Call for, we'll check the plan commission. 705. Okay. For number two, we have agenda consideration reserved for changes to the agenda items in order. We are going in order tonight. Comments and questions from the public, not related to the agenda, we're all good there. Now we have our commission, organizational meeting election of officers, and we will give that to Kathy and to take off on it. October, but in October, we didn't have a full complement of commission members, so we were waiting to get that going. Now you have a full five members. You do have a member who's tonight, but it is people with Serena. She's not able to be here. She's at the State House. She did want you to proceed rather than put this off any further. So would you like to proceed? Okay. We'd like to proceed, so we will proceed because this is for you. I will run this part of the meeting. So I will ask you if there is a motion to nominate a chair of the Planning Commission to serve for a period of one year. I would like to nominate Rich. Okay. I'll second that. Thank you. I have a full discussion for a moment, so we get through the nominations if that's okay. Is there a motion to nominate a vice chair of the Planning Commission to serve for a period of one year? I vote for Rebecca. I'll second. And you do for your rules of procedure, do you have a position as a secretary? Yes. Is there a motion to nominate a secretary of the Planning Commission to serve for a period of one year? I'd like to nominate Sarita. Okay. Okay. Is there any discussion on any of these nominations, either individually or as a slate of officers? Okay. Because I haven't heard discussion, I will ask if there is a vote on this slate of officers as motioned? Aye. Okay. The motion carries. All the motions carry four to zero. Thank you. Thank you. I'm going to now turn the meeting back over to Chairman Proquette. Very good. All right. Very, very good. We are. Okay. Now we're discussion of items for potential inclusion in supplement board E7 expansion of non-conforming structures and assignment of uses as a residential versus commercial for purpose of height allowances. Let Cassie and jump into that. Okay. I'm just going to pull up my memo here. As is how we usually do this. We just finished supplement 46, March 12th public hearing by the select board. All of your proposed amendments were approved. That was adopted and is past its waiting period effective today. If you may have noticed, you might have gotten a notice, the full set of amendments were uploaded to your Dropbox today. So if you're looking for anything in the regulations, the current set of regulations, they are in your Dropbox supplement 46. They're also available on our website. They will be on click-based shortly. They are not on click-based yet. So please use our website or your Dropbox to access supplement 46 as adopted. So why waste today? So this one, it's a quick turnaround and it's really necessary because we've noticed very recently that there are some pieces in here that we think are really critical in terms of timing. One is a mistake that I made in a previous supplement when we were talking about expansion of non-conforming uses as part of supplement 44. So if you recall going way back, and Wendy probably doesn't recall because I think it was when she was not yet with us or Vlad. So we were talking about non-conforming uses. There had been a six-month time period for which that non-conforming use could continue if it was left abandoned. We talked about this especially with the pandemic. Six months is hardly enough time to get a realtor and so you unanimously propose to extend that from six months to 12 months so that that time as long as you're actively marketing it from six months to 12 months to extend that time period. So we talked at length about extension in terms of time periods for that non-conforming use. So we replaced some language as you can see here. We talked about extension, we replaced the language that was there from six months to 12 months. We replaced this word that said, cannot be extended with you can do it for 12 months. The mistake that I made was assuming that extension referred to time. It held the place for time and physical extension. It was the only thing in our regulations that referred to physical extension and so it is the only thing that had referred to physical extension and so when that was redlined, we lost what I believe you had always intended to refer to a physical expansion of non-conforming uses. So the reason I call this critical is I believe that mistakenly my mistake was not sharing with you that we lost that ability. So I'm bringing that to you for a quick turn around and a quick discussion, assuming that that is still your intent because there is no language in there at the moment related to an expansion, a physical expansion of a non-conforming use. So if you have a non-conforming use today, can it grow physically? If it's 500 square feet, 2,000 square feet, can it double, etc. So there's no language in there that says it can or cannot. So we've crafted new language for you to consider with the belief that your intent was to not expand. So that's what we've got for you here for consideration. So this would be town-wide? Yes. But yes, it would apply, especially along the Lakeshore. So the new language just to go down. So this was the old language here that you're looking at. This was what had happened. No extension of a non-conforming use meant, it had meant no growing. That was accidentally removed. Not intentionally, no discussion ever took place to say that you intended for it to be removed, or that your intent was that non-conforming uses could grow. So new language that we propose here, that would be more clear. Once I put my glasses on, it becomes more clear. A non-conforming use may be continued. It could be before, but it didn't explicitly say so. So we've put that in as well. So explicitly, a non-conforming use may be continued subject to these provisions. It shall not be enlarged, nor shall be extended to displace a conforming use. So if you have multiple uses in a structure, you can't make one bigger and shrink the conforming part. Examples enlargement included. So this is just talking about what that means. Then clarifying any time we use extension, whether it is a time or physical extension. Then what this last part here means, a conforming structure. So when you're mixing a conforming structure in a non-conforming use, whether or not that can be reconstructed, structurally altered, restored, repaired. We say exceeding 100 percent, this is language that some other communities use, but basically it says that if you have a non-conforming use in a conforming structure, you cannot grow that structure unless that use has changed. So if you have, for example, something that was approved prior to a change in use or a change in clarification of what that use is, it cannot continue to expand. We talked about this especially with respect around the Lakeshore. A lot of work has been done recently to adjust uses to appropriate uses, appropriately scaled uses in that area, and so there are significant number of non-conforming uses there. Then the last of that part was just to delete the definition of extension because it's used in quite a few places in the regulation, floor area and sometimes in terms of time, and so having the specific definition was inappropriate because it didn't match where it was used throughout the body of the regulation. That's what we present you with in the first part of a potential change for S47. If you approve of this and we'll get into B once you chat about this, but if you approve of this, we would bring you something at your May meeting that would be text ready for warning for a June public hearing. That's not too far away. No, it's amazing. So that's why I'm not hitting you with A through G. It's just A and B because I, again, going back to supplement 44, you had no discussion that this was your intent. This was merely an oversight. I'm not speaking for you that it's not your intent now, but it was not at the time. I believe it was purely an accident on my part. This one paragraph, when I first read it. Which one? That this, it's crossed out four but it's five now. Yeah. The one about a conforming structure used by non-conforming you should not be reconstructed, structured, alternate, restored, repaired to an extent, exceeding 100 percent for the gross for it. I read a lot of codes. When I read a code like that, it's telling me, okay, I have a building that's 500 square feet. I can extend it another 500 square feet because that's 100 percent. I can increase it. So it's confusing to me. This one, if I remember this one, this is the language South Burlington used. Maybe it's just me. I just read too many codes. Okay. So you'd like us to maybe wordsmith that a little better. So it's referred to an extent exceeding 100 percent of the gross for it. Because we read that. We can look at the language. If you read that way. Okay. We'll look at that. Okay. Do you want to give us some guidance on? Actually, I can see it. Huh? I can see it. Yeah. What you're talking about. I know that people do that. Yeah. I can see if you look at it like that. All right. Because it doesn't say, you know, basically. Yeah. Okay. We'll look at that in terms of, do you like the idea? Yes. They can't expand. Yes. Okay. Yes. Non-conforming use. But the 100 percent is confusing in terms of, is it 100 percent of like, that's what you got now. That's your hundred. That's your baseline. Or is it 100? I get what you're saying. Okay. So we'll look at that. But the idea that you wanted to convey is if you have a conforming structure with a non-conforming use, that structure doesn't expand. What it's trying to say is if you have a structure with a non-conforming use, the structure doesn't expand unless your use changes. Changes. Conforming use, yeah. So part of this came up. As you know, there is a non-conforming in. I'm just giving you one example. There is a non-conforming in up the road. It has been expanding. Were we talking on a Westlake shore? Yes. Okay. So addressing whether or not that can continue to expand, the structure can continue to expand. And this would extend to more than just that. That's just purely an example. It's not meant to single it out. Can you give an example of a non-conforming? Is it like a business is in there that wasn't intentional? Yeah. So here's a good example. Again, I'm not trying to single anyone out. These are great business owners and great properties. But so some time ago we talked about the Big Apple deli on Porter's Point Road. And that's actually one of the properties that was the impetus from changing from six months to 12 months for the non-conformity because it's hard to find tenants. So in a property like that, it's a non-conforming use. Commercial uses are not allowed. That is a residential zoning district right there. So commercial uses are not currently allowed there. The commission ever wants to change that. They could. But right now, that is a residential zoning district. And commercial uses are not allowed there. So that structure, as long as there continues to be something there for no without a vacancy of more than 12 months, can continue to operate with that commercial