Okay, just take over Regina technical difficulties. We do have a quorum for visitors who are here to talk about anything besides what's on the agenda. Is there anyone who'd like to speak. Struthers, I just coming up as Struthers you hold on. You have the floor. Hello, good evening. My name is Jason Struthers. I'm a district resident on Taff Street for just shy of 40 years now. And I wanted to address the board this evening because I would like to apply for a temporary variance and a permit. I believe Robin did for the premise was and that's been entered into the record or whatnot. Maybe you can give us a quick overview, just a couple of minutes, but I'm thinking there are a few other players involved. Possibly the zoning board and the other is possibly the trustees. I'm not sure the planning commission is the appropriate forum, but as far as I know, you know, you're free to ask for our support and if it turns out that we are the appropriate body to to pass some kind of ruling on this then then we might as well know so why don't you go ahead and give us a quick overview of what was in your letter which I have read and take it away. Thank you. Well, for the past two seasons I have successfully cultivated CBD bearing hemp in accordance with the Vermont AFM and I had a great deal of success with it and I was able to treat. I have a spinal cord injury and so I've used it, you know, with good success to treat that and with the new regulations coming out, I would like to transition to adult you adult use cannabis. The beauty of it is is that it would really require no changes, it would be precisely what I was doing for the past two years. There would be no construction involved. It would be temporary. The really the reason why I'm asking for it is because with my spinal cord injury to pack up and move and find a farm that is zoned properly is a daunting task in and of itself, let alone to start a business. This would give me a year to find a proper property, put my house on the market and move. But essentially the issue is you live in a residential zone neighborhood and you're not currently it's not zoned to allow you to have a in home commercial business or something. My understanding from your letter was that the growing operation would is already in existence at some capacity and properly fenced and secure and video camera and all the rest of the things that recording in progress, that are required, and that this would simply be an expansion of your existing operations beyond what's allowed for residential use. Yeah, essentially it would just allow me to sell my product to a wholesaler that you know I wouldn't be opening a retail of any I would be a cultivator, and I would be selling directly to a wholesaler who then distributes and packages it in a different business. Yeah, so so the trick is for us, and Robin maybe you can correct me if I'm wrong, but we, I don't know that we can sort of spot zone something if the rules are in place. Now we can't, we aren't the right group to say, okay, fine. It's more of a operational thing not a change in zoning. Is that, am I getting that right Robin because I mean I don't have a personal problem with it as a, as a planning commissioner, except I don't have any way to make that legal I don't think we can't just rezone, you know, a parcel or neighborhood for this kind of thing, just because somebody asked us to. That's correct john and also the time did vote to permit retail cannabis. It can't happen in any form if it meets all the other standards of a business opening up until October 1 this year. Anything that goes beyond retail is solely controlled by the state as far as I understand. So we would have no control whatsoever over anything other than retail cannabis. So I'm just trying to do this first. Is it Mr. Struthers here. So Jason I didn't realize. Sorry, I just keep seeing the last name. So what we got here is is how, how you would go about it and who you talk to it and. And so let's just say you went to the zoning board and and got permission to operate a commercial facility on your parcel and we don't care what it is at this point it could be a barber shop we don't we don't care. John, can I just ask there's no traffic there's no parking there's no visitors there's nobody right so nothing. Is if if the zoning board were to allow this, is it allowable for him to do it Robin. No, no, he has to get approval from the state still needs it from the states. Yeah if he's growing to wholesale he needs approval from the state. The question I was going to ask is not so much a business operation I understand you're going to sell wholesale but it's setting up a small agricultural business as well right so is it not so much that you. Commissioner zoning area, I mean I'm also looking at my other planning commissioners as well that it's not so much opening a business of sorts but it's asking for permission to grow agriculture at a larger scale. And the other question I had for you Jason was the letter said that you were looking to go up to 1000 feet, but you had previously done at the past two year growing seasons. 1000 feet, expanding up to 1000 feet so you had a smaller operation previously or. It would be a significant reduction actually I'm currently. My application is for 0.3 acres and 70 pounds. So that's what I'm currently allowed to to cultivate for my personal use. Well this is CBD bearing hemp that I'm talking about. Yeah that was the other point of clarity that I wanted to ask. This is federally legal it's legal on the federal scale that hemp is CBD it's legal on the federal scale. Yeah. So there's no regulations in that so what I would be doing is transit I would be applying for the. Paramedic through the state, which is a very intense process I have to pass a Vermont criminal background check a federal criminal background check I have to submit my fingerprints. The cannabis control board has to approve it. So those are the state agencies that would require me to. And so if it's okay with the state level. and what are we preventing? Are we preventing the agriculture? I can't imagine they prevent agricultural use of something. I have to refer to the document that I forward as well, but in the guidelines, it's not even considered an agricultural product. I don't know how they're going to classify it, but for taxation purposes, otherwise they wouldn't be able to tax it. So- If I was growing sunflowers in the backyard and happen to sell the seeds to somebody what I had the same problem or- No. Well, I don't know. I don't know. So Robin, can you clarify for us what the planning commission is being asked here? Cause it doesn't sound like we have a problem. You know, once he gets his approvals at the state level, why are we involved? Well, the only control that amuse penalty has over retail cannabis is zoning. Any real retail business- Not doing retail cannabis. Right. It has to meet the same standards as anybody else. So I don't, I'm not, I mean, my understanding- There's a full ceiling. It doesn't seem at this point in time that we have any control if he gets- Yeah, the hemp plan has no, I mean, you got to go do something to it before it's doing anything, right? Well, my question actually is not what he's selling or what he plans to grow, it's more of does our zoning allow to have a retail establishment or a wholesale established in a residential area? I mean, that's the nut of the whole thing, is are we going to allow a retail or wholesale thing in a residential area? Yeah, I don't know that it qualifies as a retail establishment. So she's trying to wholesale something. Recording stopped. Yeah, I think my understanding is that I think Jason, you're in the R1 and I believe you need a zoning variance granted in order to have that operation. And in emails with Robin, I had, Robin said that that's strictly a zoning board thing that the zoning board will grant the variance if allowed. Okay. That's my understanding, Robin. I was advised to address the guys and see if there was even something you guys would entertain. Yeah, I think we're happy to entertain it and we're also saying it doesn't sound like it's bothering any of us, but it's not something we have the ability to make a ruling on. Who doesn't make the decisions? Well, just you can't have a business at your house. But we can't approve. Is that just a flat out no? Or is it, I mean, can I get a commercial bill? I'm saying you can have a business at your house. Okay. So that's promising. You have to apply for that, but we cannot approve growing and selling of wholesale cannabis. That's the state and the state only. So he gets a variance from the zoning board if he needs one and he gets an authorization and license from the state in order to do this and he's fine. Right. From my understanding, I've been talking with Tim Fair, Vermont Cannabis Solutions and he deals with the rules every day. He said that really the bottleneck for me is the residential zoning. I qualify in every way with the state and the cannabis control board and the FBI and all the hard parts, but I need to address that with the zoning board. Well, sorry, just we permit a business in a residential district as long as it doesn't change the appearance of the property and as long as it doesn't mean that a lot of people are coming to the property. It has to keep with the character of the neighborhood. You know, often people will, it's a bit different from what you're saying. There's some people, I think they're graphic designers. They're software developers. They basically have an office in their house and then they conduct business. Look how many people are working from home, you know? Yes. So here's what I'd like to propose. I'd like to propose that we find that the proposed operations don't qualify as any of the things that we would be concerned about from a planning perspective. There's no additional traffic. There's no lighting. There's no parking, trucking. And there's nothing that we know about that changes the appearance or character of the property. And so we have nothing to say about it. And you go along and get whatever else you need from other boards and other agencies and have a great day. Yeah, yeah, go to the state, get your approval from the state, just then come back to me in Ontario, okay? Okay, that's great, that's good news. I really appreciate your time. Awesome, thank you, Jason. Thank you. Thank you for your time and consideration. Fine. All right. Is it by a Marine Corps, not Regina, as is the host? Does anybody else have anything on this audience for visitors? Anybody else here to talk about something that's not on the agenda and Warren, I'm assuming that you're here for an agenda item. I'm gonna text him when we get ready to start, are we still here? If he hadn't been here, I was gonna text him when we get ready to discuss. No, I'm here and yeah, I'm here for the landscape portion of the LDC. Whenever you're ready for that, just here representing the Tree Advisory Committee and me as the Tree Warden, but whenever you're ready. Okay. Item two, additions or amendments to the agenda. Do we have any, Robin? No, not from here. Good. Minutes, we have two sets with January 6th, which we were not able to act on last meeting and February 3rd, can I have a motion to approve one or both sets of minutes, please? No more for both sets of minutes. Can I just interrupt real quick? Sorry. Robin, you wanna start the recording again because it got kicked off when you switched over to host. Thank you. No, I tried and it said, please ask the host to give you permission to record, so I guess you're gonna have to record again. Sorry, I should have just done that. I love computers. Recording in progress. Perfect. All right. We're being recorded, perfect. And the town meeting folks probably have the full recording, so if we need it, we can get it from them. Okay, so we're on meeting minutes. I've had a motion to approve the January 6th and the February 3rd minutes. Do I have a second? I will second that. Thank you. All right, any corrections, changes, discussion? I have not. Oh, look good. Excellent. All in favor of the minutes that was written. Say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Any abstained? Motion carries. Both minutes are approved. Thank you. Item four is election of a vice chairperson to replace Steve Shaw, who resigned from the Plenic Commission a month ago. So we did have one person who volunteered to step up and I believe that was Phil. Yes. Yep. Yeah, that's right. Is there anybody else who's interested in that position? All right, Phil. All in favor of Phil.  