►
From YouTube: Winooski Planning Commission - 10/13/2022
Description
https://www.winooskivt.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_10132022-1012?html=true
00:00:00 Call to Order/Changes to the Agenda
00:00:08 Public Comment
00:03:07 Approve Previous Meeting Minutes
00:05:14 Approval of Draft FY2023 Work Plan
00:15:54 Continued Discussion on Article IV - Section 4.1 thru 4.12
01:24:36 City Updates
01:29:09 Other Business
This video belongs to http://www.cctv.org and published with permission under Creative Commons License CCTV Center for Media & Democracy Programming is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
A
B
Mariel
Matthews
is
on
the
line
with
Winooski
partnership
for
prevention,
I,
don't
know
Muriel.
If
there's
anything
you
wanted
to
say,
you
can
raise
your
hand
or
use
the
chat.
Otherwise
we
can
recognize
you
later
in
the
meeting,
if
you're
here,
for
something
specific,
oh
there
and
there's
a
hand.
So,
okay,
you
can
unmute
yourself
Marielle
hi,.
C
Can
you
hear
me
yeah
yeah,
great
Mario
Matthews,
you
see
her
pronouns
I'm,
actually
not
here
for
anything
specific
that
didn't
want
a
way
to
introduce
myself
and
just
be
listening
in
to
you
all
without
you
knowing
who
I
am
I'm
a
policy
and
grants
manager
at
Winooski.
Partnership
for
prevention
generally
interested
in
things
related
to
substance,
use
disorder
prevention,
so
I'm
hoping
to
be
able
to
meet
you
all
on
a
different
setting.
But
looking
forward
to
hearing
about
the
work
plan,
thanks.
A
C
B
D
G
A
A
C
A
G
B
Will
know
I
was
just
going
to
say
so
technically
there.
The
minutes
are
simply
a
reflection
of
the
business
that
occurred
at
the
meeting.
So
you
can.
Even
if
you
weren't
at
the
meeting,
you
can
still
vote
on
the
minutes.
There's
no
reason
for
somebody
to
abstain
just
because
they
weren't
at
the
meeting.
It's
really
more
it's
more
of
a
choice.
B
B
The
work
plan
was
updated
briefly
or
or
lightly
to
reflect
some
of
the
the
discussions
and
the
changes
based
off
of
The
Joint
meeting
the
draft
work
plan.
That's
in
your
packet
was
presented
at
our
last
meeting,
but
since
there
was
only
three
members
in
attendance,
we
decided
to
hold
off
on
approval
of
it
until
this
meeting,
when
more
of
you
would
be
here
to
to
have
any
any
any
additional
discussion
or
additional
input
or
questions.
A
lot
of
what's
in
here
is
fairly
consistent
with
what
we've
done
over
the
last
several
years.
B
D
C
B
It
yeah
I,
agree
yep.
Let
me
go
ahead
and
share
here.
Look
at
my
screens
reconfigured
one
moment:
please:
okay,
okay,
yep,
so
so
yeah.
So
here's
our
draft
work
plan
item
one
evaluating
incentives
for
development
priorities.
Here
we're
looking
at.
We
had
a
lot
of
these
items
on
the
list
previously,
but
now
we're
adding
in
I
believe
we
added
in
parking
reform
and
Energy
Efficiency
and
sound
mitigation
into
that
list.
B
B
Item
two
is
updates
on
parking
now
that
we
have
the
parking
study
completed
there.
That's
given
us
some
more
information
on
what
we
may
look
at
for
updates
to
parking
either
management
either
the
the
yes
management
of
those
spaces,
the
quantity
of
required
parking
on
street
off
Street
things
of
that
nature,
so
we'll
get
into
some
of
those.
Hopefully
we'll
get
into
some
of
those
discussions
tonight
with
the
review
of
article
four,
which
does
now
include
information
on
parking.
So
that's
included
the
review
of
protection
for
historic
resources.
B
B
What
could
be
done
related
to
Historic
resource
protection
and
then
just
general
zoning
updates,
looking
at
things
like
racial
Equity
protection
and
natural
resources,
incentives
for
child
care
options,
all
things
that
we've
heard
are
are
important
for
the
community
and
and
put
potentially
either
lacking
or
needed.
So
more
just
general
updates
for
what
that,
how
to
address
those
components
and
others
to
that's,
not
obviously
an
exhaustive
list,
or
only
the
only
items
we
would
work
on
and
I
believe
that
is
it
so
again.
A
A
B
Yes,
yeah
I'm
glad
you
brought
that
up.
Yeah
I
meant
to
bring
that
up,
so
the
the
commission
on
equity
and
belonging
that
this
that's
been
formed
by
the
city
council.
They
have.
The
members
of
that
Commission
are
I,
don't
want
to
say
a
sign,
but
they've
selected
ambassadors
to
attend
all
the
other
commission
meetings,
so
the
the
commission
on
inclusion
and
belonging
will
meet.