use of a deli or small chop at the ground floor. But it's a conforming, I think. Let's assume it's a conforming structure for a minute. They couldn't necessarily add on a third story to that building or a couple of decks to the second story or something like that. So if they were to make it an apartment building, that would become residential at that point? Yeah, so right now, it's mixed. Their second floor is already res. But if they were to make it fully residential, that would make it a conforming use. OK, that's the answer. But right now, it's not conforming because it's not zoned by that. But it makes it seem business. OK, I just wanted to clarify. Yeah, so that's what this is saying. And it's trying to encourage people to try to turn their non-conforming uses into conforming uses. Now, again, anybody who's in a non-conforming use that thinks it should be a conforming use, they have different avenues. They can petition you to change those uses, the zoning. So if after 12 months, another business doesn't come in, does it lose its ability to become a business? OK, thank you. That would mean that unless they convert that first floor in this example to housing, that first floor would have to be empty. Yeah. Now, we did add, when we talked about this in Supplement 44, the 12 months does require them to actively market it and stuff. I mean, it tries to be generous there. It's a pretty good time for it. If you're after a year and a half or so, if you can't find anybody, it's time to put it to a conforming use. For instance, we've gone through a pandemic. Things are still slow out there. Businesses are really having a hard time. 12 months go by, because by really quickly. Quite fast. They're your regs. If you want to change 12 to 18, that's up to you. Well, you put in there, the additional six months has to be run through your department. Yeah. So they could get right. They just have to check in with us and show us that they're doing something. And we've been very open to somebody show us that something is happening in spaces. We have a pretty low bar. And the other way to change that is if we change the zoning. Yeah. I don't know all the spaces that are not conforming. And I know in some of these, you guys have talked about it. You've recognized that there are some places we've talked about where maybe the zoning isn't quite right, but we're just not at the right time to talk about them. It's called the master plan. Yeah. It's coming. It's coming. We keep saying that. It is, though, unfortunately. I think by fall, we're going to really be digging in. Yeah. All right. That's all I got to say about this. That's all I got. For paragraph three, it says expansion of employees. Is one of the expansions, is that proposed, or is that already enough, kind of like the language that's in the regulations? So anything that's read and underlined is new. So what's the reason for, for example, like adding employees if you have an un-conforming business? So that's. That's necessary, essentially, for the other existing business, in some non-conforming business, and somebody hires an employee to kind of like not work as much, essentially. Is that really a necessary addition for the employee, or as far as expansion of employees? I say it's new, but it's technically not. Because right now, expending your number of employees requires, technically, additional wastewater. So anything that requires additional wastewater is an expansion, which isn't allowed now. So this is new because it's clarity. But technically, if something has two employees, let's say you're a hair salon, right? You have two hair techs. And next, you're going to have six, right? You're going to have six that are working there. That's going to increase your wastewater needs, because certain wastewater capacity is based on how many employees you have. A daycare, for example. That's an expansion because when you increase that, you're increasing your wastewater. So right now, even doing that is an expansion. So these are just examples. Now, again, a lot of people, we know this. We know that somebody, whether they're conforming or not, they're not calling us to say, I just hired one new employee. When you first open a business, you're supposed to report in, or actually require you to, tell us how many employees, whether you're a daycare, a hair salon, or a grocery store, or a lot of businesses, we ask how many employees, because wastewater capacity is built on that. How many people are flushing toilets, especially in a community where we're based on on-site septic. And so much of that is based on how many people are flushing toilets. And so you give us that number, right? And if that number is going to drastically increase, then your wastewater needs are going to increase. And so technically, you're supposed to get that permitted through the state. And technically, you're supposed to have more parking for those employees, and you're supposed to have different needs for those employees.  We know that if you started your business and you had six employees, it's not uncommon for somebody to hire, especially on a small scale where one or two employees come and go frequently, that that happens every day. Or even on a large scale, you hire with 100 employees. Your number is going to fluctuate every week. It's just the nature of business. But technically, it is an expansion, because you are growing. Usually, your allotment is actually based, I'm talking about commercial, not residential, residential. Your occupancy load for a building is based on a square footage. So if you have a building a certain size in its business, you get a certain occupancy load for that building. It could be 15 people, and you only have five employees. You should be able to expand to 15 employees, because that's what the building is basically designed for. And that's what the wastewater would be based on. It's a little bit more involved than you're just saying I have five employees, the building itself. But I think a lot of people don't report that full number. Well, in order to get your building permit, you do. In order to get your wastewater, you do. To the state. To the state. Yeah. I think we see a lot of, especially when we see, Zach can talk more about this, but when we see change attendance, we're often seeing those numbers change. And they are not what they first told us when they opened the business. So, for example, when a... Especially multi-tenant buildings. Yeah, for changes of occupant, which is required for businesses and multi-tenant buildings to get a building permit when they establish themselves in a multi-tenant building, even if the use is the same. And we do require then an updated cumulative use table be provided to us. And that table, because in the development review side of permitting for the building itself, parking, trip ends, and wastewater reviewed. And some of those sometimes are calculated on square footage and other times are calculated on employees. So it's really a way for staff to go back and make sure that the building is in conformance with its original development or review board approval. So we are looking at employees from a couple of different lenses, just as businesses come and go in town. But wouldn't it be more towards like conforming businesses and conforming structures, you know what I mean? For the employees, if you have like a non-conforming business and it's a deli, for example, and you get a deli that had two employees and the deli sold, so now they want to hire a third employee because it's a husband and wife and they want to have a day off or a situation like that. This pretty much states that they can't add any more employees because original business and two employees, it kind of just puts lots of restrictions, I think, on smaller businesses, especially if they're not conforming. So more like owner operated businesses kind of just prevents them from getting any kind of. I mean, the reality is we're never going to know because especially a non-conforming business, they've probably been in operation for so long, they probably don't have a recent site plan. There's probably no record of how many employees they ever had. So the reality is that this is just an example of what an expansion looks like. I don't think it's actually going to affect anyone. And we talk about a number of employees. We know that, especially a lot of these types of businesses, you could have 10 employees who all work five hours a week that you're patchworking your part timers, especially in a small retail business. You've got a lot of high schoolers who might come in and just work a couple hours. So the impact of 10 of those types of employees is not 10 full-time employees. So this is meant to just sort of, this is not something where we're necessarily issuing violations on. But it's just the idea that, and this is something that we would use in the case of something that is really might have a large impact, like a factory or an industrial area that has, and I can't think of any examples, where there really is an impact, where it's really out of place, where it might have a strong impact, where there's a lot of employees. And we know that they are now sort of doubling their staffing or something like that. It's not meant to, I think, catch these sort of, again, patchwork of employees. But it gives us something to rely on if there is a very noticeable strong change. Does that make sense? That's very obvious. Not like, well, boy, you had three full-time employees yesterday, now you have like six high schoolers who come in, or, you know. Can just add something as well. It's likely that something like this is reviewed with an increase, for example, under hours of operation. Because in order to accommodate increased hours of operation, a business might be hiring significantly more employees. So it's kind of both of those combined. Not necessarily, you know, we're going to notice that your Google business listing is open in extra 30 minutes. You know, I'm not sure that that is what we're, we have time to look into. I think it really relates to impact to the community. Yeah, and I'm glad you brought up the operating hours. Because that same thing, you know, this is not, boy, I used to close at four, now I'm open till six. This is like, boy, we used to be a one-shift place, and now we're open 24 hours, right? Like that's what we're talking about expanding, like especially places that might be, you know, sort of a more intensive use that is having like a significant increase, a noticeable increase, where, boy, suddenly this place, you know, is having, you know, a full third shift of employees working there. That's an obvious expansion of employees and hours and something like this isn't meant to be a gotcha. We don't have time for that. We don't want to do that. We are, that is not our intention. But it does give us something to fall back on. So basically the intent is going past what the building could handle, what the sewage could handle. It gives you something in that, whether it's conforming or non-conforming, you can't expand anything beyond what your facility can handle. Yeah, I mean, the intent is that like, when you have non-conforming uses, they exist largely because at some point, a planning commission said, this is no longer an appropriate use in this area. Right or wrong, at some point, this was decided. And so, but you have the right to continue to operate that. We want you to continue to operate.  