Oh, as vice chair, I'll make sure these meetings keep running efficiently. So no speeches tonight. All right, good. I will, so Phil has been, he should be officially nominated. I will officially nominate Phil. I can second that nomination. Thank you. If that needs to happen. Patrick, any further discussion? All right, all in favor of Phil is the new vice chairperson of the Essex Junction Plenic Commission. Say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Abstained motion carries. Welcome, Phil. Thank you. Thank you for your future service. All right, item five is the work session. So now we're ready for Regina, our hostess tonight. We will continue the updates of the land development code. She sent us quite a pile of chapters this past week. So Regina, why don't I let you take over and you can kind of get us going on all of the different chapters and where the updates stand and what we're ready to talk about tonight. Okay, awesome. So yeah, the chapters that you've got in your email are pretty much good to go with the exception of some discussion items that I sort of have flagged throughout. The one other thing I wanted to mention is that we did talk with Chelsea and Jim Jutros about a little bit of an alternative or maybe more specific plan associated with accepting public infrastructure. And so all of that is not worked in yet. And I think I'm hoping we can just sort of like put that as an appendix because it really can be tied to every kind of public infrastructure as opposed to us having to like call out that process in the 20 different places where it might be.  Chelsea's got that information and Chelsea and Rick actually. So when they look at that and if they think it works for them then we can kind of figure out how to get it incorporated. Outside of that, we do have some comments from Nick and Warren. So John, it's totally fine for me if we just go straight to 719 if that works for the rest. I was going to suggest that so we can let Warren have his shot here. And then, yeah, great. Okay, so I'll share the chapter and go to the places that Warren's then going to talk about. Does that help? Yep, definitely. Okay, awesome. Okay, so we're in 719 and the first topic is part B here where Chelsea suggested incorporating some low impact screen infrastructure. And so Warren, that's I think your first talking point. Yeah, we looked at this and it's fine. We agreed to stormwater infrastructure being proposed and being able to be used in development projects, both new and sometimes even existing depends on what's put in front of the planning commission. As long as it works well with the rest of the infrastructure around it. And one of the things that concerns us is we wanna make sure that the planning commission as well as wastewater understands that there's a maintenance aspect to taking care of the rain gardens and other proposed stormwater infrastructure and that the village is aware of the fact that this could require more maintenance from personnel within the village, whether it comes from wastewater in Chelsea or it falls to Rick. But I know from my dealings with this in Burlington that it needs to be addressed so that it continues once it's put in place, it's gonna need some maintenance. So it looks attractive. You know, if it's a stormwater pond it sits in a whole different setting, that's different. But if you're down within the five quarters area, for example, and you're doing this, it's gonna require some maintenance. And that's our point with the B just so that the planning commission is aware of that. I think that's our big one on that, Regina. Warren, does the cost for that additional maintenance fall to the landowner or to the municipality? If it's put in the public right away, which a lot of it is, it's on public property, it's gonna fall to the municipality. And so are you just pointing that out because that means we need to be aware that things that we approve or allow to be developed because we think they're a great idea will actually have a ongoing cost of the village. That is, that's exactly our point. You need to be aware of the fact that they won't, typically they will not self-sustain themselves and they do require maintenance. So we want you to be aware of the fact that that is gonna fall and probably someone is gonna have to be responsible for maintaining it in the future. And do we flag as a matter of course of action during, I mean, we're developing these proposed changes. We need to approve them and then the trustees need to approve them. So do we essentially put a little red star next to this one and say, by the way, trustees, this is like accepting a new street here, except it comes with living things in it and you're gonna have to. Right, so I mean too, so for example, with the things with the tree care part of this that the village is dealing with us is there is a budget within Rick at Public Works Purview that we have to maintain the trees and the public right away, whether that's pruning, removal, planting, et cetera. Something similar to that needs to be recognized for the future stormwater rain garden scenarios that the village accepts into its public right of ways. So that's what the planning commission needs to be aware of that you might go back to wastewater or to Public Works and say, do you have a way or do you have a means to maintain this, whether you're gonna hire someone to do it or there's staff currently in place that can do the maintenance that that's. And currently a lot of that staff, half of that staff is sitting on a camera here with us and it's all volunteer, right? So the. I hear you. But it's a point that we just wanna recognize it and then, you know, because it's gonna happen at some point. So we just wanna. Robin, I have a proposal and you can tell me if this is possible, but we continue to describe this fund that the planning commission has written into certain approvals that says if you haven't actually spent all of your landscaping and percent that you're supposed to spend on the project we'll take the rest of it in a donation and give it to the tree committee or something. Can we just earmark all of that into a fund that can be used to maintain these ongoing and, you know, beneficial things for our village? Yeah, it doesn't actually say it goes to the tree advisory committee. We have got some money. The one that I remember very well was put into the general fund and Dave Crawford was here and used for something else. Yeah. We haven't really been able to use a lot of the money any. But this would be an ideal use for that money. So if we wanna continue to offer that to developers I'm saying make sure it doesn't get into the general fund and make sure that it's available for the village to apply to this type of thing. Yeah, I think we have to ring fence it somewhere the other so it can't be pinched. I was also gonna say, I was also gonna say, like, yeah, if we had some data on what the maintenance costs related to the installation costs or something are maybe we could also, you know, get some sort of added fee to our, you know, a fee in there to add to some account or figure out a way to make some money in order to maintain this. And I'm gonna guess it's in the, you know, several to $10,000 a summer kind of range just to make sure you have some staff to go around and maintain these things. Right. So I'll just add that the disc, I'll just bring in one distinction here between the street trees and any of this type of plants or hardscape used for stormwater management. The village is subject to a permit to properly manage stormwater. This type of stormwater management is intended to be in the grand scheme of things, though I'm not saying there's no maintenance responsibility for it. It's intended to be a less of a cost burden than some of the other ways that you can manage stormwater with some more, you know, gray infrastructure types of improvements. And I'll say the same thing for individual property owners, they're subject to a state stormwater permit where they have to manage their stormwater and they either have a cost and they have a cost associated with maintaining that as well because both Permitees, the village who's subject to their own stormwater permit plus developers have to renew these permits every five years. So it's almost a stronger system in place to make sure these are kind of maintained appropriately going forward. Excellent. Yeah, my comment on that would be, or just to kind of end this is that it would make sense to me under the management end of this that it would fall to Chelsea because most of the work here is making sure that the plants put in there remain and the weeds that'll grow around them are pulled and somebody that goes in to do the maintenance knows what they're doing. And currently, I don't think it's gonna take a lot of work now, but if it should grow, it's an important point because it becomes, if it's more in the inner part of the village, it becomes an aesthetic thing and how it looks. So that is, Nick, and my only reason for just highlighting this in the memo to you. Thank you. And I'm sure if we're not happy with something, we're gonna complain to you guys first. What's going on with that rain guard? What can we do about that, Chelsea? That's all we were thinking. So the next section, this really was just a question from me and so thanks for confirming. So now we're gonna refer to the Vermont Tree Selection Guide from the Vermont Urban and Community Forestry Program and we are just gonna delete all of this sort of older out-of-date list of trees from here. Yeah, right, that was our request on that. And when I read your memo to me, we really didn't even need to put this in here because you've already mentioned it. And so that's what we wanna do here. So I don't know what you think about that, is the planning commission, that is if you're good with it, was it any issue with that? I don't think so, but. Yeah, I'm not sure if this is a professional interest or a planning commission interest, but it would be great to have my hands on that list. And so it's always been in the book, which is nice, but as long as it's easy for us to reference or somebody to reference, I think that would be great. Yeah, that guide is easy to find on the Urban Community Forestry website. Perfect. Robin, can you get a link in there? Will it be basically some kind of a- You could put a link in there if you wanted to, Regina. Yeah. Yeah, links are a great idea. I think a link would be great. Yeah. Excellent. All right, what else do you got? Good work. Then the last section here, so this talks about our performance bond. It requires the developer typically to put forward the same cost of the landscaping that they have to put the landscaping in. They ask for a surety, a bond, essentially, to put that same amount of money up and hold it for two years. And so that if the initial plantings fail, there's money there to replace them. But I won't put words in Warren's mouth. Your turn. Well, no. You know, the thing that just was brought to our eye was this two-year guarantee period when we thought that if you back up and go under e-landscaping number four, general requirements, we can get to that. Everyone can see. Right here. B, right. Yeah, B, all plantings shown on the approved site plan shall be maintained by the property owner in a vigorous growing condition throughout the duration of use. And if not, they will be replaced. Now, the question, one of the questions here, duration of use for the original property owner, or can we pass that on to future property owners? It's a condition of approval for the parcel. So I don't think ownership has anything to do with it. Doesn't. So it stays with