[1:35] And it's the wrong video
[1:42] front and center. This is a group
activity. Let us call to order the
[1:47] meeting.
of the comprehensive plan implementation
[1:52] committee.
>> Yeah, today is September
[1:58] » and uh
we always start an agenda review
[2:04] in case there are any folks from the
public who are joining us. Don't see
[2:09] anyone today does join we will welcome
them. Um, is there anything
[2:17] agenda that needs to be adjusted in any
way? I don't think so. But
[2:25] all right. Um, so let's start off with
the
[2:30] administ which is um we sent around the
August 10th
[2:37] meeting minutes.
There is one little that it's been
[2:42] pointed out needs to be corrected. Um I
think three times it's the mixed
[2:49] transitional zone is referred to as the
TMU
[2:54] transitional mixed use. It ain't
at least it's not not that's not what we
[3:00] proposed
the mixed transitional zone and we refer
[3:06] to it in abbreviation as the MT
proposed with that correct um do people
[3:13] approve of that of those minutes?
>> Yes.
[3:18] » Thank you very much. Um
so as corrected
[3:26] The only thing in terms of upcoming
dates obviously this Thursday we have a
[3:32] on Rico the 13th. I know Pam can
>> 10th I think.
[3:38] » Oh yes last month. That's right. Yes. Um
so the 10th and I think Pam can't be
[3:46] there but I is able. Yeah. Great. The
three of us. Um,
[3:52] and next month our meeting is when the
hell is it?
[4:02] » Oh, it should be accurate. If you want
to check that, too. I should have
[4:05] updated the web page.
>> Let's see. It I
[4:09] It's the 5th, right? First Monday,
>> but it's from I think we're from 3:00 to
[4:16] 5:30.
>> 3:30.
[4:17] » Yeah. 5.
>> Okay.
[4:19] » Yeah. so that you guys could be before
um conservation. That's right. That's
[4:24] right.
>> 10.
[4:26] » That's October 5th.
>> There you are. 3:30 to 5:00 in the
[4:31] conference room.
>> And
[4:36] Pam, are you away at that point or not?
You're here. Okay, great.
[4:42] » So, those are items and um we can jump
right into
[4:50] Um,
[4:55] Sky circulated notes the last workshop.
Hopefully we all reviewed them.
[5:04] Nothing to think. There were certain
visions that were made. Um, and there
[5:10] were some questions.
[5:14] » Yeah, not a whole lot. Evelyn put these
together for me. Thank gosh for Evelyn.
[5:18] » Great.
>> Um, and I feel new planning and codes
[5:22] coordinator office. Uh, she started at
the beginning of last week and I think
[5:27] you may be the only one who hasn't met
her, Pete.
[5:31] » Everyone else has.
>> She's going to be at the workshop.
[5:37] » You will be into the deep end.
>> She is like a a revamped version of
[5:44] Irene's position. Um, so doing was doing
but also doing more on top of that as
[5:51] well. Um, because part of Irene's job
was doing passports and we felt that
[5:54] there was a stronger need for more and
planning. Um, so her position is a new
[5:59] position but it incorporates the things
that Irene did. So um, minutes sent to
[6:03] Evelyn
posting.
[6:05] » Yeah. Yeah, website postings, which is
mostly just you, you know, doing things.
[6:09] » Please take my
she was part of a meeting that I thought
[6:15] I was gonna be having one person and she
this new person came and
[6:21] » and she was doing this and
>> yeah, she's going right now because
[6:25] we're really hoping for code support
from her if possible.
[6:28] » Yes.
>> Um because he is a oneman
[6:30] » in the
[6:34] » She wanted it. She wanted it. I said,
"Do you want to go to planning?" You
[6:37] know, like you don't have to go to
planning board. You can do minutes off
[6:39] the recording. She's like, "Oh, I might
want to." And she's like, "Oh, this
[6:42] one."
>> Y did these notes and it was kind of
[6:44] funny actually. We had to make some kind
of like looking over it together because
[6:47] they actually didn't out of this
meeting. We found
[6:50] » Marilyn had said she wanted to make sure
that they discussed the residential
[6:53] zones at a future date which was
anticipated, but I then they wanted
[6:58] follow-up questions answered,
>> but I couldn't find anything else. But
[7:02] before we move on discussion of the
resident, what does that mean? The
[7:08] planning board did that. They reviewed
[7:15] » of the uses
>> like we haven't done the residential
[7:17] zones as part of the use table and I
think she was just wanting to make sure
[7:20] that would happen.
>> Yeah.
[7:22] » Oh, you guys don't have to do that.
Yeah, we had been doing it one way at
[7:25] the end of July and then we had shifted
it and so I think she was just wasn't
[7:29] everyone the rest of the table was good
and she would still get a chance
[7:33] » just to have an eye on it. That's right.
Good. Good.
[7:36] » So I think Yeah, because I was like,
"Oh, I think we're shifting them and it
[7:39] was really just the uses."
>> Uses. That's right.
[7:41] » Yeah. Yeah. Great. Okay.
Preparation for this Thursday's workshop
[7:50] is the center of what we're doing. Um,
and Skye's memo, which I don't have
[7:57] printed, but it's in my
[8:04] It does,
you know, the way you've sky is helpful
[8:10] that um I think toward the very end of
it,
[8:14] you
[8:18] a little bit less systematic in going
because you probably got bored. Oh,
[8:23] where through the um I think the very
end. Let's see.
[8:26] » Oh, a BD.
>> Yeah.
[8:28] » Where I was kind of like,
>> yeah, a little bit less thorough, but
[8:32] was helpful to me to
that all of those different points were
[8:38] touched upon and don't
the same way. And it's important that we
[8:45] do. Um
uh so
[8:50] we're just trying to make sure that you
know we're not pushing the planning
[8:54] board to have
>> that's right feelings. We're trying when
[8:57] it comes to it's more
>> right that it's addressing these things.
[9:03] It's Yeah.
>> Please discuss
[9:06] if
>> a property a parcel is in three
[9:09] different zones. How was that decision
to made? You know, it's
[9:15] » Oh, if there's anywhere I did, do you
feel that I didn't give the same amount
[9:19] of information?
>> Let's go through it. You know my unless
[9:23] you go through something systematically,
you're gonna miss something.
[9:27] » Yep. Absolutely.
>> Bodies that we've so well.
[9:32] » Want the memo up on the screen.
>> But he's got it in front of them.
[9:37] » Yeah. However you want to do it.
>> Yeah.
[9:39] » It's your tool to use.
>> Yeah.
[9:45] » And first let me just say, you know, I'm
sure all of us have reviewed this. Is
[9:48] there any sort of preliminary stuff that
anybody wants to say?
[9:53] I I appreciated the thoroughess.
>> Yeah.
[9:56] » Yeah.
>> I think we just need to make notes
[9:59] items. CPIC wants to talk.
>> That's right. Yep. That's right. I think
[10:03] that makes sense. Y
[10:08] » both our town manager and assistant
manager
[10:13] were in the back of that team through
the whole thing. And I think Mark
[10:17] Jonathan made a comeback once or twice.
>> Yep.
[10:21] » But I think they've in fact a little
extra help.
[10:25] » Yeah. There's it there's a level of
we're all in this which I think is very
[10:30] helpful. Committed to coming to the
planning for workshops.
[10:35] » So we're we're you know we've dealt
the lower village the middle village and
[10:41] now we're getting to I don't even know
if we've dealt with the middle village.
[10:45] Did we?
find they kind of touched on Dairy
[10:49] Queen, but
>> there wasn't
[10:53] wanted to fight for that.
>> Yeah.
[10:56] » Throughout it,
>> what it is
[10:57] » and um
>> and Marilyn
[11:01] mostly about the
as a general thing rather than the
[11:06] specificity of Middle Village. Yeah. um
when we kind of talked back and like
[11:11] maybe this is a reason not to combine
them to consider
[11:15] » um but I didn't feel like there was any
noted that they and lower village the
[11:20] uses and boundaries
>> we have not
[11:22] » no we have that noted for them
>> they did you know I can't think of
[11:28] anything that was brought up
>> y
[11:30] » um moving on to um what is currently
um which in recode is suggested to be
[11:39] named the upper village.
[11:43] Looking at
boundary changes um
[11:50] to keep lot
versus multiple uh zones and that's
[11:55] aligns with zoning and assess
and each and every parcel
[12:03] and the owner. Um, just see if there's
if there's anything that we want to
[12:12] sort of
or add to in our commentary.
[12:24] Anything pop up for you, Sky, as we
>> No, I felt that these all made sense.
[12:29] I've got the zoning map up. Um
the U432A
[12:35] » Yeah.
>> Um
[12:38] it is, you know, I think you could argue
that's, you know, kind of both in um R1,
[12:48] but also this this is there's a walking
path through here. Y so a good portion
[12:52] of this of conservation
on it. Yeah.
[12:57] » Um so I'm not super concerned about that
lot quite honestly. Um and the port
[13:02] potentially it could be sort of
buildable is in um VC. So I think UV
[13:07] makes sense and it looks like it's
majority% is in in VC right now. Yeah.
[13:13] » Like or like like three maybe so maybe
2% you know in in VC and there's you
[13:20] know 38 here and I can't do math. So
yeah.
[13:24] » Um so I think that that makes sense. Um
you know I have no issues with that
[13:29] proposal.
And there's no effect.
[13:32] » Yeah.
>> Could somebody look at it and argue
[13:37] it really needs to change? They want to
make a change.
[13:42] » Well, zoning changes should be based on
the comp plan. So if someone were beyond
[13:46] what we're suggesting, I'd want to know
how it aligns with the comp plan board
[13:50] were to say really strong,
which I quite honestly don't really
[13:59] makes more sense to you do UV, but if
they felt really strongly, I mean to
[14:04] have
>> prepared for a thing that that you don't
[14:08] expect.
>> I don't think this is going to be one of
[14:10] them, but
>> great. So on Main Street in that way is
[14:15] quite odd. It is,
>> is it not?
[14:16] » It's a strange It's a strange lot. It's
this little Actually, I wonder if you
[14:21] can.
>> It looks like it's about what, 12 ft
[14:23] wide.
>> It's definitely a back lot. You can't
[14:26] really see it from here. I'm sorry. I'm
very bad about using the underlying base
[14:29] layer. Um, you can put that on. Oh,
that's not what I meant to do.
[14:34] » Um, but you know, that's a perfect
visual. I mean, we don't even need to
[14:37] Yeah, that's
>> work.
