Okay, you're good to go. Okay, I'll open the meeting of the select board. This is the select board meeting and public hearing for the interim zoning bylaws starting at 6050 because it was publicly announced that the public hearing will start for the interim zoning at seven. First item would be to approve the agenda unless there's any changes. Hearing none, I'll take a motion to approve the agenda. So moved. There's second. Second. All right, it's been moved and seconded. Any further discussion? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Before we go on to public, I'm gonna be recusing myself from the public hearing so I can speak on behalf of one of my buildings. So just note that at seven o'clock I will be handing the meeting over to Chris. But I believe I can still run it until then. So for a couple of minutes before public, I don't know if anyone is here from the public but we can wait a couple of minutes unless Steve and Harry, you have anything that's outside of the interim bylaws you wanted to discuss. Aye, Mark. Okay. Hey, Mark, I'm gonna try Patty Martin. She was gonna take minutes. I can take minutes if necessary but let me see if I can reach her. I'm just gonna go on mute for a minute. Okay, otherwise these are gonna be the longest eight minutes of your life. Well, it's good to see that that eight minutes is filled with public comments from the public. And for those attending, you are, I guess it's a little different in this one. So it's open for public comment, I believe for the first hour and then it transitions over to the select board to decide if they wanna make any changes after the public portion of the meeting. It looks like Ken's joined us, George is joining us, Philomena is coming in. We're still in the public comment section of just the regular meeting. The public hearing will start at 7 p.m. but if anyone who's joined wanted to talk about anything outside of the interim zoning, feel free because we have until seven o'clock. All right, Patty's gonna join us here in just a minute, take minutes. So I can cover until she gets locked in here. Okay, yeah, I mean, I don't think you can really do anything until seven. So I think we're... Mark, one of the things that we should make sure that we do, which we didn't do the last time where we had a joint planning commission select and we want to make sure that we convene, not only that you convene the select board meeting, but that I also convene the opening of the planning commission meeting. It's a small point, but we should just make sure we do that. Perfect, and when do you wanna open your meeting? I believe the agenda said for seven o'clock. So I guess we're still early. And at this point, we do not have a quorum. So I would say we should wait till seven o'clock. Nobody can hear me, right? I'm muted. Oh, we can hear you. We can hear you, George. Oh, you can hear me, perfect. Sorry, I'm making dinner. Mike is coming in here, I think. There you are, hey, Mike. So for those who joined after we opened, the select board meeting is open right now. We're in the public comments. So if anyone wants to talk about anything outside of the interim zoning, feel free until seven o'clock and then we'll open up, we'll open up the public hearing for the interim zoning bylaws and also open the planning commission meeting at the same time. But this is an opportunity to speak to anything else besides the interim zoning bylaws. Mark, Phil's gonna join us here in a couple of minutes so he just went into his office. Ken, do you leave your meeting open just for the seven to eight o'clock hour or do you stay open until the end? Well, we'll stay open as long as we have reason to be here but otherwise we're not gonna be conducting any other business. And at this point, I don't know if Steve has been appointed yet to the, you have been appointed. Okay, so at this point it's myself and Steve and there's no, so we don't have a quorum so we can't really make any decisions on what we do. We now have a quorum, Eric is here. So, but well, when we're done with the business that coincides with your meeting, we would adjourn our meeting if that's okay. You can go ahead and open yours, I think, since we're sitting here until seven. Okay, I'm gonna convene this meeting of the Waterbury Planning Commission at 6.57. I would note that we have myself, Kim Bellow of the chair and Steve Karcher and Eric Gross from the Planning Commission are here in attendance. Hey, Bill. Hey, Bill. Mark, you may wanna mention the public comment again. We've had a couple additional people join us. Okay, so we have opened the select board meeting. Planning Commission has also opened up their meeting. It is currently opened a public comment outside of anything to do with interim zoning bylaws, which will start at 7 p.m. But if anyone's joined the meeting who wants to talk about anything else besides the bylaws, feel free at this time. You can either start talking, raise your hand, mention in the chat. You are also more than welcome to speak during the meeting through the public hearing that'll start at 7.30 for any other business. Yep, if anyone has anything they'd like to say before we get started at 7, feel free. Who are the members from the select board that are here? Katie, Chris, Mike, and Danny, I think we're all here. Danny's on, okay, thank you. And as I mentioned before, I'm gonna be recusing myself at 7 o'clock and Chris will be taking over the meeting so I can speak to some of my buildings. Chris, the meeting is yours. Okay, Mark, thank you. So I wanna just verify that it looks like there's 21 people on the screen. I don't know if there's anybody else kinda hidden. We're here to have a discussion and listen to input about the current draft, recent draft, on the zoning interim bylaws for downtown district and that last draft was put out April 6th, 2021. Is that correct, Steve? That's correct, Chris. I remember that last meeting, Steve, you had suggested maybe you wanna just kinda give an overview of what's been done and then we'll take questions and comments after that. Yes, before we start, I know there are several people on the meeting that really aren't fully identified. There's a TG, there's a Philomena. I could scroll down and see if there are others, but if they could recognize themselves. And we've got Mike's iPhone and... Mike Merchant. Say it again. Mike Merchant. Philomena. What's your last name, please? He's still showing us connecting on Mike's iPhone. I think that's Philomena Siner. That's what I was thinking, but yeah, you're right. I see that she's still trying to connect there. TG, could you identify yourself, please? In the text, Tom Moore. Tom, what now? Moore. D-O-O-O-R. Moore? Moore, D-O-O-O-R, I just got a check on it. Okay. And for the time being, that seems to be everybody, so leave the floor to George. Okay, great. So I'm also hosting, so if I seem a little distracted, it's because I'm trying to make sure everybody gets admitted. But what I'd like to do is share my screen with the proposed interim bylaws for the downtown zoning district. And I'm not gonna go through every section of the bylaws, but I would like to hit some highlights. I know we've had some comments, we have some comments from the Waterbury Area Development Committee. And so I just like to go through some of those aspects. And we do have three members of the Planning Commission with us as well. So they worked with me very closely in developing this and this draft came with a recommendation from the Planning Commission. So I just wanted to mention that. Hey, Steve. So I'm gonna share my, yes, go ahead, Bill. Yeah, just before you share your screen, I was looking at the interim bylaw on the website and on page 17, the last section, 1610, talks about the zoning map for the district. Right. See the zoning map anywhere on the 17 pages. Am I missing something? So there are two different documents. The way it was set up on the website is there's the latest news piece on the homepage and there are two different links. If anybody wants to go there and pull it up on your own screen, and there's a link to the text and then there's a separate link to the map. So we didn't try to make it the same document and I can share the map as well. Oh, it's fun. Yeah, so anything else before I share my screen that anybody wanted to say? All right, let me go ahead and pull that up. Just bear with me for a minute. Okay, can I just expand this a bit? Can everybody see this on your own screen? I'll get a nod or two, Chris, you're nodding. So it looks like we're all set. So these interim bylaws, as I mentioned, were developed from the draft unified development bylaw that the planning commission has been working on for over three years. And it deals just with one proposed zoning district, the downtown zoning district. And I'll go to the map here in a little while. It's expanded a bit from our current downtown commercial district and it does take in most of the designated downtown as well. So the purpose of these bylaws, interim bylaws are fall under state statute. They have, once they're adopted by the legislative body in our case, the select board, they have a life of two years and then they can be extended for a year. So these are in response to our situation with the COVID-19 pandemic. And they're really intended to help facilitate economic development and housing density in the downtown. So those are the two primary goals and they define various industrial and commercial uses.  Much of the downtown is made up of historic buildings. So that's a factor as well. In the applicability, this is basically a section which outlines what these bylaws are applicable to and they're applicable to the current downtown commercial zoning district that has been expanded into what we're now calling the downtown zoning district. I'll go over the zoning map once I get through the draft here. So this encompasses a portion of the downtown design review overlay that I mentioned and that's a coincidental with our designated downtown. So there are bylaws which will still apply in this downtown zoning district that are part of this so-called downtown design review overlay district. And so this also says that uses that are not allowed in the district are specifically prohibited. And it also says that no select board review is available for such prohibited uses under the standards of 24 VSA section 4415E. So this is the state enabling statute for interim bylaws and we can have some more discussion if we need to. Under normal bylaws, the legislative body or the select board in our case does not have authority to do any review of development or allow uses which aren't specifically prohibited by the bylaws. However, under the interim bylaw under the enabling statute the select board is given authority if they so choose it's a May. So they may allow uses that are prohibited under the interim bylaw and they may review those projects proposed under a set of limited criteria that are spelled out in this section of 24 VSA section 4415E. So we reviewed this applicability with our municipal attorney that advises us on planning law and this is Dave Rue with the firm's digital patient pleasure and Dave recommended that we limit the select board review and what this does is it places all review within the purview of the developer review board if it's not specifically allowed for approval by review and approval by the zoning administrator. So this does not limit any development under these interim bylaws that's allowed specifically allowed under the review. So I just wanted to outline that this comment has come up a couple of times and we can have some more discussion under the comment period if that would be helpful but I don't want to outline that. I mentioned that these bylaws are effective for a period of two years and then they can be extended for one year and then their life if you will is over. They in that timeframe they can be incorporated into permanent bylaws and be adopted as so-called permanent bylaws. So that's I think the intention of the planning commission is to move on and work these into early phase of implementing the unified development bylaw as permanent bylaws. So the district purpose is to allow concentrated retail service, office housing, other compatible uses, limited industrial uses like industrial uses and we'll talk a little bit more about that. There are permitted uses and conditional uses, permitted uses that are other than one and two family dwellings are reviewed under site plan review. And you can see that there are some limits or thresholds on some of these uses. The planning commission is recommending a threshold of 4,000 square feet. And the way that works is if it's more than that amount then you have to look and see if it's listed as a conditional use. So many uses, not all, but some of these uses are allowed as permitted uses, regardless of the size, they only require site plan review. But some of the uses that can have a more serious, if you will, or a broader impact are also reviewed under conditional use. And that list is the next section. So this outlines all those uses that require conditional use. And some of them are any size of that use is conditional like a hotel or motel and an event facility or a nightclub, catering, kitchens. So some of these uses are exclusively conditional use. The ones that were listed as up to 4,000 square feet like retail, personal services, I think it's like a bank, office professional in a restaurant. If it's more than 4,000 square feet, then it would be a conditional use.  