the property. Yeah. Correct? I totally agree. And so we were confused when you go to the performance bond where it says two years, and then you come back to that where it's basically duration of the property. Is that a conflict or not? Or am I not reading it correctly? I appreciate what you're saying, because really you're saying once we agree that this is part of your project development, just like a structure, you've got to keep it there. It's got to be. Right, you need to maintain it. So the bond is a tricky one because people don't like letting their money get tied up. And two years, even two years, a bond of, you know, for two years is still painful, but it does send conflicting messages. So I. John. Yeah. If we actually, if Regina can go back up there, if we deleted the four time of use, it just says that we're re-maintaining in a viable state, period. How would that, I don't see that there would be a confusion. If it's the property owner maintains in a vigorous growing condition, period. You know, throughout the duration of use, I don't see that we need that. Just say that you're going to keep this thing alive as long as you can. So in theory, if a tree on your property dies, big deal, because it's not covered by a permit, but if a tree on a recently permitted parcel dies that was approved as a landscape plan, the village can go tell them the property owner, whoever it is to go replace the tree. Well, I seem to recall that somewhere in our regulations it says that if you're, if you've been permit or have a plan to have a tree, essentially you need to continue to have a tree or shrub or whatever, whatever is part of the plan that you're supposed to maintain that plan. I don't know where in particular, but it's essentially said you're supposed to keep the plan going. So if the performance bond is to keep the plan going, in other words, the vegetation alive and thriving, isn't that the point? It is, it's a tricky, I mean, somebody moved into a house around the corner from where I live and the first thing they did was cut down half the trees on it and re-landscape the whole front yard. So I don't, you know, everybody was kind of shocked, but nobody really knew what to do about it and it actually looks great.  So, you know, if you want to cut all your trees down, great, on the other hand- At least that owner continued to maintain a vegetative landscape lawn, as opposed to putting it as bare earth or painting it over. So are we going to stop somebody from re-landscaping? Believe me, there's a lot of homes here that probably need the 40 or 50 year old shrubs done. The point is that if we're serious about all of this, then that means that we now have to basically issue a memo to the village property owners that says if you're touching your landscaping, you got to come get a permit. So can I just clarify? Yeah. Only certain levels of development are subject to this, basically site plants, site plants and subdivisions. The slightly challenging thing is when a subdivision, all of a sudden is a 20 years old now, but basically single family homes are not subject to this rule. So basically this is saying any site plan that has come forward to you that you've approved and that landscaping plan that's on that, they've got to stick to that or they are subject to a zoning violation. Or they got to come in and say, here's my plant. Or they can mend it. Yeah, my question is what is our enforcer management ability in something like this and how long does that take? And if we have the money in bond, then the town has the money to take care of it if needed. And so my question is what's the enforcement that's gonna happen? That's a good question. But the landscaping bonds, even at two years, really what the intent is there is you plant your landscaping and 30% of it dies and they don't do anything about it. And then you go for the bond and say, okay, well, we'll replace it. So the theory is that after two years, the plants have kind of either died or have decided they're gonna be fine. And whether they're vigorous or not, I don't know, but that's kind of a period to figure out that they've been planted properly and that they're gonna survive. I mean, if a plant survives a year, it's generally surviving, but we gotta be careful here. I'm thinking back almost my first or second year if someone came to see Terry and myself in their culture, their front door couldn't be shaded. And the sub-design that was approved had a street tree through shade over their front door. So we worked it out and they took down that tree and they planted another one on the site that wouldn't shade their front door. But we're getting into strange things here. Somebody has an evergreen shrub and wants to put in a deciduous one. Do they need a permit? I mean, where does this stop? If somebody has a house that's got red siding and they wanna make it white, do they need a permit? We have to leave some of these things to, you know, personal choice. As you said, John, your home is their castle, you know? My thought with this development code landscaping piece here was my brain has been not focusing on residential properties in neighborhoods as much as it was commercial properties. Am I wrong in thinking that on this or not? Makes more sense. I mean, I'm thinking this isn't your residential homeowner or like where John or I live or whoever, you know, it's more commercial properties. That's what I was thinking. Yeah, I'm thinking the same thing of like, you know, downtown, you know, in the village center properties that are going up landscaping there. And that's why I bring up the enforcement thing. We have new buildings that did not meet what we approved currently. And we're still going through that process years later to try and get those buildings to what we approved or building. And so where does this go with landscaping? And if we have that bond, at least we have some money there to take care of the landscaping. Yeah. And I think our point here as far as the Tree Advisory Committee is that we like to the piece of saying like in this section where it's as long as the person owns as long as that property is, we want the landscaping to be thriving forever. You know, it's kind of, you know, do you do the two year thing on the bond or do you go back to section B here in the maintenance? Where all shown plantings on the approved site plan shall be maintained by the property owner in a vigorous growing condition, you know, throughout the duration of use. I agree with the duration of use. Yeah. And I agree with that as well. I mean, I just, I want to be able to, I hope that we can enforce it. Maybe the thing to do is to add a sentence to the bond section that reminds them that they, despite the fact that your bond is expiring and your money's no longer tied up, you still have the obligation to maintain your approved plantings in, you know, a vigorous growing condition throughout the duration of your use. And then you tie the two together, you remind them that, you know, the thing is you can't have, you can't hold the landscaping bond forever. You've got to put a window on that. Right. Yeah, and you're only- But you can tell them that, you know, hey, we approved that planting plan and it's just as important to us as the, you know, the building that you put up and, you know, you need to maintain it as approved. Yeah. I mean, I'll let you folks figure that out. It was just something that we felt strongly about and we were a little bit confused on the two year thing versus duration of the property and however, whatever language works best, so it's going to be the best for the village of the Essex Junction, that's what we're looking for. And while we have this highlighted, Regina, the last sentence on that, the commission may modify the planting requirements. Does that belong in the performance bond paragraph or can we move that to something else? Yeah, you don't need it there and I'm sure it exists throughout the rest of it already, but- If that was saying I could modify the bond requirements, that might make sense to keep there, but I think that belongs somewhere else. Yeah. All right. Okay. I think that was it, Warren. Anything, did I miss anything? Well, I think that's it. I want to thank the planning commission for your hard work on this. It's not just the landscape piece, it's the whole thing, there's a lot to it. And the tree advisory committee appreciates the opportunity to be able to get engaged with us. So in closing, I want to thank you for that.  You're doing a great job. Thank you. Thanks, Warren, we know you and your compatriots there also working hard on your piece of it and it's really helpful. So thank you so much. Oh, you're welcome. And we're, like you say, we're all volunteers. We're doing the best we can and it's much appreciated by all. So thank you. Yeah. Good to see you. Have a good night. Bye. All right. Regina, keep driving. Where are we headed? Okay. So we can just start from the beginning. So you folks got chapter two. That's the section on definitions. Diane has been able to sort of get through that chapter and give me some typos. I'm not feeling like I need to discuss anything in there, but unless anybody has anything in chapter two that they want me to go through. You know, you never think you need to know that much about the definitions until you need to know something about the definition. So I'm going to believe that we're okay for now if we had anything that really jumped out of us or there were new definitions, like there's new words coming up all the time, you know, like who knew what a riparian buffer was until, you know, they started getting into stormwater. There could be new words to define that have not been part of our planning vocabulary. So I'd be interested to know if we're missing some that aren't on the list yet. And I'm not sure what those would be except, you know, like solar tracking or something that, you know, just that might be. Well, lit is missing from the list. And GIS is missing from the list. And there was a whole lot of flood. We're doing some work on a floodplain or trying to decide if we're in a floodplain or not. And there's all kinds of acronyms and short hand and things that I... We've kind of defined it in the areas being used, but to be honest, it probably should be in the definition somewhere. You mean low impact development and green stormwater infrastructure and those two specifically, you mean? Yeah, those two specifically. I don't see them here as I'm paging through chapter two. And I actually wrote a note to myself months ago in the handouts. I said, hey, and I'm not seeing them here. They're on page 25. Page 25. Want to give me a number? Because your pages and my pages don't jive. So it's under section H, the stormwater regulations, and it's definition, new definition number five and new definition number 10. But I think you're making a good point that now that we do we need to elevate those because we're also talking about it in the landscaping section. Well, I know that you can get the definition because it is pseudo defined in when it's in the stormwater when we start really start using it. You can get the gist of what it is. I'm just wondering if it just needed to be in the definition section. Yeah, they're there. Okay, well, I don't have a hard copy of it. I'd have to go into what you said. Yeah, they're added to the new text. And the only thing now that I've got this open just so folks know, there is kind of an archaic reference to gender at the very end of this chapter. And in an ideal world, all gender would be removed from the LDCs. And that's an enormous undertaking and not likely something I'm gonna be able to do just so you know. Okay, so next is chapter three. There is, I think just a very minor change in here.  