They
will
meet
as
a
group
on
even
numbered
months
and
on
odd
numbered
months.
Their
members
will
attend
the
other
meetings.
B
So
our
representative
is
Bruce
Wilson,
so
at
our
first
meeting
in
November
he
will
he
will
be
in
attendance
with
us.
Their
role
is
kind
of
really
going
to
be
up
to
the
individual
commission.
However,
with
our
commission,
we
have
some
some
limitations
because
of
our
statutory
this,
because
we
are
a
statutory
entity
or
you
all
are
a
statutory
entity
throughout
the
Planning
Commission.
So
some
commissions
may
allow
their
ambassadors
to
vote.
Others
may
not
and
just
be
advisory.
B
In
our
case,
the
Ambassador
won't
won't
be
able
to
vote
because
statutes
specifically
outlines
who
is
eligible
to
vote
on
the
Planning
Commission
specifically
statute
says
that,
in
order
to
vote
on
the
Planning
Commission,
you
have
to
be
an
appointed
planning,
commissioner,
by
the
elected
body.
So
because
Bruce
will
just
be
basically
a
liaison
and
Ambassador
he
will.
He
will
not
be
able
to
vote.
C
C
B
B
B
Yeah,
that's
a
good
question:
I'm,
not
exactly
sure
how
some
of
that's
going
to
work
out.
Logistically
I
know
we
did
talk
about
that
with
Bruce
a
little
bit
and
I
know.
Mike
and
I
have
talked
about
that
a
little
bit
as
well,
so
I
think
a
lot
of,
what's
going
to
happen,
is
still
being
figured
out.
I
think
because
it's
so
new,
the
their
commission,
the
commission,
on
on
inclusion
and
belonging,
is
still
kind
of
figuring
out
what
their
roles
are
going
to
be
as
well
in
their
own
commission
structure.
H
B
I
guess
if
I
could
just
jump
in
quick,
I
mean
I,
think
the
historic
preservation
piece
and
some
of
the
parking
we
are
working
on
currently
with
our
review
of
article
four,
so
I
mean
I,
don't
know
if
that
necessarily
makes
them
a
priority,
but
that
those
are
two
items
that
we're
already
engaging
with
right
now.
So
I
anticipate
that
we
will,
if
we
continue
working
through
Article
4
I,
anticipate
that
there
will
be
some
some
movement
on
on
addressing
those
two
items
for
whatever
that's
worth.
F
B
There'll
be
an
approval
of
the
work
plan
and
again
I
should
also
just
mention.
You
know
this
is
really
more
of
just
a
guidance
document.
It's
not
if
we
don't
accomplish
something.
That's
fine,
it's
more
just
to
give
us
some
general
direction
of
how
to
accomplish
our
master
plan
goals,
which
is
why
those
are
also
identified
in
the
work
plan
document
and.
A
B
All
right
so
I'm
going
to
start
sharing
my
screen
again,
just
a
different
screen
this
time,
so,
okay,
we're
picking
up
again
on
our
discussion
of
article
4,
which
is
our
general
use
regulations.
So,
at
the
last
meeting,
I
provided
some
information
on
a
a
different
approach
to
addressing
historic
resources.
B
So
the
first
one
being
section,
4,
1
item
C,
I
added
in
some
additional
language
on
the
the
interest
of
and
the
the
goals
of
the
goals
and
objectives
in
the
master
plan
that
talk
about
historic
preservation
and
just
making
sure
that
that's
in
the
Forefront
here
so
I
know
Mike.
This
was
something
Mike
and
Sarah.
You
guys
both
were
interested
in
having
this
language.
B
B
So
any
questions
on
that
that's
good,
okay
and
I'll
just
keep
rolling
through
as
we've
done
in
the
past.
Unless
there's
any
questions,
please
stop
me.
If
you
have
any
questions
and
Marielle
I'd
also
say
to
you:
if
you
have
anything,
you
want
to
add
just
use
the
raised
hand
and
will
recognize
you.
So,
let's
see
moving
through
on
page
two
here.
B
B
A
A
G
A
B
Oh,
that's
a
good
question
yeah.
These
are
all
figures
that
have
just
been
carried
through,
so
I'm
I'm,
not
exactly
sure
where
they're,
where
they've
originated
from
but
I
can
I
mean
we
can
definitely
add
in
some
language
that
talks
about
minimums
and
maximums
and
then
reference
these.
These
images
or
other
images.
A
C
A
B
A
C
B
B
B
No
new
changes
here,
so
this
is
where
the
previous
section
was
moved
to
so
now
we're
talking
about
encroachment
of
existing
driveways
that
that
I
is
new
language
to
the
section
not
new
to
you
all,
as
we've
reviewed
this
previously
and
one
two
three
and
four
is
all
what
was
was
in
the
the
previous
section.
That's
been
moved
here,
so
nothing
new
there
as
well.
B
Okay,
moving
along
under
four
three,
nothing
here
has
changed
for
conversion
or
change
of
use.