There are three of these uses that are limited to have an upper limit in the size. There are food or beverage manufacturing in clothes up to 4,000. So an example of this would be a food production, Ben and Jerry's is a good example of a food manufacturing business. Average manufacturing would be a brewery facility that produces hard cider, that type of thing. Light industry in clothes, this would be the silk screen business on Foundry Street is a good example of a light industry that was approved in this district and that uses I think around 3,000 square feet. So the, let's see, some of the- Steve, real quick.  Under number 10 and say number 11 and 12, is there a coinciding list? Of businesses that fall under those categories? Well, there's a definite- How do you determine? How do you determine who considers what light industry is? Right, so there's a definition for all of these uses and I'll go to that next. So let me just cover the dimensional standards first and I'll try not to move my screen too fast because I know that it really makes my head spin. I'll try not to subject any of you to that. So dimensional standards are just that. Minimum lot sizes, height limits, setbacks, and so on, the minimum built-in coverage that's the amount of the front of the building has to be at least that amount of the lot. So I'll have a big- Steve, hang on, Steve, we're getting a lot of background noise here. I don't know where it's coming from. It's coming from Lori. Okay, and make sure you're muted unless you're talking, it will be helpful. Okay, thank you. Okay, good. So built-in line coverage is some of- an aspect of what's commonly referred to as form-based code. It's trying to create a certain design in a downtown kind of area and that is the minimum amount of the front of a building that is, so if the lot is 100 feet wide, the building would have to cover at least 60 feet. So it creates a streetscape where you don't have buildings with parking lots in front of them or large amounts of open area. The buildings come up closer to the sidewalk and there's also a maximum front setback. There are no minimum setbacks for any sides of a lot in the downtown because many buildings fill most, if not all, their lot. Some of them are right up to the right-of-way line. Bill, Steve, Bill had a comment there. I could see it come up on the chat. Bill, if you wanna chime in and state your point. Yeah, I'm sorry, my typing was pathetic. It is a very technical point. The permitted use is up to 4,000 square feet and then the conditional is greater than 4,000 square feet. It should be up to and including 4,000 square feet so that we have something at 4,000 feet covered. It's a very technical drafting point. Okay, all right, we'll worry about my typo. Okay. I think the intent to up to 4,000 would include 4,000 but we can clarify that where the less than or equal to. Thanks, Bill. Sorry about that, Steve. Maximum front is, so a building has to be within 10 feet of the right-of-way line, typically in the downtown it's the back of the sidewalk, but that would be the edge of the street right-of-way. And what this does is that, again, brings buildings up to the front of the lot and then parking would typically be to the side or the rear. So that's the purpose of this maximum front setback. There's a minimum principal building height of 24 feet. So that creates, again, a streetscape with taller buildings that are at least 24 feet tall should be for new buildings that wouldn't apply to an existing building. It's typically a two-story building, it wouldn't have to be, it could be a tall one-story building, but this is a minimum building height. Then there's a maximum structure height of 60 feet. So that's just what it says. And then there's a maximum principal building footprint. Planning commission is recommending 5,000 square feet. I know there's been some comments about that. So we can have some further discussion about that and what the range of building sizes in this district for especially non-residential or commercial buildings. So we can come back to any of this. There's maximum residential density that's important for housing projects. There's no minimum or maximum residential density. So density would be controlled by lot size, by having adequate parking and things of that nature, size of the building that's allowed. So that's important to note. Right now, we do have a maximum density in this district, but there is none proposed. So definitions, if they're not defined here in these interim bylaws, then the definitions under our current zoning regulations would apply. However, the uses are all defined under, in the use and dimensional table. So I'm going to expand this a bit. If anybody has trouble seeing it, let me know. And you can also go to the front homepage of the website and pull this up if that's helpful. So, and we can zero in on any of these specific definitions. But, Chris, this goes to your question about how the uses are defined. So these are the definitions. The planning commission will likely put this in a separate section when we develop the permanent bylaws, but for right now they're presented in this table. And then there's a column for the downtown, the DWN zoning district right here. If there's a P, that means that it's a permitted use other than one and two family dwellings that would require site plan review. If there's a C, like assisted or supported living facility, that means it's a conditional, let me, skilled nursing, I mean, sorry, skilled nursing service. So that's like a nursing home that provides skilled nursing services under state license. That's conditional use. Hotel or motel, I mentioned that before. Any size of a hotel or motel is a conditional use. And then when we get into the commercial uses, you'll see that there's up to 4,000 and then a greater than 4,000. So Billy, this speaks to your concern, what the way this is written, if it's up to and including 4,000, it doesn't include 4,000, if it's greater than, then it would be a conditional use. So a 4,000 square foot retail operation would be permanent. It's over 4,000, it would be a conditional use. So I'm not gonna go through all of these uses. We can come back to any of these. I would like to highlight a couple that have come up for comment. Restaurant slash bar has come up for comment. There is some language in here dealing with the portion of the floor area that has indoor seating. This certainly doesn't mean that you can't have a restaurant with less than 40% as eat-in seating, that's fine. It just more has to do with how it's defined. I know this may create some confusion and we could look at clarifying that language, but it's intended that if it's serving, preparing and serving meals for immediate consumption and has seating on site, then it would be defined as a restaurant. So that may need a bit of clarification. I know we've had a couple of comments on that aspect from part of our area development committee, so on. I certainly respect that. So I'll talk a bit about the food or beverage manufacturing and light industry. The Planning Commission is recommending a limit on these two uses of 4,000 square feet only. That figure could be changed. Again, a scale issue. And these are, I gave an example of both of these uses before. So we can come back to this if there are questions about what might be included in that use. Some uses have an X. That means that it's not an allowed use. It's a prohibited use. And as we mentioned, the slide board would not have the authority under this draft to allow that. So a self storage facility like a mini storage would not be allowed. A tank farm or fuel storage would not be allowed. And so on, freight transportation services, you couldn't have a freight depot, that type of thing. It doesn't mean they won't be allowed in other districts, they probably will. But in this particular district, it's not allowed composting facility, recycling services, and so on, sawmills. So these are all heavier duty industrial kinds of uses. Arts entertainment and recreation are all lumped together in one category. Movie theaters are allowed in a scale either as a permanent or conditional use clubs. This would be like the FW Hall, artist galleries, this would be like a maker's sphere would fit into this category. Museums are allowed at any scale as a permitted use. Indoor recreation, this would be a gym facility, a sports fitness facility, and so on. They're allowed at any scales, either permanent or conditional. And then an outdoor, commercial outdoor recreation would not be allowed. This would be like a golf course, things of that nature. And campground specialty schools. This was the third one that has a limit. So this would be a private educational facility. So that has an upper limit of 4,000 square feet as recommended by the planning commission. And then we go into civic and community uses. And this would be like a state certified educational institution, a school, and so on. Hospital would not be an allowed use. That's a full blown. However, a clinic is certainly allowed as a conditional use clinic or outdoor or outpatient care services. Any kind of social assistance charitable services at church that would be a permanent use. Excuse me, Steve. Yes. Whitney Aldrich just asked, since there was a building in town that you could use as an example that would give her an idea of what thousands, 4,000 square foot building would look like. There are some examples that you can toss out there. Well, yeah. I think, Whitney, I think your building is about 4,000 square feet. I can look back at the, I don't want to take a lot of time. I have a chart here that I think both of the, the WDEV buildings are in that scale on so streets. Let's see if there's another good example. This building is much larger than that. But yeah, let me take a look at that. The new building at 28th St. Street is about 2,500. So the building, the 30 Foundry Street building is just under 4,000 square feet. That's where Makersphere is on the second floor. And that's a good example. The, as I said, the WDEV buildings are just under 4,000 or just over. So that's a good example of buildings at that scale. Yeah, I think that's probably sufficient. Okay. Do you think? Good, okay. So I'm going to, again, I know we want to get into public comment here. We've already gone through the dimensional table. This just provides a definition for each of those dimensional requirements. So that's in the bylaw, specific use standards. I'm not going to go into a lot of detail. The planning commission spent a lot of time on these accessory dwellings. These are accessory dwelling units. And we worked with our attorney on this one. This is a use by right home occupation. Again, a use by right home businesses. This is a new use that would allow more robust businesses with site plan review, family child care home, residential care group home. These are uses by right as a single family use. The sober houses fall under this right now. There's new legislation that would create a separate use there. A bed and breakfast is allowed in. So a bed and breakfast is a smaller facility. In would be 12 bedrooms or more. Sage Creek's Inn is a good example of an inn. And then short-term rentals would be accessory use of any residential property. That's not really limited or prohibited at all. Motel, hotel we talked about. Open-air markets, option houses, restaurant bars. So these provide some additional standards for the review of these facilities. Mobile food services, food trucks, that type of thing. Vent facilities and nightclubs. And then there's some performance standards. And these only apply to a couple of uses they don't apply to every use. That was one comment that came out earlier. And I can detail that. I know I think home businesses require performance standards to be utilized. And I think there was one other. I'll have to jog my memory a bit on that one. So I think that's an important point. Conditional use has its own standards that are in our current bylaws, but these are supplemental standards that would be important in something like a home business that's only going through site plan review. And then enforcement and zoning. I'm gonna touch on the map very quickly. And then we can come back to the standards. So I did wanna show everybody the map so that it's clear what areas is included. So if you'll just bear with me for a minute, see if I can enlarge this. All right, I'll try to give you some context. Let's see, I could enlarge it a little bit more. Okay, so just to get you oriented, I'll use my cursor here, Stow Street. The district is this light purple shade. That's the proposed downtown zoning district. This is the gas station, it's at the top of Bank Hill. The cell shaped lot, Simpson Graves building. This deep one is Mark's building, the reservoir, I believe. No, I'm sorry, that's where Mansfield Orthopedics is. I apologize, reservoir is in here, right here. This is Mansfield Orthopedics, former Waterbury Medical Associates, for those of you who've been around for a while. And then at the other end, this is Warren Court, which is the horseshoe at the state complex right here. Warren Court is the beginning of the horseshoe. And then it goes to just the court. And then it goes to just across from the horseshoe drive, the first horseshoe drive. It takes in Moody Court, the Washington County Mental Health Building. It takes in the commercial buildings on the southwest side, the CC Warren House, where there are the London's mortal offices. And that's right in here, that the Cain Consulting Building, the one at the corner here with the eye