So this simply just adds at Robin's suggestion. And I think emailed with you folks about this long ago just sort of a little bit of framework of when you meet. So that seems fine. And then the only other thing in this chapter is just the addition of a water quality super intended and what that role is. I have just an odd observation here. I don't really know how to deal with it, but it's possible that the village of Essex Junction will no longer exist by the time this gets approved and will be the city. How the, what do we do about that? Do we do anything about that? I would like to think that they're- Can we just call it Essex Junction? Can we just say Essex Junction throughout the document? Well, my point is that village is all over the, it's in almost every page it's on somewhere. So whatever happens, I would just put that up as a flag that maybe you've put a little sticky on your cover page and remind yourself to, before we actually publish this though, we come to some determination about what that, what the resolution is. Yeah, cause I have to imagine that there will be, you know, like even from this page, for example, these titles are technically still these titles probably on the books. And at one point, do those change versus when did this first changes? I'm not sure. I mean, you may, we may just punt, you know, and say, well, we recognize that this has all happened and that this is a, in the professor or in some notes on how to read this, you know, that says all references to the village of Essex Junction shall be, you know, understood to mean whatever we turn ourselves into. So I'm just, it seems like a massive task and it's not just this document, it's all kinds of things, but you can put it in the definitions. I'm pretty sure I remember in the plan that the Board of Trustees was developing to become the city, there's a, I think there's a part of it that says all village documents become city documents at the time that we become the city, that there's no, like, they're all official to continue. Yeah, that would make sense. And so I think that there's no need to change them at that point, but I assume in five years, when we do the next LDC that it would be updated to the city. I believe that was in the charter change. Okay, good. I'm gonna believe that too. That sounds fantastic. Sounds logical. That would still make the most sense, yeah. Otherwise you do a lot of control, find and replace. Yeah, no, we're not gonna do that, but it's worth reminding ourselves to just confirm that before this thing becomes official. All right, so three, we hit the thing that you had in chapter three. Yes, and so that was very minor. Chapter four, also very minor. This was just from the state statute, things that have changed. And so I just added into those exemptions. It's just the list of exemptions that you have, the full list of statutory exemptions. And so that's, I think pretty technical, don't need to open that unless anybody wants me to. I'm okay with that. Four out of the five. Okay, then five and seven are the big ones. So I'm just gonna find my first discussion point before everybody needs to see me scrolling about in chapter five. So I'm gonna start us on accessory dwelling units. So there's both section on accessory dwelling units in chapter five and on chapter seven. Chapter five is really intended to just be about process. What is the particular type of permit that you need for the thing that you wanna do, basically? So I have just cut a lot out of here. And a lot of it ends up just being over in 721. Also, just as a reminder, statute has changed slightly that you really can't treat these any differently than a single family home. So the planning commission really wouldn't be approving it in any way. It's really a zoning administrator approval. So that's basically what this says. Any issues, concerns? Just trying to figure out why the version I have has all of these changes in blue and here's is all in red. Like what's up with that? I feel like that's a small detail, John. Well, you know. It's disorienting. Trying to follow along. What edition you have, John? The current edition is in red. I'm gonna keep scrolling to the next discussion part. The PUD stuff, yeah. PUD stuff. So, again, some similar sorts of edits here try to just really simplify chapter five because it's just supposed to be about process and also try to sort of just really clarify what the purpose of a PUD is. And now this and five and 723 should sort of match up a little bit better. So that's that. Any issues, concerns there? Under M I was just a little, I was trying to figure out. So that's the key section that says why something gets to be a PUD. Sort of. It's a little bit more in 723, I would say, but. Well, so under M the last sentence on that page, 46. In this way, the village may grant a developer desired flexibility. Well, wait, no, it's one right before that. If a higher level of design and amenity is achieved, the village may improve waivers only to standards preventing such design.  And it's not because what you wanted to do is, well, maybe it is, you know, it's concerned about what we're trying to say there, you know, and how it does that limit our ability to be flexible if we're only approving waivers to standards preventing such a design. But I mean, you're saying, get rid of all the lot lines and the setbacks and we'll be flexible. I don't think there's...  You should go down the PUD path because the village is getting something really great out of it and the current standards just don't allow that. I like that, but that's not usually why they do it. I know. They usually do it because they don't like following the regular rules. So I just, yeah, we may approve waivers only to standards preventing such design. Like we don't intend to prevent anybody's design. They either, you know, follow the rules in which case we're judging the application against those rules or we're expecting a higher standard of design to be presented so that they can achieve some flexibility from the standard rules. And we've had that come up on a couple of applications. It's like, well, why do you need to do this instead of... But why do we need to approve this as a PUD if we don't like what you're trying to trade for that? We'll just have you develop it as a standard under the normal standards. And you have to prove to us why we should grant you a variance essentially from the normal standards. Yeah, and I think, I think, oh, I've got that flagged. And I think we should sort of circle back to that after you look at 723. And if 723 is doing what you want it to do or however we, you know, switch up 723 so that it's doing what you want it to do, then we can make sure these sentences and the other ones in 723 are making sense. We read them in order, right? So we read five before seven. Yeah, and I, yeah. In hindsight, we probably should have kept seven open. Anyway, and then I think there's even still another PUD section in here. This is just a state statute to connect better with e-trans. This is just a little bit of better explaining if there's gonna be infrastructure that the village is, there's an intention that the village takes it over. Those legal documents need to be submitted much earlier in the process, not after the approval process is done. I like that, because normally we have to put that in our conditions of approval is that they actually submit the documents. Yeah, ideally you're, those are reviewed before final. This is just the clarification on what the survey plots need to be submitted in digital format. So got some clarification from Shannon at the town that this is the list of options, but ideally they get number one. And if not number one, number two, and for the folks who are still really working like on paper in terms of subdividing, they need at the very least to give you the data that's here in number three. If they're still working on paper. If they're still working on paper. I didn't in my lifetime ever imagine I would hear that, but. I was in the town office yesterday, there was a guy looking up an old plat map and she says, oh, we'll give you that. And he says, no, this is from like 1920s. So he was working with paper. It's gonna have been winning at that point. Sorry to tell you, it's still exists. Okay, just another legal documents that you want for when things are done after as bills. So we talked a little bit about who's the appropriate person for submitting wastewater applications depending on the size. I'm just simply sending folks over to the EPA rules because there's about five different types of designers.  If you're doing anything else, you should be more than that. It's much more complicated. So I think you wanna just send people over to this. And as it exists today, people still need to get a state water, wastewater permit, even if you're connecting to municipal system. So it's, I think, fine to just reference this. I'm gonna just keep scrolling unless anybody tells me to stop scrolling. All right. There's just some minor changes in there, mostly in terms of on the sort of public work side, they would like 10 days to review things instead of seven. Okay. So here we are, another PUD section. And basically what I'm doing is just taking out the standards. One, because these aren't really standards, it's just a list of stuff. But also this isn't the place where standards should be. Those should be in section seven. So we'll get into more of that later. So for PUD's process before or today, this says that preliminary development plans, so the step in between conceptual and final is completely optional up to the applicant. I'm suggesting that when you review a PUD at conceptual, you can choose as the planning commission, whether it's minor and small enough and they can go straight to final, or if you wanna see it for a preliminary stage. Is there any other trigger like dollar value or number of acres involved or any of that kind of stuff? I didn't put anything in, but if there's something that is logical from the work that you've done or how you've defined anything between minor and major and other ways, we can add that in. I'm trying to keep it from being our decision. Like there are times when it's just so obvious that we shouldn't have to decide this in the matter of a couple hours after one viewing. That gives really the applicant a tremendous amount of leverage to use kind of time and other things to make us feel like we owe them approval or denial. And that's a lot of, I've always felt that it's a little unfair that other review processes get as much time as they need and yet once you're on camera under the lights of a public meeting, you're supposed to decide right there. And that's, I get the public part of it, but I don't think that leads to the best decision-making or the review procedures. So I guess I would really like personally that I would vote for something that either puts a dollar value or a size or a number of units or some combination of those things in there so that the applicant isn't wondering or thinking that they can just roll right through to final, that there's a built-in process that, hey, this is gonna take more than one meeting and that's the show. Is there any kind of threshold that exists today in another part of the LDCs that you think would be appropriate to use? I don't know. I'll check with Robin. Because I was, I think I was, I would be inclined to make it a larger threshold, but all I know is in my time with you, you've dealt with a six-lot PUD, a six-unit PUD, which seems really sort of small to me, but that one, like for that one as an example, would you have liked to see that go through preliminary? Well, the LDC gives the applicant the choice. I tell them they're taking a risk if they didn't want to go through preliminary, but the LDC gives them the option of jumping straight to final. Yeah, we're suggesting to change that. No, Mark, we're also asking for like other, other boards to kind of weigh in on some of these, like the Tree Advisory Committee or something like that. How does that fit into the real process? Yeah, so that when those come in, the town engineer, the village engineer has a review process that may go back and forth two or three times before we ever see it. The Tree Advisory Committee, the fire chief, the police chief, they all get a shot at this thing and to have comment and they have some number of, what is it, 30 days now or something? They have some period of time to comment. And then it can come right to