We'll call to order the select board meeting for February 22nd, 2021. It's seven o'clock. First motion is to approve the agenda. I move to approve the agenda as listed. Plus there's user addition. There a second. Second. It's been moved and seconded. Any further discussion. All those in favor, please say aye. Hi. Consent agenda items minutes from February 1st meeting. And the liquor licenses for village market. Best Western plus Blush Hill Country Club Shaw's Country Club of Vermont. Old stage coach in. Butters. Butters street pizza. Fast stop in Champlain farms. Negative motion. I move to approve the agenda. There a second. Second. Any further discussion. All those in favor, please say aye. Hi. Public anyone from the public wish to speak this evening. Or we get into. The rest of the agenda. We'll move on to select board items a consider water bear reader as an alternate newspaper record. Would like to speak to that. Mark, I can, do you want me to speak to that bill? Sure. Okay. So the time darkest is still our primary. Labor record. But the water very reader is all of you know, goes out to all the. Mailboxes. Widely available. So we have been advertising our, the RV meetings, for instance, our public hearings in both, but that's very expensive. The reader costs. As much or more than the times. Argus to advertise. So what we'd like you to do. What we're requesting is that you. Consider the water. Readers and alternate newspaper of record that we could use exclusively. And that will keep us within budget. And it will actually get the notices to. More people in the water, very. Area for local projects of local interest. Okay. Any one have any concerns with that? I think it's a good idea. I think it's reaching more people than ever in town.  Great. I'll take a motion. I make a motion to approve the Waterbury reader as. An alternate paper of record. Second. Second. Moved in second. Any further discussion? I'm just going to abstain from it because I do write for them. No problem. Thank you. Thank you. Hi. Hi. Who's seconded, please. Yeah, I believe. Okay. Thank you. Next up. Discuss informational meeting scheduled for tomorrow, Tuesday, February 23rd at seven. Right. So the public hearing scheduled for the interim by last night is scheduled for tomorrow night. So I'm going to fill it right now. I think you're all, all should be set for tomorrow night's meeting, which is the public information meeting that we need to have. Because we're having town meeting by Australian ballot on. Tuesday. I mean, yeah, Tuesday, the second of March. So you've all received the agenda, I believe the select committee. I'm going to go straight forward. Carla and. Liz Schlegel will kind of make some introductory remarks. To let the folks that are attending the meeting. Understand how it will be conducted. That there is a way to. Right. Right questions. We're going to try to. Put their questions in writing. That they can be funneled through Liz and then to the, to me or the board. There will be an opportunity for people to raise their hand. However, if there needs to be some discussion. You know, it's hard to do that in, in writing. So if, you know, people want to ask a question about an answer. So if there's any questions, I think we can do it verbally. Mark is going to more or less be the moderator of the meeting. It's, this is a select board. Public hearing. It's not town meetings. So the town. Moderator will not be attending the meeting or at least not be attending as moderator. So mark will lead us through the rest of the agenda. When it gets to the agenda item where we begin to talk about the budget, I think the easiest thing to do will be to maybe let me provide an overview of the budgets, the implications for taxes and the like. And then after I finish an overview, select board members can add anything that they feel is important to communicate with the public. And then obviously we'll encourage the public if they have them to ask questions. So, and then at the very end Carla will explain again what town meeting will be like both voting by absentee ballot and how the in person voting at the school on Tuesday the second will take place so I think that's really it. The board members have questions right now about the process. I'll try to answer them. We can come back to this issue after the public hearing closes if the if the board has more lengthy questions. So I was going to guess you that you're going to have to put your talking hat on for tomorrow night because I suspect suspected that you'd be doing most of the talking is there going to be any screen information as far as the budget numbers are concerned to help with this process, or are you just going to wing it by voice and I mean I know you're completely familiar with every bit of the information because you wrote every bit of it so it shouldn't be any questions, but I meant for now there is there will be the ability to screen share Chris and my, my thought right now is that when we talk about the budget. There's the page in the annual report that is the kind of summary of the operating funds. Looks like that. I'll put that up. That has, you know, the kind of general department by department. And then I'll also, when it comes time to talk about the capital budget, I'll put the summary up. And then if people want to delve in deeper, you know, the whole of all my budget numbers available and I can put anything up that anybody wants to see so yeah I will try to do it with a little bit of show and tell as well as just, you know, I think it's easier than me just talking, people can actually see some numbers. Well mark just be reading each article is on the warning as it comes down through or I mean there's no sense in dividing it up amongst board members is there. That's right it's not going to we're not going to be making a motion so I think mark will just follow the agenda for the meeting tomorrow night. And if we need to we can fill in to people and say okay this is article eight or this is I think Mark can just go through that agenda, turn it over to me when appropriate and then if other board members want to speak obviously you should be able to speak as well. All right mark I think it's 715 now so we should recess this part of it and you should go ahead and open the public hearing for the interim bylaws and then we can come back to the rest of the agenda after the hearing is done. 710 is it all right to start five minutes earlier do we need to wait. I was going to say that's what I got to. Oh okay. Yeah, that's what my clock says at home. No we shouldn't start five minutes early, you should wait until my computer number is off here unfortunately but. But we don't have to get all all dressed up for tomorrow night either do we. No you don't Chris. You can come in your pajamas if you want. Yeah, we're expecting you to wear a shirt and tie tomorrow. At least you afford afford you that. Oh yeah. Off off the subject here kind of I heard Randy guy is. Quarantine. I'm not sure we're supposed to talk about people's health. About that I just, yeah. I do have a question about count meeting since we were going there.  You know, we can have usually like the Keith Wallace award and stuff like that will that be anything like that be discussed. Certainly if the public has questions they can ask questions, I have not been made privy to any thing about the Keith Wallace awards so my expectation is that that isn't going to happen tomorrow. If somebody knows differently, they, they can let me know. But yeah, the public can ask questions Mike obviously, you know there's no ability to take any action. Right now at all it's just information there's no motions, or anything like that that can be made. At the end we typically have some things that usually come up and you know after we go through the regular information about the budgets and the different warning items. You know I think it would be good to open it up to people who do have questions or comments. Right. I didn't see that there was anybody up for the Keith Wallace there. I mean it's, that's usually something that the EFUD chairperson in this town select board chairperson discuss and I think given the situation and that there's nobody got to be really around to see anybody get a presentation maybe it's been put off for a year. Like so many other things. Right. Well we seem to be gaining ground on that front as well I hope. Yeah I hope so too. Vaccination. How's that new grandson of yours doing. Well pretty well he has a little bit of a rough time sleeping so that makes it rough for everybody else but he's healthy and seems to be growing well. I'm home now from Georgia I got home a week ago today. I can talk about my own health situation so I've been quarantining since I've been home. I did call today. Mark Pogway that was he told him when I got home and what I had done so he told me I could take a test today. And three to five days will be when I get the test results so if it's three days I'll be in the office Thursday or Friday if it's five days I won't be in the office until Monday but I'm hoping that by the end of the week I'll be able to circulate anyway. Did you go to the testing facility there in the center. Yeah right at the was the ambulance fire and they've been turned they've been turning them around in a day or two. Well good. Let's just hope they get down to the 65 and over pretty quick and go through some of those bands because we seem to be behind the curve compared to some other states on you know ages. I think they're getting down to 70 Mike and then they're going to where we're at 70 now. They're going to I don't think they're going to go they're going to go to 65 to 70 but then after that I think it's going to be 18 to 65 year olds with underlying conditions so right. I have 715. We can start the public hearing portion of the meeting. The public hearing is to consider and receive public comment on the draft interim bylaws for the downtown zoning district stated February 1 2021. And then we can go ahead and enter that portion of the meeting. Mark, would you like me to do an introduction and you walk through the bylaws with you and then we could open it up to the members of the public and others planning commission members are joining us as well. And we've noticed their meeting so they're good to go as well. So, what I'd like to do is do a screen share bring up the draft I also have the map that we discussed a few weeks ago, when the select were decided to hold this public hearing so if you bear with me a minute I'll go ahead and share my screen. All right, let me see if I can resize this a little bit so everybody can see it. I want to make sure. Does that work for everybody can you see the draft. That's better right there Steve. Okay, good, good. So what I'd like to do is walk through. Not every section of this. Some of that I think is fairly self explanatory. We did a brief walk through when you decide to hold this public hearing, but I'd like to talk about these introductory sections and make sure there's a common understanding so this is the authority is with 24 vsa chapter 117 the 44 section 4415 is interim bylaw section and the, the one thing I wanted to mention about this and I know we've talked a little bit before but I'd like to go over it, especially for those who are joining the hearing. Interim bylaws are enabled to address special situations emergency situations, such as the covert pandemic. We use an after tropical star marine we had one signed bylaw we enacted with the mainstream project help businesses out. So interim bylaws are enacted by the select board like any, any zoning bylaw, they have a two year lifespan, and then the board can opt to adopt them for an additional one year for a total of no more than three years. During that period during the two years or the extension, the community can consider permanent bylaws that address the same area or the same issues the planning commission spent a lot of time on this, this particular area of the planning district as well as other areas of the bylaws can do their legislative function come up with permanent bylaws hold it hearing and bring that back to the select board and once let's say permanent bylaws are enacted within the two year period they address the same district the same issues, then these bylaws would be superseded by the new permanent bylaws so I wanted to make sure everybody understands that we're not obligated to live with these for two years they can be the planning commission can move ahead and and take initiative to, you know, make some additional changes to that type of thing. So the purpose just explains that this is for the downtown zoning district related to the pandemic in terms of economic development we're trying to facilitate the projects in the downtown and housing and so on a diversity of uses. So we're trying to be progressive in this and our current zoning regulations, the last comprehensive rewrite was about 25 years ago so we're we're definitely do for a major rewrite so these bylaws are based on the unified development planning commission and I have been working on and so that that was the basis for for this in the applicability it talks about these bylaws to proceeding what are still termed the town and village whatever zoning regulations we clearly need to update them because they still reference the village, but those were last enacted in 2016, and they only apply to the downtown zoning district which has been expanded somewhat from the current downtown commercial zoning district. So we can go over the map. We talked about it a bit few weeks ago but we can, I can bring that up after we go through this and show you the area that this would apply to, but it basically is the downtown it's always in our downtown design review overlay and there are two sentences at the end that I would like to explain because I think there's some maybe some misconception and maybe just some understanding that I'd like to impart if you will. So under interim bylaws under the enabling statute, the legislative body has quite a bit of authority and that enabled where you the select board in the case of water very can review development proposals you can review new uses you have a lot of authority, and we don't think that's a great idea we think projects need to go through the development. They need to, they need to come under these bylaws and the site plan review for you. So that's why it says here that all uses not specifically allowed. The center and bottom specifically prohibited so an applicant can't come in and under this draft and say, you know, I want to have a, you know, a rendering factory or something some something that I don't know I'm just being facetious but some use that that isn't currently allowed in the downtown and and get the select board to review that so. So the select board review is not available under this 4414 or 4415 E which is the section that outlines the criteria that you would use to review those uses so. That's the way this is structured all projects. Its ambition would go through the development review board would be under the uses and other criteria and process that's outlined in the bylaws. So, I'll move through Steve can I stop you for a second. So basically what you're saying is because of new legislative guidelines, they're allowing select boards in towns to have more authority over what they're zoning zoning allows, but yet what you're saying here is this is the kind of a stop gap measure, prevent that from happening so that we just any and all select boards can't pick and choose what they want to do. You're, you're looking to basically kind of hold the zoning regs to do the town plan as a whole. Well, in a sense, these are based on the municipal plan but right this would not allow you to approve a use which is not allowed under the center and bylaws. Which could be some, you know, like a