looking for best solution for wastewater for that area. I think using this as a tool to get there as far as the community and the growth part, I don't think that's part of what we're looking at. I mean, it's part of what we think is the best use, but it's not part of our task. Yeah, I know that. So we'd have to go back. Could part of that best use be a rezoning of East Lakes Shore Drive to reduce your wastewater output? Yes. For example, theoretically that could be an LS1, LS2 district, obviously would change these numbers pretty significantly. Yes, and so I think what I tried to land on staff notes, and I'll skip ahead a little bit here, is so there are things that you can do, rezoning is definitely one of them. You could create a new zoning district for East Lakes Shore Drive, because all we're looking at right here now are numbers. We're not talking about design. When the LS1 and LS2 were created for West Lakes Shore Drive, and we haven't had a new building built yet under new regulations, there are requirements about looming the height along the lake, inciting things to preserve lake views. There are reduced setbacks, but it talks about putting the building in the middle of a lot and trying to keep the sides open so you can sort of see through to the lake. And also, trying to be more pedestrian friendly and not be sort of a solid wall, having porches and other things that sort of interact with the street and neighbors. But if you're concerned that the R2 development could be too much, you're at 51 units now, whatever you design, you might want to take a look at having potentially a lesser density than R2. I'm not concerned, but I'm wondering if Colchest is concerned. So that's one of the methods is rezoning. The other thing that you could do, and there are a variety of different tools in the toolbox, are there things such as building caps? Where you say within a particular area, we're going to deem it harmful that more development could occur in a given year here than we are able to sustain or like to see or have a hurtful impact to the community, traffic, transportation, you have to provide some valid reasons behind it. The town of Wilson, for example, does have growth caps where they limit the number of new residential units that could be issued in a given year in different areas of town. You could look to something like that within this area as well. That's my concern, traffic. If you get to this 50 year build up, is that assuming contemplating that building improvements to the roads in addition to the new changes? When we looked at, with the commission, the, in creating the LS1 and LS2 district, we looked with regional planning at that corridor and the capacity for it. And we tried to limit particularly the LS1 and LS2, any new traffic that could be generated within that area to just the very minimal because their concerns about the overall capacity of, you can only wind in West Lakeshore Drive so much, you only. The Lake Shore at five o'clock is already at. The problem is, and here's the sort of short version of the story on traffic analysis, is we have limited capacity within that corridor because the background traffic coming into that corridor is increasing no matter what we do. So you have traffic coming from Burlington, traffic coming from Essex going through that we don't necessarily have control over that's negatively impacting that area. So again, you would look to, on our end, what can we do to help with traffic? You can limit the commercial uses and square footage. Residential doesn't add that much more in terms of traffic and again, it gets into what specific commercial uses, but that's definitely an issue that could be looked at. It's very narrow because when you start looking at that, it's just a full circle of, does that mean more impervious surface? Does that mean more storm water going into the lake? Does that change the, obviously we're looking at wastewater, but does that change what's being put into the interbit A? And that was, I think the playing commission spent about a year in developing the LS1 and LS2, looking at all those little components of a much bigger issue. So my last slides, I'll just sort of jump through. I went through, sort of, we've gone historically in leaps and bounds. And let me just get to my notes for a minute. I added on, because it ended at 2016. 2017, we had 59 new homes, 47 single family and 12 multifamily. 2017, we had 39 new homes. 22 single family and 17 multifamily. And last year we had 92 homes. 40 single family and 52 multifamily. Again, that was seven scorners that came online. There's just, unfortunately at the local level, we don't have great tools to forecast with. We can take a look at pass growth to project future growth. And that's what this chart does. And that's the end. Is there anything that you want me to go back to? But I think the sum impact is 113 new residential and 1.3 million for commercial potential. If everything was left the way that it is now and everything built out. I do have a couple of emails from people that could make tonight's meeting that I'd like to provide if I can skip back to those. I'll check my email and just make sure they haven't got a name more. So we have one from Bob Malil saying, his concerns are scale size and appearance of the seaballs being permanent in the last few years or particularly in the inner bay along Lakeshore Drive. Back when he's on the DRB and playing commission, they're concerned with the sea wall appearance looking from the lake and restrictive in height and use of natural stone colored materials. He's concerned about the amount of clear cutting. New and upgraded homes are doing on the