us and we can be asked to approve or deny something on the spot. And I think, I might suggest, I think there was some other, something that's a million dollars and is that, well, the threshold for when you need a registered architect, registered landscape architect, you know, like. I think the numbers can be played with John in terms of money. I think it might be better to say, I don't know, if you have more than six homes, it's a major six unless it's minor or something like that. That's a firm number. It's not something you could play with, you know. Yeah, I know other communities do have a limit of some number of units before it's considered a major development and then it goes into a different process that just gets a little bit more, you know, time and scrutiny. So if we want to say six, you know, more than six, you know, if there's some logic to more than six or, you know, if it's more than eight or 10 or whatever, it's just six. Pick a number. Pick a number. Well, are we talking about six individual units or are we talking six units in an apartment building? Does it matter? Well, we're talking about a PUD so it would theoretically be individual structures. Not, I mean, you could have a one building, 30 unit project that wouldn't necessarily need a PUD for any reason. Okay, so would six would three duplexes count for that or would you need six duplexes? It would count if we're talking about dwelling units. Well, we're talking about number of dwelling units. We're talking actual physical buildings. No dwelling units. Dwelling units. Yeah, it's easier if you talk about dwelling units. I do think there are some zoning districts currently that kick multifamily units into PUD process and most of them are at five units or more. But I'm recommending you take those out all together. I don't know if you'll agree with me, but that's what I'm recommending. Because there's no, I, there is no reason why multi unit single structure project needs to go through PUD. Right. I agree, but I want some trigger. So, you know, I'm fine if it's six dwelling units in more than one structure. I'm fine if it's a million pick a number, a million dollar. Well, the thing is, is that we're not seeing, we're not seeing what some of our neighboring towns are seeing because we don't have the spaces that have a hundred unit, hundred unit development. We're just not, we're not going to see it unless, and I don't want to go there. But, you know, we've had some applications that we said, in fact, the individual came in, gave us a, a proposal at, at a meeting. And the next thing we saw him again was a final. And he assumed that when we saw the proposal, would you think about this? He thought he was presenting. So, in that case, I would have liked to have seen something between, hey, what do you think of this idea? And then it comes back with a final. I think we all kind of felt that way. We have a need to take it out of the land development code that says that the applicant to decide whether he wants to go to final or he wants to go through two step process. Right. And that's what we're trying to do right here. So I'm going to say my opinion is yes, there should be a threshold where the applicant no longer gets to decide we're telling them that it's going to be at least two meetings, a preliminary and a final. And if they want to come in for a sketch plan, great, but no matter what, it's still going to be two meetings, preliminary and final. Okay. I like that I would geared more towards dwelling units because the money can change drastically within a year. Yeah. I've seen the last couple of years. All right. Good. So. My question is, is that what we're talking about? I know that we spoke last time. We're talking about, um, either some kind of monetary. It's dealing with the landscape plan that we wanted to see it. Appear, not just a before final. Or definitely with final as opposed to requesting it. For them to get approval at file because we haven't seen it. It's there's some way of putting that in that. I think that's a good one, Diane. I think that if your project is required. Submit a landscaping plan. Uh, and hits the threshold for the, you know, having it done professionally. Uh, that that be submitted. Prior to final. Like that's a checklist item. You don't have it. You're not getting, you're not coming before. Yeah. Um, I don't recall when I read it today, where, if that was in there or not. There is it says that the submittal for the final plan. Has to have all the requirements of the preliminary plan. And a requirement for the preliminary plan has a detailed landscape plan by a landscape design. Which I know I think we had talked about changing. Dependent, you know, I don't remember if we decided it was going to be depending on the amount like we have, or just it needs to be a licensed landscape architect. It is triggered by a dollar amount at this point, I think. Yeah. So it needs to reference. The other part. Was that, um, as to having the applicant. Put in an estimate of what the cost of the project is. Versus are trying to make a guess and see if they have to. You know, how. In other words, it takes the guessing out. There's supposed to supply. A lot of things. So that we can calculate what the landscape. Dollars are supposed to be spent. There are communities that require the. Um, landscape plan to include, um. To that, uh, uh, uh, To include a budget prepared by. Uh, A nursery or, you know, the landscape architect that. Uh, is, you know, basically shows the value that commercial value of these plant things so that they can say, while we were required to have a $25,000, $50,000 landscaping plan. And, uh, here's our plan. And, you know, here's the budget that came with it. So you can, you can do it. If you want is my point. I, if, uh, if we're concerned about that, um, that's fine. Uh, you know, at some point we are trying to get down to money and, and value. And if they haven't met that, then they get to contribute to our maintenance. Uh, Our maintenance budget. Well, it's just that they're asking. Um, I guess I'm looking for, I guess I'm looking for the land. I guess I'm looking for the land. I guess I'm looking for the land. I guess I'm looking for the land. Yes. Regina, that's why I guess I'm looking for is the land. Cost estimate because we're, we're doing a lot of supposals. I'm going, this takes this out of the proposal and puts it into the. Hard copy. Um, Yeah. I mean, I think it makes sense as a requirement since your regulations require a certain. Percentage of the cost of construction. And the cost of landscaping. The cost of landscaping is on the application. I'm looking at the one that we looked at for the main street. Okay. Uh, development. I'd leave it right on the, in the LDC though. Yeah. And, and, you know, is there a checklist that go, is that, you're looking at the checklist, Phil? No, I'm looking at the actual developer's application. So a lot of times, um, you know, just to help them all keep track of all the things they're supposed to submit. There's a checklist. And, you know, that could be on the checklist.  If, if, if you have that, then you need the cost estimate to go with it, check the box. Yeah. The checklist will have to be updated, um, based on all of these changes. Um, okay. So. Other thing added in here is just clearly defining that they have to, um, actually request the waivers that they need. So that's added in here too. Um, it could actually put that in preliminary also, it should be in preliminary also actually. It would be pretty helpful for the applicant if it was in preliminary, so that they would have some gauge as to whether the planning commission was, um, had a, any, any roadblocks there, you know, like, if you think you're going to get a waiver for this and we don't think it's likely then, you know, that's a, that's a trigger for them to really think about how, you know, what they're asking for. And there are other ways to do it without spending a ton of money going through all the engineering to get the final. Yeah. And then I think they need, it should be in final as well in case there's any changes to the specific waivers based on, you know, And that will maybe also help the staff report identify all the things that need to be, uh, addressed by the planning commission when the project comes in front of them. Yep. Okay. I'm going to scroll. Oh boy. Uh, this just a question, just a technical question for Chelsea. Um, Uh, Again, just in terms of process and what makes the most sense in here. Um, these are again standards that shouldn't be in here. Um, This we sort of scratched our heads for a little while, but this is. Um, Really pretty simple fix the state threshold for stormwater for stormwater. And, um, So, so the new development is changing from one acre impervious to a half acre impervious. So now this section talks about what you have to do if you're disturbing less than a half acre. And basically you've got to meet the erosion and sediment control handbook basically is what it says. you'd need a state permit. So that's how that's edited. That's a big difference. Yeah. Those state standards or state chances are gonna go into play, I think in July, 2022. So by the time you get this done, it'll be changed at the state level. This is, we talked about this already, just that you wanna sort of mimic what the state wetlands permit does. So I just made some edits in here to try to clarify that. Then just some more references again to the right storm water management manual. That what you can do in lawns was confusing. So I just clarified that because it was a little bit redundant. This weird thing is a new state statute that if somebody does this, a planting project that meets this state definition, they are exempt from local review basically. So the easiest way to deal with this is to just drop the text in here. And it's specifically talking about sort of tree planting within these areas. So that's why I put it here. And that's the end of chapter five. All right. Let me stop sharing. So. Chapter seven. Chapter seven. I think I still have that open, but let me find it. Okay. So I'm gonna just start back from where we were. So I'm on page 163 just under the landscaping section to accessory apartments. So a couple of things to discuss in here, but essentially as we talked about last time, there is state statute change for accessory dwelling units.  