[14:40] So with just with that little piece.
>> So you can see Yeah. It's like the back.
[14:47] This is a ravine through here.
>> Right. Just cannot imagine that this is
[14:52] actually like a developable lot.
>> Yeah. And at this point your f
[14:59] uses. So uses aren't mentioned.
>> Yep. So I think we just
[15:05] » Yeah. Quite honestly, I haven't been
putting uses in the because it did a lot
[15:09] of work to create. So, I haven't felt
the need to recreate that in the memos
[15:14] and use the comparisons and stuff to
review it that way. But, I felt that it
[15:18] was probably a waste of my time.
[15:25] Um, Hubard Lane. Yep.
>> Yeah.
[15:30] Potentially Chuck's house. Just joking.
Um but it is a portion of the highlands.
[15:36] Um one of their biggest
>> right?
[15:38] » Yeah. Well, no. It's probably
>> Isn't he topsome?
[15:41] » Is he is you're right. I was thinking
that they
[15:43] » he's got seos management.
>> Yeah, I know. He's got a lot
[15:46] » I think. You're right. He is. I was
thinking I was saying, "Oh, no, it isn't
[15:50] because I was under the I was like, "Oh,
Highlands is owned by Greece management
[15:53] or something."
>> But he owns bombs.
[15:57] » Yep. Yep. Yep.
>> But um this is where a lot of those
[16:00] walking trails are, too. there's got to
be some sort of conservation easements
[16:03] on this. So once again, I don't think
this is very developable.
[16:06] » Um,
>> you know, and it doesn't seem like
[16:09] anyone's probably. So I think this is
proposed to go all MUL, which makes
[16:13] sense to me. The only one who could
potentially try to develop this would be
[16:17] Walleski, and he's developed in MUL, so
that would be
[16:20] » the ideal zoning for him anyway. Yeah,
that one seems pretty simple to me.
[16:24] » Yeah.
>> Okay, two down.
[16:26] » I like how you say that.
Looks simple to me. Yeah,
[16:31] » there you go.
>> There they are.
[16:33] » Okay. 107 Main Street.
>> That is uh this one. It's just because
[16:37] there's a very small portion of it in
this one also seems very simple.
[16:40] » Yeah, that's dealership.
>> That is Yeah, I think Nissan. Yep,
[16:44] that's Nissan.
>> Um so that one's such a small
[16:48] » Yeah. So it's it's uh upper village.
>> It seems that the zone follows the river
[16:53] um you know existing. So just getting
rid of that.
[16:59] And
>> so next we have
[17:03] » this one which is Toyota.
>> Y
[17:05] » and I think that's just going all UV
which once again the portion of it
[17:09] they're using is in the VC
>> just all becomes UV sounds fine to me. I
[17:13] doubt they're going to get to the back
of that. So that's 115 main is it?
[17:16] » Yeah.
>> Yeah. Yeah.
[17:18] » Okay. Any
>> before we go too far is there not
[17:24] changes to that road state road coming
in there? Yeah, but they're probably
[17:28] within the um right ofway because it's a
huge right ofway.
[17:32] » Okay.
>> So, I don't think they're going outside.
[17:34] » At that point, it's already four lanes.
>> Um it goes down to two right here. It's
[17:39] two here.
>> Okay.
[17:41] » Yeah, it's two through here, which they
are widening, but it's I I cannot
[17:44] imagine that's not going to happen
within the right of way. They've got a
[17:47] big right of way there. So, I don't
think that'll impact this.
[17:51] » Okay.
>> It's not going to be making it easier to
[17:53] get an entrance onto that road as I will
say. They'd never approve of that. Yeah,
[17:57] » you'd have to access off of Lee.
>> Um,
[18:00] » okay. Super off street.
>> There's no way next to the CMP corridor,
[18:04] right?
>> Yeah. Yep. So, I I think that that's
[18:07] just, you know, Puyo owns the land.
They're not doing anything with it. I
[18:10] don't see them doing anything. I mean,
you know, maybe they'll add something.
[18:12] They added like a but they they added
like a service shop back here over
[18:17] existing impervious. That was the most
recent thing they've come through for.
[18:20] Um, so it doesn't necessarily seem like
they need more space. You know, the most
[18:23] I could see them doing is saying that
they want to have another parking lot to
[18:27] have cars on it, but you know,
>> it'd still be entrance off Main Street.
[18:31] » It' still be entrance off Main Street.
And, you know, they made them buffer
[18:36] » when they did this, so I assume it'd be
similar. So, once again, I'm not
[18:39] concerned about that one.
>> Okay, on to the next one. 100 Monroe
[18:44] Lane.
>> Yeah, this is just an instance where the
[18:46] fact that this lot is a very strange
lot. Um, it's currently the front part
[18:51] of it is in BC. I mean, I think it's
like l literally their driveway. Um, and
[18:56] it's just going to all be in R1, which,
you know, it does kind of break up the
[18:59] zoning along Main Street, but I think is
>> fine because we keep saying it's better
[19:04] if zones match lot lines.
>> Yeah.
[19:08] » Um because it's just
>> Yeah. It's literally just this here.
[19:15] » So, that little piece that interjects
out toward Main Street will be R1. Yes.
[19:22] » Yeah.
>> Yeah.
[19:25] » Peculiar, but makes sense.
[19:29] » Yeah. I can't see another thing that
makes more sense on that one. You know,
[19:32] it's just kind of a backlot
>> and you know what we're doing is, you
[19:36] know, it's what makes sense to us and
then the planning board will discuss it
[19:41] and us makes sense to the assessor and
the
[19:44] » Yeah.
>> Yeah. I didn't seem to have a big issue
[19:46] with those, but yeah.
>> Um, and then this one is the CMP. Um,
[19:52] it's just going to get all put in CC,
but I don't think it has any meaningful
[19:55] impact because
>> it's a substation. Yeah. So, if you
[20:03] So, it's going to stay in commercial
corridor,
[20:07] which it's this. Oh, no. Sorry, that's
the wrong one.
[20:10] » It's this.
>> Yeah, you keep that up. I'm going to
[20:12] need that bucket to
>> Sorry,
[20:16] I cannot uh handle like uh first person
video games. So, I understand. I
[20:21] apologize. Um so, yeah, it's like the
substation back there. They own a lot of
[20:26] land through there. So, some of what is
currently the commercial corridor
[20:31] is going away. Um in terms of it's going
to be the master plan district, but the
[20:38] but the majority of it's going to be
right.
[20:41] » Nope. Thank you. That's a typo. That
should have been MPD because it would be
[20:46] part of the MPD in the C in the Thank
you, Susan.
[20:50] » I'm pretty sure. I'll I'll pull it up
really quick.
[20:55] » I think we can clarify that for them,
but
[21:01] let's see.
[21:06] » I think I've been struggling with it
because the name doesn't feel finalized
[21:09] to me, quite honestly. uh because you
know we've all talked about that. No,
[21:13] it'll be become MPD. So, we'll need to
clarify that. Um
[21:19] MPD, not CC.
>> Okay, great.
[21:24] » Or whatever it ends up getting called.
>> Yeah, the Kirkers.
[21:30] Um, but it's and and it's the only
because we always talked about having
[21:37] zones zone names reflect what's
happening there.
[21:42] » And
[21:46] there's no other zone where
that's happening, right? That that
[21:54] doesn't apply anywhere else in the town
center zones.
[21:59] So, you know, it's not a sexy name. I
think it's a confusing name.
[22:05] » Something.
>> Yeah. It's just confusing because they
[22:07] have the same acronym. So, the master
plan development and the master plan
[22:12] district are both MPD.
>> So, has has anybody given sort of
[22:17] » three minutes of thought to that matter?
I have and I can't come up with darn
[22:24] thing. I'm so sorry. you know,
>> I don't know enough about it to
[22:29] to be creative
>> because right now we're calling it the
[22:32] master plan district and we want to
scrap that name so that there's no
[22:37] confusion with the master plan
development
[22:40] which is you know
[22:45] happens whenever there's a 6 acre plus
in the town center I'll simply
[22:54] take the word plan and it
So it's two words instead of three
[22:59] » like master district.
>> Yes.
[23:02] » I think that would be confusing to
people. Implies it's the quintessential
[23:07] zone.
[23:11] » We could master district zone.
>> We could call it a PCD.
[23:16] » I had a great idea that shut down. I can
tell. All right.
[23:20] » That's true.
And in in the beginning we were calling
[23:24] it the crooer district. We've always you
know euphemistically referred to it
[23:30] because everybody knows that that's what
>> is if and when
[23:36] » sells it then then it's not
>> Yeah. It should have I mean it seems to
[23:41] me something like
>> commercial reuse commercial
[23:47] » commercial development stone.
>> Yeah. Um,
[23:50] » I think that getting some sort of reuse
or something could could be beneficial
[23:55] to it potentially. I feel like I said I
was going to ask my team and then I
[23:58] forgot so I've written it again.
>> Completely commercial, right? They're
[24:03] » noial
maybe.
[24:05] » Was it mixed resial mixed juice? Mixed
juice um reuse
[24:13] the mur but that's pretty similar. I'm a
little hesitant of mixed use because we
[24:18] currently have a mixeduse commercial,
>> right?
[24:20] » And I worry if we do
>> mixeduse limited.
[24:22] » Yeah, exactly.
>> There's a bunch of mixed use.
[24:24] » There's a bunch of mixed use. So,
>> what did they do in SWAR? What they call
[24:29] stuff down there?
>> I don't know what those zones are
[24:31] called.
>> Yeah, I don't know.
[24:35] » Expanded use.
[24:40] » We're checking out Scar Bro for a
second. So, we're taking a little pause.
[24:43] I knew we're going to see little pause.
>> That's called cheating.
[24:50] » This is what we do in planning
is we take things from other town
[24:57] » something somewhere
>> many times. Scarboro.
[25:02] » Uh does anyone know where it is? Oh,
it's probably this.
[25:06] » Yeah.
>> CPD.
[25:08] » CPD Crossroads Plan Development
District.
[25:13] Huh?
[25:17] » Topsome planned development district.
[25:23] » I worry about planned development when
we currently have planned commercial,
[25:27] planned residential and planned mixed
use which are staying in. The question
[25:31] is just how they'll be interacted with
in the
[25:34] » center zones.
>> Um,
[25:38] » see master plan there and we're
[25:43] Uh what about the VPD grand planned
development?
[25:49] » I mean
[25:53] they have the crossroads.
>> Yeah.