larger industrial use or it could be something else. I'm not, I'm not sure who's commenting in the background but I asked that everyone mute their mic and please watch your links where in a select board meeting. Bill, did you have something you wanted to add or should I move on. No, I was going to say the same thing Mark did. Okay, good. All right, so I'm going to move right along. It can be self serving. Yeah, right. So by all means we can come back to this if you like. So, and what I would suggest is we move through this maybe if there's anything clarifying the slide for me to ask and then Mark I'd suggest then we go to the public comment that would work for you. So this outlines the zoning district purpose for the downtown zoning district. This is from our unified development by law and talks about the historic downtown and the intent to maintain the traditional village pattern of development. And also being within the downtown design review overlay is shown on the on the map there's no changes proposed to the downtown design review bylaws or the over or the overlay. So then this outlines all the permitted uses and we have a table which defines each of these uses. And so there's been some comments about the size and once we're through the public hearing. I do have some recommendations on how to address some of these comments. The 2000 square feet is is from our current zoning regulations. And as I say we've had some comments about that you can certainly have some more discussion and I'll have some recommendations later on on that. So, these are just the different categories of residential uses lodging commercial. So when it does a permitted use that means that the review process is site plan review, and typically with buildings new buildings, renovation of existing buildings design review is also part of that process to maintain the historic character of industrial use here that's permitted that's a communications antenna be like a panel antenna on top of the building or something WD EV has a number of antennas on top of their radio WD EV radio building and square building. These are the conditional uses so this outlines all of those uses. They would not only go through site plan review would also go through conditional use review. So there are these thresholds for some of the uses that's currently 2000 square feet and certainly have some discussion with the public and later about these thresholds and possibly modifying that the I'll mention here with the food of average manufacturing this would include a brewery of cider brewing or beer brewing. So, the way this is set up that use would be allowed up to 5000 square feet over 5000 would would not be allowed in this district that might be allowed let's say an industrial district probably would be like work over in program part light industry the same will be 5000 square feet we have some light industrial uses already in this district on boundary street. So they would fall into this category. There's a few more wholesale trade passenger transportation facility our railroad station is a good example of that. So, that Steve can I stop you for a second you remind remind us of light industry how that's defined. Sure. So light industry is typically totally enclosed there's usually no outdoor storage that's why it says enclosed. And it can be typically industry that does not have a lot of emissions. So, you know, smoke or odor or emissions that might negatively impact a residential area nearby residences. So, it could include, you know, well a good example is the silk screen business which is at 30 boundary, where they produce. They store everything the t shirts the other silk screen product so a business like that has emissions but under conditional use so those would be those criteria will. That's your question mark. Steve is something like no noise ordinance is that also that noise levels is that also part of the process. So conditional use review is noise odor. Impact and other impacts off site like traffic and so on impact on municipal infrastructure that type of thing, parking is a site plan review criteria so lighting. So these are the dimensional standards that are proposed very small minimum lock size so it would allow a high density. We have some very small locks in the downtown zone, just in downtown commercials on disparate. And lot credit is essentially the minimum lot with a lot coverage we have buildings in the in the heart of the downtown that cover 100% of their lot. So this requires 90%. So, you know, leave some space for whether it's a driveway or some access other service use setbacks, these are the same as our current downtown commercial district. We don't have any changes to those. We have quite a few buildings in the downtown that are at basically behind the sidewalk or out the right of way that they have no setback or decide or rear setback. There's some minimum setback though so it could definitely be more. The bill to line means a few. If you build a new building, it needs to be built to within eight feet or less of the sidewalk so the idea is this is getting into something that's generally term form based code where you identify the size fault placement of buildings. And this is something that's very typical for zoning in downtown now to require that buildings are built up to near the sidewalk so you basically got a streetscape you don't have a larger area of parking or something else in front of the building. So that's the purpose of this bylaw. You can ask a question, we have a lot of like narrow deep lots of somebody wanted to split that up going backwards. Are you able to do that with that one block frontage or how does that work in that scenario. There's no access to lots by right of way. And that would be facilitated in this district as well so it could be accessed by a right of way to a real a rear lot. The 2000 square foot minimum allows subdivision of lots of someone wants to put two buildings on a lot. It facilitates that scenario. It's built to a minimum built to line coverage so that's the amount of the area along the front that is covered by the building so it allows space, let's say it's 100 foot wide lot. Building would need to be at least 60 feet wide or 50 foot wide lot building would need to be 5030 feet wide. So it allows space for driveway access or some an alley or some open space. Minimum principal building height planning function had quite a bit of discussion about this. It typically would be a minimum two story building but it could be a tall one story building. The idea is that it wouldn't allow a new building that would be short and would not be in character with other buildings in the downtown area. And then maximum structure height is generous we have tall buildings in the downtown that are, you know, 4050 feet tall so that would allow a tall building. And no minimum or maximum residential density. So this is keeping with the current trend to allow high density residential as well in the downtown should typically be apartments but it could be other kinds of residential development. It does prohibit food service drive throughs this would be a drive through like a fast food restaurant, a drive up where you drive up and get a take out order is certainly allowed. That's not a problem at all that it would include having a drive up window for instance with drive through service from the front to back tends to be a very intensive kind of circulation and in the downtown and currently we do not allow drive throughs for products we do for banks and we could be able to drive through pharmacy something of that nature but not not for food service like a restaurant. The definitions this is talks about the definitions in the use table and we'll get to the table in a minute. The definitions would supersede the matching definitions in the zoning bylaws. So this is designed to dovetail with existing bylaws. And where they're not in common language with with control that situation. So we'll go right along and then we can come come back to any of this once we get into the comment period. So this is the, the use tables this lists all of the different uses. Actually, this is based on the unified development bylaw so it lists all the uses you'll see some of them are not allowed, but it will allow us to add districts in the future in these columns as we build on this. So this talks about the single family dwelling. Other kinds of residential uses that are allowed accessory dwellings will talk about that. And a little bit home occupations, home businesses. There are some review standards for for some of these uses family daycare system living. The lodging uses are defined bed and breakfast, which are accessory to a single family residential property ends which are no more than 12 guest bedrooms. And short term rentals are allowed but it's a very generous definition. It just says accessories the property to provide for term best accommodation so that's not restrictive if you will. So this is the edge of the game, Airbnb that type of rental hotel or motel this is allowed as a conditional use the P's and the C's what that means is the P is a permitted use would just require site plan review the C is conditional use, which requires both site plan review and additional use review. If you see a P and a C with a vertical line that then it. Excuse me that you go over to the, let me see if I can enlarge this a little bit. I'm having a little trouble with that. Okay I'm just going to move through this rather than trying to read format at this point. So where there's a P and a C with a vertical line. You'll see over in the definition where we have retail sales. We've mapped up to 2000 square feet would be a P over 2000 square feet would be conditional use. So this allows us to review a larger project with larger impact. As a conditional use just to address any issues with that impact. Again, we can have some discussion later about this. You know, we may want to, you may want to consider upping this threshold, if you will, the 2000 square feet. Okay, so I'm not going to go through all the uses you'll see some are not allowed the X means it's not allowed so a repair like vehicle repair is not allowed a fueling station gas station is not allowed. These are, you know, more high intensity uses that will be allowed in other districts but not in this area. Open market like a farmer's markets would would be allowed. The office professional got a split of this 2000 square feet with a P and a C and restaurants. There would be a division there. Then facility and night clubs. This is listed as a separate definition where you could have corporate meetings. Sorry, the lights went out on me. So I'll go into the industrial uses food and beverage manufacturing I mentioned that this would include both food manufacturing such as sentence 40 foundry, or beverage manufacturing such as a brewery, and where that would be a primary building. And this would be allowed up to 5000 square feet on a given property. And then above that 5000 it would not be allowed to be a conditional use to evaluate any emissions that impacts that nature. Light industrial. Again, up to 5000 would be allowed closed over 5000 would not not be allowed you can see the X on this side. Steve, can I ask a question back in the food and beverage manufacturing. I know that when the alchemists first came into Waterbury up there. Wow, they move from where the pro pig is now up to the crossroad. We had some significant issues with the with the disposal of the the ingredients to make the make the beer. I mean that really shows the riff there for quite some time with the neighbors are the are these rigged the process in which that would have to go through would be looked at those types of issues would be looked at along with whatever else has to go with with that process. Correct so yeah any processing type issues like that. And the disposal of materials to be recycled to be part of a conditional use review and site plan review looking at service of a building and and so on. I mean I remember they had some pretty serious rat infestation issues up there. Yeah, at one point, and I think those have been resolved we work with them around that process and so yeah I think the brewing in the downtown that we anticipated the scale is such that it's more of a manageable that those types of issues are more manageable. Okay, so I'm going to move. Slow me down. Steve, you've got the comment. Yes, just a question in terms of being consistent. Can you scroll back down so we can see the food and beverage again. Yeah, just a minor picking thing but under light industrial, you've got the sea with a vertical line in an X. Right. Shouldn't you have that with the food and beverage as well just to just to be, you know, consistent. Yeah I would recommend that you see with a vertical line in an X and over here have a right up to 5000 vertical line and then over five yeah that's one of my recommended changes. And just another question. You don't have to go back but for the residential uses. It's hard to read the fine print. Is it, is it necessary under the state law now that we talk about single family single family with accessory to family three and four family and then multi family is it. Is there really a big difference between a three and four family and a multi family. Well, this goes to the other districts and I'd like, you know, I'd have to defer the planning. Okay, well if it if it has to do with other districts then that's fine. We get curious about it now. So that's okay. I'm getting your residential districts those those come to war and supply. That's fine to facilitate more medium size. Yeah, family. Yeah, if that has to do with another district, we don't have to talk about it. Okay, yeah. All right, so let me get through the rest of these and then we'll spend a little time on the special use standards and then open it up to the public. So, so I think what I'd like to do is go down through these other uses fairly quickly and we can come back to these if you like. Art entertainment recreation talks about different types of theaters, social clubs, like the American Legion would be a social club artist gallery or studio like Makerspear museum facilities indoor recreation which could be a gym, something of that nature or a fitness center. What's up on route 100 that would be an indoor recreation facility outdoor recreation. This would be a private type of facility not a public park but a private kind of facility which you really don't have space for in the downtown. The specialty schools are allowed on a small scale up to 5000 square feet indoor. We have the adult learning center for instances exists in the downtown area. Civic and community uses. So we've got government facilities. There are a lot of permanent use parks, where we have farmers markets so an open market would be a little different I guess farmers markets allows permanent use educational institutions or our state certified public or private schools include the primary school and any potential private school clinics would be allowed as a conditional use. Medical clinics, and then churches and so on.  