But we also don't want you to continue to grow and impact and have impacts on what we determined to be incompatible uses, right? And so we need you to stay in your bubble. And these are the types of things where we deem you expanding beyond your bubble.  You're starting to have too much hours, too much height or too much growth, physical growth. And so this is how we keep you in that bubble for those, again, those places where we've determined. And if, again, that's a determination where you've been deemed to be non-conforming. So that's the intent, which I think was always your intent, until I messed it up on you. I'm sorry. And so we're taking the opportunity to sort of just add more clarification, I think, as to what extension and expansion and those funny e-words mean. But this is strictly on property that's non-conforming. Just on property and uses, actually just uses that are non-conforming. It's a different section for non-conforming structures. So uses that are non-conforming. And those are already signaled out somehow? Yes, so if you operate a deli in an area where only residential uses are allowed, you're non-conforming. If you operate a hotel in an area where hotels are no longer allowed, you're non-conforming. But again. OK, so you'll look at paragraph five. I'm hearing, at least from a couple of you, maybe, that you like the intent, but the language isn't quite right for number five. I think the intent is that the structure itself can't be expanded. And you kind of keep reading it, and you say, OK, shall not be reconstructed, structurally altered, restored or repaired. And if you stop there, you're thinking, what? I can't restore my building. I can't repair it. I can't replace the roof. But it's not saying that. I think, to the extent 100%, it's confusing. I got it. Yeah, I hear you. So one way. We'll work on that. Anything else from a either wordsmithing perspective or from a policy perspective? Pretty much says what we wanted originally. I mean, we want anybody that's there to stay there, give them the opportunity to keep going. But if it's its own residential, and you're running a deli, you're not going to put a big ol' extension on it. And you won't be able to run it with an extra 25 employees. It's just not going to make the neighborhood happy. They probably wouldn't do it anyways, because good business will make sure everybody's happy. OK. OK. I think we're going to dedicate a lot of time, I think, when the town plan comes up to taking a look at whether our zoning is right. I actually don't think there's a lot of areas where it's wrong. But I think we've talked about a few areas where some tweaks are likely to come about. But we'll get there. OK. So the second part of this that I think is timely. So we have in our in-table A2. So A2 is where dimensional standards are. And there's a lot of areas where we say your building height is dependent on whether or not you are residential or commercial. And those are the words we use, residential or commercial. We don't even say residential or non-residential. We say commercial. So I don't know if you're industrial. I don't know what you do. So residential or commercial. Unfortunately, there's some uses in our table of uses that aren't clear to me whether or not they're residential or commercial. And so we started the exercise. And we were going to just sort of whiteboard it for you. And then we started getting into some other thoughts here about, OK, is this use residential? Is this use commercial? And we were going to bucket them. Like, OK, we'll just put them in happy little buckets. So that's a possible exercise. But it got into a deeper thought here about some things. So let's continue to talk this through. One, so we could do that because there are some things further complicating this is if you look at table A1, and I put that in your packet, if you look at this, the reason that this gets extra complicated is that the way that this is set up, and I actually love that this is set up with numbers. So I don't know if you've ever spent a lot of time looking at the left side of this. We talk about the policy side on the right. Everything has a number. So 1.1 is a single unit dwelling. 1.2 is a duplex, et cetera, et cetera. So 1.0 are our residential uses, according to this table, except that there are some things that are on here that I'm pretty darn sure are not residential uses like a hotel. I don't know. Please tell me if I'm wrong, if you think I'm wrong. If you scroll down here, if you can see my cursor, hotel and motel, maybe even campground, probably not a residential use. OK, so I'm going to go back up for a minute. So therein lies part of the problem in that I'm pretty sure that those are not residential uses, and then there's some that are more gray potentially in-in residential, commercial, non-residential, primitive campground, bed and breakfast. So we can have a conversation about all those things, which I think we should do. But the second part of this, I want to talk to you about building heights, and this all ties together, I promise, because this talks about your building heights in the various Lakeshore districts. OK? So at minimum, we've got to assign these things as residential or not, at minimum. But the second thing, whether or not the building heights that you assigned in 2016, and I don't want to really open all that up, because I know you did a lot of work, but this has been coming up recently, so I want to give you the opportunity, should you wish to discuss this? You can shut it down if you'd like. But should you wish to, I want to give you the opportunity. Your building heights, Lakeshore one and two, and as a reminder, Lakeshore one is West Lakeshore Drive, Lakeside. Lakeshore two is West Lakeshore Drive, non-lakeside, and a little bit extra. I think I put a map in here. This is not just West Lakeshore. It actually scoops around the corner by a little bit. I put a map in here. I did put a map. So, and it doesn't go all the way down. So, help me out here. So this, I believe, is the boat launch, where it ends? The public boat launch, yeah. Yeah, so just to help the coloring here, the brown is LS one. So that's here. Let me just show you real quick. So the corner, this is your intersection. Here's the park. Can you guys see okay? So base side park, lower base side park is right here. So LS one does extend onto East Lakeshore. A lot of people forget this. Buy a couple of properties. Okay, goes all the way up here. Oop, park all the way this way. It stops real brief here. This is the public boat launch. This is, I believe, Comcove. Yes, it's on right here. I think the public boat launch is LS one, I think it's that one. Oh, this is the boat launch. Okay, this is, is this the downtown? I think that's the property across from Digmas' store. Okay, is this the Pioneer Plaza? Yeah. One of them is Comcove. Okay, Comcove, the Pioneer Plaza has a name. I call it the Pioneer Plaza, but I think it has a name. Okay, so those are actually not in LS one, just so you know. So if we start talking about building heights or anything, they would not apply to those commercial-like properties where the New York pizza oven and those sort of strip molly places are. So not LS one, just to be clear. And then LS one kicks on again real quick for the boat launch and the marina right next to it. So those are those two there. LS two does take up a big chunk. So that includes everything from the general store, those empty lots next to it. And pretty much everything that fronts along here, including some deep properties, the hazelut property, Bayside Park, the rec center lot, and then some of these, which are mostly developed fully already. Okay, so just for context, so you know where we're talking about when we mention LS one and two. LS one and two get treated identical for building height. I'm gonna show you that here. Commercial building heights and LS one and two, and this seems to surprise people when I've had this conversation and I've had it a lot in probably the last three months. Commercial building heights for peak-droof buildings are 40 feet along the lake and not along the lake. So both sides of the road, 40 feet. For residential buildings, they are 20 feet. So just to be clear, LS three, which we talked about much more recently, which is the lakeside on East Lakeshore Drive. We talked a long time about the right height for that. And we came up with 28 feet, which represents about two and a half stories at grade, which everybody I think felt really comfortable with once the conversation was over. So just, that's what I'm trying to represent here just so you have the information. So this is a couple of, and I talked to Rich on Monday just about whether or not to put this back in front of you, I think just to give you an opportunity just because it is coming up a lot. And because as we talked about commercial and residential, they tie together when we're talking about what is the appropriate height for buildings that are residential and commercial and what falls into each of these uses, especially in these districts. But even in others, there are other districts where the height of the building is dependent on whether something is residential or commercial. I assume that that, and it's pure assumption, but I assume that that decision was made with the goal of encouraging more commercial uses along the lake. It's a pure assumption, Rich, you were here, maybe you have some insight into that. That's about right. Yeah. Yeah. But they're twice, it's twice the height. Right. For commercial use versus a residential use. And it didn't matter whether or not you were on the lakeside or not. So food for thought as we talk through this, and I'm not necessarily proposing, I have nothing you can see, I have nothing proposed for you to change that. There's no red-lined version here for you. If you wish to talk about that tonight, I'm happy to entertain it. But I wanted you to have that information. This group here, we spent our time on East Lakeshore Drive, not much time on West Lakeshore Drive. I don't even think we even had representation from anybody from West Lakeshore Drive at the time. So we're all working on this side, right? Thus, I think you're the only one that was involved. I was here for the West Lakeshore Drive. 2016? I think you're the only one that was involved with the West Lakeshore Drive, because I came on board right afterwards. You were just after? Yeah. And I know that there is a lot of controversy. There's some people that really did not want this rezoning to happen. And their biggest fear was that there'd be large hotels going on on the lakeside. And with the sewer going in, yeah, we could. I think, I agree, we should probably re-look at it, because I don't think that's our intent. Yeah. When there were small houses, they couldn't expand.  