That's
all
still
the
same
as
it
was
previously,
and
then
we
get
into
section
four
four.
So
this
is
where
some
of
the
bigger
changes
have
occurred
for
those
of
you
that
weren't
at
the
last
meeting
so
Connor
and
Sarah
and
Mike.
This
should
be
somewhat
of
a
refresher
for
you
all,
but
for
those
of
you
that
were
not
here,
I
did
I.
B
G
B
Was
able
to
determine
and
to
the
best
of
my
ability
and
I'm
I'm,
pretty
sure
this
is
what
the
case
was
prior
to
the
full
revamp
of
the
of
the
land
use
regulations
that
incorporated
the
form-based
code
and
made
it
a
unified
land
use
and
development
regulations.
Previously
there
was
a
zoning
ordinance
and
a
subdivision
ordinance.
B
When
we
had
that
previous
zoning
ordinance,
we
did
have
design
review
districts.
There
was
I
think
at
least
two
design
review
districts,
and
so
these
standards
were
fairly
consistent
with
the
previous,
the
2014
version
of
the
language.
So
what
it
seems
to
have
happened
is
the
design
review
language
came
forward
in
section
4-4,
but
the
districts
went
away,
so
there
was
nowhere
for
these
standards
to
apply.
B
So
in
some
of
my
discussions
with
the
state
with
the
division
of
historic
preservation
and
just
review
Statute.
In
order
for
us
to
have
any
type
of
local
historic
protection,
we
need
to
have
some
sort
of
historic
district.
It
doesn't
necessarily
need
to
be
called
a
historic
district,
but
it
needs
to
be.
There
needs
to
be
some
sort
of
area
where
the
standards
will
apply.
So
we
would
need
to
both
create
the
area
for
the
standards
to
apply
and
create
the
standards
that
would
apply
to
that
area.
B
The
state
or
national
register
are
all
from
1979.,
so
some
of
those
properties
don't
exist.
Some
have
been
changed.
New
properties
may
have
have
met
the
threshold
of
50
years
now
to
be
eligible.
So
in
order
to
I
guess,
that's
all
a
long
way
of
saying
for
us
to
put
in
some
sort
of
design,
review
or
protection
for
historic
resources
that
would
that
would
either
prevent
or
limit
demolition
of
buildings.
Would
it
requires
a
lot
more
work
than
than
just
to
to
put
some
language
into
the
regulations.
B
While
we
work
to
figure
out
the
resources
necessary
to
establish
some
historic
historic
protections
or
design
review
districts
or
whatever,
whatever
we,
whatever
direction,
we
might
go
in
look
at
an
incentive-based
approach
to
help
provide
incentives
to
the
development,
Community
or
property
owners
that
that
may
prevent
them
or
give
them
a
second
thought
about
whether
or
not
they
raise
a
building
or
try
to
reuse.
It
to
the
extent
that
they
can
so
that's.
B
A
A
So
my
recollection
and
I
believe
Tommy
was
chairman
of
the
Planning
Commission
when
we
redid
the
zoning
and
she
can
chime
in.
If,
if
I
recollect
incorrectly,
we
were
relying
on
the
fact
that
we
had
written
into
the
zoning
regs
that
historic
structures
would
have
to
get
approval
of
Vermont
division
of
historic
preservation
or
whatever
before
they
could
be
torn
down.
If
they're
on
historic
register
right
and
I
suspect.
B
Think
we
would
yeah
because
it's
been
because
they
don't
technically,
they
don't
exist
anymore.
The
districts
don't
exist,
I
think
we
have
to
basically
start
over
and
recreate
the
districts
and
do
the
survey
work
to
make
sure
that
the
properties
are
still
still
eligible
or
still
contributing
and
then
figure
out
what
those
design
review
criteria
are
going
to
be,
as
well
as
figuring
out.
Who
is
going
to
be
responsible
for
that
review,
whether
that
be
a
new
historic,
historic,
Resources
Commission,
whether
that
be
some
sort
of
design,
review,
commission
or
design
review
board?
A
D
F
B
I
mean
it
could
we
we
could
consider
the
entire
city
as
a
district,
but
again
that
would
in
order
to
establish
that
and
to
establish
design
review
criteria.
Whatever
that
looks
like
we
would
need
to
figure
out
who's
going
to
do
the
review,
what
they're
reviewing
against.
If
it's
historic,
if
it's
some
sort
of
historic
review,
then
we
need
to
do
a
full
inventory
of
all
the
properties
in
the
city
that
may
be
contributing
in
order
to
determine
if
they
meet
the
standards
of
review.
So
so.
G
B
Lot
of
work
that
would
need
to
be
done
and
something
that
Sarah
and
I
have
talked
about
is
that
you
know
the
city
could
pursue
certified
local
government
status,
which
would
open
up
some
funding
to
be.
That
would
make
some
of
that
survey
work
and
some
of
that
other
work
provide
funding
for
those
efforts.