doctor. So this is the other end. So unless there are any questions about the map, I'll take my screen share off and then we can shift to comments. Does anybody have any questions about the map before I? The only question I had is at one point, there was a discussion about perhaps expanding that downtown district towards the railroad underpass there. Look like you guys kind of decided not to go there at this point. Right. So this is proposed to be the mixed use district. Right now it's village mixed residential. It would stay that way. So it would still allow offices, bakeries, that type of thing. And same south of this area along Main Street. So the concern here extending it is it would allow some of these lighter industrial uses to potentially go into these mixed residential districts. So my recommendation is that we wait and let the planning commission work on this. I'm hoping that that'll be part of the next phase of the unified development bylaw and let them address the question of how that district is structured. But it's not really designed to be a downtown district with that intensity of use height of buildings and so on. Understandable. Okay. All right, I'll stop my share and then, so Chris, if you wanna take it from here, that would be great. Sure. So I guess we can entertain some comments from the public at this point or anybody that's concerned about what's been drafted so far and feel free to raise your hand and come on to the screen and let us hear what you got to say. Eric. So I do wonder if water is missing an opportunity to address cannabis businesses in the downtown district. And that we might wanna limit retail and commercial growing in this district. I know it's sort of a bigger discussion but now it seems like it'd be a good time for that. Ken, any input on that or? Well, Eric has brought up cannabis a couple of times the planning commission, but we didn't really have any sort of an in-depth discussion about it. And the one thing that we did discuss is, I know Eric went to, I think an online seminar training thing on it, but Steve had provided some information about the state statute. And my recollection is there's a provision in there that says that the town can potentially establish a cannabis control board. And my comment at the planning commission was that the first order of business seems to me to be that the select board should take up whether or not you wanna establish a cannabis control board. And I know that the voters have said that that recreational cannabis sales cultivation is acceptable in Waterbury. So that point has been handled, but it seems to me that the issue about whether the select board wants to establish a board that should be taken up and then how the town might handle whether it's sales or cultivation. I mean, it just seems to me this would be my own opinion. Again, we haven't as a commission, we didn't take this up in depth, but it seems to me it would be an appropriate item for discussion in terms of long-term zoning as opposed to kind of put into this interim bylaw at the last minute because it really just came up. So that's my take on it. But again, the most important part is that the Planning Commission did not discuss this in any sort of detail. No, you're correct. I think that is the first step that a commission has to be put forward to recognize what the limits are that are gonna be allowed and perhaps even where before the Planning Commission can even incorporate it into any district at all. I think Eric, you're gonna have to go to that process before anything can be done. Yes, I think Mike has something more to add. I just see that, Mike. If the state legalizes commercial cannabis retail distribution, how is that any different than other commercial activities? I don't see where it is. It's just another commercial. It's just, I know it's, you know, cannabis is stigmatized by a lot of people, but it's just another product. If someone was selling house plants and growing a few house plants, there would probably be zero uproar about it. And I just look at it, you know, I know people have mixed opinions about it. I have mixed opinions about it, but to me, I feel it falls under the commercial definition, my personal opinion. Well, it is a controlled substance that does differentiate it from, you know, house plants and garden vegetables. Steve, you had something to say? Well, just briefly, as you probably recall, the article that was approved by Australian Ballot stated that I believe it's October, I think the 22nd of 2022 when the law takes effect. It gives us some time. I agree with Ken. I think this is a great topic for the planning commission to talk about in the next phase of work on some permanent bylaws. And I think that's the appropriate place, along with the formation of the board, which is more of an administrative process that the select board will want to be talking about, but it's certainly appropriate that we address it through zoning. But I would agree, I think to try to limit retail or try to adapt to these bylaws before we really have that discussion and know what direction the community wants to go. I think it's premature, but I agree it's a priority. Right, and I'm looking at the time here, the time is short to address what we currently have in front of us. So I think we should just concentrate on that for tonight. Whether or not we can run over a little bit on our time, if there's more questions than we can answer in the next half hour. So, so, Ryan, I'm sorry, Danny. Sorry, Chris, yeah. I just wanted to ask a follow-up quick question. So that because in 2022, it would be feasible to have here if we have established a control board in theory, even within these interim bylaws, it could potentially be approved by the DRB, correct? Even if it's not specifically within these bylaws? Yeah, I think we need to get some advice. So retail sales is retail sales, but it's going to require licensing, I assume, by this board. So there's lots of unanswered questions that we need to explore. That's my point. Thanks. So I think one of the sticking points seeing how nobody else will bring it up is the square footage in the industrial aspect of these regs. I know there's been some comments in the past about not being sufficient size and limits businesses to scale up, depending on what certain types of businesses they are. Anybody have any comments on what got you to the 5,000 square foot? And is there any room for movement on that from the planning commission that's something you can help us out with, Ken or Steve? Well, let me just make a point. This is a draft that the planning commission recommends. These decisions are up to the select board. So you have the authority to modify this draft. If you think there's a more appropriate limit or you want to change something, you have the authority to make revisions. I think if it's a huge wholesale revision then we need to think about another public hearing, but the statute does not limit your ability to make changes. So I just wanted to make that point and I won't speak for the planning commission, but this is basically a recommendation that you have the authority to discuss, obviously discuss it, take comment and then if you want to change something, that's certainly within your purview before you consider adoption. Well, I also understand that we have to be sensitive of the planning commission's hard work here, not overstep too far. Could I comment? Could I comment? Absolutely Ken. Sure, well, we certainly appreciate the select board being sensitive to the concerns of the commission. But as Steve mentioned, this is interim zoning and formally the planning commission under state law doesn't even have an official role in the adoption of interim zoning. That said, we understand all the discussions that took place and how the select board wanted to get input from the planning commission. So that still stands. Having said that, the concern from the planning commission standpoint over the limitation of size of buildings is that this zoning district is essentially as a mixed use zoning district. So you can't really think of it in terms of whether it's just strictly a commercial building, whether it's a restaurant or some retail use or an industrial zoning district. There are also single family homes in this zoning district. There are historic structures that go back decades and decades that are a core part of the built environment of downtown. So that requires some sort of a balancing act. If this were a single or a more narrowly defined zoning district in terms of the types of uses allowed, it would be a different ballgame.  She had some real concerns about making sure that that size limit was not too great because of its potential effect on those existing residences. So that was really the discussion and the thinking that took place with the planning commission. So I have a question. I don't know if it necessarily applies, but no existing businesses or existing buildings that are currently operating under certain types of businesses. I know from permitting process through Act 250 and land management plans by the state, things are constantly a moving target, stormwater issues constantly evolving. And in my particular business, if I'm abiding by those standards one year and then the following year up, what we had last year has been changed and no longer applies. Now you've got to shift gears and comply to these new standards. That can be difficult sometimes, and you get frustrated because you're abiding by what the state has put forward and all of a sudden, boom, they throw a wrench out of left field and kind of knock you off your horse and you got to go back to square one and start over and it can become costly and time consuming. And I'm wondering if there's any instances in town that would be impacted and maybe derailed or have to kind of step back and regroup and move forward again. How are those addressed? Is there any type of grandfathering clause? How do those types of situations get addressed? Well, Chris Vermont state law is pretty clear cut on this issue is once somebody gets a permit under a set of regulations, they get to rely on that permit. Even if the permit was approved in error, a zoning administrator or a DRB could make the wrong decision and the applicant still gets to rely on that permit. So if somebody has a permit today to do something that somehow might not be approved under these interim bylaws, they can act on that permit. If somebody has an existing facility, they get to continue to operate that facility. If they have an existing building or a permit to build a building, they get to rely on that permit and they have that. So those things that have been approved and or are on the ground, those get to continue. Even if they were to become non-conforming potentially under this new zoning, I don't know that there would be any instances but just in the abstract, that's Vermont state law is very clear on that issue. Bill. Yeah, to that point as Ken was talking, I was wondering exactly that about non-conforming uses. And Ken made a good point that this is a district that has a lot of variety in it in terms of its current uses. But I think we also can't lose track of the fact that we have some pretty big buildings that are in this district now. I believe the shopping center that Parmal alone where Village Market is is in this district. So you can't put Village Market out of business but I guess a question would be if they wanted to expand that building, if Village Market wanted to expand and put in another 10,000 square feet and push out into the parking lot to the left of the building, all things being equal, could they do that under this by law? I also think that we have to give a little consideration and I didn't think of this before but part of this district on Bidwell Lane and on Foundry Street are currently industrially zoned areas now. So if Sanchez Oriental Foods wanted to expand, they could move into the whole building on Foundry Street that they're in under the industrial regulations. They could take up every bit of space in that building. And if you pass this by law, then, I mean, just as it is, I think Sanchez would be restricted to no more than 4,000 square feet. And that's not really about the non-conforming uses but I was as you were talking and that's why I asked Steve about the map earlier. Is there a way that you can include in this interim by law, how do I want to put it? Some language that would enable existing uses currently allowed in a particular zoning district to exist. For example, I wrote down for properties in the downtown zoning district as determined by this interim by law which are in the current industrial zone all uses and dimensional requirements described in the permanent by law would be allowed in addition to these new ones. And maybe I'm trying to cast too wide of a net but we don't have a lot of industrial areas in town and we certainly don't have a lot of industrial buildings that are available to be used. And if we, I just don't want to end up turning off the spigot for a business that's already in place and they can't expand into the next part of a building. So that's my concern too as well Bill. That's why I didn't know if there was a some form of a grandfathering scenario that could be put in place. You know, one of the thoughts I had, hang on Mike, just a second. Well, one of the thoughts I had is, you know, this downtown district, we're pretty limited as far as available space to expand. So at some point I think outside of carrying structures down in rebuilding, we're gonna work ourselves out of the room here pretty long. So I think, you know, there was a way of meeting, meeting, letting the current buildings operate under the current sizes that they are in the businesses. They want to expand into another section of it. As an existing building, is that possible? And then let's say somebody decides, well, I don't want that building. I'm gonna rebuild it and tear it down and they would fall under the new guidelines.  