These are the dimensional requirements that are the same as what I went over in the table. I don't think I'm going to go over them again. I'm going to leave it in a table form so we can add other districts as the planning commission works on developing permanent bylaws for other districts. The specific use standards are additional criteria for some of the uses. If not a specific use standard for a use in the table then it would be just the site plan review and conditional use standards. Multi family, there was a question about bulk storage this is not refuse and recyclable this would be more of a secured area where people could store additional items that they have. That's a minimum talks about pedestrian access for multi family talks about mixed use buildings where there are commercial and residential uses combined and we do allow mixed use in the downtown zoning district we do. This is proposed to allow residential on the first floor as well some communities require commercial on the first floor and that we don't feel is progressive we feel that's up to the development community to propose an appropriate mix that works on their particular site. So at some site maybe exclusively residential and that's that's fine if that's what the market is driving so this allows allows a mix and talks a little bit about open space and screening. Let's talk a little bit about accessory dwelling units. This is a use by right under state statutes. They have to be located within or pertinent to an owner occupied single family dwelling that's the requirement in in state statutes. And as I say they're used by right. The planning commission decided to make this more. So, progressive if you will and allow up to two bedrooms also allow it to be either not exceeding 1400 square feet or 50% of the Habitatal floor area at the primary dwelling. So this is really designed for single family dwellings and is, as I say more liberal or more permissive than our current accessory dwelling by law which is good we want to encourage the development of accessories on it they can be in a separate accessory building like over a garage, something of that nature that's certainly allowed. Steve what happens if the owner decides to leave but maintains ownership of the property. Well, that's a good question. You know, we, it is required to be owner occupied so presumably would have to come back into a permit process. In other words, the, it might have to be permitted as a separate building. Because this is a state requirement state statute. So, you know, with small lot size in the downtown district that might not be a problem, you know garage could potentially be on its own lot. But this is the requirement state statute so if it's permitted that way. The single family dwelling has to be under occupied or it would have to come in for a sub a new zoning permit is how you would find home. Does that answer your question. Mark's point there isn't that a way of just somebody circumventing the process. Well, you know we're required to allow this so you know someone could, you know, leave town and then rent their house is that the scenario you're thinking of. And then, you know, is it no longer an accessory dwelling well if they don't live there, you're correct, it's no longer an accessory dwelling. If, you know, the zoning administrator gets that information they'd have to address that through with the owner and have them permit the apartment is separate primary use I think that's how we would have to deal with that. Yeah, I would just want to make sure that there's a clean path to that and not a scenario that you know an owner feels forced to sell because they were in the ad use and then figure out a path out of it. Right in this district I don't think it would be a problem because typically 2000 square feet. Typically you could put a garage may be on some lot, but an owner needs to think about that when they permit accessory dwelling, you know, they depend on selling down the road about that.  So if, if they're able to do that. So called circumvent process. Why do we require those types of regulations why can't you just allow dwellings to be set, you know, occupied without primary owners I mean it's because unless there's a penalty of some sort. Or leaving. Yeah, or some form of, you know, because ultimately you're going to give them a permit for another type of dwelling, right. It's almost like. Well, you know, it could be it would be more of an issue in a rural area with a let's say a two acre lot and two acre minimum left side district where someone has a garage and what accessory dwelling over it. And we're required to allow them to do that as long as they have wastewater we don't have a choice. So, so I think the answer to your question is this is something we have to have somebody wants to circumvent the zoning. Then they're going to have to figure out a way to permit it if they can't permit it that's an issue. So people have to understand going into developing accessory dwelling that this is the requirement that's very clear in the permit so some things the state mandates and this is one of them so that's better for worse that's my answer. Ultimately, if you have a situation where you have someone in the primary unit and you have an accessory unit, and they, for whatever reason need to leave the primary unit. Can't you then consider it as a multi family residence if it if it's okay to permit it as such as two units.  Well, if it's, if it's not an accessory dwelling, it would have to be permit as a primary use or a single family dwelling. So, that's, that's the answer and it would have to be, you'd have to be able to demonstrate that it could sit on its own lot, separate lot you don't have to subdivide you have to be able to demonstrate that you could subdivide. So it's something that people need to think about when they permit these. Okay, so home occupations we currently allow. I know, like you had a comment about the 35% of capital for air that's our current bylaw. The 900 square feet applies to, let's say you have your, your home occupation in your garage, a wood shop or an office or something of that nature. So that would just apply to having your home occupation accessory. There's two uses in this group in this district that require performance standards. This is something that the planning commission asked wanted to have included so you'll see section 1607 is performance standards. Those additional standards only apply to a home occupation or a home business and we'll talk about the home business in a minute. So, home occupations do not require site plan approval it's an administrative permit that's how it is now as long as you meet these criteria design administrator can issue your permit. However, you would have to meet these performance standards and they have to do with noise odor, things of that nature, and we'll talk about those in just a minute. The home business is a new use that we've had, we being the planning commission I have had a lot of discussion about, I think it's a really good idea. This would be allowed and virtually every, every district. So, the home business is is a step above the home occupation, it is would have to be related to an owner occupied home. And there are criteria including the performance standards here. So this would be a more involved use they can have more employees that could be a contractor who, you know, maybe, you know, has uses their garage as a home base for their, their business and so on. This does require site plan review so, you know, there could be screening if there's any kind of outdoor storage that type of thing, and it's limited to no more than 50% of the area of the dwelling, but it may occupy any amount of space and one or more accessory growing so. So there's a lot of flexibility and I think we have a lot of these kinds of uses in our community I think it's a really good idea to, to allow that facilitate that. And we can look at these performance standards and just in just a minute. So this would have to go through the development review board on their site plan review and approval to deal with parking, landscaping, screening. A family child care home is a use by right and in Vermont, this would be a licensed family child care home or home daycare center, and it's limited to no more than six children on a full time basis, and no more than four on a part time basis which would be like after school kids. And so it's considered accessory use the residential property does not require site plan review so this is more permissive than our current we currently require site plan reviews this is a setup that the zone administrator to permit a home daycare as long as it meets the criteria is licensed by the state. Steve, Steve question for you on that. Would that be also a registered child care business. Correct yeah registered I think now I think registered and license would be interchangeable. They're very different though. Okay. Well, that's something maybe we should talk about should say license or registered. Absolutely. Okay, okay, because it's it's it's very different in the way that the state looks at childcare. Okay, and is registered have the same limit on numbers of kids if it's a home register. Correct. Okay. All right, good we could easily. Let's make a note that we would want to add register there. So, the residential care home is a group home. And this is also a use by right. And this is, you'll see, we went back to the definition you see it's for people with a disability. We just had a conversation with our Vermont Association legislative committee today about this, because there's some new legislation being discussed it does include a well recovering drug users are considered. That's considered disability. So a group home could be a so called sober house or a recovery at home. So, that's something to keep in mind that that is, is a use by right under the state definition for a residential group home it is a form of disability or eligible use of this type of facility. So, the bed and breakfast. I think that's pretty much what you would think that there was some. It's accessory to a single family dwelling. And it's limited to no more than four bedrooms otherwise it goes into this in category, the bed and breakfast needs to require guest parking, meet the minimum parking requirements. Now, I know there was a comment I think Mike you had a comment about bed and breakfast being considered. What about not where it says not offer meals to the general public. So, that's because it's accessory to a single family dwelling. If the facility offers meals to the public and this would be true of an in as well. There would be a restaurant use that would have to be considered. So that allows us to review additional parking that might be needed also sewer and water allocation for a restaurant, so on. So, that's the reason that it's limited here to the breakfast if you will for the guests. So my question is, and was where I pose is that you may see some small bed and breakfast that they may look at an accessory to their business that they may might want to serve breakfasts and I don't know I guess I don't have a problem with, you know, if they only cater to, you know, less than four people that if they have a small eating area that they can have, you know, some some guests in for paid breakfast, just another way to for people are in money. Yeah, I understand what you're saying Mike I think I think it's kind of a slippery slope I think, you know, I understand looks at this in more detail I think that's a good topic to keep in our to do list to discuss further. I think in this stage of the game. We have to be careful because someone could turn their house into a restaurant basically, and understand as a bed and breakfast so I think we wouldn't have a problem but they would have to permit it as some type of a restaurant use and then we can address water and sewer and parking, you know, it does not require site plan review and approval so. It's just COVID's changed a lot of things. The way that we do business, and you're going to see a lot more people looking at some creative ways and I don't think it's something that's kind of would be against what our town plan and what we might want to see in our town plan, you know be done, you know, and again because this is interim it's probably not going to have a real big effect because it's it's really for the next two years. Yeah, we can look at that further for a long term, you know, but you know, by law review. Absolutely. Excuse me. Can I just say something to that I think Mike, this is Martha stask is. I think you should keep in mind though that if you're implementing interim bylaws that have a set of criteria that you think you might not like later or want to change. You will have permitted, you will have enabled permitting of uses that once the bylaws are issued then make them non compliant. So, just think about it before you say it's just attempt don't I just don't think you want to be thinking about it as temporary. And Martha it's, it's something long term and I think, you know, if you, you know, maybe that's prudent is to not open the door now and then when we look at future bylaw, you know, zoning changes that may be something to look at. So back in the beginning of this discussion, I was going to bring up that same scenario but a little bit in reverse. You allow those things in the intrams and then you take it away on the final draft. You might get it thrown in your face that you had to let the last previous two years, get away with this and now you're saying I can't. Yeah. I think that's a good, a good point Chris I think we do need to be cautious you're absolutely right. So the in is limited to not more than 12 bedrooms. And again, and you can offer meals and other services meeting rooms and so on to the guests as an accessory use that's fine. You can provide parking and so on, but it would not allow meals for the general public, as I, as I recall I'm just looking to see where that's identified here. Yeah, and in May offer meals to the guests as a, as a loud accessory uses so these services are offered the general public they must be reviewed as separate uses such as a restaurant use or a fitness center use or something of that nature. And again we can talk about this more as we look at these as permanent bylaws to see if we want to make it more permissive short term rentals we discussed briefly hotel motel. You know downtown's often have hotels and hotels would be in excess of 12 rooms with an extended stay. And this provides a lot more, you know, flexibility in terms of other kinds of uses that might be associated so that they may include uses such as a restaurant event venues, fitness and so on. However, those uses shall be reviewed as separate uses not as accessory uses under the applicable zoning. So again, it's not opening the door to, you know, use like a restaurant without that going through the proper review through water allocation and so on all that would be required. Open market or auction house sometimes these these exist in in buildings where someone will have an auction in an existing building in a downtown and so outlines the bylaws that would apply to be a seasonal use and and so on, put some parameters around that use the restaurant bar use. I wanted to highlight a couple things about the restaurant bar here. So, you know any outdoor seating has to be identified. That's the way we normally do this, whether it's Zen barn or the former TV bank building, not have recorder amplified music outside. So within open air structure unless approved by the development review board, many live music occurring on the site either inside or out would require the issuance of a town entertainment permit by the select board. So we make that clear. And then we talk a little bit about sound proofing and whatnot. So one thing in the definition of this does allow a micro brewery as an accessory use under certain parameters so you could have the primary use of the restaurant bar and as soon as we get to the bottom I'd like to go back to that just so you don't want to allow a group of type restaurant where the restaurants the primary use and they have a brewing a brewery and association with that. So that's another option I'll get back to that in a minute. So the mobile food service this would be like got his ice cream part, or, you know, other mobile food service that would not be permitted under our vendor ordinance so this would be on a private site. So that permitted these in the past through zoning, and just provide some parameters around that mobile food service. You know, we