bluffs overlooking the bay, particularly in entrance to the inner bay from the outer bay. There appear these newer homes, our cutting trees are not in the setback areas but the heavy amount of tree cutting and vegetation looks like visual clear cutting scars on the tree line when viewed from the lake. Recommend a CERN percentage, say 35% of CERN size caliber trees other than needed for the structure. Thanks for the opportunity to provide us an input. I think he's referencing the Mungen Bay Development which they 100% clear cut. They were not supposed to do that. We have requirements that you can only take out 25% vegetation, one inch caliber greater within a 10 year period along the Lakeshore. With our planting plan, they did have a planting plan. They also violated that. Again, it's being pursued in environmental court. There's not too much more I can say on it but that was 100% clear cutting which is not allowed under our current regulations and the size of the wall is more massive than the DRB approved and the regulations as well. So very good points. If I can I comment on that? Having been out with Mr. Malau in his vote last week, I think you may also not to speak for him be referring as you enter the bay towards the to the left over to Las Coby Manquette Bay. The newer structures over there also tend to do a lot more clearing than is traditionally been done by the homes so the newer ones are very obvious as you enter the bay. It's a nice study thing. And those ones are interesting because it says 25% of the trees on the property within the Shoreland district. So a lot of people have been opting for they have 1,000 feet of shoreline is clear cutting 250 feet of it to get a really good view and then leaving the rest of it. So you see right in front of the house it's completely clear. It doesn't require that you distribute that over a certain period. So there might be a good way of putting something in the regulations that would help provide that buffer and prohibit that. So we have another email from Dan Greenow that says, hi Sarah Moustay, not able to attend the meeting this evening. Do have a couple of concerns to the record. Heights of construction on the lakeside of the road should be lowered. It seems like folks are allowed to build about two and a half stories high. Two, it seems new buildings are allowed to far exceed the original footprint of the old structures removed. These issues are causing the destruction of once was a very scenic neighborhood. So sad, Dan Greenow. So. A couple of comments I'll make. The growth rates that you showed, I did figure out the charts and let you squint and picture what's gonna happen. I think the one half and 1% growth rates that you showed just intuitively might be a little low. If you're starting with 277 units, the math is pretty easy, a half percent growth rate gets you to 1.4 units a year. And anything anybody that drives through that quarter would guess that in recent years we've seen more than one new unit a year. And then of course, the 1% growth rate, you get 2.7 units a year. So that's maybe two new units a year. So you're looking at the overall town number. And I know it's probably very difficult to get a growth rate for just one mile of road, but you're kind of visualizing what the future might look like. It'd be interesting, maybe you've already done it to project what a slightly higher growth rate looks like since one new unit a year may not reflect reality as most people believe they've observed deriving that course. So I was, as you said, it's very hard to pull a growth rate for a particular area of town, but I was just trying to go back through my recollection of any true new units that were added during my tenure here. And the only two new units that I can remember are on Churchill Lane. Those new units that were in the process of being added, I think there were 13 in total are the only new units that I can recall. That occurred. One percent growth rate, or a half percent the next decade, that less, or the unit in a half a year, so it'd be most of 10 years worth of growth rate there in one project at that half percent growth rate. So being here now for 18 years, those 13 units are the only new ones that I can recall in that corridor during that time. Does it mean that there's, my memory's not what it used to be because I have been here that long. But, yeah. Well, you're on the argument point just for, just observation and, you know, obviously I don't have the data on that. Another gets us into a enforcement rabbit hole that we probably won't explore too deeply tonight, but on that issue of staying within the same footprint for nonconforming use while expanding the heights of 40 feet, I'm wondering whether state law, which prohibits the expansion of a nonconforming use, would consider adding lots of additional height to a structure to be an expansion of that nonconforming use, simply because you're staying within the same footprint and maybe keeping the same number of bedrooms and whether there might be a toehold within state law for the town without changing the zoning as it relates to 40 feet to take a much closer look at the height that a structure might go to if it's nonconforming to begin with. Good points. Yep, let's do something we'll look at when we get to East Lakeshore redevelopment zoning again. So I think the purpose of tonight was to sort of take a little detour. And it's a sort of dramatic foreshadowing of things to come because you are going to be getting back to East Lakeshore Drive within two years of the town planned adoption, which time flies are now down to you have a year and a half. And by the way, the last process took a year