What I was gonna say, my initial, when I was talking to myself about the potential loss of this industrial district was, you know, maybe we just carve those two streets off and just leave them zoned industrial. And I don't have the permanent bylaws in front of me and I don't know what the use is allowed there, but my guess is that something like housing maybe is not allowed in the industrial district. So I was trying to figure out a way to get, to allow votes, you know, to allow the uses that this new district would allow in these areas, let's say somebody wanted to put housing in where the stone shed is, for example. I mean, I can't imagine that in that current building, but let's just say that somebody decided they could do that. You know, I wouldn't wanna preclude them from doing it, but on the other hand, if an industrial use wanted to use that space, I wouldn't want them limited to 4,000 square feet. So I was wondering if there was a way that you could craft some language and I'm not good enough to do it on the fly and I'm not sure it's even reasonable to consider, but that's why I was trying to say, let these buildings do what's allowed in this new district, but if they were formally zoned industrial, let those uses and dimensional requirements apply just for those, for the buildings in that district, but that might be too big of a mask, I'm not sure. Mike. Yeah, Chris, you and Bill both really stole my thunder, so I don't wanna regurgitate what you both have said, but I think I really do wanna hear from the public about this size restriction. I do like Bill's kind of thing is that you may wanna look at some uses that already permitted possible now to continue on to be permitted. I think we wanna be open and it's what's okay. Today is not okay, tomorrow is gonna be, it's a real property rights kind of issue, but I wanna hear from the public see what they restrictions, do we wanna open it up? Do we wanna have some sort of grandfathering? What's the public's pleasure on this issue? Yeah, I see Mike here, Mike's phone, you had a comment there, but I didn't get the whole thing because it got off there, so if you wanna jump in there and then Wendy, she also had a comment as well and it looks like she's up again. So Mike, if you wanna jump in first, you can come on on audio and let us know what your thoughts are. This is Amy Anderson, sorry, we're sharing a phone. Okay, go ahead Amy. Yeah, we just wanted to know if this was the only opportunity for testimony and if there were a highlighted version of the changes so that we could see what the changes are specifically. It's hard to follow this a lot to digest and I just haven't had an opportunity to print them and side by side and all that. So I wondered if there was a highlighted draft version so we could just look at only the changes because that's the only thing we need to focus on. And then the other question was if we're gonna have a higher reliance on the site plan review process and a lot of this is changing and there's gonna be a lot of questions from people, is there going to be something defining a reasonable expectation of response time to questions, emails, phone calls so that you can know what it is you're supposed to apply for and it doesn't delay actions. Go ahead, Steve. Just real quick, Amy, this is basically entirely new from the existing zoning bylaws. It's based on the proposed unified development bylaw that's been under discussion by the planning commission for a few years. It's similar to the draft that went to public hearing on February 22nd, there have been some changes but here we don't have them highlighted since that draft. So it really is a wholly new draft that is before you. Okay, Whitney. Yep, no way. Little questions that I just put in the chat. I don't necessarily need to have them answered right now. I just thought that they were little details that I was hoping to have sorted out. Maybe I could just respond to one of Whitney's question about music. Music is indoor music for restaurants and other facilities is regulated under our entertainment ordinance, not our zoning bylaws. So this draft basically states that any entertainment whether it's indoors or outdoors requires an entertainment permit to be approved by the select board. I did touch that in your chat. I think, is that something new requirement or is that already? No, it's been in existence for a while. Thank you. Mark Friar, you're muted, you're muted, my friend. I'll start with the 5,000 square foot limitation. As many people know, I've been working for years trying to entice the idea of getting development of more residential downtown. And constantly we talk about the sprawl of the hillsides and how we can avoid that. I think these regs go a long way to help that with the density changes that are being made. But I do have concerns that I mentioned at the last meeting, but since the planning commission is here as well, I think it's a point. So I really do think the 5,000 is too small. I hope the planning commission on the regulations that go beyond this could even be more than what I'm proposing, but I really do think that 10,000 is more appropriate. I think I sat in meetings for over five years in the Steel Block building, talking about that foundry building that Bill mentioned a lot as a potential opportunity for some new development of housing. And we've been talking with trying to get, engage the local housing partnership to try to do a project there. That's a 12,000 square foot footprint. And what basically what happens, if you go to knock that down, you would end up having to build multiple towers, and more walls, more exterior walls may more cost and most likely won't police entice an outside developer to even consider it. I think there's multiple buildings that are over 5,000 square feet. I understand concern about a single family resident being concerned about the building of downtown. But I think one of the goals here is to push density into the downtown and try to limit sprawl. And I think that that limitation right there will keep us a town that can't handle the housing demand and will continue to hold us back from hopefully getting developers in here to do some more residential projects in a downtown. There's a younger generation that doesn't wanna have cars. And I really think that we need to consider raising that number while I have the mic. My other issue obviously is what's been mentioned. I have an industrial building in this space that's gonna be rezoned under these rules because of the map change. I have a brewery that's about to sign a lease on a 2,500 square foot space. I originally talked about, they maybe can grow into the whole building but now they won't be able to. And so I really think those limitations are gonna affect only a few of us, but I'm one of them. And the number 10 and number 11 having a limit on 4,000 square feet when my main floor is 10,000. So I could have two breweries of 4,000 square feet but I couldn't have one brewery of eight. I just don't think it's unfortunately not working for my building. I'm happy to hear some solutions but I do really wanna reiterate that that's not, I mean, it devalues my building and it really does affect me. And I'm really trying to be, I wanna see this happen. I think there's a lot of good here. I just need some answers on solutions on that stuff. Steve, what's the footprint of the steel block? I'll look that up for you, Bill. Yeah, I think Mark marked my point there. That's why I was wondering if there was some kind of a grandfathering clause there that could be implemented that would cover buildings of your size and just allow growth with inside the building without having to meet the current draft because they're existing buildings and existing square footages.  Chris, I think we can have some more conversation once you've taken the public comment but I think that's really problematic. I think non-conforming uses can be accepted but if they're gonna expand, that can be an issue. So I think the alternative either leaving the three buildings on Foundry Street in the industrial district, I think that try to accommodate special circumstances with special language is really gonna be problematic. So let's have some more discussion after the public comment. I think George McCain's been waiting for a little while. Chris might wanna, he's had his hand raised. Okay, all right, well, I couldn't see your hand, but I'd like to see your picture, George, if you've got something you'd like to say, go ahead. No worries, no, I had a little hand emoji up there but no, I was gonna speak to the same 5,000 square foot issue there. Something Steve mentioned at the beginning kind of resonated, which was that there wasn't a maximum density for housing because it was, you know, this is all undergoing site plan review and it's really what the site can support and seeing what's going down through there. So I think putting in arbitrary 5,000 per foot maximum, if you've got a site that could support more isn't necessarily beneficial. Thanks. Melissa. I just wanna acknowledge that I'm occupying kind of an awkward space, which is to say that I've worked with the planning commission thus far, but was not obviously part of the board during this drafting. I did mention at two of the previous meetings, I'm also a resident on South Main Street in the downtown district. And I also have concerns about the 5,000 square foot maximum footprint, mostly from a housing development perspective. I just think there's opportunities at like 51 South Main Street, if that was to become housing or the stone shed and that that just becomes restrictive. So I'd love to see, I recognize it's a tough balance because it is both a commercial and industrial, but I think there's housing projects like Joel Baker's project in my neck of the woods, which I understand is outside this interim zoning district, which is putting eight housing units in the downtown that I think is a really good thing. And I would hate to see something like a 5,000 square foot max footprint make it so projects like that can't happen in the future. But I really applaud the planning commission for the work. I'm excited. I know some of this can be revised going forward, but just another community member with some concerns about that 5,000 square foot max threshold for a whole building. So I'm certainly not talented enough to come up with a solution to this problem. I don't know if it's going to require some more thought process by the planning commission in the select board. Tonight's meeting is going to be able to get us to the solution that we're looking for. Can I have a comment, Chris, if I could? Go ahead. So back in the old days when I was still working in Williston, we had a situation where we had a proposed down zoning in a zoning district that had a whole collection of existing and fairly well-planned industrial buildings and they were going to become non-conforming uses. And I was not the author of that, but the staff we were charged with trying to come up with a solution. It seems like it's similar to this. And the solution that I came up with at the time was that if you had an industrial building that had an approved site plan for industrial uses, in other words, the building had already been permitted and it was designed to accommodate industrial uses. You would allow those uses to be able to utilize the building. And it's a way of getting at the concern about somebody who's sitting in an existing house right now worried about a big building that might dwarf them in an unacceptable way, being built right next door to them. So we know where these big buildings are right now. And that's just off the top of my head. That's a sort of solution that we came up with about 10 or so years ago. And it's something that the select board might want to consider as a sort of a stop gap or compromise measure on this question. Actually, what I was trying to get at earlier, I think with this grandfathering thing, Danny, did you have something you wanted to say? Okay. Yeah, if anybody else had any comments, I'd take them if I hadn't seen your hand or I'm not sure. Hey, Chris, real quick, Tom, just a question about infrastructure. I mean, I hear the discussion about increasing size, where foot, what not? We want to build more housing, affordable housing, all these discussions, but what about as an infrastructure, right? I mean, are we looking at a strategy that the infrastructure supports? Are we now starting to scale outside existing infrastructure could support? And the reason I asked the question, I mean, we've got the downtown district that's been largely rebuilt, will be completed, I'm assuming on time. But we have roads that are not exactly up to par. You increase travel in town, you've got to be looking at infrastructure in water, sewer, roads. Gwerford's got to play out on this. A small town can scale to a degree, but who's looking at that plan? I don't know the details on it, but I believe the wastewater system has been reconstructed and has plenty of capacity. You can correct me if I'm wrong, Bill, in our water systems in pretty good shape. The buildings that