have inquiries about this and we want to facilitate this type of other use in the downtown as well. The facility nightclub we talked a little bit about that. And that would be limited to not having outdoor seating except to show on the site plan, and then it limits amplified sound system playing outside of enclosed building, unless otherwise approved so the developer view board and put limits on on sound levels and whatnot. So government standards we talked about. So these would apply only to home occupations and home businesses under just interim bylaw. They wouldn't apply to any of the other businesses so it talks about noise glare from windows odors missions of odors that could be detectable outside of the property line typically they're limit these things are limited to impacts that go beyond the property boundary. So it's not limiting what could take place within a property boundary. You know vibration from instruments waste material storage particular matter. I don't think the particular matter airborne solids talking about wood stoves it's talking about dust. So this could be from some sort of facility in the home business, for instance, and generating smoke that would affect an off offsite property. So this would be related to most likely a home business but it could be related to a home occupation as well. And enforcement and zoning map. So, I just wanted to go back briefly to the restaurant. So we're clear on that. And you kind of have the full picture so that would be under commercial uses. So right here under restaurant and probably a little hard for you to see but what this says is, let's see. I thought that it had a in the definition. I thought there was some allowance for right here right here under 1606 dash 13 this use. Okay, also includes the establishment that primarily. I don't know if you read it myself but bears and serves alcohol beverage for immediate consumption. Yeah, here it is, Chris. So there's a sentence right here in the table says this definition includes a group. Excuse me, a brew pub that produces less than 15,000 barrels of alcoholic beverage per year and sells 25% or more of its beverage on premises. So this would be where the restaurants the primary use, but there would be a brewery as part of it it's limited to this quantity of barrels per year, and this level of sales on site. So it's another avenue where a restaurant that wants to have a brewery in conjunction with the restaurant could could do that. So I just wanted to point that out. How many gallons in a barrel any idea. I don't know. Thank you, Mark. You're the brewer here in the group. Okay, thank you. So Mark unless you want to look at the map that's that's really all I have at this point. Yeah, I'd like to bring up the map and I think I'm going to make a similar comment I mean last time but I would like everyone is on the meeting to be able to look at the map. Okay, hang on. Okay, so. So this is the map that this is the proposed zoning map. And the pink area that I'm outlining is the proposed downtown zoning district, the Northwestern and it's the same as our current downtown commercial district. This is the gas station at the top of Bank Hill. This is the, the building where Mansfield orthopedics is the reservoir restaurants right here since some great buildings here. So this is 28 so street right here. Then it takes in the area down around foundry street all of those properties 3040 foundry stone cheddar included. And includes all the property spreading on South Main Street all the way down past the park to Warren court. This is the horseshoe in front of the state complex. So, on the south side it goes to the horseshoe. And on the north side, it goes to the first property across from the horseshoe drive where the first turn goes in. And then it takes in Moody court and the Washington County mental health building on Moody court is included and the other residences that are on Moody court. And then the rest of the of the zoning districts all remain as they currently exist the black line in the green line that I'm outlining or the design review overlay district this is the campus overlay. So, all these other districts for now would remain the same. So these interim regs only pertain to the area purple only to this area and purple or pink track. Steve, Steve or someone from the planning commission can, can you explain again why, as we look at expanding south on Main Street that we're not considering the north section of mainstream I just feel like it's the floodplain it's connected to the downtown it's bound by the railroad it just seems like that is an area of opportunity versus risking, you know, more density and development and maybe some of these flood prone areas and I was just wondering why. I'm sure it was discussed and I'm wondering why the decision was to not expand that way as well. Mark, I don't know that we did discuss it specifically. You know, a lot of our discussions pertaining to this particular zoning district, a lot of the time was spent on the use regulations and what the thresholds might be between what would be considered to be a use that would be permitted, either administratively or by site plan review or what would be relegated to conditional review so I don't if we did I don't recall it. We could have a long time ago. Our work on this zoning district was some of it goes back a while ago, and then we had been focusing on other parts of town before we came back to it. And then of course we've had the interruptions of the pandemic and all of that in the past year so I wish I had a better answer for you that's the best I got. All this awful and maybe other planning commission members want to jump in. So the proposal for these areas in the yellow is called the mixed use district. It is a higher density district that does allow some commercial uses, but it's not as intense as the downtown where you have zero setbacks you have no density limit on residential. This is a very intense district that I think needs to be fairly concentrated but I think as the planning commission looks at this mixed use district. And I'd encourage them to do that, you know in the next round. We can look at what's appropriate in that area to mix with these other residential uses but I think the character somewhat different. We have to be careful not to apply this high density that allowing some limited light industrial kinds of uses in these other areas that have a much higher concentration of residency so that that's, that's my short answer. I kind of agree with you Steve there at this point I you know, and I understand your point too as well Mark being out of the flood zones, certainly preferable. Yes, my question to myself is, ultimately it may happen over time. The way it may evolve but do we want to shove out all the residential lot of the village you know, I mean, and turn it completely into business district. I was going to ask you what which square here Steve would be born's which property. I think borns is right down around here, Chris. It's just before you get to when you see street I think it's this large parcel that I'm outlining down here. Chris my my actual interest is more of the idea of building residential density in the downtown and getting it out of the floodplain area so I'm not interested in that turning into businesses as much as it's not potentially an opportunity because those lots are so deep to find more residential locations that may be a easier to convince someone to buy and invest in developing it and not having to run into the regulation surrounding flood. When trying to build build out the project that definitely be more affordable residential. Yeah, I think that's the intent here mark with this mix use district would be allow a much higher density than what's currently allowed. I agree that section north of Stow Street has a little bit different character it's not nearly as as dense and yes, in the next round we may want to look at some other, you know, you know protections and some other maybe loosening up to do different things but it's a little bit different animal than the purple section. Mark, do you want to open this up for some public comment I can I can take away my screen share unless you have more questions about the map. I have one quick question before we go to public. The density change. There's a minimum size I know that small format kind of tiny house living is trending but also is there any kind of limit to how small and I feel like there needs to be some kind of minimum housing size. You know I think you had a calculation on one section that was like one per 400 square feet I don't know. Is there any limitation could you build 50 square foot units it just seems like they're Yeah, we've never had a minimum dwelling size. I think we pretty much let the market drive what you know what a private landowner wants to have for the dwelling but the planning commission has had a lot of discussion about cottage type development I think we want to allow smaller units but I don't know that I would recommend a small, small size I think the market is is going to drive that. That's my personal view but we could look at that down the line. Do we want to talk about before we go to public about the 2000 square feet and 5000 square foot thresholds and how those were determined and and why we're at those thresholds. Let me take away the screen share. Yeah, I mean I can give you my viewpoint I think it'd be interesting to hear from the public on that to are you asking me for my perspective or do you want me to wait. Yeah, because I know it's going to come up and you know 2000 square foot restaurant just because I'm in the business is small. And, you know, then we jump up in these other ones to these 5000 thresholds which I'm just wondering what the basis is what those numbers are often other are some buildings including one that I have on foundry that's say 10,000 square feet so that would not allow someone in that building to get the 10,000 square feet and I know there's some other buildings in the area in this district that I just want to make sure that there's a path to growth within these buildings before they'd be forced out of the downtown. No, I don't know. Right so the planning commission had a lot of discussion about scale in the downtown I think this this goes to that issue of scale. I would be in support of changing the 2000 foot threshold to a 5000 foot special where you move from a permitted use to a conditional use for those uses. I would not recommend anything more than 5000 square feet for the food and beverage manufacturing or the light industry I think we really run the risk of having a business that would overwhelm the residential use in the area. You can have multiple uses that were each, each use would need to be under 5000 square feet so it doesn't preclude a 10,000 square foot building having one use that's under 5000 a different use that's also under 5000 or multiple uses so that that's kind of my recommendation I, when we're done with the public hearing I can show you what, what I would recommend but I think it'd be good for you to hear from the public and I don't want to, you know, step on any codes. Since you asked that's my, that's where I would head with it. Well we'll open it up to the public. I'm not sure I'm not in the chat so I'm not sure and I haven't been reading these messages. Is anyone want to kick off the public feedback portion while I read through some of my draft messages.  There is a, there is a reaction button at the bottom of your screen, and you can put your hand up you can wait, if you want to raise hand, there's a raise hand actually button. That's another good way if someone wants to be recognized.  I just, first of all, say thank you. I mean I know you all put in a ton of work Steve, a ton, planning commission and bill on the select board for taking this up I really appreciate it. You know I do think we're all aware or have realized how the zoning rules that were made in 1996 are having problems particularly in the uses and how they're defined I think our economy is certainly evolving what we think of as retail is is is no longer a really viable business. Even, you know, in my experience in my personal experience, you know, office is changing and so forth and there's no question that covert is having a real meaningful and immediate impact on what those uses and what a viable uses downtown so I really do appreciate. You're doing this and thinking about this and looking particularly at the use table. You know I know there's some concern that this process was rushed. And I just feel like every day that we're enforcing the rules that were created in 1996. We're making a test endorsement of those. In fact, limiting businesses and in our community right now. And I think to the extent that these rules take as a step further I think that's great and I think it gives the planning commission more time to do the right thing and really evaluate the rules and and develop one that they are 100% confidence in for the long term. So I think that this is a good thing. I did share some comments via email with you guys a couple weeks ago but I just a high level and I think I've softened up a little bit. The first one refers to that section 16 or two applicability Steve you brought it up. The comments that all uses not specifically allowed or specifically prohibited and no select board reviews available for such prohibited uses. I just feel like that the the objective of these regulations were to facilitate a diverse mix of uses, higher diversity. Now we've seen the problems with these really strict definition of a use table. I don't know why we would want to limit that in a time when things are changing so rapidly so I just think that I, you know, the select board is an elected committee I think that I wouldn't want to limit that. That's my personal view. If you have any comment I think you got you just approached it mark on the use and dimensional tables. Again, I advocated for having, you know, the current tables as you said I think I'm more strict than what are currently on the books. For example, office space over 2000 is now conditional under the new interim bylaws where it would be permitted under the old regulations. Over 2000 as well. So, I think we need to re establish a number I threw out 5000 square foot is what's permitted, even if it's 4000 or something lower. I think something more than 2000 2000 seem very small it's less than the size of a footprint for a lot of buildings. For me, I think that they should be standardized and as we said we're having a real hard time. You know I'm thinking about my own use is it a restaurant or is it a food event manufacturing and so forth. So to the extent that they're, you know, having a similar threshold, it reduces the amount of gaming in the system that is classified as one use versus another I mean, for all these commercial uses it to me it seems like if it's under 3000 4000 square feet, it should be permitted. If it's over 3000 4000 it should be a conditional use. And then they can evaluate, you know, if industrial or light food manufacturing, you know facility that 6000 square feet makes sense from the village or not. That's another comment I made and maybe it's not worth approaching at this time, but it's just around parking. You know, I think that that is the the off street parking requirements is one of the biggest inhibitors to dense development, particularly dense residential you know, Jacob Hemmerich from the Vermont community of planning does not suggest having an off street parking requirement. You know, to me I don't see the need to put, I see more risk of what we're doing and preventing more development from having that but again that's something probably something to take at a different point in time but I thought I'd make that comment made. So just in summary, I, you know, I