One is that you have to have this or 900 square feet size in there, whichever is greater. So an accessory dwelling unit can be either 30% of the existing single family dwelling or 900 square feet, whichever is greater. Also the other change in statute is just a clarification that if you're gonna require owner occupancy, it can either be in the primary structure or the accessory dwelling unit. So that's been clarified here. Great. I like that. Thank you. Yeah. Any thing about accessory dwelling units in state statute is essentially just setting up the minimum of what you have to do. You can be more permissive if you want to be. So one thing I added in here is the specific language from statute, which is that it's small apartments within or a pertinent to existing single family dwellings. We don't have to use that language, but it is the statutory language. And the concept is that it doesn't necessarily have to be attached or added onto. It can be detached. So that's added in there. Let's see. With how that's written, would that detached ADU need to fit within the existing requirement, like the existing setbacks, all the cover it, all the lot requirements within the particular zone? Is that how it would be? I'm trying to remember. Let me scroll down here because I made some edits to this to try to, okay. So an accessory apartment may be approved within an existing unattached structure or a new unattached structure, which is located on the same lot if the following conditions are met. So I am suggesting that you delete A because my suggestion is that it doesn't have to be an existing accessory structure that was built prior. They could build an accessory structure right now. All other provisions are met. Still kept in this additional driveways or parking areas shall not be constructed. If an existing unattached structure is utilized as an accessory apartment, the single family dwelling shall not be eligible for an additional accessory apartment. So can't have two. New unattached accessory structures shall be a maximum of one and a half stories. So that I just put in there to try to put a little bit of parameter on what you might see in the back of a lot. Cause I think one of the biggest concerns is if you end up putting a structure on the back of the lot, that can be just as tall as the other structures. And it just, if you sort of feel like as a neighbor, you've got a new apartment looking down into your backyard. There is a lot more you can do from sort of a design perspective, if you want to, I would suggest trying to keep it as simple as possible. But so that's all that sort of was put in there Phil. So it would still mean that the setbacks are the same. And lot coverage, like all of that would still have to be met appropriately. Yeah. Then I kept in the owner occupancy requirement. We talked about this last time. I think most folks were in favor of keeping owner occupancy, but this was a meeting that Phil was having difficulty accessing and hearing everybody. So I just wanted to make sure that everybody saw his comments and everybody sent via email after the fact. And your point in here Phil is very true that the owner occupancy can be really difficult for anybody in a state of transition or wants to leave and go do something interesting out of state for like a year. Like it creates a lot of challenges for folks. But it can also be a little bit tricky politically to pull the owner occupancy requirement. Well, let's say the owner goes abroad for a month. Is that void? I mean, is there a time limit on that or two months or gets a sabbatical for a year and then comes back? I mean, does it, these things happen? So what's the, what's the duration of? Yeah, I don't, I'm not sure that is defined right now. There also seems to be no way to enforce this. I don't know of any body that's going through. I mean, there's, I know they're trying to get rental registrations, but we're not even getting rental registration. So I don't see how any, there's no body that's going through making sure that the owners are living in these properties. So. I heard from St. Albans city recently that they do an annual review of the homestead declarations. Yeah, that's what I was just gonna say. Doesn't your homestead declaration define what your primary residence is? I mean, I don't know how often we would go through those like you said in the city of St. Albans does. I just on the rental registry note, I do believe the state is trying to put together a statewide rental registry list again this year, going through the state legislature. So that might be something. And it doesn't necessarily mean that we would have to go through the process, but if there became a property that somehow was, you know, we were alerted to the fact that there was something amiss or suspected, then we could go do the research and figure it out and maybe have to enforce something like. And the other thing just to remind folks, you don't have this chapter yet, chapter six, but at the last meeting, we talked about the potential of duplexes in R1 and R2. Those are your two zoning districts that you have right now, which don't allow duplexes. So I'll just, I'm just bringing it up right now because if you want to allow duplexes in one or both of those zoning districts, whichever one, if it ends up in one of them, in that zoning district, you might as well leave in the owner occupied part of the ADU. And sort of only saying that because from an administrative perspective, there's really nothing that distinguishes the two once you allow duplexes in a residential area. Well, other than the size of the unit, right? Right, yeah, it could be a bigger. A duplex would be a larger unit than an ADU. Yeah, it could be. Still would be subject to the dimension, the lot dimension and the setbacks and all of that. And I'm just thinking off the top of my head, isn't a duplex also those, technically they are attached, right? You couldn't have a detached duplex. Yeah, that's true too. And it really, oh, yeah, I'm sorry, go ahead Phil. Sorry, oh no, go ahead. Yeah, it was just gonna add that essentially it can end up being a little bit of a head scratcher, but really it just comes down to the applicant. Like if they had the choice between duplexes were allowed there and ADUs were allowed there, it's really their choice to just choose which they're applying for and come forward and apply with it. And they've got to just meet the requirements of whichever one they're gonna apply for. Right, whatever makes sense for their property that they're trying to do. Yeah. And so I was gonna say I would, to address my comments there, I would be in favor if there's wording that you could use that maybe within two years of leaving the property or I don't know what that would be, but I would be in favor of some sort of race period or something like that that would allow someone to transition from the single family home. All right, anything else on accessory? I'm really happy with the general direction that we've gone on this, I think it's gonna be helpful. And generally consistent with the intent coming from the state on trying to increase the probability that we'll see some dwelling units added. Awesome. Okay, great. Yeah, I'll look into that, Phil. It doesn't ring a bell that anybody's doing that now but that sounds perfectly reasonable and it might be like a Washington, Oregon or California thing that they're doing which at least is helpful, but that makes sense. Okay, I'm just gonna keep going down even though there might be more stuff. Okay, so here we are at our best friend planning and development. So again, this is really mimics the same language I think and this is the issue that will flag. Okay, yeah, so just one sort of big picture thing in here in the PUD sections, there's this distinction made sometimes that I'm not sure that it needs to be there about whether you're in the R1 or the R2 zoning district or those multifamily things that again, I think I'm mostly recommending that you don't do that but so this sentence doesn't need to be there and I just wanna clarify. So this whole first section of the planning unit development it's really not talking at all about what you need in terms of waivers or the design that you're bringing forward. This part of the PUD section is really an incentivizing kind of program. So if the applicant does all these great things then they can potentially get a density bonus and I just wanna clarify, is the density bonus only available in the R1 and the R2 zoning districts? Cause I wasn't clear. I wasn't sure. I don't know why it wouldn't be possible in other districts. The way I read it, I agree. It looks like it's only R1 and R2 but yeah, I would say why not in all of them. Well, is it written that way previously because of the sentence that you're recommending of deletion just above that previously we were only looking at PUDs in R1, R2 so then it gets further defined density bonuses in R1, R2 as it pertains to PUDs? Yeah, it might be and I don't know if it just was sort of like an editing problem over time because PUDs are allowed in a lot more districts than just R1 and R2 so. Yeah. So you're gonna strike both of those sentences? Yeah. I don't know, I guess. Well, this is kind of giving some context to how much and there's nothing wrong with this sentence. It's just clearly spelling out a maximum density bonus in R1 and R2 and maybe that's fine. Maybe that's the only two districts where a maximum density bonus should be clarified. But I'll think on that. If any change needed PC is okay with bonus density in all districts. So that's all that section. So this is one of the incentive things. If the construction of bicycle paths which connect neighborhoods and I'm just adding that reference to the actual bike facility map in the town plan as a reference there. Okay, so this is the section that's edited probably most heavily. I tried to sort of again really marry these two concepts because they're supposed to be married. That if you're doing better design you've got to be clear about what waivers you need for that better design. And then also clarifying, although this came this is not new language. This is what was in your chapter five earlier. The things that you can wave are lock coverage, setbacks and parking. That's it. And then height may be waved but really this was only in there for the industrial zoning district. Then just try to clarify that waivers shall be based upon the following criteria with specific conditions. So superior building design lot layout and landscaping. Regina, can I interrupt you and go back to the bonus thing? I'm sorry, I'm just looking at it a little clearer and I'm looking at all the things that will get you a bonus. And now I'm reading that as in the R1 and R2 you can't exceed 100% or 25% bonuses. Whereas, if you were to do everything on that list you could have, I didn't add all together but like 300% density bonus or something. And so now I'm reading that as like R1 and R2 were maxed at that percent so that it doesn't become a super dense PUD. Yeah, so I think that does make sense. And yeah, so I think that's where I landed where I did. If we just take out this sentence, then it reads like it is still applicable in all the districts where PUDs are allowed there just happens to be a cap for R1 and R2. I think that's logical. Like we still don't want R1 and R2 to become so dense that you lose the rhythm and the pattern of those districts. Yeah, okay, all right. I had a question on, it's just the next page down C. C. Is it C? Common open space or? Yeah, so explain, I'm not sure. I get the math on this add a minimum up to 15%. So do we want a minimum of 15% or are we allowing 5%? So it should be like that. I think so. I think that makes the minimum part more aggressive. Right, and I don't know you need to call me even. I had a minimum 15, I think you still need to call me. I had a minimum 15% of the gross PUD area shall be developed with passive and active amenities. So if I show up with 5% I didn't get there. Yeah, I need 15, yeah. Yeah, that makes sense. Solar. Yeah, so a lot of this looks like new text it isn't. I just tried to put it all together in the right place. So except that I did add this, I think. Amenity shall include at least one or more of the following because this was one of the lists, John, that you felt like was just way too like not really required kind of in the way that it's originally worded. So I think this is this and the intro of this which is the proposal shall include all of the following except for E and F, if not applicable. So they've got to do something. You're giving us landscaping with a landscape architecture. Giving us private open space. You're giving us common open space. Very building massing. Yeah. And then these two are the ones that are not relevant, aren't needed unless it exists. And the land use intensity transition, I don't know that I'd seen that one before, or is that? It's not new. It's been in there, but I think it was in there. I think, wait, I might be wrong about that. Now, I think it was in there. I just, I'm not sure if it's originally in this part or the multifamily part. Yeah. But I think the concept is that almost like, if you think about from the village towards R1 and R2, like if the intensity of the development, either through height or it needs to increase level of density is coming more towards the single family, there should be some acknowledgement of a transition between the two. Just in the last sentence of that one, or similar mechanism required by the planning commission puts the burden on the planning commission to come up with the other mechanism. Can we say allowed or acceptable to the planning commission? Thank you. Not sure if this sentence, if this comment here is making sense to folks, but essentially this is, you've got this in there now. My recommendation is to take that