to do. So time flies are having fun. We'll be getting to East Lakeshore Drive, I hope, as well as some rezonings after the playing commission has completed this project for the select board. And I think it's worthwhile to note some of the bleed over where the playing commission has jurisdiction over a lot of these concerns. Not that you have any solutions tonight, but at least I think you've been made aware of what they are now and hopefully have a handle in terms of what the development could be if you left everything as it is. And didn't make any modifications where full build out could be at some point in the future. And I think the questions is, is that too much? So they're not the right to type what modifications need to be made is going to be continued, but and please as we move forward to, it's a good entree for me as your staff person in terms of what additional information you all need and how we make this understandable. You guys work with a lot of this. It's hard to be able to relay this to the public in an easy way. Build out analysis is one of those tricky things that you can look at a variety of different ways. And again, this one was done to give you the sort of the worst case scenario of how much development could you end up with worst case in terms of too much? And again, I think what you heard tonight is the rate of growth could actually be increased. Well, I just want to speak to that. I mean, I'm still caught up on it's probably constrained now by the available SAP deck. So maybe there's pent up to the hand and there's good token of floodgates. A couple savvy developers who know that they're sitting on a gem and that people will be surprised. But they could put in a septic, they could put a wastewater system in anyway. I mean, this build out could happen with or without the sewer. But what we're talking about, the lake, the L4 being four units per acre. And I don't know if an acre live on septic when these soils get support for it. So you have out in the Porter's Point area. So you do have GD1 with a community septic, which we do finding coal chester has 10,000 square foot lots similar to the L2. And so you do find that occurring with onsite septic. So there are pockets of areas in town that have the ability to do that dense development with onsite septic. But I think we can take a look at different rates. And we can definitely look at an increased rate. And I'm open to hear from the planning commission in terms of what you think an increased rate would be that we should, we can re-run this. But that total build out unless you change the zoning doesn't change. So that total number of 113 units unless you change the zoning doesn't change. It's just how quickly you get there. There could be or there could not be. Our growth rate has been slow and steady townwide. And unlike other communities that have put in place development constraints such as building caps, I can think back to once very early on in my tenure where that was a conversation piece of the planning commission. And that was still late 1990s when it was very high rate of growth. But since that time, there hasn't been any needed affide by the community or concerns that point of we were going too fast. I guess I'm still hung up on this. I mean, it's like we've had conversations where we think growth is great, but the consensus is that. There was a serious demo that did the original at last morning at last two, correct? Yes. Everybody's happy with slow rate of growth. In my explosion, they didn't want a continual growth. In lots of comments, we've heard against the sewer or several of them, it'll increase growth. Correct. Reasons against it. I think some of those, when you tease them apart though, and you look through some of the feedback that we received is people look at development as sometimes just tearing down existing place and rebuild it. So I think it's a little bit more nuanced this gives you just the pure numbers of how many new units. But I think there are also concerns I don't mean to gloss over them by any means because I think they're equally as important in terms of just the character of the area of tearing down that summer seasonal or rebuilding a year around. I think we talk a little bit about it in the town plan, previous town plans where we talked to how we transition from being a summer seasonal to more of a year round community and some of the sort of the negative impacts created on some of the sense of some of our neighborhoods along the lake. So I think there are development terms of square footage and units, but there's also development in terms of what things look like, how high they are, do they block of view? And those are all very important and my hope is that the planning commission, when looking at East Lakeshore Drive will take a look at the totality of that. Any more questions? We have a question. My name is Scott Wood. I live on Blakely Road here. At the start of the meeting, when you showed up the zoning maps, I believe, did you say if I heard, I'm just wondering if I heard it correctly. Now you said this is the proposed sewer zone, septic zone, is that what you said earlier? So what's highlighted in red here is what was proposed to be served by municipal sewer and is the study area that we're looking at right now. It's okay, so that wasn't what was just that we voted on back on town meeting day, correct that sewer area? So if that had passed, the area that's outlined in red will have been served with sewer. And also for, I don't know if you know the number if anyone has the number, but could you tell us how much taxpayer money went into getting that sewer vote up to the town meeting? Like if anyone