B
But
in
order
to
even
get
to
that
step,
the
city
needs
to
establish
some
sort
of
preservation,
commission
or
other
body
that
is
going
to
be
responsible
for
this
work
and
establish
the
guidelines
and
the
review
criteria
and
right
now
it's
not.
It
hasn't
been
identified
as
a
priority
for
Council.
Having
said
that,
it
is
still
on
the
council's
policy
and
priority
strategy
list,
so
it
just
hasn't
risen
to
to
their
to
a
high
priority
for
them,
but
it
is
still
there,
so
they
are
aware
of
it.
E
Yeah
well
so
this
is
this
is
where
Eric
and
I
have
talked
a
couple
times
about
this
and
yes,
I
mean:
what's
what's
happened
in
the
past?
It's
it's
not
going
to
be
that
easy
to
correct
it.
It's
complicated
to
do
with
the
state.
It's
going
to
be
complicated
to
do
with
the
city,
and
at
this
point
it
feels
like
the
incentive
ideas.
F
E
A
A
A
H
You
know
I
would
agree
with
I
mean
having
worked
on
this
for
a
long
time.
It's
been
something
we
really
wanted
to
do
from
the
very
beginning
of
changing
all
of
our
regulations
and
to
see
that
we're
still
at
a
place
where
we
can't
move
doesn't
seem
like
where
we
want
to
be
I,
agree
completely,
that
these
incentives
are
great
and
that
we
should
Implement
those
I've,
I've,
read
them
and
they
seem
all
reasonable,
but
as
Mike
says
it
and
everybody
else
says
it's
a
stop.
Gap
that
doesn't
really
solve
our
problems.
H
F
F
D
C
B
B
B
E
F
Yeah
and
they'll
they'll
have
they'll,
have
an
advisory
Council
vote
on
it
and
even
if
they
vote
to
keep
it
on
a
state,
historic
register,
the
developer
can
have
an
agreement
with
dhp
to
say
you
know
well
we'll
take
steps
to
mitigate
adverse
effect
of
the
loss
of
Boeing,
so
they
could
put
a
plaque
up
on
the
new
building
and
basically
hire
a
consultant
that
would
document
it.
You'd
have
a
file
with
the
state
that
said
what
used
to
be
there,
but
you
you'd
still
lose
that
cultural
resource
and.
E
B
B
B
I
think
it
would
carry
to
whoever
the
new
owner
is,
quite
frankly
that
I
think,
because,
because
the
money
was
used
for
the
building
itself,
I
think
the
improvements
are
what
they
look
at
I
I'm,
not
sure
of
any
of
this.
So
please
don't
quote
me
on
any
of
this,
but
that's
my
understanding
is
that
if
there's
Federal
money
involved,
it's
there's
there's
some
recourse
that
the
that
the
federal
government
can
take
in
those
in
those
instances,
yeah.
D
And
so
Eric
just
to
your
understanding,
it's
not
as
if
like
if
this
were
to
happen,
like
the
Vermont
attorney
general.
Like
let's
say
you
know,
there
was
a
huge
uproar
and
you
know
we
were
like
no,
no,
no,
these
State,
you
got
to
step
in.
It's
not
like
the
Attorney
General's
office
could
necessarily
file
like
a
lawsuit
and
basically
just
stop
it.
As
far
as
you
know,.
B
B
D
D
F
Well,
Brendan,
let
me
pose
this
hypothetical
to
you:
there's
a
very
real
possibility
of
St
Stephen's
church
being
demolished
yeah,
because
that
church
was
recently
closed.
I've
said
this
to
other
people.
What,
if
the
shoe
is
on
the
other
foot
and
St
Stephen
stayed
open,
St
Francis
closed
and
we
were
talking
about
the
demolition
of
Saint
Francis.
That
would
like
be
a
nose
job
for
the
face
face
of
Winooski
I
mean
you'd
lose
something
that
was
just
like.
F
B
Yeah,
so
let
me
let
me
let
me
pose
kind
of
two
two
prongs
here.
One
I
think
I
I
don't
disagree
with
anything.
Anybody
said
as
far
as
the
need
for
some
level
of
local
protection
right
now.
We
can't
do
that
with
our
current
land
use
regulations.
So,
but
what
we
can
do
is
incentivize
their
protection,
so
I'm
almost
thinking
it
may
be
worth.
B
Identifying
specific
buildings
or
Properties
or
districts
that
we
think
or
that
you
all
think
are
the
most
critical,
so
I
know
the
VHB
did
a
study
with
some
funding
that
looked
at
the
gateways
for
historic
structures.
We
have
our
existing
inventory
of
of
historic
buildings
that
are
listed,
but
you
know
those
they're
kind
of
a
scatter
shot
throughout
the
city,
so
it
may
be.
B
So
you
know
it's
possible
that
we
could
say
you
know
all
these
properties
should
be
in
a
district
and
then
those
Property
Owners
go
to
council
and
say
no.