[25:57] » Um you know which is kind of them trying
to which is there. It does connect two
[26:01] parts of their town.
>> Yeah. And in terms of the Crooked
[26:05] District,
it's bisected by the the CMP.
[26:10] » Yeah. And and there's a significant
impact by 295.
[26:16] » Y it's like, you know, people talk about
there being a new exit
[26:21] » Mhm.
>> ramp.
[26:23] » So 295 development
[26:30] » area.
>> I'm trying to avoid the word road. Not
[26:34] exactly sure why, but
>> Yeah. No, no, that's fair. Yeah, it is
[26:36] expected that it would connect 196 and
2011 if it were developed.
[26:40] » Yeah.
>> Um
[26:44] » is the word area
[26:49] enough open enough
[26:56] whether it's commercial area or
composite area.
[27:02] So it would connect 295 and 196, but it
also connects it 2011
[27:08] » to 196
>> to 196
[27:11] » though. And so those are without being
highways, those are local
[27:16] access roads.
>> I would say they're even more than
[27:19] local. Like those are state roads.
>> So 2011 and 196
[27:24] » and it's fair to assume that those are
not going to change.
[27:27] » No, that's right. Okay.
I am not necessarily saying this is my
[27:33] final suggestion but I just had the idea
of center planned district
[27:41] » and I came up with CPD but what was the
connector planned district? Yeah, center
[27:46] plan center planned district.
>> The nice thing about center is it needs
[27:52] more flexibility for what's going to get
connected to what else.
[27:56] » Yeah.
>> Down the road. Yeah, that's that's my
[27:58] idea right now. So that yeah, I think
that's probably the best we've come up
[28:04] with. And if we can talk the planning
board out of village center
[28:09] and let it become upper village, then
you don't have confusion between the
[28:14] centers.
>> Exactly.
[28:15] » Right. Right.
>> Yeah. Maybe keep that one in your pocket
[28:18] until after we've had this conversation.
>> Okay. If any signing board members are
[28:22] watching, take it into account.
>> That's the best yet. Okay. Thank you,
[28:25] Sky.
>> Mhm. Well, there's nothing like a little
[28:28] brainstorming.
>> She She gets a raise.
[28:30] » Oh, yeah. Okay.
>> All right. So, let's move on now to the
[28:35] next bullet. Is boundary changes due to
existing use or character.
[28:41] So, we're looking at the school bus
depot, Six Eagle's Way,
[28:47] and that's the Yep. Right there. We
don't have any fronting on Main Street
[28:52] » and so um it abuts the light industrial.
We're suggesting that it stay in light
[28:59] industrial.
>> It moved to light industrial. It's
[29:01] currently in BC.
>> Ah
[29:02] » did I say stay?
>> No.
[29:04] » No. Okay.
>> Umuh.
[29:09] So what we were suggesting that it go
into light industrial, right?
[29:13] » Yep.
>> I shouldn't say go into it is currently.
[29:17] No.
>> No. What is it currently?
[29:19] » BC.
>> BC. Okay.
[29:20] » So, this is the center zones map. It's
carved out there.
[29:24] » And this is the current zoning map. It's
in BC. So, this is an instance where you
[29:28] guys aren't trying to take something
into the center zones. You're going, you
[29:31] know what, this misuse is existing. It's
doing its thing. It's doing something
[29:36] important, but it fits better with LII,
which it abuts,
[29:40] » which I would agree with.
>> Okay.
[29:44] So, this isn't a bullet where CPIC has
to speak up. It's It's
[29:49] » No, no, it's currently correct. You
don't need to say anything.
[29:51] » Okay. Okay. Good. Yeah, I see. I see.
>> Proposed to be zoned LI and recode due
[29:55] to use being more compatible with LA.
No, you're good. You don't need to say a
[29:59] thing.
>> Okay.
[30:01] Okay.
So, 125 Main Street is next, which is
[30:07] MPD and the
child care center, I think.
[30:14] Um, yes, it's a daycare and Bureau of
Motor Vehicles are seeing some typos in
[30:17] this memo now.
>> Um,
[30:23] and yeah, this one seems to me to make
sense. Um, I said that it's proposed to
[30:29] be zoned UV and recode due to compatible
use and location on Main Street. Uses
[30:34] remain permitted in UV. Um,
>> Y. So, it doesn't change any uses.
[30:40] » Yep.
>> Yeah. And so if you guys are good with
[30:43] that, you don't need, you know, you
could say that you support it. You could
[30:46] add that you support it and you think it
makes sense.
[30:49] » These are the other two lots. And I know
we've talked about Napa before. And I do
[30:52] want to apologize because I
misunderstood
[30:56] this and thought that the that this was
Napa
[31:01] » up here and that it was the top one.
>> Uhhuh.
[31:03] » This is Napa here.
>> Oh. So, I will just say that if you were
[31:07] to say we don't want Napa, I think you
would need to This is a vacant lot
[31:12] currently.
>> Um, it is a buildable lot. I'm not
[31:15] really sure why no one's built on it,
but it is a developable lot. It's
[31:18] meeting frontage and lot size minimums.
>> Um,
[31:22] and so I did want you to be aware of
that. I know we've talked about Napa a
[31:27] lot and I had said, "Yeah, I think that
makes a lot of sense, but I didn't feel
[31:29] right, you know, not giving you guys
this realization that I had had that
[31:32] Napa was not the top." Yeah.
>> And you wouldn't just be saving the top
[31:36] off. You would be cutting out probably a
developable lot.
[31:40] » That's interesting. So, let's look at
Yeah. What's currently So, that's
[31:44] vacant.
>> Yep. Yep. Close your eyes, Chuck.
[31:51] I don't know if I can.
>> Um, it's just out in front of Precast.
[31:57] It's this lot, so it's like flat. Do we
know who owns it? Um, it is listed as
[32:02] owned by
>> that LLC.
[32:06] » Um, no.
>> Terrence H. Gray. I've not heard of him
[32:11] or met him.
>> Okay. Yeah.
[32:13] » Help me. What's What's the White Side?
>> This is pre-cast of Maine.
[32:18] » Okay.
>> And that is Li.
[32:20] » I'm just a reference. Good.
>> Yes, that is Li. No one's No one's
[32:24] suggesting that change.
>> Yeah.
[32:27] So given that, that's an interesting
kind of little boo boo that we now have
[32:32] to consider. And what we've been talking
about is how right across the street is
[32:39] R1. It's a completely residential y um
development. It's not going to change.
[32:46] and more compatible with a residential
area is upper village I think in terms
[32:54] of uses and development
standards.
[32:59] » Mhm. And I will say that Napa as a use
remains allowable. Yeah. Um, and
[33:09] and because what we're I think what
we've always said is, you know, what's
[33:13] on that lot right now doesn't mean it's
going to be on that lot in 25 years.
[33:18] » Um,
>> yeah, thinking that it was the top of
[33:20] it, it made more sense to me. Okay, you
know, pair it off. But realizing it was
[33:24] in the middle and there was a there was
a
[33:26] » vacant lot that was probably trying to
be grabbed, it made me kind of go, hm.
[33:30] » Yeah. I will say the building is
certainly not allowable in UV unless
[33:34] you're to allow the workshop building.
So there is that but you know
[33:41] so it's difficult. Yeah. So right now
[33:49] the lot is currently located in LI and
it butts Main Street located across the
[33:54] street from residential neighborhood.
the proposed to be zoned upper village
[33:58] in Rico due to location on Main Street
and across from the residential
[34:02] neighborhood. Use remains permitted but
not the building to me.
[34:06] » I did not get into building types here.
>> Yeah,
[34:09] » it was a little bit beyond me I feel,
you know, quite honestly.
[34:12] » Yeah.
>> Um but looking at it, we're not allowed
[34:15] to do the workshop building and I'm
guessing that's what this would
[34:17] probably.
>> Yeah. But there's a place further on and
[34:23] I didn't you know print this out and
make notes but there is a place where in
[34:28] the current code there is nonconformance
going on and it's not just in the cooker
[34:33] zone you know so it's not like we're
creating
[34:37] nonconformity where there isn't any and
it's rare
[34:41] » it's rare so what do people think can we
live with the nonconformity of a
[34:48] building.
>> I think the only thing that's hard about
[34:51] this, I'll just note, is you're it's not
currently in UV or in BC. You're
[34:56] proposing to grab these three lots
>> from lot light industrial
[35:02] » and impose building regulations on them.
Um, one of which,
[35:06] » you know, would not probably need it. I
I genuinely actually don't really know
[35:11] how this one this is the thing that's
been this probably meets village type
[35:16] building type. Yeah.
>> So, I guess you could not bring it up.
[35:20] If they bring it up and they're
concerned, you could kind of choose to
[35:22] go with the flow or you could choose to
push for it.
[35:25] » Yeah.
>> Who who would be hurt
[35:29] » by
>> make by making a change?
[35:31] » Napa.
>> They become the building become
[35:35] non-conforming.
>> Yeah.
[35:36] » Which impacts what they can do
>> moving forward.
[35:39] » Moving forward. Yeah.
>> What if you just
[35:44] either either let all three of them
stay in LI. Yeah.
[35:49] » Or only take the BMV and the daycare
center.
[35:52] » I think that would be the answer. I
think if you're going to let Napa stay
[35:54] in LA, you have to let the one above it
stay in Li, but I do think you have an
[35:58] argument for BMV and daycare, quite
honestly. Um, it's already across from
[36:03] the VC. It kind of makes it a nice
square.
[36:06] » Um,
>> and as I said, it is just, you know,
[36:09] that's what's listed. They could choose
to just go okay and not bring it up.
[36:12] They could bring it up. I don't know,
you know. But the other piece is because
[36:17] I mean and I don't know how to think
about this, but if I lived in the
[36:22] residential area across the street,
what would be better for my me and my
[36:27] neighbors?
>> Yep. And there's schools nearby, you
[36:30] know. So it is difficult. I think
[36:36] » everything in pink there is. Yeah.
>> Right.
[36:39] » So most of the across the road from
residential is Ly already.
[36:43] » Right. Right. Yeah.
>> So, what we'd be trying to do is do we
[36:49] have something in the comp plan that
kind of suggests that this is something
[36:52] people want?
[36:57] » I think what what is what is in there
now is and what might come in to that
[37:05] northernmost parcel. Um it it's all
stuff that you could say might
[37:11] contribute to a walkable community, a
walkable area. You know, it's a busy
[37:17] road, but you've got people live a lot
of people living in that residential
[37:21] neighborhood. And
[37:26] » I think a Napa store
uh
[37:32] » there's a daycare center. You know this
this
[37:35] » I I think the BMV and the daycare I
don't think they'd be hurt building
[37:39] wise. I think that probably meets
building village building regulations or
[37:42] it wouldn't be too hard to change it.