think these are a step in the right direction I think there's room for some improvement. And hopefully that gives a planning commission more time and an opportunity to really make long lasting regulations. Jason, if you wouldn't mind there, kind of lost you there a little bit when you were talking about does the ability of the select board, making decisions, can you go back over that what you meant by that because I kind of went out on us there. And, and I might need to have Steve help me out a little bit about on this because he talked about this too this is in the section 1602 the was it the applicability. And there's the two sentences that Steve referred to. The first that specifically all uses not specifically allowed in the downtown zoning district, specifically prohibited. And then the second sentence is no select board review is available for such prohibited uses under these standards. And again, I just think the challenge with defining these uses, I mean, they have caused so many issues where somebody defines a use one way someone defines a use another. If someone administrative defines it one way, somebody else defines it the other. I don't know why we would specifically handcuff ourselves to that. Your point my my concern about allowing the select board if I'm understanding it correctly. The reason why the select board to make those decisions is because there could be the potential for self serving interest from people getting on the board. That'd be my only concern there. And that exists, it exists in the zoning a miss it exists all over the place and that is a, you know, in municipal local government that's that's a real risk. That is correct me if I'm wrong, but this is a specifically a, a right that is allowed under state statute, and that you're specifically saying that we don't want to accept that right is that is that correct Steve. Well it's something that's under interim bylaws so it's not something that's allowed under standard permanent bylaws the select board does not have that authority. And this authority because sometimes their emergency situations that communities find themselves in where they may want to have that flexibility. But, you know, this, we had a legal review of these bylaws and this is a recommendation of the municipal attorney to limit the select board authority I think the development review board is the body that should have the authority to make determinations on these kinds of uses. And there is an appeal process that you know if an applicant doesn't agree with his own administrator's decision so, so that goes to the developer view board and I think that's the appropriate board that they have the experience and why not to kind of make these issues so that that that's just where the kind of where we landed as far as the, the staff recommendation on this issue, because otherwise I think it puts the select board in a very awkward position that development comes to them and they're, you know, maybe under pressure so I would, I would just counter that I mean I've been in two circumstances where I can't speak for the development review board but I feel like they did not have the ability. To adjudicate as you suggested and that they are confined to very specific rules as well. And by putting these sentences in the bylaws. You are limiting flexibility and that the DRV is not free to say oh we will allow that use because we think it's okay that's that's an outside of the purview of what the DRV can can do. I think what I would suggest is this is a really good issue for the planning commission to discuss we do have language in the in the unified development bylaw that addresses uses that aren't allowed and does provide the development review board some flexibility. In these cases where definition isn't clear so I think this is a very good point. I think under the interim bylaws that's the place to do it and it would put that authority in the developer view board but provide them with some guidance and some flexibility to make judgments about where situations where definition may not be clear. Okay, Jason thank you and I think we hear you on that concern so we can definitely be discussed more. I'm going to move on. I'd like to go to William I see your comment here but if you want to ask the question to the group and see if we can help you with some answers but I think from your comment I think these are actually creating the ability to create more units, and the airspace and land and previously previously there was a limitation of 15 units per building and some other rules so I think that actually is addressing these but go ahead with your question. What I'm wondering is while I understand there is greater density in terms of building volume. I was wondering where or is there greater density in terms of the number of occupants, because the people can build a house to have 60 foot house or 30 foot house but the people and we actually don't have an incentive or a minimum to actually have a greater density of people in the community as opposed to building space and maybe it's in there but I was looking for that and I didn't see it. Right, can I address that. Yes, please. You know, typically, I'm Ken Bellow on the chair of the planning commission, typically in a zoning set of zoning regulations, you wouldn't specify the number of people that would be allowed in a dwelling unit. Density would cover the number of dwelling units that would be allowed within a zoning district. As far as the number of people that could be allowed in any residents, there are state regulations pertaining to water and wastewater permitting, whether it's on an onsite system, or whether it's through a municipal system. And that's typically regulated by the number of bedrooms. I have formulas that govern those things but you know typically in a set of zoning regulations you wouldn't regulate necessarily how many people might be allowed in a dwelling unit you would you would regulate the number of the maximum number of dwelling units that would be allowed. Can I can I add to that I spent over 30 years in the in the housing industry and what you're really referring to is occupancy standards and occupancy standards control how many people can live in a certain residents. You know, we have some municipalities have adopted a certain occupancy standards others have chosen not to based upon, you know, different federal regulations. There's really a lot that, you know, that if if if a community doesn't have occupancy standards. It's really hard to enforce how many people will go into a particular residence so I think we're talking about apples and oranges when we're talking about the residential density and occupancy standards. One point back when we were thinking about that housing project that was proposed for 51 South Main Street wasn't there discussion there about number of bedrooms and units or half units or something like that. Right. This is when we had a density that would limit that particular site I think 15 units. And there was a bylaw amendment that will allow one bedroom apartment to be considered as half a dwelling in it so basically allowed the density to be doubled by going by going to one bedroom apartment. So I think that's the situation you're addressing bill. These bylaws are structured so that there wouldn't be a limit so that the limit on numbers of growing units would really reflect the capacity of the site for parking and that type of thing. Yeah. Mark. Before this public meetings over, if we could, I'd love to hear from the planning commissioners themselves as to, you know, this process how they felt about it, whether they're happy with it. And I wasn't here at the last meeting so and I apologize for that but Yeah, let's get to the public. Yeah, the public feedback and then we can move to that. Dana you had a question regarding ad use. Yeah, thanks Mark. So I understand that you know obviously accessory dwelling units are being used for short term rentals. And allowable use Airbnb and that sort of thing. What mechanisms, if any, do we have within these, not necessarily interim bylaws but potentially for the next iteration to encourage long term rental of ad use because we have a housing crisis in the community. And if we start to see all of these ad use go from long term to short term rental under an Airbnb or similar scheme. We're just going to be exacerbating that problem that's experience that I've had in other towns that I've lived in. I'm not expecting the planning commission to have that answer within these interim bylaws I think it's just something that I've seen happen elsewhere and I think it would be germane to address that in this process for this, you know, for these new zoning bylaws. So maybe you can answer the question and then just take it into consideration for the future. Yeah, I'll jump in and say the planning commission members want to say something that that course would be fine. So short term rental is a very complex issue. Various communities are dealing with it right now we own property in Greensboro family farm, and they're dealing with short term rentals the state legislature is looking at short term rental, enabling statute that would impact this. Personally, I think we need to probably let the state. If they're going to pass legislation, I would be appropriate to have that happen first and then we could respond because there may be enabling statute which will control how Mary would address this issue. But, but I think it isn't it isn't important when we've had some conversation in the planning commission about this, but it is a very complex issue that I think would have to deserve some time and a lot of input, because of the owners who, who, you know, have short term rental so you know there there's just more discussion needed on that issue that's my. I mean Mark you've had huge concerns about that in the past. Right. Yeah, I mean Stowe, for example, when I started doing business up there, you know people lived and worked in town and the increase in Airbnb business and other short term rental models, has really forced the workforce out of Stowe. I think we're seeing it a little bit in Waterbury I think the opportunity is is that if we can figure out a path to development and control where that development exists. There's now an economy of you know instead of, you know building a hotel it's being you know this this tourism market is being serviced by the short term rentals. But if we don't have a way to backfill more units we do have a vacancy problem we have a vacancy problem in both single family and rental so we can't figure out a solution to that affordability is going to go right up the window. Dana did that did that answer your question. I guess in the, in the sort of short term it sounds like we're playing a game of wait and see with the state to some degree. But I guess my, my hope would be that in the face of that, we would be aggressive locally in figuring out some sort of solution, either for incentivizing more multifamily res, or creating some sort of alternative track for these ad us to maybe for these owners to adopt long term rental through some sort of tax incentive property tax rebate that sort of thing. I think there's probably a lot of different ways to get at it. So I appreciate that it's complex. Thank you. Um, Danny had a question. Do you want to speak to her I can read it. I'm either way, Mark, I'm just curious. I don't know that it's been addressed. So, I'm not sure where to find the information but I'm curious if after the two years there are pieces within these bylaws at the town she's not to adopt. Are there repercussions or what happens to development that's already begun or been completed. Or does that or is it just prohibiting any further development within those areas. I'll just speak briefly to that maybe planning mission members would want to speak to that. You know, this is an issue with any bylaw that's developed. And there are situations where bylaws change and uses may be coming on conforming use they're allowed to continue they're allowed to change under certain parameters so that that is always a possibility with any bylaw that's that's an active. So similar bylaws we've been working on for about three years. They were developed by a consultant that we hired with grant funding, and they, you know, there's been a lot of vetting so I'm not so concerned but that that certainly is a risk in enacting any zoning bylaw. Yeah, like I said earlier, I'll put it in a simpler summary. You know, it's a great opportunity to give people something. And you pay health, taking it back.  Any other public comment. Mark, this is Mary Cohen. Good. I As most of you know, just full disclosure, I am the vice chair of the planning commission, but I also live in the downtown district. So I'd like to speak as a broader public. And one of my concerns about what's like board enacting these regulations without the full vetting and completed process that the planning commission goes through is that there will be a lot of what has already been brought up, whether it be you know Chris's point about giving someone something and then taking it away or Jason's point about fully thinking through the size of what's permitted what's allowed. How we really look at the definitions of in the use table. My main point though that I want to make and because of the primary discussion and the push for enacting these is interim zoning comes from business development point of view I just want to, and there have been comments about housing and I just want to echo those and reiterate that this downtown district is intended to be a currently is and should continue to be a mixed. It's not called the mixed use is Steve said it's a little more heavily developed in in more intense, but it's also intense housing, and we've got to be careful that whether again the size of businesses that are allowed how that what that impact is on housing and I also one of the aspects that's not covered at all in these interim bylaws is the demolition of historic buildings and this is in this part of the historic district in what what was formerly the Waterbury village. The demolition of the buildings has been an issue that we as you know it's hard to kind of separate what I know about being on the planning commission but we have through our efforts to review and revise the historic building standards for historic preservation districts in in in Waterbury one of the things that was came through really clear is if people understand that they and don't want the historic buildings to be easily demolished and that's something that isn't addressed at all in this interim bylaw so it just I hate to put out something that might be perceived as hyperbole but to me this the need to address the issue of the current zoning and the restrictions and what Jason has said about interpretations over the years or currently or the narrowness by which some uses are defined that creates problems that there's rapid changes to what is you know a good business a good commercial option for people to develop it just seems to me that this is there are other ways that the select work could address the issue that has brought this to the forefront and I keep thinking in the phrase it's like using a chainsaw to cut butter it just seems the wrong approach so as someone who lives in the district I wanted to share that so thank you can you speak to the comment or maybe can you can now that these are interim zoning bylaws does this somehow supersede any historical structure rules that we have or are those that would those still be in place by passing this can I just say they they would still be in place but they're not strong enough we don't have any I don't have them in front of me but one of the things that we tried to address as a planning commission was that how easily an historic building can be demolished they're not