Yep, I get it. Okay. So I would like to follow your lead on this. I wanted to just give you information and let you guide me, because it is very policy heavy. But I think that it is very policy heavy, but it is very technically easy. It's a very easy thing to write. It's a number to change. But it is very policy heavy. So, with all of that said, I think I want you to sit on that for just a moment. And let's go back to that table of uses, because I want to hear from you a little bit about some of these here. I want to sort of walk through them and talk about, let's talk about these. And I want to hear from you about whether you view them as residential or we're gonna be bringing something back to you that doesn't call them commercial. We're gonna say residential, non-residential, because commercial is just part of non-residential. You may even decide that you don't want a differentiation between the two. I don't know. Tell me that too, if you'd like. If you think building height is building height and a 40-foot building or a 20-foot building has the same impact regardless of what's inside of it. Maybe you feel that way. Because there are a few places, I'm calling out the Lakeshore, but that's not the only place I can point those out for you in a moment. It's not the only place where there are different heights for residential and non-residential uses. Okay, let's talk about these. Some of these, I still have to do a little bit of research. There may be some where the state legislation requires us to call them or treat them as a residential use. I will do that research for you, but pretending that it does not. So boarding house comes to mind. It might be something that we're required to treat as a residential use. I'm fairly sure that halfway house and congregate housing has to be treated as a residential use. I'm almost certain. Boarding house, I think, is different because it's not a restricted clientele. So, shall we with boarding house? Thoughts? Are there boarding houses anymore? I don't think so. I think it's the same thing. Now for the night. Like a hostel? I guess a hostel? The boarding house is if you hot, it's kind of gloomy, but some people have like a building and it can't be broke up into apartments. So they rent out the rooms and then you have a common area. That would fall into a boarding house. The definition. So I think this was added prior to, this happened somewhat recently, actually with St. Michael's College was considering selling some properties that were previously dormitories. So they're very similar to dormitories, but for not students. So they're sort of like, but you have your own bedroom, but you have a kitchen, you share a bathroom. Like a co-op? Sort of, yes. They will rent into, there's a person of two in Winozki, so they just, the house can't be broken down. So there was a big living room and a big kitchen, but they rent out the actual rooms. And they rent them out just like months to months. Oh, I know. There's a, What is our definition? He's a property up in St. Albans that was run as a boarding house and the Department of Fire Safety does not like them being boarding houses. He had to convert them into apartments and separate them. Wait, I was wrong. What was I, oh, I'm thinking about group quarters. That's my apologies there. So is boarding house more like a hostel? A boarding house is an establishment other than a hotel in tourist court. Tourist court. Or a lodging house, where not more than two rooms are let and where meals may be regularly served by pre-arrangement for compensations. A boarding house is not open to transient guests in contrast to hotels, restaurants and tourist homes, which are open to transients. The facility shall be licensed and operated in accordance with applicable law. This is bizarre. I feel like that doesn't mean to be a use.  That's a boarding house. Which you could, that's how it started. Do right now and I would never, I'm a planner and if I was renting out one of my rooms I wouldn't call the town. Right. I wouldn't, I wouldn't even think to. No. That seems so specific with the meals and stuff. Yeah, all right. So I would. Yeah. I'm not gonna tell you what I would think. Do you call that residential? I think it's residential because people are living there long term. Yeah. I feel that's not transient. All right. And also that threshold of two rooms is, is actually it's under the, I think it's these are technically in order with the exception of in and campground, but bed and breakfast I believe allows up to five rooms or so. That's a little bit more. But that's more transient. That's not even allowed in some district. That's so bizarre and it's conditional. I don't know. We may want to talk about whether that should even be out there. Maybe that's a conversation for another day. Bed and breakfast? No, a boarding house. I know, a boarding house. The idea that, that Rebecca cannot rent out a room in her home to a college student without one room, then you're not a boarding house, yes we do. No, not more than two. Not more than two. So one and two, but if you have three rooms, that's far too many. You're now in bed and breakfast territory. You have to start providing meals. We have a lot of roommates. That's a roommate, right? Right. Do you guys want to scratch that? Or is this too... Well, I think you should do some research and make sure this town does not have any boarding houses before we do that. All right. I'll look into where the requirements are. Then they would be non-conforming. They just can't hire more employees. Okay, I'm tempted to, I'll bring it back to you guys next month, but I'm almost tempted to just remove that. I'm not sure we can restrict somebody from renting out a room in their home. We can. It's the calling house. The boarding house when my kids are teenagers. They didn't pay rent though. Definitely charge them. Them and all their friends. Yeah. This seems like an archaic thing. I don't think of like a little old widow that sleeps. Yeah. Okay. All right. So at least it's residential. It may even be something we do. The boarding house, is that owner occupied? Or are you talking about? So it has to be owner occupied. That sounds like it. For the board. Well, not by the fire department. Yeah, I'm sure.  Yeah. I think what Zach read. No. Oh. See that's. A bed and breakfast does have to be owner occupied. A boarding house does not. Yeah. Okay. And that's what I know of. Okay. So maybe it stays or not. Stays under. No. It's not really residential now. Cause it's a business. But they're long term. They're there. It's Rebecca renting out all of her house while she moves to some place nicer.  I don't know.  Yeah. But it's usually to one family. Yeah. I mean, this happens a lot in college towns, right? You're renting out the whole house to four different students. Yeah, for sure. One part of this definition does know where meals may be regularly served by prearrangement for compensations. That's weird. Is that the definition in our regular? Yes. Yeah. Maybe. It says maybe. It may be, but I don't want to overlook that. Because. Maybe that was supplement one. Deanie. Probably. All right. All I can think of is it's a wonderful life and she has this boarding house. That's unbelievable. I'm in the 20s with you. Yeah. I can think of it. All right. At the very least, it sounds residential. We'll see what else comes of it. If one exists. All right. Bed and breakfast, I will tell you that bed and breakfast can exist in residential districts if that helps you to understand or make a choice. They can be in residential districts. They are very limited in what they can do and who can live there. But it has to be owner occupied. It has to be owner occupied. You can't have more than four rooms? Let's check the definition. We'll give you a definition. Well, I would say it's definitely residential. There's someone living there full time. Yeah, so five or fewer guest rooms. The operator of the bed and breakfast shall live on the premises, generally short term lodging and meals. We are starting to see them do a little bit of extra. They might have a few small weddings here and there, but small scale stuff. Residential? Are you keeping these notes? Yeah. Hotel? That's a business. Commercial? OK, non-residential. Hotel, motel, non-residential. Extended stay hotel, non-residential. In, you guys have probably memorized this definition by now, but let's, when Zach is able to catch up, we'll read you that one. In's, just so you know, can be in non-residential areas. Oh, this is not the updated definition, because it's probably not on clerk base yet. Oh, we can read it all here. We just printed them today. You said it was in the Dropbox, right? It's in the Dropbox. Everyone else can read it, but me. We've done a lot of work on In's. I would actually recommend, if you do want to pull it up, just because there's more text than I can narrate. Not that I can't say it, but that you might meant to be like to see different parts of the definition. And I searched it. I'm sitting here like, I can't do that, I can do that. Oh, they're not on clerk base yet. Oh, they're on our website. They're in the Dropbox. How can you search, oh, there it is. Go through with this. I'll get it, then we can project it for folks. There we go. I found it. I don't know what page it's on. 1220, there you go. In, OK, here we go. An establishment containing at least six rooms, but not more than 20. Thank you, Bob Shack. For living or sleeping accommodations, primarily for transient occupancy, for compensation available to the general public. So again, this is overnight rentals generally, not long term. No more than 40% of the rooms can have typical apartment style furnishings, such as kitchen, bath, living space, and separate bedrooms. Units must be available at a daily, weekly, and monthly basis. Shall not be rented to the same occupant for more than 30 days in any 365 day period. An in shall offer services typical to the use, including at least 12 hours per day of onsite registration and similar hosting services, as well as housekeeping. In shall provide for at least one indoor common area available to all guests and of sufficient size attraction and usability, such as dining area, lounge, game room, or library. Permitted accessory and clearly incidental uses include restaurants and other or other public dining facility, bars or lounges, meeting rooms, pools, recreational facilities, customary to such use. So kind of like a very mini hotel. That can be in a residential area. Inns cannot be in a residential area, I believe I can pull back up the table. Inns are not allowed in residential areas. Oh, well, just about anywhere. They're allowed in LS1 or LS2. They're conditional, I believe? Conditional in LS1 and permitted in LS2. Very specific on that one. Still non-residential style. I think it's a business, it's a commercial. I think so too. Can't stay more than 30 days. It's a tough one because it used to be in the regulations. I think it was envisioned or once upon a time and had a very commercial definition. It used to allow up to 60 rooms. But we've been working on bringing that down and really viewing it as intentionally different than a hotel. It is meant to be a very small, a much smaller, if you're viewing things on the spectrum, bigger than a bed and breakfast. But not a hotel. So it's a great room. Yeah, I find it very great. I don't find it easy. I hope I wasn't leading you in one way or the other because I don't know. I don't have strong feelings or thoughts. I just think it's kind of a fire code issue. If you're living there for a long