are currently existing in the village, I think the infrastructure that we have can certainly support anything that's would come about as far as businesses in those buildings at this time. No, I understand existing, but what we're talking about is bylaws would be good for two years, with one year extension possible that would fold into, I'm assuming the bylaws are gonna be nearly 90%, if not higher, what would be a rewrite. You're not gonna change all of a sudden three years from now. So if we're talking to growth from 4,000 up to 5,000 to 10,000, whatever that number is, I mean, that discussion happening now, I think is a little problematic if someone's not looked at scale of supporting that type of density. Existing is, that's what we're built for. What is the density that we're going to? There's no issue with density in the downtown district, frankly, anywhere in the former village of Waterway. We have very adequate water supply with significant capacity for additional customers. We have a wastewater treatment facility right now that's probably running about 20% of its capacity. We can't expand necessarily beyond the district where water and sewer lines already exist very easily, especially on the sewer side, but in terms of providing service and being able to accommodate 5,000, 10,000 square foot buildings that might have 25 apartments in it or whatever, there's no issue with that industrial uses, commercial uses, all in the former village. We've got plenty of capacity in water and sewer right now. Mark, did you have some additional you wanted to say? Yeah, I just wanted also comment and remind everyone that we currently don't have a limit on building size in this district. So this is new, and I do think that there needs to be additional discussion, but we, and Steve, correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe we have a limit currently. And also the consultants did not suggest we have a limit on size in the downtown district. So I don't disagree that we shouldn't have a limit, but I do think the 5,000 is just really small. And I think we should consider at least 10,000, at least for now. And then hopefully when the planning commission can meet and talk about goals and density, then maybe those numbers are, maybe it's even more than 10, maybe not much more, but I do think that 10 is reasonable in this district and we currently don't have one. Yeah, Chris, that is correct. We currently don't have a limit, but this is something that some new planning commission recommended to address issues of scale. One of the comments from the Water Area Development Committee also was to increase that maximum building footprint to eight or 10,000 square feet. They recommended 10, but were willing to compromise, if you will, at 8,000. So that was a comment that they made as you probably recall. While we're a little past our time for holding this public hearing, unless somebody's got something outstanding that's going to sway the board one way or the other, at this point, I think we need to adjourn the public hearing and put the select board in the planning commission up a little bit. Did you just, before you adjourn, so I guess I didn't hear, I heard the first part of this and there's a lot of discussion about the 4,000 and the other requirements. What I just heard though was there is no limit on the side, this would be setting a limit. So why then was the planning commission hearing towards these numbers? What was the driving factor with the numbers that you put pen to paper on? I think Ken kind of touched on that earlier. We could hear it one more time. Well, he explained that there's so many different types of structures within the village that I think Ken, you can correct me that your concern was maybe allowing who big of a square footage would impact some of the residential housing and other smaller homes within the village area and you're just trying to create some type of scenario where everybody coincides together kind of on a level playing field more or less. That's correct. The other thing that I would point out is that the boundaries of this zoning district are different than the zoning district boundaries as they exist today. So you have a consolidation of some zoning districts and so it literally changes the playing field because you now have a mix of uses in this proposed zoning district that you don't have today. But as you stated, Chris, that the concern which came from some members of the commission and it was agreed on was there was some concern about large new buildings that might come in and create a situation that would be incompatible with especially existing residential buildings in the zoning district. Okay, if nobody else got any comments, I think we'll close out the public hearing for now. And then I might go ahead. Before we go on, I don't think we addressed and maybe if Steve and Ken want to comment, there was a comment by Whitney about bulk storage. If either one of you could comment on that. I know this comment, did you wanna say something, Ken? No, I'll go for it. I was pointing to you, that's what I was doing. Okay, all right, thanks. So as I recall, the bulk storage had to do with multi-family dwelling. And Whitney, maybe you could speak up. I know this comment came up before that it just has to do with the amount of storage space for dwelling and it's not intended for refuse or other kinds of materials. I'm trying to remember, Whitney, maybe the best if you gave us a section. Section 170712, Steve. Section 170712, oh, here we go, okay. So this is under multi-family dwelling. So this has to do with the amount of storage space that's designated within a building for a dwelling unit and it's providing a minimum amount. So envision a building that has some storage cages, if you will, in a basement. So it's saying, okay, you got to have at least so much per unit and it could be separate from the dwelling unit in an accessory, like a garage structure or something like that and has to be accessible. So it's not really dealing with where an apartment would put something like trash or refuge, something of that nature. Yeah, I'm sorry, I am owner of Axels and a resident, but I'm thinking a little outside of the box of what I'm currently at right now. But if I were to build a multi-residence somewhere in the floodplain, which happens to be in downtown because part of the downtown is within the floodplain, if I'm required to have this bulk storage requirement, then that means I'm gonna be displacing more water throughout the town. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, isn't there a rule when you're building in the floodplain in Waterbury right now that if you displace X amount of water, you actually have to take that same X amount of area away from your property to equalize the impact. That's correct, right, Steve? If you have a vented crawl space like you and Wade have or the fire station has vented garage space, so there can be ways to accommodate storage. So stay in space. Got it, so say if the stone shed because that's in the floodplain and so is part of Crispin's screen printing building. Those buildings are partly in the floodplain. Are we setting them up for additional requirement?  And if it's more than a five unit residence, then it becomes bigger. I just wonder if that's really necessary. Yeah, well, it's a four by five foot footprint area per unit, so I don't know that it would have a huge. But it also doesn't, the storage, you can build, you know, the storage doesn't have to be on the ground floor in the floodplain. I mean, I think the floodplain regulations are gonna make you develop the property, especially if it's a new development in the fashion that won't be in the floodplain and won't cause those problems. So it doesn't necessarily have to be on the ground floor. You can put the storage in the attic, if you want. And you can't actually, that probably wouldn't be advisable, but you can put storage in a garage space or an area which could be flooded. That's acceptable as well. So there are definitely some options. Yeah, you just take the risk of getting wet, that's true. Okay, I see Ryan Miller had a comment there. If you wanna jump on real quick and on audio there and ask your comment again, maybe we can address it real quick and when then we gotta close this meeting out.  I'm sorry, I stepped away for a minute, I didn't hear ya. Okay, while you had a comment there, if you'd like to express that on audio, I'd appreciate it. Yeah, I guess I was just kind of assuming that the wastewater department would be the ones that would be kind of dictating the size or the scale of the building, just based on the load that they can handle. I don't really know, I was just kind of like throwing that out there. Yeah, as Bill had expressed there just a few minutes ago, the wastewater system is currently at about a 20% capacity. So you've got 80% capacity to still use so that it's gonna take some time to fill that. Yeah, but we've been told that we need to really like sidestream 100% of our waste. So it's not to overload that, we're on board to do that, but. Who's talking and what are you talking about? I think they're talking about biological oxygen demand, Bill, organics. Yeah, that's just my partner, she's talking about the discussion we had with the wastewater department, but I was just, I was just throwing that out there as an assumption because to me it's confusing as to why the planning commission and DRB would be deciding on what amount of load the waste department can handle based on the size of the structure. And I just wanted to throw that out there, that's all. Well, there's a very big difference between industrial uses, I'm not sure who you are, we haven't met. I don't know if you're a brewer or what the situation is, but that's a very different type of waste than domestic waste, which comes from apartments, houses, commercial retail establishments. So we don't have any issue with regard to the ability to handle wastewater when it comes to those types of situations. If you're talking about industrial waste or waste from food processing plants, Edward for our utility district has an ordinance that requires pre-treatment, it should not be up to the municipality to do all the treatment of a very particular waste that is generated by a particular business. So Ben and Jerry's, for example, they have a whole lagoon system up there that they pre-treat their dairy waste before it gets sent to the wastewater treatment facility. And the brewery that is up in Colbyville, they have to do pre-treatment of their waste. So those very specific high concentration wastes, yeah, there's additional regulations, but with regard to standard hydraulic capacity, we don't have an issue in the library with that right now. Right, yeah, I know I totally understand. I was just wondering why it would be up to the planning commission and stuff to dictate like what the square footage footprint is of a building. When I feel like the, I honestly feel like the waste, what is the public work should be part of these meetings to kind of like... They are. They are. I work on the manager for the utility district. This is nothing that's new. This is something that the water and sewer commissioners are well aware of. This is not being done without input or any of their concerns expressed. And I think the planning commission, they're not recommending square footage requirements, having anything to do with water or sewer capacity or wastewater. Their recommendations and Ken can correct me if I'm wrong, but their recommendations are more on an aesthetic basis in terms of what the character of the community looks like. It's not a wastewater issue for the planning commission. Yeah, it's been expressed differently in the past. So we're just wondering about that, but that's fine. That's wonderful to hear. Guess what I would add from a planning commission standpoint is the only discussions that we've had about wastewater is simply that in the permitting process, an applicant would have to demonstrate that they have secured adequate water and wastewater treatment capacity to support the use. There are some parts of town that are served by onsite septic. And if you wanna develop a parcel of land that's outside of the sewer service area, you show that you have a water and wastewater discharge permit approved by the state of Vermont for your septic system. If you're in the village, this zoning district, which is supported by the municipal water and sewer district, you show some documentation that the district can provide adequate capacity. And that's it. And then it goes through the permitting process, whether it gets approved as a garden variety permitted use by the zoning administrator or whether it's approved by the Development Review Board, but neither of those processes pass muster on whether the sewer system has adequate capacity. The sewer system provides documentation that they have adequate capacity and a willingness and ability to serve the proposed use. And then it gets tied into the permit, but that's it. And those are the only discussions that we've had on that. Right off. Thank you for the clarity. Appreciate it. Okay. Once again, probably should close this meeting out and go back to the select board meeting and I hope the planning commission kind of stays on board here. We can hash these comments out and try to come to the solution tonight. Well, thanks everybody for attending that wanted to attend the public meeting and turn this meeting back over to Mark if he... I don't think I can carry on this part. Okay. Very