You know
[37:44] » I think the Napa is definitely a bit
more. So, I guess I would say if you
[37:49] guys are going to like push on that with
the planning board, it might be good to
[37:52] find just somewhere in the in the comp
plan that suggests it could be a good
[37:56] idea. You know, you don't have to
necessarily I I doubt you'll find
[38:00] something that says reszone these three
lots. Yeah.
[38:03] » You know, but that would probably be
>> my thought and suggestion.
[38:08] I just was looking to see if there was
anything on that specific area and it
[38:12] wasn't in the site future neighborhoods.
Yeah. Um because the UV because I guess
[38:18] that's one thing to keep in mind is the
portion of um Upper Village that gets
[38:24] talked about is not there. Um it only
goes up to
[38:30] the top of Toyota.
>> Yeah. So
[38:34] I think those are things to consider.
>> Yeah.
[38:36] » I'm not saying you have to necessarily
tell them to drop it. More just being
[38:40] prepared to discuss it.
>> Yeah. And I think it's not something
[38:43] that I feel strongly about. My only
feelings are, you know, that it seems to
[38:48] be a supportive a a a
decision to support the residential
[38:56] neighborhood to have that across the
road be zoned as a village
[39:03] that that that the the development that
would take place, you know, in the
[39:09] future would be more compatible with
that residential neighborhood. But I
[39:14] don't feel strongly about it. So,
[39:19] » I just was checking the neighborhoods to
see if there's anything. It's kind of an
[39:23] empty area when it comes to the map
actually.
[39:26] » Right. The neighborhoods was an
interesting process because, you know,
[39:31] the neighborhoods were listed and then
other people said, "Well, where's my
[39:35] neighborhood?"
Because everybody loves their
[39:38] neighborhood. And it was it was
wonderful to sort of see how
[39:42] » I remember when I moved to Portland,
they have all these neighborhoods listed
[39:45] on Google Maps now of all these
different locations and there were
[39:48] certain people being like this is like
crazy, you know, that's not real and
[39:52] stuff.
>> Yeah, they're making stuff up here.
[39:54] » Yeah, exactly. But I always found it
helpful. I don't see it. It would be
[39:58] part of conceivably of Upper Village.
>> Um which is not
[40:03] » I'm not seeing
in mind. Um, so
[40:08] » honestly I I don't think that that's
something we're gonna have
[40:12] » um we're gonna try to weigh in on.
>> Okay.
[40:14] » We could have a comment about what we
did.
[40:17] » If they bring it up as a question, I'll
say if CPIC wants to weigh in, you could
[40:21] make your comment and then if they go
they don't think that's compelling.
[40:24] » Yeah. Great.
>> Okay. Good. Good. I just wanted to give
[40:27] you the information.
>> I have a question unrelated to the
[40:31] residential stuff. Was that originally
military housing?
[40:35] » I don't think so. No,
>> just the annex.
[40:38] » Yeah, just the annex. Um the Liberty
Circle and Parliament.
[40:44] » Yeah.
>> Okay.
[40:45] » Because this was the base over here.
>> Okay.
[40:48] » Um
>> I just find it interesting that there's
[40:51] that residential.
>> It is interesting just sitting there.
[40:53] » And they have slightly weird sewage too.
Um they were like septic for a while and
[40:59] then sewer got extended to them and
they've got kind of like they have they
[41:02] own like tanks and pumps. Um,
>> do you know if was that um what is it
[41:07] called? Um, a CRD.
>> A PRD.
[41:10] » PRD. PRD. Sorry.
>> I don't think so. Tom's never brought
[41:13] this one up.
>> Um, Thompson Crossing um is a PRD.
[41:18] » Yeah.
>> Um, and Highland Green, those are the
[41:20] two PRDs we know of. PMD, Planned Mixed
Use Development, has never been used.
[41:24] » Yeah.
>> And PCD is, you know, a lot of the mall
[41:26] and stuff. Um,
>> so I don't think so. I know. It is an
[41:31] interesting little neighborhood. Yeah.
Um, and I don't have a whole lot of
[41:35] history on that.
>> I have never I've not driven through
[41:37] there, but I think I will one day just
to see what it looks like because when I
[41:41] when we got up here and we drove down
>> to the school and looked, I said,
[41:45] "That's that's that's enlisted housing."
>> I had no idea. I said, "That's enlisted
[41:50] housing. I have seen it before." Right.
Right. And then I started up the area.
[41:56] » It's much nicer, I would say, than
Parliament Circle. Yeah.
[42:00] » Um, Parliament Circle's still officer
housing. You never know. Be careful what
[42:03] you say, young man.
>> Well, it's just I think we can all say
[42:06] that Parliament Circle is housing that
was built by the Navy.
[42:11] » It's old military housing that has
probably not been a
[42:16] » and it wasn't probably necessarily built
with longevity in mind. You know,
[42:20] » military people live could live in some
really shitty housing.
[42:24] » Yeah.
>> And you know, it's not like people can't
[42:26] make a home there. It's just it has its
issues and we've had complaints from
[42:30] people before. you know, um these are,
you know, like little ranchy houses. I
[42:34] can show you a street view of it really
quick.
[42:36] » They bought 50 homes in there.
>> Yeah, it's kind of a nice little
[42:39] neighborhood, I think, honestly. Um
>> Oh, look at that.
[42:42] » Yeah, it's it's it's it's good one.
>> Yeah. So, these are like pretty nice
[42:45] houses.
>> I think the lots are like a quarter
[42:48] acre.
>> Yeah.
[42:51] » It's not military.
[42:54] » We got
>> I didn't think it was military.
[42:57] » It's just some neighborhood. I It might
be kind of old. I don't know.
[43:01] » Yeah.
>> Um I'm really not I'm not totally up to
[43:04] » interesting
>> snuff or speed on this.
[43:08] » But I think we're ready to move on
>> to um let's see where are we? Um we're
[43:15] looking at mixed transitional now. We're
done. We're done with Upper Village.
[43:20] » So let's look at mixed transitional.
>> First we're looking at boundaries, I
[43:26] think. So yeah, because there wasn't all
of the changes to mix transitional due
[43:31] to, you know,
>> context use, etc., etc., I just did the
[43:36] two zones. So the first one is this area
up here,
[43:40] » um, that takes from the
village center.
[43:45] » Yeah.
[43:54] » Two. So that's um currently
VIP. Yeah.
[43:59] » VIP over link. Um one of the uses is
currently prohibited. One of them is uh
[44:06] » yeah. So currently
>> it it it goes better for them.
[44:10] » I don't know how they do with they
probably don't meet form quite honestly.
[44:15] Um because that's probably a suburban
storefront. I don't know. Maybe it could
[44:19] be classified as warehouse. I'm not
sure. Um, I think that, but I think
[44:25] what's difficult is that
>> I think it's hard to kind of preempt
[44:28] these discussions with form when we
haven't really gotten into form deeply.
[44:32] So, I speak about this with you guys. I
don't think that it's probably super
[44:36] helpful for us to try to get it because
the planning board needs to talk about
[44:39] » these things when we get to article 2
and form and I really need to have
[44:43] Leslie at that meeting. So, I need to
know multiple months in advance
[44:46] » that we're going to do that. She is
>> and we have to stick with that schedule,
[44:50] » you know. Yeah.
>> If we Yeah. line her up.
[44:53] » Uhhuh.
>> Um so that one's not too bad. Um
[44:58] » the next one, three, Union Park Road is
the credit union.
[45:02] » Yep.
>> Um
[45:04] » which uh probably means village
>> and then so it it activates the
[45:09] drive-thru thing.
>> Yeah, it has the drive-thru. Um and I
[45:12] don't quite know, but it would apply to
either zone, I think. So,
[45:17] » um, you know,
>> I've driven Newton Park Road,
[45:23] went through there several times.
>> It's nice in there.
[45:27] » Mhm. Yeah.
>> Where where the trees are, the builder
[45:31] set.
>> Yep. Yep.
[45:34] » It's a nice little
>> And it's in the back of the building, so
[45:36] they'd probably be fine. Honestly, the
drive-through regulations need like I
[45:40] think another look over, and Tom isn't
ready to kind of say this is needs
[45:43] something or not. Um because I think
maybe the frontage is messing him up a
[45:48] bit too. So I'm kind of not getting into
it. It would apply to either zone and I
[45:53] don't think it's meaningfully different
between them.
[45:55] » Maybe it is and maybe that would be a
consideration.
[45:57] » Yeah.
>> But in which case I would guess we would
[45:59] be more forgiving of drive-throughs in a
mixed transitional zone than probably
[46:04] the upper village.
[46:08] But maybe not.
>> Say that again.
[46:10] » If there was going to be differences in
how we were
[46:13] » Yeah. uh doing drive-throughs. I was
guessed that it would be a little bit
[46:16] more forgiving in the mixed transitional
than the upper village.
[46:19] » Yeah. Due to the
>> Yeah, that's what I was
[46:22] » I don't know if I don't think it is
written that way necessarily. I'm just
[46:25] saying
>> conceptually if it was if it was I would
[46:30] see it going in that direction and see
the scales tipping in that direction
[46:33] personally.
>> Any thoughts before we move on to the
[46:37] next?
So, we've dealt with two Union Park
[46:40] Road, three Union Park Road, and now
we're on to four Union Park Road. Um,
[46:45] » oh, yeah, this one does.
>> Office building lot use is professional
[46:50] office and dwelling multif family. The
multif family remains permitted and the
[46:54] office becomes conditional.
>> I wanted to talk about that. I don't
[46:59] really know why we have office
conditional in MT. Um, and I maybe, you
[47:04] know, should have considered this when
we did it, but it
[47:09] I don't know if it's, you know, we're
allowing light industrial in that zone.
[47:13] So, it seems to me that office should
potentially just be allowed because also
[47:18] over on the MT on Park Drive, Stantech
is a professional office. So, we've got
[47:23] at least two in the MT, right?
>> Um, and that is something you guys could
[47:27] bring up and say, we looked at the memo,
we noticed there was two conditionals.
[47:31] We think that this should maybe be
permitted. So, let's
[47:33] » not to tell you what to do. Just
>> No, no, but that that makes complete
[47:36] sense, but um so you're saying it should
be permitted.