We
don't
want
to
be
in
this
district
and
the
boundary
lines
are
redrawn
to
exclude
properties
that
may
or
may
not
be
may
or
may
not
May.
That
should
or
should
not
be
excluded
for
their
historic
quality.
So
I.
F
C
B
The
local,
the
local
regulations
would
have
would
have
regulatory
oversight
of
those
properties
as
well,
so
it's
it's
both
including
them,
but
also
then
adding
additional
limitations
on
what
can
happen
with
those
properties
at
the
local
level.
Where,
with
the
state
and
National
registers
they
don't,
they
don't
have
any
any
regulatory
Authority
with
those
designations.
But.
H
B
Well,
I
mean
I,
think
that's
why
we
need
to
be
focused
in
what
it
is
that
we're
talking
about
and
and
the
properties
we're
looking
at
the
specific
criteria
that
that
might
be
included
in
in
some
sort
of
design
review
again
or
whatever.
It
is
I'm
I,
just
I'm
defaulting
to
the
term
of
design
review
as
a
generic
term
for
either
design
historic,
whatever
whatever
type
of
of
District
or
protection.
We
identify
I.
F
Think
I'm
a
little
bit
finding
a
little
bit
of
frustration
with
this,
though,
because,
like
I
understand
the
steps
that
need
to
happen
here,
but
the
way
that
we've
built
this,
it
seems
like
it's
an
almost
impossible
task
And.
Yet
when
news
key
is
actually
one
of
the
few
municipalities,
I
know
above
its
size,
that
doesn't
have
it
like
that.
That's
a
little
dumbfounding
to
me!
Well,.
H
About
this
for
a
potential
solution,
or
at
least
the
next
step,
is
that
we
find
out,
as
as
Mike
requested
from
the
lawyers,
can
we
re
issue
those
districts
based
on
the
2014
and
move
forward
from
there?
If
we
can,
then
we
can
quickly
go
ahead
and
do
what
we
need
to
do
in
the
meantime.
I
think
that
these
incentives
are
fine,
but
it
doesn't
get
to
the
meat
of
the
problem.
Yeah.
A
Well,
to
I
think
Joe
mentioned
it
are
folks
willing
to
kind
of
just
either
walk
around
or
off
top
of
your
head
come
up
with
some
properties
that
that
they
think
should
be
priorities
for
us
to
save
so,
in
other
words,
important
historic
structures
and
whether
it's
you
know
whoever
lives
on
the
east
side
kind
of
look
at
properties.
There.
People
on
the
West
Side
look
over
there
since
you're
downtown
yeah.
A
So
so
I
guess
two
things:
Joe
one
is
yeah.
Let's,
let's
get
what
Brita
the
report
from
Brita,
so
we
all
see
that,
but
we
can.
We
can
come
up
with
some
some
properties.
We
think
and
talk
about
it
and
doesn't
mean
that
they're
necessarily
there,
but
at
least
we're
identifying
some
properties,
maybe
like
the
RVA
or
the
winusky
block.
Yes
in
Stevens
Church,
Saint,
Francis
Church.
You
know
things
like
that.
F
Well
and
that's
where
that's
what
I'm
saying
before
is
I,
because
we're
only
we're
a
pretty
small
City
I,
don't
understand
why
the
city
for
this
matter
is
not
considered
a
district
and
then
an
inventory
could
be
done
in
totality
yeah.
Instead
of
doing
like
a
street
a
street
a
street
like
that.
That
seems
to
because
we
keep
harping
on
like
the
same
few
things
and
then
things
that
are
in
the
periphery
get
missed
continually
yeah.
A
E
H
A
A
True
Sarah,
what
I
I
think
happened
was
we
did
the
form-based
code
yep.
We
had
the
downtown
that
that
was
purview
of
the
city
council
and
there
were
some
restrictions,
I
recall,
but
we
also
put
in
language
relying
on
the
Vermont
historic
preservation,
whatever
the
council,
thinking
that
that
they
had
the
power
to
stop
anyone
from
taking
down
anything
on
the
Vermont
historic
register,
which.
C
A
F
F
H
F
B
F
I
I
guess
I
I'm
I
think
that's
okay,
as
far
as
like.
If
we
want
to
pursue
that
as
like
a
step
on
this,
but
I
myself
would
rather
see
because
again,
small
City,
just
the
whole
city,
be
looked
at
as
a
whole
on
this
issue,
because
I
I
think
it
gets
kind
of
weird
and
dangerous
too
and
you're
just
kind
of
identifying
like
it
feels
like
Redline
when
and
I
know
that,
like
there
are
higher
concentrations
of
historic
districts.
F
H
A
A
F
A
Well,
I
know
that
I
know
that
any
building,
that's
on
historic
register
goes
through
design.
Review
and
they've
got
multiple
levels
because
the
example
I'll
use
is
the
building
I
used
to
own
at
289
College
Street.
Okay,
we
sold
that
in
the
developed,
the
guy
that
bought
it.