well. And we'll close out the meeting and the select board meeting will resume. Okay. Next steps here. Gadia, I haven't heard a word Boo from you tonight or Danny for that matter. How about them in what? Ask my questions last week to Mark's group about their specific wanting for the... For having 10,000 square feet instead of the five and I think they answered that tonight more in detail. So that was good. And I think all my other questions that I really had were answered. So that's just my input. Numbers, anybody else? Any? I did indeed ask a question but I appreciate giving some space. So I am curious about, you know, processes to the next step of how we go about proposing and making changes before adopting the bylaws. That's just not something I've done before so I'm curious about that. And then I'm unsure if this question has been answered but with the square footage, is it something that we could change to have the 5,000 as permitted and moving up to 10,000 as conditional? And I don't know, you know, what the details are there but if that's something that's possible it's something I'd be curious to explore. Steve. Want me to speak to that Chris? Yes, please. So Danny, in response to your first question on process interim bylaws are different than regular bylaws or permanent bylaws in that the select board can make substantive changes to the draft prior to adoption. So you do have that authority we check with our attorney and that is the case with interim bylaws. It's not the case with regular bylaws once we get to that stage if you make a substantive change you have to warn another second public hearing on that draft. So that's the answer to the process. You could certainly change a square foot figure or threshold or a, you know we've talked a lot about maximum building footprint and upper limits for three of the uses. Those figures are something that you could change would be a substantive change that you can do that prior to adoption without holding a subsequent public hearing. Let's see the second part of your question just remind me I'm sorry I'm a little tired. That's okay. I'm curious if a change for the footprint sizing if it's something that could be done to leave the existing limit of 5,000 as permitted and then up to 10,000 as conditional and what kind of pros and cons there are to doing something like that. Okay. Thank you. Yes, I recall now. So yeah, Chris and I talked about this question as well. So dimensional requirements which this maximum building footprint is the so-called dimensional requirement like setbacks, building height, so on. So that is not a use. Uses are the area where you can set a threshold between the permitted and conditionally. So I think the answer is no, the way this is structured, the use can have a limit of size like this draft has a limit on like an upper limit on size but the building footprint would if you're gonna continue with that recommendation it needs to have a one figure for all situations. An existing building can certainly continue in its current configuration but the question came up about expanding that building that would raise question if it was beyond the limited footprint. So it becomes problematic when you're over that limit in various situations. Then answer your question. Thank you, it does. So Chris, Mike wants to say something. Sorry. Go ahead, Steve. Oh, well I'll just say process-wise I think you may wanna have some discussion if you wanna try to come up with modifications to this draft. I'll just say one thing about the area of Foundry Street. There are three buildings there, 35 Foundry which is a stone shed, 30 Foundry which is where Finland silk screen and maker spear is and then Mark's building at 40 Foundry. Those are the ones that are currently in the industrial district. So I think the two options there if you wanna try to accommodate larger size or either to take, put those areas back into the industrial district in terms of the mapping or to, and residential use would not be allowed in that case or to, if you wanted to accommodate larger size replacement building or use would be to change those limits in terms of square feet. So those I think are the two options there but process-wise you may wanna have some discussion if you wanna try to make some changes to this draft and get it and move towards adoption. Bill, you may wanna speak to that as well. I know there's some aspects of urgency about trying to get a draft through the adoption process but I won't speak to that. I think you're on mute, Bill. But everything that's been said and even though I liked Ken's language a lot about those industrial uses being allowed, if there's any real concern about this, I would, I think I would recommend that maybe the select board would remove boundary street from this district and leave it zoned industrial. I know we would like to have the ability to have housing in industrial zones. The planning commission is gonna be tackling the rest of the bylaws, they're continuing to work on this, there's still an opportunity for that discussion to be had. Frankly, I don't, it seems unlikely to me that in the next two years there's a significant chance of any real movement towards housing projects on boundary street in the stone shed in particular. There's a lot of issues with that building and we've already had some discussions with the state. They're in the process right now of removing Stanley and Watson Hall. That might be an area that we can work with down street or some other organization for replacement buildings on that site that the state has given some consideration to carving that particular portion of the lot off that could be redeveloped there. 51 South Main Street is vacant right now and it's being used for parking during the Main Street reconstruction for replacement parking, but given the expansion of the TV bank lot, there's a lot more spaces behind the congregational church and the Mansfield orthopedic facility. That's another place that's a possibility for some housing to happen. So I think if we're just gonna put this boundary street properties in this district for the purposes of allowing maybe housing, I really don't think in the next two years that's a big issue. And if the planning commission addresses housing in the industrial districts for the permanent by-law, then it could be included there then. So I think maybe that the industrial zone should stay industrial if that's all the, if housing is the only issue that is kind of driving it toward be considered in this downtown district, I wouldn't worry about it, but to your point, Bill and Steve, when you mentioned taking that boundary street out of the district, that immediately made the best sense for me. And I just wanna kind of reestablish the point that I think part of the downtown's entity growth consists of two main things. It consists of enter housing areas, but also businesses that those people that live in those houses can walk to. And if we may get difficult for those businesses to establish in at least a couple of areas in the downtown, kind of we're defeating our purpose. So I think to take Foundry Street out of the district right now, it gives us a couple of years to focus on maybe what's more appropriate for that area. And we don't make a knee-jerk reaction and approve the wrong thing tonight. That makes sense. Yeah.  But I also, I think that the select board needs to give serious consideration to the issues that have been raised by some of the property owners and developers that 5,000 square feet and maybe the, you know, some of the limitations on the usage of the square footage in this new district is a little small. You know, I understand the concern about the single-family houses. And again, I'm not in a position to say it's never gonna happen, but the development that most of, and driving most of this has been in the true core, you know, Main Street between the fire station and the congregational church and Stowe Street and been well-lain to a degree.  It seems very unlikely. And I'm not trying to diminish the concerns, I mean, in Himmoff, she was on a while ago. I mean, she lives right in the center of this district. And I understand that, you know, people do have concerns about being dwarf, but I think that getting some of the density, you guys know better than I do with building costs today, the cost of materials, you know, if you can get a bigger footprint and do a little bit more with those same amount of materials, I think it's probably beneficial. So I think that I've heard a lot of the testimony that you all have heard that the 5,000 square foot limitation seems small. But, you know, it's, I understand why I was presented that way and it's, I don't get a vote. So, and I don't know what any property down there. So I don't really have a big, I don't have a lot of skin in the game. So, I don't mean to pass the buck to you folks, but it's really your choice. But I think those things need to be considered. Mr. Bird. Yes, I have, I agree with a lot of what the consensus has been here. I think it's a, it would be a good idea to take Foundry Street out because I'm very hesitant to take away property owners' rights that they have right now. And just especially if we're going to be looking at longer-term, you know, permanent bylaws, which can be changed. So it can allow for housing development or something. I too have concerns about, you know, the certain square footage. I'm a little bit, you know, I could go back and forth between the 8 and 10,000 square foot level. But I also think that, you know, whatever level we put, say if we have up to 10,000, I'm a firm believer in trusting our DRB. They're making good decisions on internal use. It's not a granted. So, you know, the DRB will be our sounding board to say this is not a reasonable request. This is going to affect the existing homeowners and going to try to protect their rights. I don't think, you know, any of these commissions are here just to take away people's rights. I think there is a buffer. I think as everyone has said, there's a need for larger development than, you know, the four or 5,000 square foot level. Because that in the downtown district is relatively small.  My thoughts. What are you proposing, Mike? Excluding, now that you've stepped out there, let's hear. Excluding the Founder Street area and keeping it in the industrial zone and going to a 10,000 square foot conditional use for, you know, development. And what triggers that conditional use? What square footage? Is there a square footage point that then stepped you into that? 10,000 for the few items, for the few different uses, you know, the food and beverage, the light industrial that have been mentioned, you know, given the maximum square foot footage, up to, you know, for those ones that are totally limited go up to $10,000 with a decision going to the DRB. I trust that they're going to make good sound decisions. And if there is a significant impact, it's going to have to be either scaled back or they're permit denied. Well, go ahead, Bill. I don't know if I missed something. I thought the proposal that you're considering limits the footprint of the building to 5,000 square feet. And Steve just talked about the fact that you can't make the footprint of the building conditional. So are you proposing allowing buildings up to 10,000 square feet, Mike? I think that's the first step, isn't it, Steve? I'm allowing up to 10,000 square feet of existing structures. Maybe that's how I want it. So you want to take Foundry Street out and then right left allowed up to 10,000? Exactly. Mike, could I ask a question? Sure. Say existing structures, what the limitation and the dimensional requirement is the maximum building footprint of whatever your figure, if you're going to say 10,000, but that would be for new buildings or an expanded building. Right. That's an existing building. Is that what you're speaking to? I would actually look, I almost wish we had more consideration where the example that was used of the village market building, if they want to expand, that's significantly bigger. That's going to become a problem there. And do I think that's a bad use? It might not be a very bad use. I think sometimes there has to be some consideration for a good project. You know, I'm not saying there's no square footage. We don't want to see a 300,000 square foot use, but I think the numbers that we're looking at are not that huge. Yeah, just say one thing real quick. There is a variance process. So let's say you set a limit of 10,000, whatever 8,000 for a maximum building footprint. The shopping center could request a variance to expand and use hardship as an issue or address the criteria that's possible. But I think it's been mentioned so many times by folks, the numbers that were 5,000 square foot numbers are just too low. And I think we need to go higher on a conditional use, my opinion. Okay, so Mike, there are two different issues. I just want to repeat it so clear. So the maximum building footprint is a dimensional requirement. It doesn't speak to conditional versus primitive use. The other limit is on the three uses, the food and beverage manufacturing, light industry, and the specialty store. So those are uses. So they are conditional uses at any level and they have an upper limit on the size of the use. So that's where conditional use comes into play. So I don't know if you're suggesting a different limit there or I don't quite follow. It's kind of putting the food and beverage, the light industrial on a similar footage to commercial. You know, I'm thinking we should