[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.

2026 09 08 CPIC Meeting

Transcript