[47:40] » It seems maybe it should to me. Um I
think and this is why I think it's been
[47:44] helpful to do these things this way
because you get to the specific.
[47:48] » So, um
>> are we looking at commercial?
[47:50] » I think it's office
>> service. Service.
[47:55] » Yeah. Sorry, it's not perfect yet.
>> Yeah, we are service.
[48:03] office
>> especially. Yeah. So I think we went
[48:05] with conditional potentially because lab
research facility is conditional but
[48:09] currently professional office is
permitted in that zone. So yeah
[48:12] » to me that kind of
>> I feel like maybe that was an oversight
[48:16] on my part and potentially we should
>> two different shades of gray two
[48:20] different shades of gray.
>> But when you say lab in a research
[48:26] facility to me that's quite different
than an office building. Yeah, they all
[48:30] got put under one thing. And I think
when we talked about this, I remember
[48:33] Rick was here last time and he
>> Why? Why? Why do you think they're
[48:37] » I guess because there's nothing
particularly that could possibly be
[48:42] dangerous in an office building, but
there could be in a lab in a facility.
[48:49] » I think the thing I would say about that
is usually there are other entities that
[48:53] govern that and that's not our like the
state does that, you know. Um, my fiance
[49:00] is the planner in Brunswick and the
hospital just brought in a new like
[49:04] they're doing a cancer care something.
They're putting that in and helped to
[49:07] permit that and they're doing some sort
of radiation therapy and it was kind of
[49:12] running down, you know, is there going
to be an issue with this and they were
[49:15] just like it's governed by this thing,
you know. Um, and I think it was. So, I
[49:20] say that to say that I think
>> we're really more concerned about the
[49:24] externalities of it, parking, access. I
think a lab research facility is pretty
[49:28] similar to an office in terms of those
which is why they were lumped together
[49:31] » and since it's permitted there and we're
allowing light industrial which could
[49:34] have dangerous
>> things it doesn't necessarily make sense
[49:38] to me to have that one be conditional.
>> Okay.
[49:42] » She's with Okay. Good. So I'm looking at
the because there are couple of
[49:48] different
>> Yep.
[49:49] » use table things here.
>> Grab that decision.
[49:54] Well, that was saying something. So, I
>> Yeah, I mean, under that, we have not
[49:58] actually gotten up to reviewing the
service uses.
[50:03] » So, we're right on target. We're right
on schedule here. Um, so under office,
[50:08] what we're suggesting is that in the
mixed
[50:14] transitional, it says MV, no MT, mixed
transitional, that it's conditional that
[50:19] we're suggesting that it be permitted.
>> Are we all in agreement? office
[50:24] permitted in
>> the lady green shirt.
[50:28] » Okay.
>> Okay. I would suggest if you guys are
[50:30] okay to
>> to bring that up to the planning board.
[50:33] » Yeah.
>> Um
[50:35] » and just say that
>> you know we caught it. But I think
[50:38] that'll be the easiest way and I'll tell
them I support it. But I think if it
[50:41] comes from you as your part of your
meeting that makes the most sense. And
[50:45] so let's look at all of those just while
we're there at office. So it's permitted
[50:50] in the lower village. It's conditional
in the middle village which does make
[50:54] sense
but it's permitted in the upper village
[50:59] in the commercial mixed use.
So currently I'm looking at the
[51:05] comparison one and do you guys want me
to pull that up? I don't have it but I
[51:08] can. Yeah.
>> Um let's find it. Um,
[51:17] » yeah, it seems to be easier to do
workshops actually.
[51:24] » Yeah, we Yeah, it breaks them all out.
Professional office, lab research,
[51:28] medical clinic, and office buildings as
accessory uses.
[51:32] » Yeah. So, here we can see what falls
underneath it. Um, did I go past it? No.
[51:42] So here's office. Um, so currently how I
see it is, you know, we're I was kind of
[51:48] what caught me about the MT is the fact
that professional office is currently
[51:52] permitted
>> and everywhere else the professional
[51:55] office has a use, we just mirrored that
MT was the only one that we changed it.
[51:59] So that's why I was kind of like,
>> yeah,
[52:02] » um, lab research facility, I think, was
more strictly governed due to what you
[52:06] brought up, Susan. Yeah. But to me, I
think that there's other things that are
[52:10] looking at that. It's probably having
the same. You're not going to tell.
[52:13] You're not going to be able to tell if
something is a lab research facility
[52:16] versus a professional office, quite
honestly, probably from the outside.
[52:19] Same goes for like a medical clinic.
You're probably not really going to know
[52:22] what people are doing inside of it, just
that they're showing up in the morning
[52:25] at like 8 a.m.
>> and um leaving. And also, honestly,
[52:29] right now, um I think the dentist's
trigger professional office. It's what
[52:33] we've reviewed them under, not medical
clinic. So, I don't even know who's
[52:36] falling underneath that use. I think the
differentiations of them have been hard
[52:41] for Tom. And then off of buildings as
accessory uses, I don't genuinely know
[52:45] what that use is or what it was being
used for. I don't know of any MPD
[52:50] though. So, we're looking at
>> it's office. No. And so, we're saying
[52:56] it's permitted in MPD. Oh, good. Okay,
great.
[52:59] » Yeah, CC was or was the only one where I
saw a different I felt like professional
[53:03] office was the most important one to
look at.
[53:05] and
MT was the only one that differed. So
[53:09] therefore, to me that that made some
sense, but it is a center zone. So I
[53:12] wanted to get your opinion as a group on
that. And you know,
[53:16] » do people make a optical in the same
breath as medical?
[53:22] » Yeah, I think it would, but it might
follow just under professional office
[53:26] honestly because that's where all the
dentists fall.
[53:28] » Yeah, I said I said optical.
>> I know.
[53:31] » I know. But I'm saying if dentists are
falling under that, my guess is optical
[53:35] would fall under the same category.
>> Y wor.
[53:39] » Okay, good.
>> And are you guys okay to bring that up
[53:43] with the planning board as a suggestion
from you? I don't like to amend my
[53:47] memos.
>> Right.
[53:51] So, let's see where this fact.
>> I think she should just say this is
[53:54] what's going to be save time.
>> No,
[53:59] » we can talk about a different method if
you want to, Susan. To me that made
[54:02] sense, but I don't mean to push you to
do something.
[54:06] » No, it's I mean I'm fine saying that.
It's it's um because we haven't the
[54:12] thing that I think is to be clear is the
stuff that's in this
[54:20] chart. We have not vetted carefully.
>> We are currently in the process. Yep.
[54:25] So,
you know, we can say that it's it's uh
[54:30] it shows up as conditional that um in
mixed transitional and it really makes
[54:36] no sense for it to be permitted. You
know, that's what we're suggesting
[54:41] » and I would think the planning
department would be good. It's more
[54:45] flexibility for them.
>> Yes.
[54:46] » Oh, yeah. I I like the idea of it and
I'll support you. I just thought it made
[54:49] sense agenda wise for it to come from
CPIC in a sense.
[54:53] » Yeah.
this. Um, so that's we're talking about
[54:59] that is 22 Union Park Road. No, that is
not. It's four.
[55:05] » Yeah.
[55:10] » Yep. We can bring back
[55:17] in mixed transition.
Good. Okay. So, one last one which is
[55:24] the 22 Union Park Road. Is there a typo
there? Um, topsome voan.
[55:31] » No, that's what that's
>> right here.
[55:37] That's what's listed as the owner.
>> Okay.
[55:41] » I also thought it would be Va.
>> Yeah.
[55:43] » A because I was in a depression with
Volunteers of America. Yes. I don't
[55:47] know.
>> Volunteers of America. Yeah. Quite odd.
[55:50] Yep. Okay. It's a remains permitted. I
think it probably hits all the necessary
[55:57] requirements building wise. So, I'm not
really concerned about
[55:59] » So, is there one more?
>> No, it was just these. This one stays in
[56:04] Upper Village.
>> Okay. That's right. That's right. Good
[56:07] stuff.
>> Okay.
[56:08] » Why?
>> It wasn't proposed when you when this
[56:11] was split before I started working here.
Yeah, we looked we looked at that and um
[56:16] it was pointed out to us that ownership
of a couple of lots um you know it's
[56:22] better to sort of keep lots owned by one
person even if they're separate parcels
[56:27] in one
>> I will say that's not the case anymore
[56:30] but you can certainly see that from Main
Street in a way you can't the other ones
[56:33] so I think that it makes sense from that
>> perspective okay
[56:40] » so there's nothing sort of harmed
confirmed in terms of use or building
[56:45] type.
>> No, I don't think so for the not that
[56:48] we're going to read.
>> Not for Westerm House.
[56:49] » Yeah.
>> Great.
[56:52] Okay.
>> And I started at the bottom here.
[56:57] That is very bright orange.
>> Yeah, that is that's a little hard to
[57:02] see. I'm going to turn that off. We know
which spots we're doing.
[57:07] Yeah, that's a little easier on the
eyes.
[57:12] If that's okay with you guys, I can put
it back on.
[57:14] » No, it it doesn't matter. It's um So,
we're So, we're finished with all of
[57:18] that. We're moving on to
>> boundary changes to
[57:24] um yeah, Park Drive.
[57:28] And we had talked about
how it makes sense to alter what's being
[57:34] proposed, but we're not getting into
that here. Um
[57:38] » um you know in terms of the l the
terrain
[57:43] » as it comes out to tops and fair mall
road
[57:46] » we had talked about dropping some of
these lots from the mixed transitional I
[57:49] think um I just went off of the
documents that I have honestly and if I
[57:54] missed something from Leslie I am sorry.
Um, I think that that's the other reason
[57:58] I wanted to give you guys the chance to
speak to say, "Yes, this might have
[58:02] happened, but we think it should be this
thing."
[58:08] » Um,
you know, I I would say that I don't
[58:12] necessarily know if these lots make the
most sense in the
[58:16] » mixed transition
>> mixed transitional.
[58:22] Um,
you know, you could remove all three of
[58:26] these, I think. And I feel like we did
discuss this with Leslie at one point.
[58:30] » Yeah.
>> This is probably I think it's owned by
[58:32] the town. Um,
>> is there a creek in there?
[58:36] » Yeah, I think so.
>> Yeah.
[58:39] » So, it's probably not a
It's undevelopable, right?
[58:44] » Yeah. I'm pretty sure this is highly
undevelopable.
[58:46] » So, it doesn't matter what it is.
>> Really?
[58:48] » So, it could stay on you.
>> Yeah.