have one uniform standard. Okay, well, let me just address that. I think the plan in which members 10 and others can address this. But I think the reason why there's an upper limit only on those uses is that a brewery in particular can have a lot of impact. So you've got a mixed use area with prejudices. So I won't speak for the planning commission, but the idea of putting an upper limit is so you don't have a Ben and Jerry's or a larger brewery in the downtown. You limit the size of that use. So that's the concept behind all is to limit. Same with light industry. You can have light industry or industrial uses that can have a large impact. So I just wanted to make that point. I just think either whether we decide on eight or 10,000, I think those would be better numbers. That's a lot to digest here. In an earlier meeting, I think I'd asked if there was a way of proposing a square footage limit on a new business that came in and then have the ability to have a conditional use review in like a two year timeframe. Say a business goes in, it gets established, it starts operations, works under its current square footage for two years and then realizes that we could expand here and be successful. If we had another 4,000 square feet in order to do that, you then have to go to a conditional use review that that is where the judgment's made as to whether or not they would by expanding create those impacts. You know, so it gives at least somebody the notion that yeah, I can go in there under this scenario and start and operate for a two year period and then decide then if I want to expand, I'll have to go through a conditional use review. And a lot of their decision making is based on their business plan and what they perceive is going to happen down the road like anybody's business plan. You look forward to project out and they can almost in some way self-determine whether or not they're going to create those impacts that are going to be denied ahead of the game. At least I would think you would have that ability, Steve. Yeah, let me just address that. And then I think a couple of the other select board members had comments or discussion. Because so conditional use is just that it gives the development review board the ability to place conditions on development. It's not a way that they can deny the expansion of a business or limit the size of a business. That's where these other requirements come into play. So the uses that we're talking about are conditional uses regardless of the size because the impacts of a food or beverage manufacturing or light industrial use can have some pretty severe limits to the character of the area at any size. So that's what conditional use is for to address noise, address odor, address these other traffic, other things of that nature. So I think it's really important to think, well, in these particular cases, where do you want to limit the scale? And that's where this upper limit comes into play. But the development review board can't deny a project based on typically based on conditions. I guess in theory they could, but it's designed so they can impose conditions that address impacts, that's what we're viewers for. So if an impact was, hang on just a second, if an impact was such that it was deniable, you couldn't deny the permits, like you're saying, you'd have to find some way of mitigating. They could, it's undue adverse impact. But the board has to determine that the impacts do not have an undue adverse impact on the environment. That's kind of the standard, but it's a very high bar. So typically there are ways to mitigate noise, odor, traffic that makes it, so it's not an undue adverse impact. That's my point. Yeah, I was just gonna say, as I said a minute ago, I think that this has all been good information, but I think we've heard a lot of testimony from the business community that yes, well, they would love to do business in a particular location, they wanna be in this district, but they also wanna make sure that they have enough scale to make it commercially viable. And I think that that is as important as just allowing it in there. If you allow something, but you restrict its size to the degree that nobody's gonna do it, then don't even bother allowing it. And we've heard a lot of talk that 5,000 square feet or 4,000 square feet, whatever it is for these food production facilities is a little bit small. The town has to be willing and able to step up as well. I mean, I'll be the first to admit, we've had some issues with the brewery on Elm Street. And they came in, they presented permit application, they went through the process, they got an approval from the DRB, and then there were issues. And the town frankly did not deal with those issues from an enforcement level adequately. And I think that's the other part of this whole process is that not only do we have to be willing to have the DRB consider these things from the standpoint and put reasonable conditions on. Once those conditions are in place, then we need to say, okay, we're gonna hold your feet to the fire. And the business community has to understand that if you got a permit and it says you can do X, Y, and Z and you can't have any outside storage, that when we come to them and say, hey, you've got outside storage, that's against your permit, we want you to remove it. And then they complain that, oh, we're unfriendly to business. So we've got to have it both ways. We've got to be put reasonable restrictions there, but the business community has to be willing to live with those restrictions. And if they don't, we need to say, okay, we're gonna take you to court on this and not just keep kind of fumbling over it. And that's a frustrating element to me. And it all costs money. When you have to go to court, it costs money. You got to pay for lawyers and they have to pay for lawyers and nobody likes it, but that's part of the process too. Well, that's one of our downs. We have to advocate for a little bit larger based on what the businesses are saying that they need to make a goal of it, but then say, okay, now you have to play by the rules. Well, that's one of the downfalls of the municipality. Whenever our feet are held to the fire to try to make people comply, we always fall short. And that's because of not only many issues, but whatever rules are in place, don't have enough teeth to force people to comply. I've said for years, I know being on the DRB, I think Bill hit it right on the head. If the DRB wants to make restrictions, we have to enforce them. And I know sometimes it's not gonna be pretty situations, but that's how you keep quality of life type things going. If you give someone a permit and say, hey, these are the things that you have to live with. And again, in a permit process, if they don't wanna live by those agreements, you're just gonna say, hey, we're gonna see you in court. Ultimately that's what's gonna happen. And we have to be willing to maybe do that. And sometimes it's only takes one example to say, hey, we truly, because I do believe, I hear what everyone in the public, I hear what the planning commission has said, we wanna have quality of life, but also we wanna have economic development and there's a real balance. And the key is that saying, hey, these are restrictions, what conditional uses are. We may not deny your permit. We're gonna say you have to do X, Y, Z to get your permit and we're gonna hold you accountable to doing that. I don't know what else to say, Vinny, yes. Yeah, so we've talked a lot and I think I'm curious about moving forward with looking at changes and whether we wanna propose or how we do it, changing the footprint, the permitting size. And then I'd also like to look at those conditional uses, the ones that Mark brought up, 10 and 11. Knowing that those are conditional, wondering how everyone feels about increasing those as we increase, if and as we increase the footprint size and or putting in language, like I think it was Ken who mentioned, putting in language for existing buildings and grandfathering, but I think we can do better on terminology, those existing buildings in. So I know that was kind of multifaceted, but those are all the things I'm wondering if we can move forward with. Well, you only need that language, Danny, if you decide to not remove Foundry Street from this bylaw and I'll let Mark speak for himself, but I think the 10 and 11 issues really were more Foundry Street issues as opposed to the rest of the district, but I don't wanna presume that. Bill, are they just Foundry Street issues? I'm asking, I'm asking. I don't think, I think I could see other places where we could run up against all the Foundry Street. Mark, you wanted to say something there, bud. Oh yeah, I just, I heard you guys mentioning the idea of, I mean, that was one thing that I had asked Steve about removing my building from the map just because of these changes, but if you did the terminology of something like Ken mentioned, I would be in support of not changing the map, making sure that I could take a single tenant in these uses and allow them to grow into my existing commercial building partially because I really do think the Foundry Street, whatever, what's that one called, the big one? The stone shed. I think it, I know that we don't think something can happen in two years if there's a lot of federal dollars right now for affordable housing. And I know that RW is trying to engage down street to see if they could create a shovel ready project for that. So I would hate to see that property removed from the possibility of residential. But for me, if you were able to just do whatever that terminology is that would allow a single tenant to take my space in those uses, I would be in support of not removing myself from my property from the map. So 10 and 11 has been mentioned, what is that? Food or beverage manufacturing enclosed and light industry enclosed and they're both up to 4,000. And what? I have both those uses in my building and both I think would want to take the whole space if they could at some point. Right, so what's your recommendation, Danny, on that? If we changed it to 10,000, which is the number we've been speaking of, it is conditional. So it's something that isn't a given but could be determined by application, I assume. And so it feels like that's inclusive and we could leave Foundry Street in but it also gives a right of refusal if it doesn't seem like an appropriate use or the impact is too large. Would you do the same with specialty school? That's another, that's been limited to 4,000 square feet to do the same thing with that. It seems to make sense, but I haven't thought about it super critically so other people have opinions. That's a part of the school, so not something that's real likely to happen in the downtown. But most of the thing we have is the Adult Basic Education Facility, which is relatively small. Right, and again, it's still it's conditional. So it seems like a minimal enough risk that impact could be weighed before approval. Speaking of that list there, the school section there, as mentioned, that also include like a trade school type ability. Training schools, as we said. Trade, trades, any kind of private school trying to find the definition, I'll look. Construction trades, I guess that's the idea. Right, any specialty like that. And what about building footprint? What's your thought on that? Maximum building footprint. Would you follow the same logic? Because if you have a new building replacing the stone shed, somebody wants to put in a 10,000 square foot building and put food and beverage manufacturing in it, let's just paint a scenario. Then you're up against the same thing. It seems to me. Well, Steve, as far as as far as an existing building, if you tear it down, you have to build something that complies. But if it's destroyed by fire, you can put back what was there. That's correct, Bill. That's that's the way our current biology set up. Steve and Ken, are there any other buildings in the downtown district that are industrial zone that would be affected by, you know, if we changed or went to the interim zoning, whether we go to 10,000 or not. It's just those three properties, three properties, 30 and 40 pound. To me, it makes sense if, you know, not excluding keeping the zone consistent and just using as myself and Danny have went to that higher 10,000 standard for, you know, you know, conditional uses 10 and 11. What would you do with building footprint, Mike? I'll put you on the spot. I would keep it at 10,000. I don't think that's an unreasonable thing. And again, it's still going to go if it's conditional use, it's going to go to the DRB. And if something's really egregious, they're going to put the appropriate conditions to make it work. Or as we've just said, they can deny it. You know, not difficult. It's a difficult process, but it can be done. So this is a maybe a funny question. But if you've got a building that's 10,000 square feet, you're occupying that building with a specific industry. And for whatever reason, you decide that that building is inadequate as far as weatherization, functionality, whatever it may be, and you decide you want to tear it down and rebuild it at the same square footage, but you still want to occupy it with that same business after the reconstruction from rules that were now proposing. You'd have to fall under these new guidelines. I'm wondering if that that should be, I'll now look at, if somebody wants to tear down, like, like. I bought a piece of property up in Holland air. I tore down the existing building that was there and I built the same footprint that was there. I built the same footprint that was back, but I built a different building that was more energy efficient. Yada, yada, yada. So nothing changed for me and occupied it under the same scenario and, you know, kind of residential and industrial, two different things, but the concept that I'm looking at is similar. Right, so if we increase the numbers, then it would be okay. But if we left the numbers, then yeah, it would not be okay to do that even in the same space. My understanding of non-conforming structures is that when you have a non-conforming structure, which is what you're talking about, Chris, is that you get the benefit of that footprint that typically most bylaws have a time limitation. Typically it's 12 months and I think that's in our bylaw today. We had a discussion on this.  