period of time, you're used to the facility. If you're there for temporarily transient housing, you're not used to the place you're staying at. So it needs a higher level of code requirements. And that, to me, just bumps it out of the residential. And does that, so again, circling back, the idea of having different height requirements? I know what is going on now. And maybe you don't want different height requirements. Maybe height requirements should be based on the district regardless of what's inside those walls. I don't know. I don't know. You tell me. So if an inn is considered residential, then it can only go up to that. That's the point of differentiating between the two. Can you only go up to 20 feet? I assume, again, I wasn't here in 2016. But I assume that the reason for the differentiation was to encourage more commercial uses. And discourage residential uses. I assume, but I don't want to put any intentions on the body that decided that, or the people who were involved in that in 2016. I have no idea. It's basically set up for LS1 and LS2. The same place you can only do anything. And LS1 and LS2 height requirements are the same. I was surprised by that. They are the same on the lakeside as the non-lakeside. So 40 feet of commercial is allowed on the lakeside. I get the LS2. I'm not sure about the LS1. I'm not really sure why 40 feet was there. Do you have any ideas, Pam, on that one? Yeah. Or was it like? Yeah. Next to the boat club that, I guess, hand-owns it now, but the little cabins, Comco. Yeah, Comco. I remember right back then, everybody was concerned that they'd tear down all those little cabins and build a big hotel. Well, I think they're outside of this, actually. Is that the one we just identified as? They're not in the lakeshore. Yeah, they're LS2. Oh, are they LS2? Same as the shopping plaza. Yeah, they're next to the shopping plaza. That was LS2? Yeah, but I thought they were still in LS1. Let me go back to the map. They're not LS1. That, I know. Yeah, they're LS2. That was definitely set up just so you couldn't do that. Here's the map. Because you take them out. Yeah, LS. They can't build. LS2. They can put it in there. They can't put a hotel there. And they can put it in at 40 feet there, up to 20 rooms, which is more than they have in cabins, for sure. I know it's good or bad, but I mean, the problem, the thing is now we're at the point where we're seeing, it's like everything else. This was done up, and now we're seeing some of the little bitty parts coming back. Right, and I'm pretty sure that 2016, you didn't have a sewer line going in. Exactly.  Right. And that's all changing. The shoreline is also very different from LS1 if you're driving through.  I mean, it doesn't really make a difference to anybody driving by, but if it's on top of the hill on a flat portion, then that's good. Yep, definitely in your face. Yeah, and that's the other thing to keep in mind. I don't know if that changes much, but we do measure from average pre-construction grades. So anything that's not sitting. So you're not necessarily measuring 40 feet from the top of the bank. If something is built into the hill, you'll measure halfway down essentially if that's the average, if it's a, but where it's flatter, you're 40 feet from the top of the bank. There aren't a lot of large properties, but there are definitely some that are ripe for redevelopment and will probably be reconstructed in the near future. Especially looking for a big map. It's good. On the marina there, the moorings they could build a big hotel there now, too. As long as they're outside the shoreland, 100 feet. Yeah. That's why I picked the bigger one. Yeah. 100 feet's not that much, actually. No, it's not. So commissioners, what do you want to do? Re-evaluating it. Yeah, and you don't have to completely open up all of LS1 and LS2 if you don't want to. I mean, you could very specifically look at heights. I'm not trying to push you in any directions. I'm not trying you to consider this at all. I wanted to give you the opportunity. As you see, I attached in one of the comments from the public. Two people have asked me to pass on messages to you. I passed them on in a very neutral way. They are two of probably seven or eight communications we've received. That's what you receive. I mean, there's others that I hear out there. Yeah, and those are just the ones I've received. Yeah, so I think if the same thing happens on Westlake Shore Drive on the lakeside as it did on Eastlake Shore Drive, I think you'd be hearing a lot more. So I think this really needs to be addressed. I agree. It's the crown jewel of Colchester, and people don't march in that same way. So what would you like to do? So give me some marching orders. That will go from a quickie to not a quickie if we look at building heights, because we will definitely have to put out, come and visit us for building heights. I know, but I agree. It's probably we have to look at that. So do we do that with this one? Do we like to push this one right through, figuring out the small stuff, and jump on it? I would like to. Should we do it with 47? I would like to do that first one that we just talked about, the expansion quick. OK. I think we should do the use as quick, too, if you feel comfortable with that, just because it's very confusing. We haven't really run into a problem with it yet. I mean, other than this one, in the case of an in that was approved, it didn't come up, because there was, I think there were assumptions made that it was one way or another. And if it did come up, it would have been left to the DRB to make a determination. And it would have been on them to figure out. But it also would have been left to, I think our attorneys, to defend that if it didn't go whatever way somebody wanted it to go. And we're talking a 20-foot difference. It's defensible either way with the way that it's written, that an in is a commercial or a residential use even. We're sitting here, we can't figure it out ourselves. So as you've heard, people have very strong feelings about how that should be. And that's just one example. There are other things that are dependent on whether something is residential or not. So I think that getting that table sorted is worth doing quickly. And then we can kick off public listening sessions on appropriate heights. Would you like to do it just height, just LS1 and 2? Is it a very narrow focus? Is that what you're thinking? Oh, yeah, for sure, right? We've already went through East Lakes. Nothing else. No uses, no. We're all done with East Lakeshores. OK, so very specific to height, specific to LS1 and 2. And it'll be the same idea. Whoever comes in, they'll all get their time to speak. And then we'll do just what we did before, which we think is appropriate at the time. So when something is in the table that says conditional, that means they have to satisfy the DRB? Yeah, so conditional uses are, conditional uses have state defined criteria. So if something is listed as a conditional use, and Zach can quickly give you what they are. But the basic, and this is why I propose every now and then to remove things as conditional uses, because some of that criteria is never going to apply to this. So Zach will give you very quickly what those conditional use criteria are. So they have to address how they meet these things, and then staff writes, no impact, no impact, impact, impact, no impact. You want to read them real quick? Yes, sorry, I was looking at them. So very quickly, conditional use criteria that the DRB reviews. State defined. State defined, it's in our regulation. Well, it's also in our regulations. So yeah, we can tweak them. But first, that the proposed use is consistent with the planned character of the area in the municipal plan. The proposed use conforms to the stated purpose of the district in which it's located. The DRB takes into consideration the dimensional standards location of structures and distance from adjacent or nearby uses. So considering what's on the property, what's around it. And also, they review a couple other criteria against the undue adverse effect standard, saying that a proposed use cannot have an undue adverse effect on existing or planned community facilities, the character of the area, traffic, bylaws or ordinances that are in effect. So bringing in a couple other town regulations and also utilization of renewable energy resources. So thinking about those, those are very high level and somewhat repetitive. And they don't really give the board a lot of deference to require modifications that people might want to see. But really are looking more at what's going on, where are the hours of operation, how does this use interact with the neighborhood. It's not saying whether or not the building is appropriate on that hill, for example. So a little bit more involvement to think about. Yeah, for sure. Do you realize the knock at public properties? Conditional uses? Yeah, and sometimes the solution for conditional use properties is there are supplemental plantings, fencing, where lighting is on a building. It's not necessarily related to just the building. Conditional uses tend to get used as ways that DRBs, not necessarily cold gestures, but around the state, can just attach extra conditions. They're right or wrong, and that's what they use them for, even if they don't necessarily fit the criteria. So we really need to think about things like, do we want this use in this zone area or not? We don't. Don't put a conditional use. That's what I encourage you, if it comes down to the use. And there are some where it is very dependent, like a trash facility is not a bad thing, very specifically in certain areas. So conditional use is really, it's good for certain things. But I encourage you not to overuse it. OK, so sounds like just to sum this up, we will, Zach took notes on your uses. Did we decide on in? Commercial, non-residential. I think it's commercial. So just so you know, as is, that gives you 40 feet. I know. That's where we're good to the table, saying, take the C up or something. So give us non-residential. Camping, that's next. Campground. Campground. It's transient. Non-residential. Non-residential. OK. Sorry, let me get that table back up. Campgrounds are usually conditional on how long we can live in them, correct? Like it's usually our total. Oh, yeah, that's coming in supplement 48. We're going to talk campgrounds. You're going to be tired of campgrounds when I'm done with you. My party works. Yeah. Campgrounds, they're changing as a, I don't know. We're going to talk campgrounds. And primitive campground. Yeah, that's same. Same. Well, what do you call it? Do we define primitive campground? We don't allow it anywhere except for. Where do we allow it? Is that ten of camp inmates there? Is it glamping? I don't know. Primitive campgrounds can only be defined in agriculture districts, which is interesting. Any lot occupied by more than three tent sites, for a brief period, for vacation or recreational purposes, bathhouses or outhouses are customary at a primitive campground, whereas laundry facilities and retail uses are not customary. A primitive campground includes non-commercial, no charge, no service, and commercial operations. Wait a minute. Run that button. I'll tell you what I just. A primitive campground, it's a laundry services. It sounds like that. Yeah. So what happens with campground, campers is they have a thing called harvest host, and there's different names for them. So you can roll your camper in for the night, no services. We've talked about those recently in office. Yeah. They're becoming very popular because people are getting more and more expensive. It's a very cheap way to get out. We're sort of ignoring them as long as they don't have an impact. Yeah. We're sort of especially on farms. We're just sort of, until they start to. That, yeah, until they start to be more than two or 10 or 50. The, but that would suffice for the primitive campground. That wouldn't run into the campground status. In the ag desert. They're not doing any facilities, but they are staying overnight. Is that correct? I don't know. That's like tenting. Or what is that? Tenting? Yeah, tenting sites. The camp? Yeah. No, you could have a camper. You're so fair. This looks like 100 people. There's no definition of a tent. We haven't seen them. I'm thinking of bringing your stuff.  