[58:51] Well, if that's what they want.
>> Yes, exactly. So, I don't think this one
[58:54] matters. I do think these ones, they
don't really feel like they're on park
[58:57] drive as much to me. So, I think you
could certainly argue for them.
[59:00] » One is undeveloped, right?
>> Yes. One is undeveloped. I don't really
[59:03] know the developability of this parcel.
Apparently, the 7th Day Adventists own
[59:06] this one as well.
>> Yeah.
[59:09] » Um,
[59:13] yeah. So when you look at that, it
doesn't in terms of the uni unity of the
[59:21] zone,
those
[59:24] two are anomalous.
>> I think you could leave them out.
[59:28] Honestly, I don't think it's crazy to
have them in there, but kind of based on
[59:32] the terrain of this road, you know, you
kind of come down, you're on top and
[59:36] fair, I could very much see, and
especially because you don't border Tops
[59:40] and Fairl over here,
>> right? I could see suggesting to take
[59:44] these three out honestly. Um I do think
that that could make some sense.
[59:48] » Yeah.
[59:54] » Certainly simplify things.
>> Yeah. So is that that's something that
[59:58] we should speak to?
>> Um I think it I I didn't didn't prepare
[1:00:02] thinking about that one quite honestly.
Um
[1:00:06] I didn't.
>> It's a slippery slope
[1:00:10] » used for means permitted in MT. Yes.
>> Say more. Say more.
[1:00:16] Let
>> me double check if the use is allowable
[1:00:17] in the other one. I'm sure it is, but
community assembly is permitted in every
[1:00:22] single zone. They're not going to be
impacted no matter where you put them.
[1:00:25] » That's good.
>> The church can do what they want.
[1:00:27] » Yeah.
>> Um, so I guess, you know,
[1:00:31] I don't I don't know. I don't I think I
could say that you you could certainly
[1:00:35] see the argument for removing these
three. This one's undevelopable. These
[1:00:38] two are owned by a religious institution
that is a permitted use in either zone.
[1:00:44] » Um, but I also don't think it doesn't
make sense looking like this if you know
[1:00:48] you guys are like it's permitted in that
zone. This one's undevelopable. It is
[1:00:52] kind of a transitory between R1 and we
think it makes more sense. But the only
[1:00:56] thing I'll say is um
>> Well, I I don't know.
[1:01:02] » Keep saying that.
>> No, I it wasn't it wasn't right
[1:01:04] actually. So, I'm not going to say it.
Um, I think I had kept thinking that
[1:01:08] light industrial not be allowed in
commercial mixed use. Um, but I'm pretty
[1:01:14] sure it is
or is it?
[1:01:18] Wait, no, I know. Yeah, it's conditional
in both. Um, right.
[1:01:24] Yeah. Yeah. So, it doesn't really
because I was going to say, oh, would
[1:01:28] you really want light industrial out
here?
[1:01:32] But it's actually allowing you.
>> Yeah.
[1:01:35] » And in terms of sort of, you know,
having a zone that coheres
[1:01:43] as a shape,
>> you know, I wouldn't argue either way.
[1:01:47] It's like if they want to change it, let
them change it. Um, that's my feeling.
[1:01:51] But, you know, as it or if they're happy
leaving it like this, I I don't I feel
[1:01:57] no need to argue change. Mr. is happy
leaving it like this. I think he wants
[1:02:02] it all commercial mixed use.
>> Oh.
[1:02:05] » And we have to convince him why that's
not
[1:02:07] » right.
>> A good idea. That's where I think we
[1:02:10] are. And the more pieces that you give
>> Yeah.
[1:02:13] » Yeah. to commercial mixed use, the
harder it's going to be to keep the rest
[1:02:16] of it mixed transitional.
>> If I was going to give anything, it
[1:02:19] would be that libert sliver where the
creek is.
[1:02:22] » Crick.
>> Yeah. Creek. Cick. Well, creek if you're
[1:02:25] from Pennsylvania, which I am,
>> but I learned. Yeah, I think you can go
[1:02:30] either which way with those lots, which
is what I wanted to share. So, I think
[1:02:33] that's your I this isn't me going I
don't think this makes sense, guys. You
[1:02:37] know, we might want to consider it this
way either way.
[1:02:39] » I really think you can look at this from
either direction.
[1:02:41] » Yeah.
three
[1:02:45] lots.
[1:02:49] So, you know what? Recode is proposing
what it's proposing
[1:02:55] and let them do with it what they'd
like.
[1:03:00] » That's you still want to encourage
I think
[1:03:07] housing.
>> Yes, we were calling. That's right.
[1:03:10] That's right. as opposed to more
commercial
[1:03:12] » commercial. Yeah.
>> Yeah. I will say I think housing is
[1:03:15] fully allowed um in the other one.
>> Commercial mixed use.
[1:03:21] » Let's see if there any different I can
pull it up rather than looking at it.
[1:03:25] » Um
cuz that is part of the idea for the
[1:03:29] commercial mixed use is that it be mixed
use.
[1:03:31] » Yeah. Um, so,
uh,
[1:03:37] it is exactly the same allowances for
those,
[1:03:40] » but the fact of the matter is that
nobody's doing that
[1:03:43] » in commercial mixed use.
>> Yep. That's fair. And there's there are
[1:03:47] 80 units going up in MT.
>> Yep.
[1:03:51] » Mixed transitional.
>> Mhm. Um,
[1:03:53] » how much more
develop developable
[1:03:59] acreage is there
>> in empty or
[1:04:02] » in mixed? Yeah. Or mixed commercial.
>> In the mixed commercial. I mean, you got
[1:04:05] the empty lot for the church. They can
do something if they want.
[1:04:07] » I think there's that one.
>> Yeah.
[1:04:09] » And then maybe this one, which is empty.
>> Yeah.
[1:04:14] » Which I guess actually that's another
one you could consider.
[1:04:19] Um,
I'm not suggest I'm just saying, you
[1:04:22] know, um, there's like those back there,
which those are empty. Um, and I think
[1:04:30] this, uh, the density isn't good there.
Whoopsie.
[1:04:35] » Currently, that's Oh my god.
[1:04:45] I feel like someone might asked me about
that at one point. So I would probably
[1:04:48] expect these to go housing once the
density is upped and because this is
[1:04:53] currently mixed use commercial that
>> there's a storage
[1:04:57] » right right storage
[1:05:02] » and you know much to my surprise we
talked about at once with Leslie that
[1:05:08] you could do infill
>> within the tops fair mall
[1:05:12] » y
>> you know it's not like it's empty
[1:05:15] undeveloped land but it can be
redeveloped Ed as housing um when you
[1:05:21] know if there's less demand for retail
>> there's some there's some shifting
[1:05:28] » yeah there's some space over here though
mall does pretty well I see the parking
[1:05:32] lot full a lot
>> um I think if we're going to see
[1:05:35] significant housing
>> it's going to be on the other side
[1:05:39] » it's going to be on the other side um
just realistically you know because I
[1:05:44] sometimes when I go to like
>> you know Reny's or it. I It's not that
[1:05:48] it's impossible to find a parking space,
but I might have to look for a moment,
[1:05:54] which is not necessarily common in a
strip mall, quite honestly.
[1:05:58] » Unless they go to
um multi-story parking garages. There
[1:06:03] isn't there isn't place to build houses.
Yeah.
[1:06:08] » And I think that would be that would be
a huge development choice, which I'm not
[1:06:13] » Yeah.
>> Don't see that coming quickly. But I can
[1:06:15] see all sorts of advantages to it. You
know, you don't have to snowplow the
[1:06:18] bottom of the lake. You know, you don't
got this, you don't have to
[1:06:20] » There's so many advantages, but it would
be expensive.
[1:06:23] » Yeah. Yep. And I think the thing is is,
you know, how would you handle
[1:06:26] ownership? There's other things like
that that it's just kind of like, you
[1:06:30] know, there is um
>> I mean, there's another pad site over
[1:06:33] here. I could, but that's so small. I
don't think you could get anything
[1:06:36] meaningful
um over here. So, really, this was the
[1:06:42] last big lot. There is this one, but
I've heard it has real geotechnical
[1:06:46] concerns. Um, someone was going to do
multif family here and pulled out.
[1:06:49] » Mhm.
>> When I was the planner and then here,
[1:06:53] you know, we're getting it on that area.
But that's a pretty decently sized area
[1:06:58] right there.
>> You're not really seeing that.
[1:07:00] » Two, is it two or three apartment
buildings? Four.
[1:07:04] » Four. There's two up right now, but it's
going to be four total.
[1:07:07] » Um,
[1:07:11] » what are you looking at? Oh, the really
green lawns. It's just kind of funny
[1:07:14] compared to the other lawns.
>> Um,
[1:07:18] » and then there's this one. I would
expect that to probably
[1:07:23] » turn into a multif family. That'd be my
guess.
[1:07:26] » Yeah.
>> Yeah. So the the strength of the um
[1:07:33] rationale for the mixed transitional
zone is that you know in terms of the
[1:07:39] need for housing and the current
commitment to 80 units of housing and
[1:07:44] the uses allowed along that road is it's
it does um sort of argue for the
[1:07:51] existence of the mixed transitional zone
where where those boundaries get drawn.
[1:07:57] you know, we don't have to be part of
that argument, but they're drawn the way
[1:08:01] they are as a suggestion and they can
take it from there.
[1:08:06] » Yeah.
>> And what you've done is given a
[1:08:10] developer options.
>> Yeah.
[1:08:12] » It's not just that box. It's not
>> here three or four. So,
[1:08:16] » yeah,
>> I would think that would be comfortable
[1:08:18] to
>> Okay. Who owns all that? Uh, the one
[1:08:24] right here. Yeah.
[1:08:28] Pop LLC.
[1:08:32] » We don't know who that is. I don't know
who that one is.
[1:08:34] » Okay.
>> Um,
[1:08:37] yeah. I think they might own Life
Storage, though.
[1:08:42] » So, no, that's Life Storage LP. Swear to
God, they own somewhere else. It's in
[1:08:47] It's in here. So, in terms of the the
the partial by partial, I just want to
[1:08:54] make sure that we're not
>> overlooking. So, the
[1:08:58] » I think we kind of Yeah, I think we kind
of got distracted so we didn't do the
[1:09:02] parcel by parcel. So,
>> yeah. Um there's a vacant lot, but we
[1:09:08] So, we've gone through two of them, the
7th Day Adventist and the empty lot. And
[1:09:13] then we're looking at
>> I think we've gone through. So if we
[1:09:16] talk about goodwill, we'll be finished
with the first that that page three.