If that was greater than what would be ordinarily allowed, you would still get the benefit of the footprint. Unless there's some language in our bylaw that precludes that, that's sort of a, that's, that's a pretty standard kind of provision for dealing with non-conforming structures. Okay. So it sounds like Mark wants to, wants to keep the Foundry Street area in the district as long as that we can occupy that additional space. If we up the square footage to 10 foot or 10,000 without going through conditional use that correct Mark? Yeah, I don't know if that's easier, but that would satisfy my concerns plus my concerns of the other building, getting put back into industrial and not having residential opportunities in the next two years. And I don't think it's because of Mark or whatnot. I want to state this publicly because he could sell that building tomorrow and I'd be for that, you know, doing what was just said regardless of if Mark owned it or not. I just think it's, it's the right thing to do. It's, it's a building that's existed there and it's something that we could do to make our community better. So whether Mark owns it, whether Mr. Mrs. X, Y, Z on it, you know, I think it's, it's the right thing to do for our community. Again, let's let the DRB do their thing and make good decisions. Well, and I think it helps address Mark's issue of, you know, discouraging developers from coming in and having to go through a more dragged out system process. Encourages developers from coming in and doing business in Waterbury, which I think is something I think very few people would be against. So Steve, is there a way that you can change the wording to accommodate those concerns? Well, I would suggest making it an emotion to adopt with the following changes. I would adopt the move to adopt the interim bylaws for the downtown zoning district dated April 5th and then make a list of the changes that you want to make to change the maximum building footprint to whatever you're going to decide 10,000 square feet, change the upper limit for discuss the food and beverage manufacturing, light industry and specialty school to be up to so many square feet, 10,000 square feet, whatever you decide only. And we have one typo on the open market option house that should be corrected. That should be up to 4,000 for permitted and greater than 4,000 should be conditional. That was a typo in the draft. So I think you can make it as part of a motion to adopt the draft as amended with the following changes. Does that make sense to you, Bill? To get this going, at least to put it on the table, but let me take a stab at it. I move to approve the interim bylaws for the downtown zoning district draft of April 5th, 2021 with the following revisions. Section 1604.4. Conditional uses be amended in number 10 to reference 10,000 square feet, number 11 reference 10,000 square feet. And in section 1604.4 dimensional standards, change the maximum principle building footprint to 10,000 square feet. And you can just correct the typo for the and also to correct the typo, reference all in 4,000 square feet to reference 4,000 greater than 4,000 square feet. 4,000 plus or minus. Greater than 4,000 greater than 4,000. That was open market or auction house, right? You faded out this little bit, Mike. Yep. Okay. You might want to check with Patty and make sure she was there anything else, Mike? I'm sorry.  That's it. It's kind of short and sweet. If someone wants to second it, and then we could have a discussion. And if someone wants to amend that, I'd be amicable to good amendments. We're asked for a second there. I just wanted to make sure that we had everything in there that, that you were thinking. So it sounds like you do. I will ask for a second. Go ahead, Katie. Katie seconds. Is there any further discussion? I have a quick question. So something that was brought up was the concern about the restaurant definition where it was like 40%. Of the space to be dining. And I'm not looking at the section. I'm really sorry. And I was just curious if any other select board members had concerns about that. It had been raised, you know, certain like Chinese food restaurants or take out pizza restaurants. And that might limit their, the definition of use. And I didn't know if we were concerned about that, or if that felt resolved. Do we know what I mean? Yeah. Oh, you want to speak to that mic. I'm sorry. No, I thought Danny had a good point there. Yeah. So this was a comment that came up. Yeah. I think the suggestion was to take out the sentence. That says a restaurant that has both Eden and take out service will be classified as a sit down restaurant provided that the dining area exclusive any outdoor dining comprise at least 40% of the total for the restaurant. I think what I would suggest in the first sentence. Is. To take that second sentence out. And then in the first sentence, say an establishment that prepares and serves meal, snacks and beverages. Primarily for immediate consumption. With seating on premises. And. I don't know if that would address that. I think a restaurant typically is defined where you have. Preparation consumption of meals. Deverages for consumption. On premises. With seating on premises. And you can mention take out. I don't think you even have to mention that. Takeout service. But I think that would address that issue. I don't know what you think of that. So to my point, do we now need to amend the. Motion to. That. Change. I think we do. And I'm very. Amicable to that amendment. Yeah, you get another crack at it, Mike. I got a. What section is that in the. This is section. Oh, the one. The use and definition. Yeah. 1606. Youth table. Definition of restaurant slash bar. I would. I'm scrolling. Steve, just a quick question. If you end up under these. Limitations. You just end up as a reader. Correct. So if you're just strictly take out. So it doesn't really like, it doesn't affect you. I guess you'd fall under whether or not you have to go under a certain conditional uses. Does retail have, doesn't it have the same conditional size. Constraints. Yes, it does. So maybe you don't really have to change this because you would just end up as a taker. Place you end up under retail, but you still have. If you're over a certain size, you still have to go to conditional use and talk about it. I don't know. I'm just. Talking about. Danny, do you think if we just omitted that one sentence, that would. The 40%. Yeah. I mean, Mike brings up a good point. I don't know what the, I don't know. What consequences. There may or may not be. For a restaurant. If, if they fall under retail. So I'm not sure who might be able to speak really precisely to that. If there's literally. No other. Consequences. And it doesn't matter. You know, then maybe we don't need to worry too much about the change, but it just seems like. Yeah. If we just took out that 40% definition. I lost myself. What I would suggest is. Take the second sentence. I would modify the first sentence. To say. The establishment that prepares and serves meals, snacks and beverages. Primarily for immediate. Consumption. With seating on premises, something of that nature. Ken, do you see a problem with that by taking. That 40% out. I don't necessarily have any concerns about it. So then we can just remove that second sentence. Like Steve recommended. Yeah. And I would modify the first sentence. You know, a deli at. You know, at. Any of the convenience stores. Gas station convenience stores. You know, that's not a restaurant. It's a deli. And the. The food is taken off premises. So it's typically for consumption. On premises. And on premise. On premise. Well, we're in the, we're in the thing that everyone's going to take out even restaurants right now. Yeah, but they're, they're, they do rely on their seating, Michael. Yeah. They want tents with seating. They want as much seating as they can go. I understand that. Just we're in a crazy world. So do you want to add that to your list? And you're. Yeah, I can. I eliminate the second. Sentence. And just put for immediate consumption. And. What was the phrase onsite? Yeah. Consumption on premises. Yeah. Immediate consumption. On site. On premise. On premises. I'm good with that favorable amendment. All right. We probably need a second to that amendment. I was just going to say a motion's been made. And we need another second. Second it. Okay. Any further discussion. Any of the planning commission have anything they'd like. Make a comment on. Or we. Hold the vote. I'm great. Seeing none. All those in favor of the motion made, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Motion passes. Mark, did you refuse yourself then? I know you said you were cruising yourself. Sounds like he did. Yeah, I can't vote on that. Thanks. That's fine. Just wanted to clarify for the purpose of the minute. That's all. Thanks. Well, thanks again, Ken, for all your work. We appreciate it more than I think, you know, It's an integral part of the. The community and. You know, I think it's not an easy task. And. Your efforts are commended. Yes. Thank you, Ken. You know, the next. The next part is going to be even harder to develop overall. Zoning bylaws, you know, for the whole community. That's going to be our even. Greater challenge. Melissa, you had something. Well, I should let Ken speak. First, if he wants to, and then I can go. I don't necessarily have anything to say other than thank you and, you know, The planning commission hopefully will be up to the task that's presented to them and. Wrestling with the permanent bylaws going forward. We know you guys will be. Yeah, I will not be part of that. So, so, you know, but the other members of the planning commission. You know, they will take up the, they will take up the task. You'll be phasing out. After midnight, Friday night, my term will be over. And so. So that'll be. That'll be the end of my formal participation. On these things. Thank you for all your, your years of service. You're welcome. Thank you, Ken. Thanks a lot. I appreciate it. I was going to say, Ken's been a great collaborator and leader. I worked with him professionally at our W. And I think he's been a real asset to the community. I know he served in the role long before I was part of this community. So just wanted to thank and acknowledge him to the select board. As I did with the planning commission last week. So thanks, Ken. We'll miss you. Thank you. Well, hopefully the adoption of these intrams will be close enough to the actual. Permanent draft. Permanent set of rules that. There won't be too many changes. And hopefully we got it right. That's an awful big hopeful, but. Because it's always zoning regs are a huge moving target. And I don't think they'll ever change from being that, but. That's why, that's why they're interim. Bylaws. Because if there is some changes and tweaks needed. When the full. Bylaws come out. That's when we're able to do it. If we, if we made a little mistake, you know, we'll learn from our mistake and correct it. Well, it's one thing as humans have recognized that if we don't something like something in life. All we have to do is change the rules and. Do something different. I'll see more on some time, but. So any other business to conduct tonight, other than what we've done. Anybody else got any more comments or questions? If not, I think we can. I have a motion to adjourn. So moved. I just want to add for next week, I will be tapping out early around eight 30. Because I have a prior engagement.  Thanks for the heads up, Katie. Y'all have a good night. And thanks for being here tonight. Yeah, thanks everybody. Really appreciate all your time. Thank you. I think it got us over a little hurdle amongst many more to come. Thank you. I'm actually surprised we finished early. Good night, everybody. Thank you. Did I miss a motion to approve the agenda that I should. Yes. Hold on. So. Yeah. Thanks everybody. I really appreciate all your time. I think it got us over a little hurdle amongst many more to come. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. So Danny moved. And Katie seconded the motion to approve the agenda. And at that point it was passed four to zero some. I know we had one member who arrived late. That's not right, Mike. Yep. Okay. I think you came in after that. Yeah, I didn't. I'm so used to seven o'clock. I think that would be a toughie at six 50. Yeah.  Yeah. That's right. Thank you. Okay, I got it. Okay. Great. Thanks, Patty. I'll go through whatever you come up with. Okay. Great. Thank you. Thanks, Patty. You always keep a good set of notes. Yeah. Steve does a good job editing. We make a good team. All right. Thank you guys. Thank you all for your work. You're welcome. Take care.