out. The, you don't really have the authority first and foremost, but also it's up above in the incentive category. And when you are sort of asking for something as an incentive, it's more okay that you don't have the authority to do that. If you're requiring something, that's a little bit more in a gray area of whether you should include it as a requirement. Isn't this whole section saying though, that if you do this, then we may provide waivers on things? Isn't it all incentives to get waivers? Saying you have to do all of these things except E and F, right? That is true, Phil, that this whole, I mean, even elevated to the extent of nobody's forced to get a PUD, right? Like even from that perspective, it's an optional process. So you're probably right that it's a little bit less of a concern, but it's still a pretty much of a gray area, I would say. But the other thing that more concerns me about requiring solar, particularly in a village area, I'm completely on board with solar on rooftops, but you just really wanna be careful that at some point in time, one person's rooftop solar is not then shaded out by somebody else because the main point is you wanna increase and infill your village. And you don't want shading to be a thing that's gonna stop a new housing development from happening. Reed, I think the best place for solar is the light industrial zone. Places like that, when you've got high density, unless we go to, as I've been pushing for a long time, greenhouses that are actually made of solar panels. So the structure is a structure. It's not like it for one of the better for some stuck onto which is why most solar panels look at the minute, although they're getting more sophisticated. I think at this point in time, if you've got a high density area, I don't see how you can integrate solar into it and have it look at home in a designated village center or any of those things. I've been talking to Global Foundries about filling every building on their site, the roof of every building with solar panels. The time could do that as well. Even post office square, Essex Junction Shopping Center, not much you can do to that, but take away from the aesthetic. And it's got a clear view of South and West. Both those two sites, I would highly encourage you there. Schools, I actually almost have someone who's gonna put three solar panels on Essex High School, but there wasn't any response that was positive. So they went and did it somewhere else. The roof won't take any solar because it's not configured to take that much more weight. So that's why there's no response from the high school. It takes very easy to fix. I've asked, okay, it was one of the things I asked years ago and it's not configured to take that much more weight. Yeah, well, very easily fixed. There's a will, there's a way. It's not always that easily fixed. And they've already been adding more insulation up there to provide better thermal, which brings with it a requirement to make sure you didn't overstress the, by adding snow load, because they're not melting it off anymore, but. Well, I don't want to get any details here. Yeah. It can be easy, sometimes it's not, and you have to do a little analysis to figure it out. When I did the old, the old blodger building in Shelburne, we just put columns along the outside, connected it above the existing roof. That's not easy. That's way, way more than most people are willing to do their structure. Well, most people in the village are now doing the rooftop solar because there's an incentive to do that. So you have a lot of rooftop solar is going on. And from what I can see so far, it's not, it does not aesthetically look detrimental when you're driving down the street. You have to actually sometimes look to see that they. Oh yeah, that's a solar panel. Well, you're right, Dan. So, it's possible. Do we need to, it's recommended that we delete that and that's a standing question. I see what you're saying and I'd be for getting rid of it. I'm okay if it goes away. Okay. All right, so can we finish the PUD section and then there was a section on bicycles back 60 pages or 50 pages that I thought you might explain to us. Okay. Okay, so then here's just this. There's a couple of different things you do in the PUD, superior building and design. The other is provision of bike, public open spaces and bike and pedestrian infrastructure. So hopefully that made sense. Wait, wait, so that's a must. That's another must thing to be considered a PUD must. Must demonstrate site features and design that promotes features shall include at least one or more, just suggestions. Joint or combined vehicular access with adjoining properties. So this again, these kind of key categories were already in the LDC. So I am guessing that the point of this was to try to get to some better access management and minimize the number of curb cuts. What's the second? We have some pretty good success with doing that in Burlington where let's say we had one project with the same owner which was the key. They owned a property on College Street and their rear lot joined a property they owned on Main Street and they connected it. And it was known only to the residents of both buildings which had become larger apartment buildings. So there were a fair amount of people there but it really worked out well for them as the residents of those buildings. Yeah. This random sentence, I'm not sure what the purpose of that is. Waiver of building height in a light industrial district only. Sorry, this one. Front yard setback reduction on any internal streets which do not provide a direct connection to adjoining public streets. That's what was tied to this main section. Front yard setback reduction on any internal streets. Robin, that sounds like one of your sentences. I'd say we strike it. No. It does not sound like my sentence. I'd have at least six comments in there. That the transportation, what is it? The TIA transportation incentive district. POD. I mean, if nobody knows what it's supposed to do, I'm happy to just take it out. I think what we're saying is if they play ball, we'll, I don't know why we're saying it. I think we're saying if they play ball, then we'll give them some in return. But I don't know why. I don't like it, get rid of it. Yeah, okay. If I can't think of, if I can't figure out what it applies to, then I guess we don't need it. Yeah. Okay, so again, the existing, sorry. This is an existing LDC. So the only way that you're allowing a waiver of height is here in the light industrial district, which I think is fine. We should just give it a little bit more reason why, maybe. That sounds like we're trying to incentivize the light industrial district to follow POD or to be, to participate in the POD stuff. They're still in the POD section. Well, if I recall correctly, okay, there had been a six story allowance in a lot of the districts, except that the up for happened and the trustees went down to four. And the light industrial area was the only one that was still allowed to go to six. But if you're going to do a light industrial building, let's say down at like former IBM Global Foundries, some of them are indeed at six or close to it, only because that's the requirements of the business they're in needs that expansion. So the interesting part is that the light industrial area is actually across the street from ADL. And I don't know if we want that to be an automatic waiver up to six. I look as being Global Foundries and IBM are down the hill next to the river. You really don't see the fact that they're six feet because of the- I don't know that I think with those other provisions that are in there, which I think that intensity paragraph that we read might be able to soften or restrict whatever we're allowed, like we're not going to go from single family homes and a one story police station to a six story building, that breaks our intensity rule. So I'm not sure, but if that's the only district we're allowing height waivers in, then I don't know how you need to make it its own section. You could have just said that back when you were talking about height waivers. You could just say it's light industrial district only. And then you wouldn't need this whole- Right. All alone, you know, item four that you mysteriously allude to up in the section above. Okay, that makes sense. So I'll look at those. Then again, this is sort of from what this all looked like before there's a reduced side yard setback when specific building footprints are approved and the use of zero lot lines clustering and other innovative techniques. So my suggestion is that these go away because the whole point is that you can have a lot setback waivers for any of these things. Yeah. And just back to the waiver of the height. Why aren't we allowing a height waiver in any of the other districts? That's commonly one of the places that you're offering. You know, like if you're in a multi-family residential district and you get to put on a whole another story that completely changes your density. You know, if that's what we're after, we shouldn't be restricting that. We should be allowing it where it doesn't break the other rules. John, then we need to speak with the trustees because they're the ones that restricted it. Well, but the PUD section applies to more than the downtown, you know, the village center. It applies to any district, doesn't it? And in that case, whatever the underlying height requirement is in that district, you're allowed to break it or go higher if you meet certain requirements. So we've already been capped at four in the village center by the trustees. So we can't- We're capped at four everywhere in the village except for the light industrial. That is the only one they said that they would allow six stories. Yeah, but if I'm capped at two in the residential district, why can't I go to three if I did some amazing design? You know, I'm saying, you know, height waiver should be on the table for any district that you can make it a wonderful design. You know, there's nothing magic about two stories or two and a half stories. I mean, I can do a three-story building that was better looking than a two-story neighbor and depending on the exact topography of, you know, the land you might not even notice. So I think we're just, Regina, if you can just look at that and tell us how it fits into the big picture and give us, you know, Diane brings up some good points. I mean, if we're only talking about, you know, above four stories in one district, then, you know, I'm less excited about worrying about it. But if we can get it to apply to, you know, multiple districts because it should be on the table when you're trying to increase density without causing other problems, then we should allow it. Okay, sounds good. So these two, I'm suggesting we delete because that's the whole point of all of this. If that's good. Another deletion. Yeah, just sort of the way it's where it's clarified above. I don't think you need this. And it's just a, for example, anyway. That's good. And just in terms of timing, I'd say if we could wrap this up by 8.30, we'd all be excited. Yes. So this is a lot of words in here. I'm thinking the way that the, basically the way that it's sort of restructured in the section above, I think is relevant, whether you're in an R1 or R2 district or some of the other zoning districts. And I'm not sure that this, for multifamily dwellings needed to be sort of called out. And I wasn't thinking it was kind of adding any value. Then I think a lot of these other questions kind of are tricky to think through without also looking at chapter six, which is where a lot of this is called out individually. And this is the kind of thing that I was talking about. So if that shows up somewhere else, we're fine, but that gets into the massing and the number of units in the structural design and which gets they mean, as a compatible. It's all the funny use of the word structural design, but I think that gets to a lot of the points that we were making about whether the building itself fits into its surroundings, where you would notice or not notice an extra story or it doesn't matter what district you're in. Like Diane, remember the buildings at Loretta's where there's a five story building in there and you don't notice? Well, you don't notice it because it's behind things. Well, the one right on the street is five stories on the back. Well, that and the fact that it's on the hill, the four stories are out front and five stories out back.  