[1:09:21] » So yes, I can understand the reasons.
>> And is that 11 lot 11 LLC
[1:09:28] drive?
>> Yeah.
[1:09:28] » Yep.
>> Um and so the use it says it remains
[1:09:32] permitted. So because it reflects the
change that we Yes. Yeah. Repale is
[1:09:36] permitted. Yeah.
>> Just not the
[1:09:39] » Yeah. because the use table that we did
this summer included those changes, I
[1:09:43] think.
>> Okay. So, then we look at 70 Park Drive,
[1:09:47] which is the
>> Oh, we already did that one. That's the
[1:09:51] really skinny one.
>> Okay. Oh, right, right, right.
[1:09:56] » Um,
>> 10 Way
[1:10:02] and undeveloped.
>> That's old park drive.
[1:10:06] But I first
shoot
[1:10:16] you didn't put it in the memo. I think I
forgot to put it in the middle. Oh no,
[1:10:22] I'm probably going to do revision for
that one.
[1:10:28] » So where what is that?
>> It's the housing
[1:10:32] units.
That's our fiesta resistance
[1:10:38] for the
Yeah.
[1:10:43] » Yeah. I think I was just moving all
around and got missed.
[1:10:51] Okay. So, then we get to 10 Marman Way,
which is this one, which I would say is
[1:10:56] probably also
um
[1:11:01] undevelopable. This is a ravine as well.
H
[1:11:06] » to the right of that I see a box the
green
[1:11:11] » it's green space
>> what the lines have a meeting
[1:11:14] » yeah it's a green space for the
subdivision
[1:11:17] » okay
>> yeah so it's conserved land the
[1:11:20] » conservation
>> frozen walks okay
[1:11:23] » yep yep so that's permanently
>> took my bike down there the other day it
[1:11:28] it's really nice back there very very
nice homes are nice
[1:11:32] » development going on
>> yep It's a nice development
[1:11:35] » and that's R1.
>> Mhm.
[1:11:36] » Yeah.
>> Very nice.
[1:11:38] » Had to have an open space subdivision
get the density though.
[1:11:40] » So,
>> right.
[1:11:41] » Um,
so we're on 78 Park Drive. Is that Is
[1:11:46] that That's it. That's a big lot.
>> Yep.
[1:11:49] » Um,
>> it looks like it might have some
[1:11:51] shoreline going through it, though, too.
It's a little unclear. It could have
[1:11:54] some development.
>> Oh, there's a stream. Yeah, potentially.
[1:11:56] I mean, those aren't all real. It could
>> it could have a stream going through it.
[1:12:01] » You said check TV. Oh, TDI subdivision.
>> I kind of forgot that was in there. Um,
[1:12:09] » they're finding lots of things. There
was a subdivision out there that they
[1:12:12] were concerned and I think it was just
that they were concerned that that
[1:12:16] subdivision was for commercial reasons
and they wanted to make sure commercial
[1:12:20] uses were still allowed. And that I was
actually reminded of it with this one
[1:12:25] because this is off of some this picture
is off of some subdivision. I don't know
[1:12:31] which one. probably probably Mallet
Woods, but I'm really not sure. And so
[1:12:36] then I was thinking about it when I did
this and I honestly forgot to check TDI
[1:12:39] and I probably shouldn't have left that
note in there, but well, it's it's in
[1:12:42] there so we can talk about it.
[1:12:46] Okay.
So then
[1:12:49] there's nothing for us to present there.
Um,
[1:12:54] light manufacturing
62 Park Drive is next.
[1:13:01] Or have we already done that?
>> No, it's right here.
[1:13:03] » Yeah.
>> Um, good. 62 Park Drive is
[1:13:07] » commercial warehouse.
>> Only two floors.
[1:13:19] » You mean permitted? Yeah.
>> No. No.
[1:13:22] That's Oh, yeah, that one's fine. Sorry.
Um Oh, it's jumped down one. My
[1:13:27] apologies. Yeah, use remains permitted
in there.
[1:13:31] This is life storage. Um, we need to
talk about the use because it's kind of
[1:13:38] unclear if it's warehousing or if it's
self storage and self storage is not
[1:13:41] allowed in this zone. And self storage
is a one-story drive up situation. I
[1:13:46] don't think we want allowed in this
zone. So, Tom and I kind of needed to
[1:13:49] figure out how this works.
>> Yeah. Yeah. With a multi-story
[1:13:51] situation.
>> So that is a multi-story.
[1:13:54] » Yeah.
>> Yeah.
[1:13:55] » I've had I mean I've used self storage
in Berlin that was multi multi-level.
[1:14:00] » Mhm.
>> Four five floors.
[1:14:02] » Yeah. We're just trying to figure out
how it fits into use. We don't have a
[1:14:04] problem with it as a concept. Um I think
it would technically trigger self
[1:14:08] storage, but self storage isn't allowed
in this zone. So we're kind of thinking,
[1:14:12] okay, do we want to change the storage
and warehousing one to allow multitory?
[1:14:17] Because this is a much different use
than say
[1:14:22] I did this one recently, which is the
only reason I'm going to pick on them
[1:14:28] » 196.
>> Yeah.
[1:14:29] » Yeah.
>> You know, it's just a very different
[1:14:31] look than
>> um if you guys, you know, it's a very
[1:14:35] different look than this kind of thing
>> and they're kind of two different
[1:14:39] situations. One of them is a rather
dense way of doing storage, which is
[1:14:42] more appropriate to that zone. Yes. So
Tom and I talked about it. I don't think
[1:14:46] we had a a total
um
[1:14:49] » completed.
>> Yeah. So that's why it was noted as we
[1:14:52] just kind of need to discuss it. So we
kind of need to I think have an idea of
[1:14:54] maybe what um you and planning board are
thinking. So
[1:15:01] might be worth considering that. I don't
want to I don't think that it's in
[1:15:05] anyone's best interest and if life
storage should not non-conforming,
[1:15:09] » right? because I do think it's the
appropriate use of storage in this type
[1:15:14] of area to have it be more more dense.
Yeah.
[1:15:18] » Yeah.
>> It's safer in my opinion.
[1:15:20] » Mhm. It is. Yeah. I think that we just
need to figure out how we make it
[1:15:25] allowable is probably probably the
discussion is that no one wants to make
[1:15:29] it not allowed. Do we amend the self
storage so that multi-story ones or
[1:15:34] something or do we amend the storage and
warehousing and say multi-story
[1:15:39] is allowed where this is allowed. We're
not we weren't quite sure and I think it
[1:15:42] felt maybe a little bit beyond us in
some ways too.
[1:15:45] » So how do we leave this in terms of
Thursday?
[1:15:48] » I think that CPIC probably should be
ready if you guys are okay with life
[1:15:52] storage as a use in the location that
it's in. We should be ready to talk
[1:15:55] about, you know, you want to find a way
to make it allowable and how that works
[1:15:59] with the uses you would want the
planning board and staff to figure out
[1:16:02] and that you don't want to make it
non-conforming, but you don't want to
[1:16:05] have
>> single story.
[1:16:07] » Single story,
>> self storage.
[1:16:10] » What What are the characteristics that
make it safer?
[1:16:13] » You're inside a building.
>> So, if somebody wants to break in, first
[1:16:17] they have to break into the building and
then they have to break into the
[1:16:21] individual storage units. When you have
those long ones that are one level
[1:16:24] outside, all you have to do is bust into
the you bust into the the the door.
[1:16:29] » Yeah.
>> There's nothing between you.
[1:16:32] » You know,
>> any item you want to store.
[1:16:34] » Yeah.
>> Yeah.
[1:16:36] » And it's probably, if it's done right,
it's climate controlled.
[1:16:41] So, you've got air conditioning and
heating and you don't have that in the
[1:16:45] in the ones that are single level.
>> Yeah.
[1:16:48] » Yep. Which is Yeah.
>> Yeah. Yeah. So, I think probably just
[1:16:51] coming to say like we want to allow
this. We don't want to make them
[1:16:53] non-conforming. However, we need to
amend definitions to get there.
[1:16:57] » We support
>> definitions. Yeah. Amend definition.
[1:17:04] » Okay. Great. So, moving on to 11 Sand
Hill Road.
[1:17:09] » Also, that's what we're just did. We
just did that. I think we're on 46 Park
[1:17:13] Drive,
>> which is um
[1:17:17] warehouse light manufacturing. Yeah.
>> Remains permitted. One of those
[1:17:22] hallmarks of Park Drive manufacturing
kind of right in here.
[1:17:25] » Light.
>> Yep.
[1:17:26] » Yep.
>> Okay. Then on to 47.
[1:17:30] » I think effectively the same thing. This
is um the granite place.
[1:17:36] » Yep.
>> Morning Star.
[1:17:37] » Yep.
>> Yep.
[1:17:38] » Yeah. I forgot the name.
>> 47.
[1:17:41] Yep.
>> Um so the use is permitted. All good.
[1:17:45] » Yep. on to cell 12 Sand Hill Road
>> which is this one
[1:17:49] » also Morning Star
>> used.
[1:17:53] » No. Oh, it is. Didn't consider that.
Yep.
[1:17:56] » So, I didn't realize Morning Star owned
that one. Yep.
[1:17:58] » Developable land,
>> but it doesn't front on Park Drive. What
[1:18:04] is So, there's this little
>> It's accessible from Monument.
[1:18:08] » Uhhuh.
>> Yeah.
[1:18:10] » Okay. So,
>> interesting. These four are kind of a
[1:18:14] strange one and you know you may want to
be ready to discuss
[1:18:18] » those I guess. Um
>> so
[1:18:24] the other so to the left of that one
you've got there to the left is that in
[1:18:29] » also in the mix transitional.
>> Oh is it okay?
[1:18:31] » That's the one below which is
>> for Sand Hill.
[1:18:35] » Yeah. Um, and that's the one that I
would I think I've had people ask about
[1:18:40] doing multif family there before and
once the density shoots up there I could
[1:18:43] see happening.
>> Yeah. Great. So that
[1:18:46] » I think theity isn't great there right
now,
[1:18:49] » but it fits great in mixed transitional.
>> I think it's fine there.
[1:18:52] » Yeah, good.
>> Okay, that's four. Moving on to 30.