Sure. They're partying. It's a party and stuff. The state is very protective of what can happen on farms. So we have to be largely hands off with a lot of farm stuff. My agatourism is hot. Yeah. And I think more stuff is under legislation this year. So we have to be very careful with farm stuff. Our hands are pretty tied there. It is interesting, though. So the next time someone comes in and say they need to convert, they need to rezone their ag lands, you can say you can always have a primitive campground. A primitive campground where you can not have retail uses, but you can also have commercial uses. I don't get that. I don't know. Well, the commercial, I assume the commercial use would be a concert or something, a concert or something like that. With no open sessions. That would be a concert where it brings in their tents. Wide open. Right? What's that? I mean, that's a. Yeah, you could have a kayak service on the river or something. Sure. Yeah. Interesting. So where do we list it? Well, it's not residential, so non-residential. I don't know if I'd put it as commercial. So this would mean that somebody would have to get a permit to have a primitive campground. This is the whole point of figuring out. Apparently. They'd have to get conditional use approval from the development review board, so they'd have to come in front of the DRB as a public hearing. Agriculture's going to pass its law. See, some of these things too, I mean, I might be curious enough to look tomorrow and figure out how long this has been. It might even good date back to 1961. It's interesting. When was Woodstock? 69. It'd be funny if that's what it was. 72. It was added in 72. Yeah, after Woodstock, we don't want those kettings from any other out there. I'm going to look tomorrow. OK, so we'll do that. Was there a consensus on if that was commercial or residential? Not residential. Not residential. Right, in the ag district. Yeah. OK, thank you guys on that one. So I think we're going to do for this building, I think. We're going to do what we did for East Lakeshore. I think we're going to do some hardy outreach so that we can hear from people. We're just going to have an open forum. I don't think we need to overthink it. I don't think we need to do a big presentation. I think we're just going to let people come talk. Absolutely. I think it's one question, really. Yep. We just hear from people. Yeah, this definitely gives the people an opportunity. You will. I think you have a lot of people that came when you did East Lakeshore. Absolutely. And the message back was, look, we need to focus right. We're trying to do this. This is maybe another time. So now their other time has come. OK, we'll do that. Where are we? I'm going to close this. So we're done with that item. So you're all set? Yes, we're done with that item. Are you done? You guys done? You good? We're done. I'm just going to get back to my notes here. Now we're back. Good, yep. Gross Center designation and development update. So Rich has asked me a couple of times now to give you guys an update on some of the plans and goings on in Severance Corners. Some of it you've seen with your own eyes if you've driven through. And some of it are plan sets that the DRB has seen. Anybody who gets bored enough and watches a DRB meeting has seen. Where can we find it online? I'll let Zach answer that too as part of the question. Because part of it you can probably find in packets on clerk base. Part of it we can help you find through Elms. And part of it we can put in your Drop Box with tonight's presentation depending on what you want. Do you want to see plan sets? Do you want to see decisions? What do you want to see? I'm a visual person. I like plan sets. OK, both. Well, let's start with what we'll show you tonight. Let us know if there's anything you see that you want. We'll give you the entire presentation from tonight. If there's more that's not in here, like an application or anything else, we'll get those to you as well. Maybe your next meeting. Well, no, your next meeting you're going to have a lot of people coming to talk to you. But we'll do an Elms walkthrough for you guys. That might be a fun little educational piece. So we'll show you how to find anything in files. A couple of you, I think, have already played around with it. Or you may have some experience in it, but Elms is our database that we use for permits and DRB files. And it's really handy. And it's a really fun tool. You can look up anything on your own property, your neighbor's property, or any other property you've heard about. So we'll do a walkthrough for you on that in the future. It's a lot of fun. I think it's fun. And it's a pretty quick learn. So we'll teach you guys how to use that as well. And it'll open up a whole new world for you. You want to go? Sure. Yeah, so if you want to pull up the presentation, should be just roll down to the flash drive. That's tonight's meeting. Probably delete things from the flash drive. Don't delete other people's flash drives. Nope, actually, back out. It's gross on our presentation, PowerPoint. Present it in the bottom right. Not that bottom right. In a little bit. There you go. You might have more of your bosses. Have you ever wanted to do anything? Sweet. All right. So I'll try to be brief considering I'm starting the presentation at 8.28. And I don't want to. Perfect. All right, so yeah, just wanted to give you guys a quick update on where things are at in the growth center. Just as a quick orientation, this is really the area, the intersection between Roosevelt Highway, Blake Lee Road, and Severance Road. I believe the approved map is on the right there. I didn't confirm with Kathy, and so if that's wrong, I apologize. But generally, a black and white map prior to designation in 2009, not very inspiring. But you can sort of see from Google Maps that things have been in the works on the ground. So as part of this, the town is seeking, I believe, renewal of the growth center at this point. So kind of going through some reporting right now as well to see where things are at. I'm going the wrong way. I'm going to just quickly jump in there just to say. So we're doing a check-in right now. We have to check in every five years. So our designation for the growth center was in 2009. We're required to check in every five years. It's a 20-year designation, so our actual renewal will be in 2029. But we do have to meet with the downtown board in June. All right. So starting off with what you probably drive by and see pretty often, Severance Corners Village Center. This is kind of known as the Southwest Quadrant. Originally approved in 2003, but it's come in for multiple final plot amendments over the years. So this sort of predated the form-based code that's adopted in that area. So the development on the land doesn't necessarily comply with what's currently permitted out there. Right now, you've got 12 buildings, 328 or so residential dwelling units and 25,000 square feet of commercial space. That area looks like this. Generally, you're seeing buildings on footprint lots, buildings of different that you've seen development over the years out there. It's been a little bit slower out there. There's definitely still some capacity for more development on that parcel, especially out by the corner. I'm using a laser pointer on the screen here. But by the corner of Blakely Road and Roosevelt Highway, there's definitely some area that might be interested in developing. It's currently a small shed here that there's some interest in replacing with the building. That was actually approved in 2004. So yeah, there's still some development going on in this area. But it's definitely a lot of surface parking. And again, definitely a mix of residential and commercial. Any questions about what this area specific? I can go back, of course, if you have questions. But an apology is that this is not a nice planning color. But all right. Well, great because the black and white plans are not over. So going to Sunderland Farm Community. So this was approved much more recently. Approved under the form-based code in 2019. It's presently under construction. This was permitted with 21 buildings. So almost nine more than the other quadrant. Almost 200 or so permitted units and 50,000 square feet of commercial. So significantly more. Of course, this was permitted prior to the pandemic and prior to some of the housing needs that we're seeing acutely addressed in news here. So this being under construction, not really sure if this is going to pan out the way it was permitted. But that being said, this is the approved plan from 2019. You'll see that this has really a grid of streets in a way. You've got Dillon Ave or I believe that's Shea Drive, Dillon Ave, Steward Ave. I believe this is Peg's Cove. I believe these streets continue as well. So this was permitted under the form-based code. You start to see the buildings closer to the roads and parking set back behind the buildings for the most part or under the buildings in many cases. These three buildings are the ones that were permitted and constructed. These two, there was a boundary line adjustment and a change to the orientation of those buildings. So that's why they look a little different. And we'll look at those plans in just a minute here. But these three buildings are all residential. Looking at about, I believe it's 36 units here and about low 40s for each of these. So by the end of this going to be a little over 100 dwelling units out there. But going back, that's almost half of the permitted dwelling units there. So that tells you about the market, of what's being built these days. Stewart Ave, this is a project that was ever north and Champlain Housing Trust, the first building that was permitted out there. 