I don't Steve might be able to pull something up quickly but that is a missing piece in our current zoning regulations but that says that says is in the in the current district even right that's correct but I this isn't making a situation worse it's not correcting your issue Mary but it's it's leaving the status quo correct but it's it's an important it's an I I want to bring housing to the forefront not just the commercial business aspect of the downtown district and that's one of the missing pieces that we have in our current regulations that's my I understand and you know but I just want to make the point that it's the status quo and as Steve said at the very beginning if the planning commission wants to address that issue it doesn't have to take two years before these interim bylaws are replaced by something that's permanent you know Mary suggested that there are other ways to to solve this issue and and you know maybe it's a matter of philosophy we can't get into the into the details but you know the the impetus of this was partly the the denial by the the R.B. of the project that Jason wanted to do at 23 Stow Street if that's the right the right number and the owners of that property have have reserved their right to appeal to court that decision and again without getting into all the details and we've got to be careful about this but the select board has the ability to to to settle lawsuits and the select board in this one particular instance could deal with this particular issue just on that particular location I talked with Steve at great length and I thought I talked with the select board about the fact that you know cutting the D.R.B. out of conditional use of all the other things that the syndrome bylaw gives them the ability to to have a say in was a concern to me I think that it's not a great idea just to have the D.R.B. disapprove of an application and have as a matter of routine the applicant decide to go to court and then the select board just gets to settle the lawsuit whether we think that's a good law or bad law it's the law the select board can deal with these properties on an individual basis one by one anytime the D.R.B. disapproves if the applicant then appeals to court so it seemed to me that a better way to address the issue was to build on what the planning commission has already been doing to try to come up with some interim bylaws which clearly the select board has the ability to put in place much more quickly than through the traditional process so I'm not suggesting that this is my idea but this is kind of how we got to this point because I think it's bad planning to allow the select board one property at a time to just say well you know Joe Smith wants to do this the bylaws don't allow it he's appealed the denial and we're going to cut a deal with I think that's bad I think these interim bylaws are a better way to approach it and the planning commission has the ability to come up with permanent bylaws as quickly as they're able to replace these so anyway I understand the concern but that's I think how we got to where we are tonight yeah good so to your point Bill I guess I'd agree with you I would hate to think that the select board could I guess show preference I think you're asking for huge liability issues if you get into that so my other concern is for the planning commissioners that let's I'll take a hypothetical situation may be similar to what we're dealing with if somebody comes in town a developer to do something they go through a two-year planning process to build a building and rent it out in so many different ways from what I understand and I could be completely wrong because I haven't got into the weeds of this whole process if at the 11th hour the developer decides that they want to put something in one section of the building that doesn't go inside with current regs I think it's a little bit forward to expect the planning commissioners to jump through hoops to create interim laws to satisfy the specific need whoever it may be whatever it may be when there's you know so much detail involved in this process and they're expected to get it right I mean I can't ever believe that there will ever be a perfect set of zoning rights because of the way humans evolve the way the businesses evolve the way our lives evolve you're never going to nail it right the first time so to expect them to be perfect and you know get it get a request like this kind of pushed upon them to make to make a snap results just seemed unfair and I kind of interest I'm interested that's why I'm interested in hearing from the planning commissioners as to if they felt like they were input in that put in that circumstance would be glad to comment when it's our turn yeah we can we can close up or not close up but at least make sure everyone from the public has had an opportunity to speak for any feedback they have and then happy to go to the planning commission and I think I can give you a little more information Chris on how we found ourselves here but is anyone else from the public that would like to speak before we turn to the planning commission to have that discussion so you know Chris I hear you and I think what happened was you know I started to get involved in in sitting in the DRB meetings listening to discussion on this specific project but I've been involved in that economic development group for a while and the big the big problems that I feel like have existed are the density issues for any residential development just because of the cost and making a project viable. I've heard about multiple businesses of different use have struggle to find location where they feel like they should be able to do business hair salons are the specific example I've used multiple times and then obviously this this brewery brew pub bottling facility scenario and basically the DRB turn to me as I was giving feedback in the DRB meeting I'm saying you guys are supposed to be changing this we're bound by these rules it goes back to Jason's comment of why aren't you guys doing anything so I asked a month and a half ago or two months ago of an update on where we work because I know we've been working on this a while can suggest that that we potentially break it apart in pieces because maybe it was more achievable and then a timeline was presented specific to the downtown as something that they felt was something that they could start to take on in terms of timing I think I don't feel like we put any additional pressure more than what it was basically like we think we can present this in a certain timeframe. And so Steve started working on that so I think that's kind of the timeline and how the series of events unfolded but I'm happy to hand it off to you and hear your feedback and anyone else on the planning commission and you know I don't want you to feel that we're trying to do anything more than spark discussion and try to move things forward and and I hate to hear anytime that you know potential opportunity for you know business use or residential opportunity is being held back by us not moving forward so I'm happy to hand it off to you. Okay well thank you so the planning commission did prepare a statement which you all should have received at our last meeting on February the eighth and we had a pretty lengthy discussion about whether or not we were going to make a recommendation pertaining to these draft interim zoning regulations. Interim zoning is a tool that's available to the planning commission it's your tool it's not the planning commission's tool interim zoning by definition circumvents the planning commission process. Now there have been examples. I can think of two in the last year where the town has used interim zoning. But it actually came out of the planning commission it wasn't required but we made we did some work and made some recommendations. I think it was the right thing to do at the time. In this particular case, Mark I think your description is I'm going to try to be polite here, but a little bit self serving. I don't think it went quite as as smoothly as you as you described it to be. The planning commission has been working on this stuff for a long time. It was not back in December or January that we decided to break it apart into pieces that it was a decision that had already been made. I simply described something that we had already done. You know, as you may recall, the planning commission's work has been impacted and interrupted by the quarantining restrictions. COVID-19 I mean, don't want to belabor that everybody knows we're all living in a compromised world right now. But that's certainly interfered with our ability to do anything. At the meeting with the select board that we were involved with. I don't recall. I think it may have been in December. There had been sort of this some discussion about interim zoning, but I did not come away from that meeting and I don't think other members of the planning commission came away from that meeting. I think that that process was now going to be taken as the preferred course of action. So suffice it to say that we felt blindsided.  We've been working hard trying to do a good job. And you know, quite frankly, it's not always easy. Not only to reach a consensus amongst the five members of the board, but to try to come up with something that we think is going to work for you folks, because you guys are a tough audience. We've had things in the past that we've brought to the select board after very lengthy discussions and public hearings with the planning commission.  So it's, it's a difficult process. It's difficult for us personally. It's, it's difficult to pull off logistically the, the urgency, the perceived urgency of the matter. All of that information was was certainly not shared with the planning commission. I received some information. At some point, I want to say it was in January from Bill Sheplock that helped me understand things a little bit better, but it, you know, the damage had been done. And so, so yeah, you know, there's some hard feelings there. It's not to say that we can't move on from there, but that's just a, that's just a statement of fact. To go, to go to Chris, Chris's question. Yeah, I don't know that it's a good idea to, you know, every time somebody gets denied an application for a permit. I don't know that that creates an emergency. It's, you know, there are emergencies and, you know, I, if I were going to build a building and I was an applicant, I would do my homework ahead of time. And I would figure out what it is that I could do or couldn't do before I made the investment to go ahead and get a permit. That's what I would do. And I, when, when I was working, you know, the way I would work with applicants is I would be very, very clear about how I saw things, about how I saw the regulations and how I would handle with, with various, you know, permitting questions should they come up. So, you know, I don't work inside the town, I don't know how the town's process works, you know, my job situation was a little different. I wore two different hats, but specifically to the planning commission. We did not make a recommendation feelings aside. As the statement says, we feel the document is unfinished. And the, you know, some of the issues that I know Jason Wolf has raised earlier about square footage and thresholds, whatever. We were having a lot of discussions about that. And suffice it to say that stuff was unresolved. So, you know, that's kind of where we are, you know, a lot of the questions that I heard from people tonight deal with some of the very things that the, you know, the planning commission was trying to wrestle with. You know, and on the one hand, there are things like yeah wanting to be able to increase allowable densities because we're all in favor of there being more workforce housing in town.  We're all in favor of that. The other side of that, you know, Mary has given voice to another issue, which is that they're also there are people who live in the village, and they have their own special concerns and all those things have to be balanced. But a lot of that stuff, we hadn't resolved. There have been a lot of back and forth. Not everybody on the planning commission thinks about things in one mind, probably the same as you folks do. You know, I doubt all of you have all the same points of view on all of the issues. There's some back and forth. There may be disagreements there may be split votes. So, we try to work as a group to develop a consensus. It's not always easy to do that. That's the goal to do that. And sometimes that takes time. So, that's, you know, in a nutshell, that's, you know, our, our view from our little corner of the world, and a little more background as to why we made the statement that we did pertaining to interim zoning.  It's your, your baby, if you want to pass it. You know, there's nothing we can do about it. Whether it's the right thing to do or not, you know, I don't know that's up to you guys to decide, but specifically in terms of what that impact has been on the planning commission. I'll give you a summary there.  I, I didn't see that feedback. So I apologize that you felt blindsided. I, you know, I started working with Steve to talk about timelines, but at no point did I. I heard rumblings of a potential issue with the planning commission I apologize that I didn't follow up directly. I would have gotten feedback from Steve hearing that there were issues and major concerns with anything including timeline. I would have, I would have gone to you so I apologize for that I, you know, in terms of self serving the only consideration there is that I just been involved in projects go to a certain point and then not come to fruition and I watched, you know, Jason and his group struggle, you know, in the idea of self serving the same brewery got permitted to go in my building they found another building during my permit process and decided that they want to pursue that and it's around the corner and the question mark of why is it permitted here and why is it not permitted there so, you know, I, I hear you and I hear your concerns, nothing that I see in the interim zoning concerns me as much as the potential of losing out who knows when we'll get to a full, you know, zoning rewrite, but I think there's, there's precious time passing into Mary's concern. I do think density is a big reason on why developers aren't aren't building in our downtown or anywhere near our downtown I just don't think it's financially viable with the current rule book so I think that's what I've learned over the years, being on that economic development group through our W is that that's what's holding them back in a lot of ways and I would hope that, you know, just the air right and opportunity and height requirement of 60 feet could potentially turn on that kind of development and help us with our vacancy problem. But I'd be interested in hearing from Steve or Bill on this. Katie's been wanting to say something Mark might want to go ahead Katie. So, first of all, Ken, I told you tell it how it was, and to be, you know, pretty hard on. So, Mike and myself attended one of the last planning commission meetings, and it's not so cookie cutter is that they were really ticked off. They were very upset, they felt like they had two meetings to pull things together. And they were really pushed off different projects just to focus on this task right now so they did not feel confident in us and there was a lot of miscommunication so I felt like we did a disservice to them by forcing them to look at this right now, even though this has been in the works for years, but I just felt like they have been slighted. And if they don't feel like this is unfinished, and that it could be clarified more I think you should listen to them. That's not me saying or discouraging other businesses should not look