[1:18:57] Where's
>> I guess all I'd say for this one is I
[1:18:59] could see that one going either way. I
mean there's not a huge difference
[1:19:02] between mixed transitional and
commercial mixed juice except for the
[1:19:05] allowance of the warehouse building I
think potentially is not allowed in
[1:19:10] commercial mixed juice and the suburban
storefront is not allowed in mixed
[1:19:13] transitional potentially. I'm actually
not sure
[1:19:16] » important.
>> Yeah. No, no, no. So I'm just saying for
[1:19:19] what we're talking about I don't really
see it as a big deal. I could see it
[1:19:22] going either way. Um
and suburban storefront is
[1:19:29] the workshop is not allowed in
commercial. So it is kind of through
[1:19:33] form commercial mixed use is a little
less industrial focused and mixed
[1:19:38] transitional is and
retail wise it goes the other way
[1:19:43] through form.
>> Yeah. Um,
[1:19:46] so
[1:19:50] any comments before we
>> move on to 30?
[1:19:56] Where's 30? Okay, 30 drive 30
>> office.
[1:20:01] » This is I think
>> professional office.
[1:20:05] » It's a professional office. So this one
would go to permitted with what we just
[1:20:09] talked about earlier. So
>> that's important.
[1:20:12] » Yep. Um, and then
this is 25.
[1:20:18] Um, same thing. So, here's the third.
Yeah. So, this is when I was starting to
[1:20:22] be like, huh, maybe we should let
professional maybe we should let office
[1:20:25] just be permitted. Like, I found the
three so far.
[1:20:28] » Yeah, that's the endodonics place.
>> Oh, is it?
[1:20:30] » I think access.
>> Okay. Yeah. So, this one's a medical
[1:20:33] one, but it falls under, as you can see,
it's already falling under
[1:20:37] » Yeah.
>> medical or just professional office. Um
[1:20:40] and then this is the date
>> 24. Is that 24?
[1:20:43] » Y okay.
>> Um it remains permitted.
[1:20:49] » Great.
Okay.
[1:20:52] So then we get into Okay. Now so now we
have we're nearly at the end of our
[1:20:56] time.
>> Yep.
[1:20:58] » Yeah. Is that right?
>> Yes.
[1:21:00] » Yeah. Start hour really.
>> So planned commercial development. I
[1:21:05] mean, I wouldn't agree about getting too
far into this. Quite honestly, I tried
[1:21:10] to lay out to them what it is, what it
what it is required to do, how it aligns
[1:21:17] with article 2. I'm meeting Tom and I
are meeting with Leslie tomorrow to talk
[1:21:20] about it.
>> Okay.
[1:21:21] » I do genuinely think that in many ways
that PCD was kind of absorbed into the
[1:21:26] concept of article 2, but I didn't see
that
[1:21:30] spelled out here.
>> Yeah. And I thought that might have
[1:21:34] been, you know, that all that most of
the goals of the PCD are achieved in
[1:21:43] recodes 10 center zones.
>> Yeah, I say the formbbased code
[1:21:47] requirements vertical 2 seem to build
upon the ideas of the PCD at a larger
[1:21:50] more encompassing scale focusing on
creating a pattern of development with
[1:21:54] an integrated design requiring
pedestrian friendly development and a
[1:21:56] sense of community through form. The FBC
is only found in areas of town that are
[1:22:00] served by water and sewer as PCDs were
intended to be. Article 2 does not have
[1:22:04] limitations on sensitive beyond form.
Allows multiple buildings to be sighted
[1:22:07] on one lot if they front on a street or
courtyard and allow minimal setbacks
[1:22:12] internally. When discussing PCDs in
relation to article 2, it seems that
[1:22:15] they are not necessary in the zone as
the intent of them was carried forward.
[1:22:18] If there are concerns of the zoning
requirements of the zone which they are
[1:22:21] located in, we should discuss those when
we discuss article 2 as they would no
[1:22:24] doubt apply to all.
If you guys would like to say more about
[1:22:29] this, please go ahead. I did want to
give you that option to have a place to
[1:22:33] speak. It's it to me it's like we have
had no um
[1:22:41] no real expertise in PCDs you know and
>> so it's really I I think we are relying
[1:22:49] on
you know your understanding of what PCDs
[1:22:55] are designed to do
>> and if recode actually achieves the
[1:23:02] majority of what the PCD is designed to
do.
[1:23:07] What are we talking about?
>> You know, um
[1:23:11] » yeah, I think that that's one way to
look at it. Um you know, I try to let
[1:23:16] them make a lot of their own
determinations about these things. Um in
[1:23:20] some ways,
and I like to try to strike that balance
[1:23:25] between this is what I'm seeing and this
is one way to look at it between telling
[1:23:28] them this is what something is just
because there are multiple ways to look
[1:23:31] at it. Um,
[1:23:37] I'm not sure how they'll approach this
quite honestly.
[1:23:41] » Yeah.
And depending on how they approach it,
[1:23:45] what will be the effect?
>> I think it partially depends on whether
[1:23:49] or not they read it read article two and
really understand what's going on
[1:23:53] because we haven't gotten into it very
much. I think that the the fact is that
[1:23:58] if they want to keep PCDs that we'll
just need to talk about them again when
[1:24:03] we get to article two and how the
requirements of article 2 would play
[1:24:07] with them as a use because one thing
that we note is that the PCDs when they
[1:24:12] were created they were required to
adhere to the dimensional table at
[1:24:16] external lot lines right um and that
they just weren't updated with the table
[1:24:20] of dimensional requirements which has
been beneficial to some people using
[1:24:25] PCDs
to, you know, build things. Um, and that
[1:24:31] if we want to keep them in the center
zones, we need to make sure that the
[1:24:34] form requirements underlying would be
kept because the intent of a PCD was not
[1:24:41] to get out of and if they have issues
with the form, we need to talk about
[1:24:44] that as a whole. PCD shouldn't be the
way of getting out of it. So, that's
[1:24:47] kind of the concept is I just this is
what it is. what is it actually
[1:24:50] providing that's a benefit
that isn't just an issue that we have
[1:24:54] with article 2 that may need to be fixed
for everyone that would fall under
[1:24:58] article 2. So that's that's the way that
I see it and I'm hoping that's the take
[1:25:01] they'll take what they'll have to take
away from it. But yeah,
[1:25:04] » we should try to avoid them making a
fixed and firm decision that we will do
[1:25:12] PCDs and instead kick the can
>> in the center zones. in the center zone.
[1:25:17] in the center fields have kicked the can
down the road for further discussion
[1:25:21] » if they want to keep them if they were
to go okay well wow you know maybe these
[1:25:24] aren't as necessary
>> it bears further discussion that we're
[1:25:28] not ready
>> for decision
[1:25:31] » I don't think that probably a decision
should be reached on like I mean if they
[1:25:36] were to say okay we want to keep PCDs in
the center zones okay but when we come
[1:25:41] back to article two it would be we need
to change the PCD language to have all
[1:25:45] of these things in
So that that it isn't some get out of
[1:25:49] free get out of zoning free card, you
know,
[1:25:53] » and that you aren't applicable that it
would just be updated to apply to all,
[1:25:56] » you know, things. That's that's my hope.
>> And I'm be I'm curious like, you know,
[1:26:03] the the way the PCD is designed, it's
supposed to be in areas where it already
[1:26:10] served by public water and public sewer,
>> but it's not always. it is allowed in
[1:26:16] zones that don't have those, which is
interesting to me. So, it's kind of a
[1:26:19] strange little thing. Um, that I think
and how I see it is that, you know, the
[1:26:24] concept of that probably at the time was
needed and necessary to allow some of
[1:26:28] the development that we see happened and
that article 2 builds upon that idea
[1:26:32] that you can be more flexible with
citing things online. You can allow more
[1:26:36] uses in near each other. Um, and it
doesn't need that use because the
[1:26:43] entirety of article 2 is kind of
allowing those things. That's that's how
[1:26:46] I kind of took it. I do need to meet
with Leslie tomorrow. She brought up
[1:26:50] MPD, which is a little concerning to me
because if MPD is the sequel to PCD,
[1:26:55] that's a much more difficult
conversation in my opinion. So, I will
[1:26:58] see what she has to say. Right.
>> Well, and and you know, it was clear to
[1:27:05] you, I think, in looking at the MPD that
there is an affinity there to talk about
[1:27:11] um what do we what is the verbiage?
>> It's really simil I mean, it's got parts
[1:27:17] of subdivision site plan in it. It's
just kind of a combination of all of our
[1:27:21] » subdivision. is not something that Cbec
CPC focused on at all because it's
[1:27:25] outside the town centers and but where
there is an affinity there in terms of
[1:27:30] what's being asked of a developer and
required of a developer um I don't know
[1:27:36] if Leslie took that on
conceptually you know at least in even a
[1:27:43] little bit yeah
>> that would be helpful so we've actually
[1:27:46] got two more pages which we obviously
don't have time to do it's not too
[1:27:50] » it's nothing really it's just um
>> goes into the use table.
[1:27:53] » It's just what changed in the use table
which is very few things um household
[1:27:57] living was changed to do the main
street.
[1:28:00] » They made those decisions.
>> Yep. They made those decisions and then
[1:28:03] the follow-up questions um our
drive-throughs are in article 7.
[1:28:08] » I love the mobile food thing.
>> Yeah, that felt like that was going to
[1:28:12] solve the issues that we needed. So
hopefully they'll like that. And then
[1:28:15] the other one I took that to mean and
please make sure this is done at some
[1:28:18] point. So I'll have Evelyn working on
that.
[1:28:20] » Yeah. at some point actually a little
bit more subtle.
[1:28:23] » Great.
>> Yeah.
[1:28:26] » Okay.
>> And I think the only question I'd have
[1:28:30] is um and I know we're at the end of the
meeting.
[1:28:33] » Yeah.
>> I think we've gone over these uses. I
[1:28:35] feel pretty good with these uses.
>> Yeah.
[1:28:38] » And I think you guys have gotten pretty
far through the use table, but they will
[1:28:43] be talking about uses in the UV and the
MT. you guys were going like this and
[1:28:48] they switched it to going like, you
know, this.
[1:28:52] » So, we should just have a look at those.
>> Just make sure that there's nothing in
[1:28:55] the MT or the UV usewise that you guys
are uncomfortable with or that was a
[1:29:00] mistake or something.
>> Um, I don't expect there to be, but
[1:29:04] yeah, I would feel remiss if I didn't
bring that up.
[1:29:07] » So, how about we adjourn at 5:29?
>> All right, let me shut down the Zoom.
[1:29:12] Let me shut down the Zoom. We now we've
closed the meeting.