36 unit building. I think this building, definitely, it's maxing out four stories, which is the maximum along the B Street. It's got some defined entrances. And I really wish I could have a plan in color to show you what actually this building looks like, because this is not very inspiring. But there are parking behind the building, some amenities, gardens and whatnot. There's, of course, lighting and privacy fence here. If we go back one, you'll know that there's ideally going to be a community playground here as well. And one thing I will note about Sunderland is that there's definitely, as approved by the Development Review Board, a diversity of housing. So you're looking at some townhomes as well, permitted on the property. Of course, not permitted to be built yet, so not sure if anything might change with those, but definitely some different options as well that are not present on the Severance Corners Village Center parcel. Just continuing on, though, the buildings for, this is Shade Drive and Dillon Avenue. These are really fronting along a B Street, again, all residential. One thing to note is that these are primarily one-bedroom dwelling units, so seeing more of that demand in the market. Originally, they were thinking about two or three bedroom units. And again, underground parking for each of them, parking behind the building, good fire access. The fire department likes this plan, which is nice for them. Again, flat roofs is what we're seeing out here compared to pitched roofs in the other quadrant. So definitely some items to look at there. Any questions about Sunderland farms before we kind of head out of this one here? These buildings up here, these still looking at residential. There's one right here. Where does the commercial come in, up here? So I'm not familiar, so I apologize, because this did predate me, so I don't know which lawn off the top of my head is which. Most of the commercial that's proposed is there's a few standalone commercial buildings, again, up by the road. But you're going to be looking at commercial first floor requirements, kicking in for a lot of these buildings, or again, mixed use buildings, definitely over here and here, for sure. Again, going to definitely have full residential down here. So I can't confirm, certainly, but I can't let you know that it does seem like more of the commercial activity is going to be up here. So I've spoken with representatives for the property owner here, and we're both looking to see some major changes to this plan, especially up near the front of the road. I don't think they like this plan. I don't like this plan. When you say the current owners? The current owners. Do they change? So SDRLand owns this parcel. So they are looking to make some changes to this plan. So they develop this plan, but they don't like it anymore. They don't really like this plan. Just to be clear, I think this plan was developed as part of. So the parcel below this one is owned by Wright and Morrissey. And there was actually a development plan that was very similar to this that had been approved very much prior to 2019. That was adapted to meet the form-based code. And this is what was approved then. Yeah. So I don't think we're going to see much more of what's approved in this plan built without some changes. And actually some of those changes will probably be part of code updates, hopefully in a good way. I've started to talk through potential updates to the plan that would, I think, produce a better design that we would get behind, as well as something that would make them happy, especially up again along near the roadside. It is a very large parking lot that I think would be very visible. That it would be my intention to try to do something better with. It's a flat space without a lot of wetlands. There's a lot of potential there. They've got some vision for the back. I think they've shared this with you in a public meeting before where the townhomes are in the back. And a big question that will come to you, not tonight, but in the future, is probably to weigh the question of housing diversity against housing quantity. Is the value of having something different like a townhouse? How does that weigh against having something that might be a higher unit count, but may not offer you the same diversity of housing type? So food for thought, again, there's no question in front of us yet to change those to something different, but there may well be. I think there's some question about whether those stay, not from our end. So those may look different. You might see something fairly different here, but we'll see. And I think that this will open up opportunity for us to make some changes. I think when this was first approved, there were potentially some things that were missed. I look at this plan and I see a serious lack of shared public space. I don't know when that playground will ever be built, if it will ever be built. And so we'd like to make sure that amenities that are planned are built and built in a timely manner. So that's something we'd like to work on if there is a revision to the plan. So again, I say all this to say that what you see is not necessarily what you're going to get. The flipping of the buildings has been interesting. I think it's actually worked out fairly nice, but it's kind of early to tell. It's given us a bit more frontage along the street, which is what a traditional form-based code calls for. But it also looked nice before, so. There's no common area. It's in the back now. Like the other side of the road where they happened to be. There's nothing like no structure in here, right? Not that I see. Where? You're talking about common area like we see on the other side a little bit of Zebo, a little Park Lake atmosphere. We don't see that here. Not much. Right. There's not much. Not much, right? And that's really just too steep to be kind of usable. Right. You know, for hiking or whatever. Oh, the back there? Yeah. Yeah, it's pretty steep. Yeah, we'll see. What you see under construction, I believe, is everything that's been permitted. I don't think there's anything permitted that's not under construction. Correct. All right. Shall we move across the street? All right. So just to back up a little bit before I show you a plan that you might have no idea where it is. There is a preliminary plat approved plan on this parcel out here. So when you're driving out here, you'll likely see just an expanse, some ups and downs, maybe some wetland vegetation. If you're in tune with that. So that's where we're going. So we're going to get over there. So just to clarify, this is a proposal that, you know, got preliminary plat approval in 2023. We're awaiting a final plat submittal. So nothing here is approved to go to construction. This is just preliminary. 31 buildings, 593 dwelling units, 20,000 square feet of commercial. Definitely a lot more dwelling units than the prior proposals. This is the plan here.  Can you point out the roads? It's hard to see. Okay. So the roads that exist? Yeah. So this is Severance Road here. This is Roosevelt Highway here. So what you see now is likely kind of similar in that, you know, you'll see what looks like a wetland kind of in the lowest point of this parcel. There's a couple low points actually. Some steep slopes. And, you know, just to, you know, note here, this parcel was actually approved for a much more suburban development when the town was developing the form-based code called, I'll say it's Owls Glen or something like that. And, you know, topography like this is really hard to make work with a form-based code. So this is a proposal that tries to make that work. And really what we've got here is a main road within the subdivision that provides, you know, an entrance on Roosevelt Highway, an entrance on Severance Road because two entrances are required, multiple larger buildings kind of winding through here. This is a 60-foot road. It's quite wide. And, you know, in order to make those higher numbers of housing units available, you're seeing a lot more maximum, you know, four-story buildings, possibly five with, you know, any affordable housing density bonuses that are provided under recent legislation. So kind of walking through a little bit of this here. We can come back to this, but I just want to show you what these buildings are looking like from, you know, the DRBs, what they've seen thus far. So commercial uses, you know, looking at a big item here was, you know, whether or not there, you know, these one-story commercial uses could look like two-story buildings where the minimum height is two stories. Up here you have a potential daycare facility. This is kind of an office or a grocery store. These are some renderings of those buildings. Of course, we can talk more about what you might like or not like about these, but just so you know, these are purely aspirational. They're not anything that the DRBs approved to go to construction or anything like that. Looking at residential buildings, again, like I said, you know, we're looking at that four-story height for pretty much all of those larger buildings. There are a couple interesting buildings, these units that I believe the developer was saying, you know, could house eight individual dwelling units, sort of four units on the first floor, four units on the second floor. And those are located in this area here, which kind of has a secondary kind of private drive there to provide access to additional units. One thing about this plan is that there are a number of amenities throughout the site that were, like Kathy and mentioned with Sunderland, you know, with Sunderland and the approval that's on record, there's no real surety of when those amenities are going to be developed. Here, you know, we're looking at tying these, you know, seeing how these amenities can be developed when adjacent lots are developed. For example, there's a pool down here. The developer review board has talked with and staff and have talked to the developer to say, when is it appropriate for those amenities to be built throughout the process, just to make sure that everything gets done in a way that, you know, meets everybody's expectations. There's, of course, some significant circulation through the subdivision that's not on road for pedestrians and folks on bikes. And again, I mean, this is a form-based code plan here, so you still see them buildings close to the roads. Some buildings need to be bent in order to, you know, meet the requirements for certain streets. But, you know, I'll hand it over to Kathy and to talk a little more about this, but just wanted to kind of give you a glimpse into what's being proposed at this time. Again, you know, you're not going to see it tomorrow. But at this point in the planning process, this is really getting close to what you might see eventually. Yeah, I'll point out some things. I don't want to speak for the developer on this, but something that you will hear. When we do start to open up the conversation on this probably this summer, known issues that he has shared with me that he will bring to you, a couple issues. One, they tend to really revolve around some of our road standards. I'm not entirely sure how much the Planning Commission can impact them, but these are issues that you will hear. One, our road standards do not allow for on-street parking. And that tends to reduce a lot of the density because you can't have units that don't have parking. The other thing, as Zach mentioned, we're talking about very wide roads. So there is a lot of pavement width, which does impact, again, what kind of development that you see. The other issue that I think has been that we've struggled to work with, if you see where this sort of