to come to town because I want businesses to come to town and stay here for a long time but I think that these all these details need to be picked with a fine tooth comb so they can, you know, misinterpreted or questioned later on. I think that it's important that we get everything straight, one time through, if we can, for everybody to be on the same level and understand everything clearly. Mike, did you want to follow up since you were at that meeting as well. You're muted Mike. Mike you're still muted. The joy, the joys of zoom. Sorry about that. I was at the February 8 meeting as well. And although I came to that meeting mostly as an individual I provided some comments to the planning commission. And I know how to kind of tough, I'll be very honest, you know, it was a very tough. I have a response from the planning commission. I came looking for some sort of collaborative process for us to go forward. Maybe it's not the totally right time but also I also knowing from being a manager you don't want to delay things forever. I hear what the planning commission is saying, you know, this is not perfect but I hear also where Mark and some of the other people have commented that we do want some things that could help move our community together and advance some development of all sorts. I think that's really important. But I do think it's really important that the select board and the planning commission work together. And I tried to say that that meeting and I don't think I, I got through it all, you know, I do believe that all of the boards and commissions in this community need to work together, not as isolated entities and if, if I slighted them in any way, I did not do, and I don't think I did. You know, also I do think we need to move some things forward and maybe we're not at the point that we, you know, as Ken says, to do something right now, maybe we it needs a little bit of tweaking, but I do want to hear from the planning commission and I do want feedback because I think they are the experts, you know, I, you know, I was under the under under the impression that this was a collaborative process between the town planner and the planning commission, more than I found out that it was the process for the interim bylaws was mainly put together by Steve. So I don't know where we want to be with this I'm kind of a little bit confused I do want consensus. I do want to have a collaborative plan, not a, you know, a top down push push thing because of some special interest. That's my two cents. So I just want to make sure nobody ends up blaming Steve here. The select board directed staff that they wanted to, to, to implement interim zoning to deal with this issue. Steve is the planner. So I directed him to, to, to write these interim bylaws, and, and I directed him to share this with the planning commission, and whether the planning commission wanted to see that this was going in this direction or they really knew, at least through staff and me from Steve and me that we had been asked by the select board to do this. And Steve I'm sure I did not attend any planning commission meetings but I'm sure these bylaws were shared with the planning commission and whether the planning commission felt it was collaborative process, or that this was just what it was going to be, I think Steve tried to get their input. So, we are where we are. We have, we have a situation where we have an applicant who's been denied by the DRB that applicant has appealed to court. We're going to have to answer that appeal, whether that means defend our permit or defend the DRB's decision, or if the select board decides that it wants to, to settle the issue by somehow making some other arrangements and making a permit. But I, I'm understanding of how, how the different individuals and the different boards feel, but from my perspective, it was pretty clear from the discussions that we had the one that can was that in December, and in January there was an agenda item on the, on the select board's agenda and the select board directed staff to, to draft interim zoning bylaws, and to try to get it to the board by the end of January. Now, here we are. It's close to the end of February, and we're having the hearing on it, but that's the, that's what the process is and I don't believe this was staff driven that this was me and Steve just saying oh we're going to develop interim bylaws and everybody else be damned. That's, that's not how it played out. So it's, as Ken says it's in the select board's hands right now. You have the ability to do a couple of things you can approve these as they've been presented tonight. You can disapprove them and decide not to implement them. You can ask for some changes to be made. Or you can ask staff to go back and make some changes that are more than, you know, edits, I think you can make basically any change that you want right now. You can correct me if I'm wrong, but even if it's a substance substantive change the select board could make that change tonight and still adopted if they wanted to. I'm not suggesting that but that's possible right. That's correct I checked with our mystical attorney and he said that that is the way interim bylaws have set up to make substantive changes. He's going to adopt them tonight. He's going to adopt them at a subsequent meeting. That is correct. Okay. Yeah. Yeah, I mean I think bill is is absolutely accurate and you know I know this has been hard for the planning commission been hard for all of us but I, you know this draft is based on the planning commission work. I did not make any, I think I made one change to the planning commission draft at that time and I understand that the planning commission feels that this is unfinished I understand that. I think there is process where we can move forward in working on some permanent bylaws where we can. We'll find this and we can get more public input, but I personally don't see any reason not to move forward I think you know a lot of thought has gone into this I had two meetings with the planning commission to go over my graph which was based on their work. So, I understand the whole concern about about this being unfinished I have some recommendations for some changes that the select board does choose to move forward tonight they're not major changes their changes I've already discussed with you. So, but I think bill directed this process and from a staff perspective I want to make sure everybody including the planning commission one understands that I was not given a choice about preparing this draft. So I was directed, and here, and here we are so. But at any rate that that's enough on my stump but that's my thoughts.  Yeah. This is all good dialogue and it is good for the boards to have an exchange and and I also want to thank Katie and Mike for coming to our last meeting. I'll just give a little bit. I'll just take a couple more minutes to give it a little perspective if you were to take the current bylaw document and just put it on the table and take what we're trying to implement now and flip a couple of pages.  And from my perspective and I spend a lot of time in permitting worlds. But just the body of the documents themselves is is a huge challenge to make sure that what was in the original is either addressed is improved is changed, and then be able to move forward and is in the benefit of the town so they're so just physically the documents and and I bring this up because it has made this process. Additionally challenging I think that's my personal opinion. Then we meet twice a month twice a month so if we have a request of Steve for which I'm going to talk to specifically. What are the current situations what is the current predominant square footage for a restaurant what's the current retail space that's that's already been permitted and what are the uses along Main Street and give us a give us information so that we can then look at what the consultant proposed as new dimensions. One consistent with what we have and to improve better or what we want going forward. So there's each one of those things is like eat and then she also to Jason's point which I think is absolutely spot on the number of uses the use table itself was probably double the descriptive uses of what we have now. Becomes more restrictive in terms of you know is it. Is it a salon with a with an extra saying or not I mean I just don't know it's just so nitpicky was ridiculous. And so we spent a whole series of time just scaling back all the uses saying no we want them broader they need to be more flexible they need to be able to allow for growth and flexibility and businesses that we don't even know are coming. So there was all of that process. But then remember we only meet twice a month. Now throw in COVID throw in the request for an interim historic or a historic district improvement by law up we got to put the regulations aside and now we have to deal with this. We get another request for assigned by law got to put the regulations aside and and deal with this interim issue. So I am defending us a little bit but I think you need to. I hope you appreciate that we're trying to do the best job we can for the benefit economic benefit of the town. My personal. Right if you will it's not a great but my personal view on this last month I really do feel we were told and I went back and looked at the minutes from the January fourth select board meeting and it says that direct staff to prepare interim bylaws as expeditiously as possible. That doesn't say by February 1 that says as expeditiously as possible and we took that in all sincerity and dug right in at a very next meeting as we have them. So, then we were told that it had to be done by February 1, which only gives us two meetings. So yeah, so we felt like we were sort of stripped with any, any ability to finish anything. The where I started to go here was the reason it bothers me that we're addressing just the downtown issue is we've had people a property owners along the root 100 district who are trying to sell their property so you don't think they've taken a personal economic hit because they can't sell their property because it's not zoned for what really wants to go there a commercial activity. So, those people have been waiting and waiting and they've come back and we said oh you got to wait we got to finish the bylaws. Now we have this other issue come up and it's wham bam have an interim bylaw by the end of the month. So it's just a little hard to take in understanding that there's the folks out on route 100 that are waiting to be considered. And then the last thing is, I just really go back to the fact that we've asked for and Steve does the best he can but we only meet every two weeks. So we asked for these dimensional tables, you know when you look at the threshold of 2000 or 5000 to me that's almost the biggest issue because if you don't get those numbers right to Chris's point and Jason's point. So this interim bylaw for a couple of years and then we go out and we find that real information as to what is a reasonable value. And now we've either now either these projects are too big or they've been harmed by being too small. I don't think that's fair to the developers either. So, we're trying to come up with the right uses, right use descriptions, and then the right dimensional table, whether it's to trigger whether it's permitted or conditional. And, and then lastly, I just want to go back to the mapping question that Mark raised earlier. We took on the uses and the dimensional tables to get those right. And in my mind anyway, I don't feel that the boundaries of the districts where all set in stone and done, because I think that if you get the uses and the dimensional tables then you can see how big of an area you want to apply that those those conditions to. So, to your point on the north end of Main Street, I agree, Mark. I don't see why we're cutting that out, honestly, but I think it in my mind it's because we never resolved the use, the use and dimensional tables. So thank you. So, I mean I'll reiterate that I think it's a little bit of just miscommunication between the boards and I want to apologize on behalf of the select board I think there was a feeling at a meeting that here we have another issue in downtown can we do anything. I think we need to split up the plan, we could do it through interim okay. And I don't think I ever thought that we're going to be presenting anything to the select board that was much farther off though than the work that you've already done on on your board. So, I think that's where, you know, talking about timing. I think it was just more, when can this be done, what you know what's the quickest it could be done but not at a rate that like I personally was trying to support any faster than the board wanted to support the planning commission, and what work that they've already done to me this is this is a little bit of surprise to me to hear these concerns and I apologize that I, I wasn't aware of this so you know to me I guess my question is is okay if where if the planning commission feels this way now. What would you like to see happen and if we slowed it down. And some of this I'm wondering why you know we've had been working on this plan for a while so you know these questions on sizing and what's the right sizing 2000 5000. How come some of that hasn't been answered yet, I guess, today. And, you know, I'm a little surprised it's not a lot of public comment in here today saying that these regulations are to outside of what the expectation would be I would think were we see a lot more public comment so I guess my question to the select board is is are we that far off and where we would need to be, if we do decide to consider in terms of.  