You
know
proposed
putting
an
addition
on
it
that
that
reflected
the
original
building
yeah
and
the
design
review
board
over.
There
said
no,
it's
got
to
be.
It
can't
look
anything
like
the
original
building.
So
it's
a
box
yeah.
F
F
Even
even
there
like
yeah,
because
there
were
I,
remember
like
there
was
out
an
apple
tree
Point
like
the
Stanford
house,
which
was
like
one
of
the
oldest
structures
in
that
part
of
the
city
and
a
developer.
That
was
on
like
a
10,
acre,
parcel
and
developer,
wanted
to
raise
it
and
put
a
development
project
in
its
place,
and
there
was
opposition
to
the
demolition
of
that
structure,
and
so
what
they
did
instead
was
a
developer,
moved
it
somewhere
else
on
the
parcel
and
proceeded
with
his
his
PUD.
A
A
C
A
E
C
B
B
You
well
that's
you're,
really,
testing
my
memory
there
Sarah
but
I
think
it's
it's
important
to
to
keep
in
mind
a
zoning
ordinance
or
any
type
of
regulatory
zoning.
Any
type
of
land
use
document
is
two
pieces.
It's
both
the
text
and
the
map,
so
amendments
can
be
made
to
either
of
them
or
both
of
them,
and
so
it
may
be
that,
because
we
have
the
text,
we
need
to
have
a
map
that
relates
to
it.
So
how
about
this?
Why
don't?
B
In
order
to
to
keep
the
conversation
moving
I
will
spend
some
time
doing
some
additional
research.
Talking
to
our
attorneys,
see
looking
at
our
past
regulations,
seeing
what
we
had
in
place,
what
we
have
in
place,
what
options
are
going
forward?
One
thing
I
also
want
to
look
at
is
if
we
made
the
whole
city
a
designer
View
District.
B
Does
that
mean
that
every
parcel
has
to
fall
under
that
review,
which
would
then
basically
go
against
the
whole
reason
why
we
put
in
the
form-based
code
in
the
first
place
and
make
making
that
an
administrative
process?
So
there's
some
other
questions
that
I
think
I
would
like
to
to
get
a
better
sense
of
what
the
answers
are
to
myself.
So
I
can
help.
Advise
you
all
so
in
the
interest
of
that
I
think
is.
B
The
incentive
approach
is
one
that
we
I
know
we
can
put
in
place
now
because
it's
it
would
be
voluntary
and
it
would
apply
to
these
specific
properties.
So
what
I
would
like
to
do
is
get
any
comments
you
have
on
these
incentives,
while
I
review
all
these
other
pieces,
and
then
we
can,
if
we
need
to,
we
can
make
a
bunch
more
changes
to
this
as
necessary.
If
we
find
out
that,
in
fact,
yes,
we
can
bring
back
those
design
review
districts
without
any
issue.
B
F
F
E
B
C
E
C
F
D
B
The
I
guess
I
didn't
I,
didn't
have
any
specific
examples
of
buildings
in
mind
to
do
a
calculation
of
the
25
percent,
but
my
intent
with
this
was
that
at
a
minimum,
the
facade
of
the
building
would
be
kept
right
and
that
would
have
to
be
part
of
that
25.
But
if
that,
if
we
need
to
increase
that
or
reword
that,
so
it
basically
says
you're
required
to
keep
the
facade
and
a
certain
percentage
of
the
rest
of
the
building
I
mean
that's.
That
was
really
my
intent
with
this.
E
F
I
I
still
feel
like
50,
because
you're
getting
like
a
sense
of
like
the
footprint
of
the
original
structure,
but
you're.
Still,
it's
still
giving
you
enough
like
leeway
that
you
can
do
something
with
it.
I'm
kind
of
picturing
like
what
would
be
kind
of
nice
to
see
in
Winooski
and
I
think
it
it
probably
will
be
done
to
some
extent,
is
like
I
always
go
back
to
this
example.
F
D
A
F
F
B
B
B
G
G
Eric,
what's
the
math
look
like
on
like
1B
up
to
25
of
the
gross
square?
Footage
of
the
preserved
building
footprint
is
incorporated,
may
be
used
towards
that
requirement
for
private
open
space
like
how
does
that
Mass
pan
out
in
terms
of
what
you
know,
saving
a
historic
building
means
for
open
space
on
the
property.
B
Yeah,
that's
a
good
question
and
again
this
is
where
the
the
numbers
may
not
make
sense.
It
was
I
think
what
I
was
thinking
of
is
a
way
to
is
a
way
to
say
that
if
you're,
if
you're,
saving
the
building
be
and
and
potentially
resetting
the
required
building
line,
then
the
site
itself
might
have
some
other
limitations
to
it.
B
So
you
may
not
be
able
to
get
in
all
the
the
private
open
space
that's
required,
so
this
would
be
a
way
to
provide
some
relief
from
the
open
space
requirement
by
Saving
a
portion
of
this
existing
building.