Yeah. But it's a five story building when you're in the backyard. Yeah. So that's what I mean. I think there's some, there are ways to look at this where the number of stories isn't the whole picture. And if we have some flexibility, I think that'd be good. Maybe we ought to have a very nice chat with the trustees before we go too far. We've tried. The trustees are an ever-changing group, but we may get lucky later. I'm not so sure. Regina, right? Yes, Phil? Does anything change regarding this if we decide that R2 can have duplexes? Is that, does that, I'm just wondering if we make that change as this effect anything? I don't think so. Cause really that would just be done. I mean, I suppose you can make it, if anything, could probably make duplexes a conditional use. And so they'd have to get conditional use approval, but not, they wouldn't have to go down this PD hole at all. Okay. Like, I'll need to say, if there's a new subdivision that wants to put duplexes in R1 or R2, they could go this route. Okay, so if anybody after tonight reads through this giant comment box and has any concerns with what I'm saying, let me know. But we will kind of refer back to this a little bit when we get to chapter six, when we go specifically into each of those zoning districts. Then if we delete all that, it takes away those other three comments, which are basically saying, I don't understand this. So, okay, you wanna go to the bike? Well, we asked you to give us some language on more in-depth bicycle parking and stuff, and you did. So I thought maybe you could walk us through that. Okay. So where is that, do you know, the section number? Yeah, it was just, is it one, it's in this section, but is it one, like page 110 or 117 or something? I was parked on it for a while on the, oh, here we go. 117, 117. Okay, closer, closer, closer. Okay, so first edit is that you, oh no, right, one sec. Yeah, okay. So you have it listed very sort of lightly already, so I'm suggesting you delete that and you add in this whole new section. So this really does mimic a lot of what South Burlington has. So you've got short-term bicycle parking, this really is for sort of visitors. Well, I would apply to a business where you might park out in front and go shopping and then leave again, commercial establishments, yeah. Yeah. And I didn't really think it made sense that this, so it's for site plan approval is largely where this is gonna come in again, but I don't really know that you would even get any site plan application in R1 or planned agricultural, but it just felt like, again, the fact that those districts are a little bit farther, like I'm not sure you need this level of bike parking. So the table is down below in terms of how much bicycle parking would be required. This is a little bit more about the specific design of the actual bike parking infrastructure itself. This is the reference to that document that I showed you folks last time that the city of Burlington references. So really you can kind of like, because this stuff changes, it's gonna advance, it's gonna, you know, all evolve and you can kind of just rely on that document. This is more about where onsite those bicycle parking spaces are. Same there, just in terms of wanting to be near the entrances. So for office use, up to 50% of short term bicycle parking may be supplemented, supplementing the indoor long term bicycle parking requirements. Again, you sort of have to look at the tables down below to see what these different categories are. Long term bicycle storage applicability. So essentially these come into play with construction of a new mixed use or commercial building or any new residential building with more than three dwelling units. Or building additions or reconstruction. This, I think you do probably wanna capture that cause you are gonna have a lot of like rehab stuff in the village and you wanna figure out how you're gonna make them come up to speed with this. And I'm thinking 5,000 square feet in terms of a threshold for that makes sense, but I don't know if that makes sense from your perspective. Not very much. And I'm thinking of things like the brown L block or the collection of buildings across the street which may or may not all be under one ownership. 5,000 square feet goes in a heartbeat and those places were not designed to accommodate this kind of thing. So they may have a tough time complying like I go in there to do a renovation and all of a sudden I'm gonna have bicycle requirements that I really don't have a way to deal with. But let's keep going cause we can always tweak those thresholds, but I wanna make sure everybody understands what we're asking for, I think three dwelling units might be a little low, but let's see what we got. All right, so standards for residential buildings. So this is really upping the amenities for bike storage in the building, non-residential buildings, also kind of sort of upping the storage on the inside. Then this also is sort of getting a little bit more into the realm of transportation demand management. So concept being it's only a little bit helpful if you provide good bike parking, but if you really want it to incentivize your employees to bike to work, a shower is incredibly helpful. And a lot of these requirements are in the lead, leadership and energy requirements.  That's a real quick point. So this has already happened all over the place, we just probably don't see much of it here. Yeah, and then these are basically your standards and for how much parking is both the short-term and the long-term biking is required for each of those variety of uses. I actually will say that the Brown L Block does have a few people that bicycle to work and they put in a shower in one of the restrooms there and that can be used. And the thing is there's no bike parking.  And no, so you know, they're all well over $1,000 and so you're bringing that bike into your office with it. You're not leaving it on the street.  That's what it takes. So we're trying to make that easier is really the story. So yeah, and to John's point from last time that this, or you might have said this today too, that this for sure adds to the cost. It can also help save the environment. All right, so explain the short-term bike parking for me. So I have a residential building with more than three units. So let's say I have four and I need a one for every 10 units bike short-term parking. So I need one, but I have a minimum of four. So I'm already making four, even though I've only got four units. And then a long-term bike storage, I've already got four industry in the first line. So I have a residential building with more than three units. So I've got four units. It looks to me like I need four short-term bike parking spots and four long-term bike storage spot. Yeah, cause long-term is assuming these are residential units. So you need to accommodate inside bike parking for all the units. And I'm pretty sure something in here says that if the individual units have their own garages or something like that, that satisfies it. I saw that earlier, yeah. So it could be that you just leave a little space in your garage for that. Yeah. Then this is really just intended for the visitors. And I'm trying to read this book note here. A minimum of four, but you may request a waiver from the minimum for buildings with less than six units. And this in terms of if they find the need as adequately met for visitors, this is sort of like, if it's already in a fairly dense place in downtown, maybe not the Brown L block, but someplace else downtown where there's plenty of bike parking already, either in the right of way, then you may find that it's not as necessary. Or if it's a fairly open space and people can have some place to figure out how to, all sort of depends on the design of the residential project really. Yeah. So yeah, definitely take a look if there's any issues or thoughts about that. We can edit that. Yeah, I like it. The three Maple Street building have outdoor parking and they also have an indoor parking area. Outdoor ones for guests, indoor ones for residents. Takes up a bit of space, but it's very doable. I think it actually adds to the attractiveness of the space. Yeah, I like it a lot. Yeah. Yeah, I like it too. It sets the standard on me, especially since we market our village as a bike walk community, we should have some standards around development and bike parking. All right. This is not right to act of right. This is just, this is all only new construction. New construction, but there is that one section that you have to sort of decide what's the right threshold for rehab. Reconstruction, yeah. Okay. Will this impact changes to the Amtrak station at all or is that done? I don't think it's big enough, but they really should have. I still don't know what they're doing out there. Is there a place we can go see what the plans are, Rob? And did they even have to file as a courtesy? As a courtesy. I can tell you that digressing little Irish mind, you know, John, two phases of the crossings. The first one is going to happen fully soon. A purchase order has been given to the successful contractor. This is just for the crossings. They're going to do the crossings from Central Street through Main Street first because that has to be raised before they can do the ADA work on the station. So that should be finished June 30th this year. The other crossings will be done by November 30th this year. So all the crossings in the village center are big getting vehicle and pedestrian gates. Why have they dug up the whole so-called street side of the train station? They're just getting ready. At first they thought they could go ahead irrespective of what was happening with the connector road and then they explained to them that they may have to do it twice if they did that because we're raising the track. So they had to put their stuff on hold for a while. What did it say? Who's the head now? All right. Well, thank you, Regina. That's a lot of material. You guys did a great job getting through it all. Automaterial and there's more. Yeah, so essentially the next meeting we'll just have the next chunk of chapters. It might be all of them because we're not necessarily opening every single chapter and the big one will definitely be chapter six. And then a lot of the other ones are really the back to the kind of stormwater public works kinds of edits. But yeah. Oh, also end the fee schedule too. There'll be some changes to that also. But yeah, so for your next meeting you'll get probably the whole other half of the chapters. Yeah, the fee schedule is a bit out of sequence because the trustees approved changes because management was looking to increase the amount of money we brought in. It was very simple stuff. I think it was $19,000 based on the last year funds we took in. We would be taking in $19,000 more. But the planning commission can take a look at it and see if they want to make any more changes or not. The trustees will be approving the whole document so that'll be part of that as well. Yeah, I always thought our fees were not racially low. They are very low. Yeah, especially for the service people get elsewhere. Yeah, well, thank you very much, everyone. Especially you, Regina. Yeah, no problem. All right. Awesome. Phil. Phil, I'm calling you into service. You have to close off the meeting. All right. Is there a motion to end the meeting? I'll make a motion to adjourn the meeting. I'll second that motion. All right. There's a second on the motion. All in favor of passing the motion to adjourn the meeting. Say hi. Hi. Hi. The motion to adjourn the meeting passes. Thanks. Well, by the way, Phil, I heard, I heard, I heard Patrick's going to be sending you some resources tomorrow. Oh yeah.