road at the bottom left of your screen, this main road comes in and comes up to the left, and it sort of wants to form a T-intersection. That's something that you'll probably, right there, or that pointer is something that you'll start to hear about. Our road standards require that to sort of loop and take a more gentle curve as opposed to a more urban T-stop, 90-degree right. That sort of impacts the type of development that you can put there because you don't have a crosswalk, you don't have a 90-degree lot that you confront a building on. When you have a curve and you now have a 16-foot setback that we have in a lot of these lots, when you have a curve, it's a lot harder to get that building close to the road because you don't have a squared off lot. And that is impacting sort of the type of development that can happen because these roads have big curves and big setbacks and big areas. Again, I'm not necessarily saying that that is something that we shorter can fix, but it is an issue that you will hear that doesn't play nice with the traditional form-based code. It affects some of our pedestrian circulation again. It's very hard for pedestrians to cross where a road does not stop. If a road has a big sweeping curve, it is faster, it is wider. And it is really hard for a person who was walking or biking to get across that road. Zach and I talked about recently another road in Colchester. When traffic doesn't stop, it's hard to get across it when you are walking, running or biking. Also, just to point out as well that DBW has let us know that when there's not an intersection, there's additional requirements to put up flashing beacons in order to have a crosswalk to provide a certain level of accessibility on that area. So these long stretches bring possibly multiple of those beacons along the way just so people can get across the road. So again, I raise these not necessarily to say that there's disagreements within town departments, but more to say that these are issues that you will probably hear the property owner share with you when he gets your ear, because they do impact how our form-based code is working and they do impact how urban development with a suburban road network is not going to play nice. And we have to make choices about which one we want. Just so I'm clear, the developer came up with a road and then the department decided for that road these are the requirements, is that correct? The requirements were already in place and they don't change whether you're... So we have road standards, we've always had road standards, they're in place. They are our road standards, we're very proud of them. Sure. But they don't change based on your district. We don't have urban road standards. Right. So we don't have different road standards for a form-based code necessarily. So again, these are things that you will hear on street parking is something you will hear about. There are some private roads in this development where there are, which allows different things to happen because if they are not public roads, the road standards don't necessarily apply, or at least not apply in the same way. That little private cottage roadway there is private. We worked for a long time with our emergency services.  Like this little stretch at the bottom right of your screen is a private stretch. It doesn't actually go anywhere but that's allowed to happen if you have fewer than 50 units. It does have an emergency access should it need one, but it is not an actual access just to be clear. It's emergency use only. Again, you know, there's, as Zach said, when you have a, we tend to, and not just we all planners and all landscape architects, when they sit down and do a form-based code, the exercise is always on a flat piece of paper with perfect land and no natural resources. And that is very rarely the reality in life. And this just sort of shows you what happens when you have topography and you have wetlands and resources and so it's not going to look the way that you designed it on a perfect grid and a perfect square lot. And I think all things considered, it offers a lot. It offers a diversity of housing types. There's quite a few recreational amenities. I am really proud of the decision we've constructed that makes sure that those amenities happen. They are tied to certain pieces of the development so that they have to happen. You can't build it out and save your tennis courts for last. You can't wait to do those things. But they're far from final. And even when you get it approved, you don't actually get a building approved. You just get a concept approved. So that's what that looks like. And just for a little bit of context, because you might hear about this as well, within the growth center, V-Trans is looking at doing some future improvements to Severance Corners. This is not any time soon. Within Colchester, V-Trans is working, as you know, on the Double Dive and Interchange at exit 16. I'm sure construction will start back up should the spring ever get here. After they are finished with that, they will start to work on the bridge in the exit ramps at exit 17. They've got some issues up there, so they'll be working on that. And then when they're done there, they will come to this area. They've got a plan to add some turning lanes and add some pedestrian facilities. So the roadway that you see here will probably look different as well. No roundabout that I know of. I've heard of some discussion about it. It was. I got voted down. I got voted down, slightly killed it. Thank God. The good thing is, as I understand it, it's fully funded by the state. It is not a local project at all. But that's probably not any time before 2028 at the earliest, which, you know, V-Trans is like dog ears, so 20, 30 something. But there are some plans for that intersection. And that's the growth center. Thank you. Lots to go.  One number I'll share with you that we didn't mention is that when we were approved as a growth center, we had to show that we were going to build most of our housing in the growth center. We recently ran the numbers. Since 2009, 46% of our housing units has been in the growth center. Wow. We're supposed to do 50, but I think 46 is pretty darn good. So 46% in here. And it's far from built out. And that's just what's been permitted. So that doesn't include this. None of this. And nothing in the fourth quadrant, which is not even counted for. So 46% is happening there. Wow. So that's looking pretty good. I think we're on track for the build out numbers that we anticipated in 2009. Oh, my mouse isn't plugged in. Okay. What else do I have on the agenda here? All good. Any questions on growth center? Filament update. Thank you. Very appreciative. Support part of the community definitely should know what's going on. All right. So we're going to approve DHCD post adoption report for supplement 46. It's not the same one you looked up before, but the state now requires us to do it twice. Do we do any action on this? Yeah. Yeah. Okay. You have to. I think I gave you a motion. All right. I'm going to go ahead and make a motion. Yeah. Go ahead. Yep. Okay. I move to approve the municipal planning commission by law report. Post adoption for amendments to the cold Chester development. Regulations supplement 46. Your second. Any discussion. Quick discussion. For me, I guess. Why are we doing this again? It's just the state mandated thing. We have S 100. Yeah. Are we going to do this like everyone? Yes. Every single supplement. We've always had to do a pre amendment report that asks us like three questions. You've always done that. Right. As part of S 100. As you see here, they expanded the report to include a lot more questions. And you have to do it twice. You have to do it before you adopt it. And you have to do it after, I guess in case anything changes. So you did adopt this beforehand. The only thing that has changed is there's a part that says legislative body hearing. I filled that in. Yeah. It's got dates. So there are all of these questions. So all of this stuff. Findings on the municipal plan. All of this findings unsafe and affordable housing. This is all new. This is why I bring you such a long set. So I don't have to do it as often because it's every time you do an amendment. You have to do this. And you can't do it on the same day. Let's just do it twice. So that's why we're doing it. Okay. It's required. All right. That's all we needed. Thank you. All in favor. All in favor. Aye. Aye. Motion passes. It is new. So this is new. It's not tax on us. So we're good. Informational items and staff updates. Emails and planning and zoning report. I have no comment on emails. I just provided them to you. Do you have comments on emails? No. All good. Okay. The planning and zoning report, as I mentioned, I couldn't give it to you early because we do it for the month prior. So we had to wait until the first of the month. So we just finished that up. There's some commercial activity. I'd point that out to you. Yeah. Nice. There's some notes in there about things we did last month. If I'd gotten it done yesterday, I might have added a few April Fool's jokes in there. But I didn't get it done yesterday. So everything that's in there is accurate and true and serious. So where is this new commercial? So there's a, it's at 485 Nokia tires drive, which is a new road. It's a renamed road, but it's a large mini storage facility. Okay. It's over 100,000 square feet of mini storage. Wow. And it's on the road that houses a tire warehouse. So it's pretty, pretty out of the way. It's not really visible from Main Street, which is where it's accessed from. Okay. It's accessed from Main Street. Probably most visible from Sand Road. Yeah. I'm just, I'm trying to picture it. You can't? Because it's hidden off. No? Okay, that's good. I think it backs up to the railroad, right? Yeah. So it backs up to the railroad and Sand Road. It also has frontage on Depot Road because it's quite a large part of it. But for a while, our commercial column on there was zero, zero, zero, zero. It's not zero anymore. Definitely start. I leave meeting schedule on here as a standing item, but I don't think we've talked about anything off schedule. Yep. Good. So we just need a motion to approve the minutes. Okay. I'll make a motion that we approve the minutes from the February 6th, 2024 meeting. Your second? I'll second it. All right. All in favor? All right. Motion passes. So when is our next meeting? May 2nd. Huh? May 2nd, right? Or whatever the first two things. May. Okay. So the first Tuesday in May. First Tuesday in May. Okay. May 7th. We're skipping the second one here this month. We don't need a second one here this month. We decided that, right? Before we move on. No, but just so you know, there are five Tuesdays this month, so there is a big gap. So we'll probably plan to do that outreach because we've got plenty of time and just get that kicked off. So there are, because there are five Tuesdays. Yeah, that'd be excellent. So May 7th is a full five weeks from now. Okay. So now we need a motion. Okay. I'm making a motion that we adjourn the meeting. We need a second. Aye, aye. All in favor? Aye. Motion passes. We adjourn. It is nine o'clock. Before anyone leaves. I brought you guys. So I need to sign. Go ahead. So I need to sign.