So, first I want to convey to Jason Wolf. I'm a businessman I've been for over 40 years. I understand what business all about time is money. I know all about it. Fortunately or unfortunately the we operate by a legislative process. We have certain officials that are elected to certain positions and we have volunteers that take on other positions that we rely on we rely on their expertise we rely on their decision making we rely on their input we rely on their business and otherwise we have to deal with all of that and we just don't have the capabilities of doing that. Currently have a great planning commission and a great planner. I feel like they feel like they've been slighted to some degree or some cases have had dirt kicked in their face. It's getting harder and harder to be an official or elected official or a community involved member. Especially in the last year or so is getting more and more difficult world public is less tolerant of elected officials and their decision making. And quite honestly, in the town of Waterbury, when we have people that are against the municipality for whatever reason, I myself feel slighted. And I hope and beg and pray that the current board members on the planning commission don't decide with all the stress that you've had to endure to walk, because that means we'd have to replace you. The impact of that would be quite detrimental I think to the town. So my heart goes out to you. I know what it's like to endure difficult times. So, I'm going to ask the same thing that Mark just asked. What would you think would be enough additional time. Because I think just jumping back my stance has been right along. You know, you shouldn't have to be made to be whipped to make decisions to move a situation forward, whoever it might be. So I'm going to ask what additional time would you be comfortable with and be honest about it. And because right now I don't have any expectation that I would vote to move these interim regs forward forward tonight, because I don't feel that you guys have had ample time to do what you need to be to do to satisfy yourself and the town's needs. Is that question going to us or sure, sure. What I would say, Chris, my first response would be how much time would it take is going to depend partly on what it is that you want us to get done. If we had a clear sense about there were maybe maybe there's a specific agenda, a specific item, maybe there's a couple of them. Maybe it's not the whole downtown zoning district that that's a priority that somehow there's a there's an issue that you're trying to get some resolution to that would help us. Because I think is as everybody should have seen just looking at the text. There's a lot of stuff in there. You've got a whole gamut of uses that you know they're all you know it covers a really really broad range. Because it's a mixed use district that's the nature of our village we have all kinds of stuff there it's not like we're talking about some sort of monolithic, you know residential, you know, subdivision. We've got a mix of stuff that's there already. It's, it's developed over time. We don't necessarily want to put anybody out of business, we don't necessarily want to make anybody non conforming. That's a risk that can happen when you start to change zoning regulations I think we've already talked about other unintended consequences. If you crack regulations that are too broad and too permissive. So, I think for me personally to answer the question of how much time would depend on what it is that you want us to get done. Back in December, I gave you a sort of a ballpark answer that I thought, you know maybe by June. Well, you know, it's, it's, it's hard. It's hard to put a clock on how long it's going to take to develop consensus. I will ask, how long is the current United States Congress going to develop a consensus on virtually anything. Well, it might never happen. I feel a little bit more optimistic with the planning commission than with the Congress, but nonetheless it's a five member board. And, you know, we have to work together. I think for us to accomplish anything that could be thought of as dealing with this entire zoning district, you're talking about, you know, several months. But there are the issues where we have spent the most amount of time recently. And I think we have to go to the heart of what I think the select board is trying to achieve which is some of these economic development issues questions problems here in the, you know, in the district so it's probably not as pointed an answer as you were hoping for but that's the best I can do. And last Jason, if he doesn't mind. How time sensitive is your request. I mean, is there, is there any flexibility on your end. The honest answer is it goes to the Ryan who's on would know the answer to that. I do want to step back because I think it's been misinterpreted what we're doing. I think for probably most the people who have read the zoning regulations, and then interpreted the the use that we're proposing which is a group of which is down the the layman would assume that that isn't allowed use in this in this setting. And so the, the, the perception that we're suing the town or we think there's, we're trying to skirt the rules or something no we're simply trying to clarify that. I think why this is so important is the fact that these regulations were made in 1996 is that it's very difficult to understand what you can and cannot do it's not that we are trying to do something that we think was not allowed. It's that from our reading of it, it's a bar, no different than what prohibition pig is. And that's unclear and so I think it does need to happen. We'll go around later and then waiting, you know, we had this issue two years ago as well. So in terms of whether this particular use will still be available six months from now, they might. I couldn't tell you we don't have a sign lease. And the point about the urgency, and that something has changed, we did we had a tenant for two floors for for office space, because of COVID. That's no longer happening, right, because they're now working from home so the idea that there's not urgency and there isn't some change I think is a little bit. Miss misguided there. And I really do appreciate all the work and effort that everybody's putting in into this I don't want it to be about me I think it's more important that that these rules are very vague and anything we can do to clarify not only my circumstance but but many others that are looking at what are very because it is currently, you know, going through a lot of change right now. So maybe I can ask a question that could shed some light maybe not back when the alchemists started down where the pig is now Steve. They started their brewery downstairs correct. I mean, I was there after the flood and the reconstruction process started. I recall the discussion about what was going to happen with that building and the fact that they were going to start a brewery downstairs. The restaurant was upstairs. Isn't that similar to what Jason's request is, if I'm understanding his request correctly. Well, Chris I'm going to give you a short answer and I'd like to make a recommendation see if bills and bill agrees there. The alchemists did have a brewery in the basement that was flooded with tropical storm Irene it was associated with a restaurant. And then there, the new restaurant prohibition pig got a brewery approved as an accessory used to the restaurant. I think about 120 seat restaurant so that's how that was approved as an accessory use. I think the select board and bill I'd like you to jump on this, you know we're getting into the legal issues we've gotten a feel that the town is party to the select board may want to consider an executive decision to talk about how to move forward and bill I guess I'd like you to jump in I'm very concerned about us talking about a situation that's under appeal so I guess I'd ask bill before we get into more back and forth. I really think we need to be careful how we move forward and I think select board may want to have a discussion among themselves to figure it out but bill I guess I'd ask you to jump in here before we get too much further. If you're going to talk about the specific denial in the appeal then yes I'm not sure that's really what Chris was asking. I think that the, the zoning administrator in the in the DRB believe that what was proposed by Jason and his partner was different than what was proposed at the at the pro pig. And I think that's to Jason's point it from their perspective it, it doesn't seem all that different than what was approved down at the pro pig. We all looked at it a certain way. We got legal advice in the DRB looked at it a certain way given how the regulations are written and determine that. No, it's not permissible permissible so if we're going to talk about the specific issue of Jason's property and the appeal. We should go into executive session I'm not sure that's going to be fruitful right now because I don't have any recommendation we can, we can, you know, expand a little bit on on this discussion that I'm having right now but I don't think an executive session is going to help us. Because this is not about just Jason's situation. This is about the zoning district. And, you know, I, I appreciate Ken's comments before. I don't know if you're hedging on even June now can it seem like you said June, a couple months ago and I know we're a couple months closer to June now, but it just seems that this bylaw, whether we're talking about doing it one district at a time or we're doing it all at once, just kind of goes on forever. And I'm not sure that we can wait forever. Congress left aside. I'm no happier about Congress not being able to get anything done but you know how long if how long is the planning Commission didn't working on getting something done for these bylaws and whether one district at a time or the whole thing all at once is the way to do it I don't know but we don't seem a whole lot closer to the end than we were a year ago. And I know we've had COVID, but we can meet we're meeting right now you can meet twice a month and not be sitting at the same table and still get something done. Well, I would like to just say that I wasn't hedging my bets. My hope was that it would have been shorter than June, not longer than June. Okay, good. Glad to hear that. I apologize. I was just trying to narrow the gap between the problem that we're faced with in the timeframe to cure it. But I think, you know, Ken, Ken did ask a question that hasn't been answered yet. And, you know, what is the select board asking for. If the select board wants to ask the planning Commission, look, we understand root 100s an issue we understand other things are an issue. Let's get the downtown done. If that's what the select board wants, and we're not going to adopt these interim bylaws tonight. I would suggest at least you tell the planning Commission what you'd like. If root 100 is more important than the downtown, tell them that but I think we've got to get something done for the people like Jason out there who are just waiting. I think with the consideration of the reconstruction of Main Street, new business that have come into town. 100 is, and has been kind of just out there forever. The fact that, you know, I don't know if the wastewater system is any further moving forward towards ending up that way or whatever but it just seems like the urgency seems to be in the, in the downtown. Yeah, well there's no wastewater going up root 100. I guess that was my point. Well and I think part of it too goes back to our meeting where Ken came and we discussed splitting it apart it seemed like downtown was a potential opportunity to take on an interim basis. I think I was a little confused, understanding the process and how exactly it would play out so I apologize. I don't think I was ever doing anything that I thought was at a rate that that was, I'm feeling you guys making you slide it's again I apologize for that I think hearing I definitely heard the concerns on 102 but I know that 100 development and conversations surrounding that have been a more divisive scenario than, you know, I think what we're talking about doing in the downtown. So, you know, me personally in terms of, of where to focus I, I, after this conversation, want to take a breath, have a conversation with Bill, Steve and Ken about timing. I do, I do have concerns that this doesn't look like maybe what you were going to present down the road from an overall plan I thought we were kind of taking what you had done in the work you've done in the last couple years. It's always similar on the direction and decisions you've already made for the downtown so to me it was putting forward something that there wasn't as much conversation being had and the difficulties you might have been having about presenting a plan to us was the issues you were dealing with about sprawl or whatever else in the, in the other zoning areas so I understood that completely and don't want to force that hand but if from what I thought the feedback we were getting was that the downtown. There wasn't a lot to decide on and potentially could be moved forward and I remember you saying, you know, the timing in which you thought and then Steve it presented a different timing and I, you know, to me that sounded great. I thought, oh, we can maybe move faster than what we originally discussed in the select board meeting. I didn't realize how it was playing out so again, I, you know, I'm trying to wrap my head around that right now as we talk but I do have concern that time is passing. I understand that if it if it's months, I, I'd support months of continuing to work on this. I'm not going to support years of working on this. What can we do to lighten the load on these guys with these other issues or can we I mean, give them give them some breathing room to maybe focus more on one particular issue. Do we have that capability, Steve. I would look, I would look to Ken to help us understand that. Well, so here's what I would say if. What hearing is there's, there's a press on, there's a particular use, which I'm not going to focus on the particular use I'm going to put it in a class of uses, which really has to do with sort of the economic vibrancy of the downtown. And that's the primary concern. Now, these are my words so you can tell me whether these words or words that you use would use, but if that's what you think is the most important, then we can focus on that. I think, in fact, that's what we had been doing the last couple of meetings. As I said earlier, you know, this, the, these threshold questions of, you know, whether when something is considered to be, you know, a use that's considered to be a use a lot by right or permitted use versus a conditional use. We were having some good discussions about that. You know, there was some back and forth between members of the planning commission some back and forth between planning commission and staff. Some of what we were talking about represented points of departure from how the town has done things in the past. And some of that had to be resolved, but I think we were making some progress on that score. And one of the issues that were raised here tonight residential densities would ever whether or not the zoning district should be bigger than those that those were not the things that we have been focusing on. So, but if, again, if that's, if that's what you'd really like to see us get done in the short term, I think that would help us. Always, I shouldn't say always, but what frequently has been a concern for the planning commission is we're doing our work is how is it going to be received when it comes to you folks so if we you know if you can kind of give us an idea where you want us to go. It's not going to help us.  You know, we had a situation where there was a there was an action item in the town plan from a couple of years ago to take up historic preservation regulations and we did a lot of work on this. We ran into a buzz saw of a public hearing and, you know, market that hearing you stood up in the back and you said well wasn't that wasn't the select board that said to do this that was just one person from the select board. Well, you know, we kind of felt like we were thrown under the bus, because here we were. Somebody, you know, we went to a public hearing with the select board, and we were told we should take a look at this. After the town plan was done, and we did, we thought we were doing our job and then, you know, so there wasn't a constituency for it out in the public. You know, I get that you know that's comes with the territory but we felt really unsupported. And, you know, when you have a situation like that and there have been some other cases where we've done some work on things and it's been a tough sell with the select board. It impedes our ability to get things done when we're when we're having to second guess. So, I say that in the true spirit of cooperation, like, help us out here. There's some direction, tell us where you want us to go, and then we can focus.  Now I also think that just speaking for myself. I think that that the planning commission has needed a little bit of prodding. I don't think it's all totally our fault we we tried to do some things there was an effort in the proposed zoning bylaw to do some down zoning. Up in the Waterbury Center area which down zoning is very difficult, even under the best circumstances and we lost a lot of time, essentially fighting with people who, you know, we just wanted no part of it. We abandoned that course of action and started to focus on the village because it did seem to us like number one that was a bigger priority and also it presented us with the greatest opportunity to actually get something done. I personally would like us to get something done. I personally would like us to get something to you folks. I think that that there can be a conse