So
again,
I
don't
know
if
that's
the
right
percentage,
but
it
was,
it
seemed
like
there
should
be
some
level
of
trade-off
for
what
might
happen
with
the
site
and
to
ensure
that
the
required
elements
that
that
are
in
the
form-based
code
could
still
be
met
while
still
saving
a
building.
F
G
Because,
essentially
like,
if
they
took,
let's
just
use
like
the
Mansion
Street
property
right
in
order
to
redevelop
that
they
have
to
put
buildings
up
against
both
sides
of
it
to
fill
up
the
rbl
so
that
we
had
a
building
that
Mass
on
the
property
in
in
a
way
that
complies
with
the
form-based
code.
So
to
me,
it
makes
more
sense
to
give
them
relief
off
of
that
massing
than
it
does
to
make
them
Mass
it
up
like
that,
and
then
decrease
the
open
space
in
the
site.
G
B
G
B
E
F
E
F
A
C
A
A
A
D
B
A
E
D
F
F
C
F
I
guess
you
know,
this
is
kind
of
this
is
kind
of
where,
like
in
municipalities,
I,
have
a
design
review
board.
You
can
kind
of
like
rank
that,
where
you
can
say
like
hey,
this
is
a
highly
visible
building.
That's
very
iconic
for
the
City
versus
like.
Oh,
this
is
a
well-preserved
structure,
but
does
it
really
have
the
same
level
of
importance
yeah,
whereas
we're
kind
of
having
to
navigate
that
here.
D
E
Now
and
I
also
again
I
just
want
to
say
you
know:
I've
been
bugging
city
council
about
this
stuff
for
probably
five
or
six
years
now
and
I
feel
like
right
now,
this
incentive
stuff
that
that
may
be
all
we're
gonna
get
for
the
day.
So
we
can
keep
working
on
the
rest
of
it,
but
I
really
want
to
get
this
stuff
through
I.
Think
it's
okay,
so
yep.
B
A
B
A
A
A
B
A
B
Well,
how
about
this?
Why
don't
we
go
through
the
rest
of
this
and
then
stop
at
parking?
So
then
we
really
just
have
the
section
4
4
and
section
412
for
our
next
meeting.
Okay,
so
I
think
we
can
get
through
the
rest
of
this
fairly
quick
because,
like
I
said
not
much
of
it
has
changed
right
if,
at
all
from
the
last
time,
you
all
have
seen
this
so
four
or
five
equal
treatment,
housing,
nothing
new!
B
Here,
that's
all
the
same
as
before
fences
and
walls
I,
don't
believe
any
of
this
is
new
from
the
last
time
you
saw
it
really.
What
I'm
basically
saying
here
is
that
so
we
exempt
fences
and
walls
from
our
regulations
as
long
as
they're
six
feet
or
less
in
height,
with
the
exception
of
properties
against
the
Gateway,
which
you
can
do
eight
feet
in
height,
which
is
all
spelled
out
here.
B
B
A
B
B
B
B
One
item
that
I
was
thinking
about
potentially
adding
is
under
non-conforming
structures
is
a
number
five
to
talk
about
change
of
use
in
non-conforming
structures.
Just
so
it's
so
there's
a
a
an
acknowledgment
that
a
structure
even
if
it's
non-conforming
may
still
change
the
use
and
how
we
would
address
the
use
change
in
a
non-conforming
structure.
We
talk
about
non-conforming
uses.
E
C
B
You
know
I
mean
we
also
have
a
lot
of
non-conforming
Performing
Lots.
We
have
a
lot
of
non-conforming
uses
a
lot
of
non-conforming
structures
and
a
lot
of
non-conforming
lots
right
now.
So
so
sometimes
it
makes
me
wonder
why
the
why
the
regulations
are
written
as
they
are,
especially
with
the
dimensional
standards.
But
that's
that's
just
that's
for
another
day.
So
anyway,.
B
B
A
B
B
A
B
C
B
B
Can
get
into
parking
all
right
and
I'll
just
say
in
advance?
I
did
just
so
you
all
know.
I
did
have
a
meeting
with
Abby
a
week
or
so
ago
to
talk
through
the
draft
parking
language.
She
provided
some
really
good,
really
good
edits
that
I've
Incorporated
and
also
a
couple
of
points
to
for
discussion
at
our
next
meeting
when
we
get
into
into
that
that
language.
So
thank.
B
B
Yeah
just
a
couple
things
for
updates,
the
Festival
of
pumpkins
is
coming
up
so
I
believe
next
weekend
they
are
going
to
be
doing
all
the
carving,
so
I
believe
they
need
some
help
with
both
carving
and
picking
potentially
so
I'm
sure.
There's
going
to
be
some
some
information
being
sent
out
from
the
city
on
on
the
volunteer
options
for
folks
and
also
the
event
itself,
but
that'll,
be
then
I
think
the
following
weekend
following
weekend
is
when
the
actual
event
will
take
place.
B
Yeah,
let's
see
I'm
trying
to
think.