has a total number on how much money that costs to get put down. That would be a good question for the administration and the select boards. The playing commission was not involved with that. We're dealing with the charge given to them by the select board to look at wastewater solutions in this area. They're brought on afterwards. And I work in town here and I have tons, you know, every day in our shop, we have people come in and that always comes up. And the one thing that always, you know, I don't hear it a lot at meetings, but I hear it every day. It's like, and I know what this isn't, the select, you know, you guys were given an unenviable task to try to rebrand something to get it out there, but it seems, one thing I hear all the time is what part of no didn't they get for the third time? And I know that's not on you at all. I'm just, that's a big concern. I think the month, like if just for public record, it would be nice just to know how much money was already spent on that. We're looking at the solutions. Oh, I understand. Like I say, I'm not, I want the lake to be clean. I really do, I swim in it as much as humanly possible. So I'm, I'm just, That's just beyond our scope. Yeah, okay. I said, so that should like that number, the select board should have that number then, correct? Oh, pass the line to the administration. Thank you very much for your time. Thank you. Thank you. Anything else? No? Thank you. Nice work. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks for coming out. Who gave my name off to be here twice. Yeah, I agree with that. Oh. I intend to replace it at the same time. I don't make a much no proof. I got a couple of other items. You need a second. No, you gotta relax. All right. Well, you need a second and then you can amend it. Okay. So are you seconding? No. You need a second before you can discuss. Oh, I guess I want to already did. I second. Okay. Okay. Okay. I agree with Robert. He wasn't here twice. One second paragraph, last sentence. S had stated that revisiting whether or not there was pollution or the scope of the pollution. Something that didn't make sense there. I apologize. Which paragraph are you in again? I'm in the second paragraph. Starts with B, starts with A. Starts with A. And it's the last line. The last sentence. State, Sarah had stated that revisiting whether or not there was pollution or the scope of the pollution. I think after revisiting. Yep. I think there needs to be an ending to that sentence. Yeah, there's something missing. Was not the scope of the PC. Okay. I'm going to read this one out loud. The next paragraph, first sentence. Julie Smith asked why just the users would pay for the project and why protection of a community why it asked it could not be paid for by the larger community. And why the? I don't know, I guess the first time I read it didn't sound right, but I highlighted protection. So I think what you're saying is that they're trying to protect the bay for the larger community. Not just for the people who live on East Lakes Road Drive. Is that what's trying to be said? So what edit would you propose? Oh, I don't know. Maybe crossing up A and put the. Okay. And why the protection of a community why it asked it could not be paid for. That would be better. Okay. That's all I had. Okay. So I just had, this is just a little bit above number three that and souls felt that the discussion in the sewer was fraught with problems. Did she ever, did we ever get any specific? Was that just a general statement or? I'm curious what she meant by that. Or did she ever elaborate on that? I don't remember an elaboration. So I don't know how to address that or whatever, how we should have addressed that. And I don't remember her elaborating on specifically what the problems were. You have to vote. You have to vote. I mean she's worried about fraught problems. Where we are, where we are. I'm not sure they had some things to sink to put in. Right. Okay. I just wanted to confirm that. So now we need to vote to approve with directions. Yup. All favor? Aye. So some packet information. That's the information. Really quickly besides what you have in there. The Lake Champlain Richelieu River Study Board is having a meeting at the Eakin Center on Wednesday, August 14th at 6 p.m. I can't attend, but you're all welcome too. I can give you the information. And it's just more updates on their continued study. It's joint between New York and Vermont and Quebec about the issue of flooding and flood response along Lake Champlain. They're working together with the Bynational Lake Champlain Richelieu River Study Board to conduct a comprehensive analysis of the causes and impacts of pastaling on the lake and river, develop an improved real-time flood forecasting system, recommend potential flood mitigation options. So they're just updating people at that meeting. I'll pass along anything further that I get on that front. Couple other things that have come in that will be in your packet to the next meeting, but it will get sort of close. The City of Burlington is having a hearing on their comprehensive development ornce form District 5 boundaries on August 27th. And you also, oh, that was this one. So those will be in your next packet. I just didn't want you to potentially miss the one August 14th. You talked about wanting to know whether we are available at a certain time at the end of the month. Yes. I heard from Sarita, I haven't heard from anybody else yet. I'm pretty open right now. I mean, meetings pop up all the time, but we'll see what we can work around. Great. All good. Thank you. I'll make motion to adjourn. A second. All right. Okay. All right. We are done.