Oh,
the
city
approved
their
first
retail
cannabis,
license
we're
still
waiting
on
the
state's
approval
on
that,
though,
before
we
can
issue
the
retail
license,
but
there
is
a
the
old
Lofts
Deli
165
East
Allen
Street
is
is
where
they're
looking
to
to
establish
that
use
so
once
the
state
issues
their
license
or
if
the
state
issues
their
license.
E
G
B
Will
only
be
able
to
sell,
they
will
not
be
able
to
grow
there.
Okay,
so
I,
don't
believe
the
state
allows
for
both
licenses
to
occur
on
the
same
site.
Well,
I
know
they
allow
for
multiple
license,
Types
on
the
same
site,
but
I,
don't
think
I.
Think
retail
is
the
only
one
that
they
don't
allow
another
type
of
License
to
occur,
so
the
cultivator,
the
manufacturer,
the
processor
I,
don't
think
they
can
also
have
a
retail
license
on
the
same
site.
B
I
think
the
same
person
can
have
the
same
entity
can
have
multiple
licenses,
but
they
have
to
be
in
different
locations.
Okay
and
those
are
really
the
only
two
things
that
come
to
mind
right
now.
For
me,
I
was
thinking
the
mayor
might
be
here
to
provide
some
other
updates,
but
that's
all
I
have
for
City
updates
was.
F
B
There
is
well
so
we
did
not
discuss
it
at
the
last
meeting.
I
know
there.
The
city
has
I
believe
we've
advertised
for
a
housing
incentive
director,
I
think,
is
what
the
the
position
is
called
I
have
not
seen
the
the
the
formal
job
announcement
about
it,
or
at
least
the
job
description.
So
unfortunately,
I
don't
have
a
lot
of
information
on
that
position.
Oh.
F
B
Not
yet
not
yet
I
know
they
were
working
on
finalizing
the
job
description
getting
that
out
to
for
for
hopefully
to
get
applicants,
and
so
I
guess
just
a
little
more
on
that
this
position
will
replace
our
community
and
economic
development
officer
position.
You
may
know
Heather
Carrington,
for
those
of
you
know
her.
The
position
that
she
held
will
be
for
lack
of
a
better
word
going
away
in
this.
The
housing
initiatives
director
would
take
would
basically
fill
that
role.
C
F
C
F
B
A
B
D
A
D
B
So
you
can
see
here,
mallets
Bay,
Avenue,
the
building
form
standards.
The
Orange
is
the
urban
General.
The
red
is
the
storefront,
the
urban
storefront,
the
blue
is
the
townhouse
small
apartment
and
the
yellow
is
the
detached
Frontage,
and
these
go
from
levels
of
intensity
for
more
intense,
to
least
intense
as
you
go
out
the
corridor.
So
basically,
the
request
here
is
to
extend
this
townhouse
small
apartment
further
out.
The
corridor
doesn't
say
how
far
they'd
like
it
to
go,
but
they
just
would
like
it
to
go
further
out
the
corridor.
C
A
B
G
B
So
anyway,
just
so
you
just
so
that's
out
there,
they,
they
submitted
the
request
to
me
as
part
of
the
process.
I
bring
it
to
you
all
for
consideration
and
we
can
take
this
up
at
a
future
meeting
or
say.
Thank
you
very
much.
We
are
going
to
decline
your
your
request
at
this
time.
So
anyway,
I've
brought
it
forward
to
you
all
Yes.
B
B
If
we
do
a
second
meeting,
if
we
do
go
back
to
two
meetings
a
month,
we
would
do
a
meeting
on
October
27th
and
then
our
our
November
meeting
would
be
November
10th,
and
then
we
would
obviously
we
wouldn't
have
a
second
meeting
in
November
because
it
falls
on
Thanksgiving
so
and
then
pick
up
again
in
December
I.
Think
only
one
meeting
in
December
again
so
I
don't
know.
B
Feeling
now
with
that
meeting
schedule,
but
I
think
it's
I
think
once
we
start
getting
into
the
discussions
on
parking
and
and
revisiting
some
of
these
discussions
on
historic
preservation,
I
think
having
two
meetings
a
month
is
going
to
be
more
beneficial
as
it'll
help
with
the
continuity
of
discussion.
So.
B
Just
wanted
to
put
that
out
there.
The
other
thing
we
should
probably
talk
about
as
well
is:
if
we're
going
to
try
to
do
any
in-person
meetings
or
go
to
hybrid
or
just
keep
it
remote,
because
I
believe
in
I
think
in
January
we're
no
longer
going
to
be
able
to
do
remote
only
based
on
the
legislature
or
the
guidance
they
provided
last
session.
So
that
will
be
coming
to
an
end
at
some
point.
B
There
needs
to
be
the
way
statutes.
Written
for
open
meeting
is
that
we
need
to
have
a
location
where
the
public
can
join
the
meeting
yeah,
which
is
at
City
Hall.
It's
it's
been
written
in
the
past
that
a
member
of
the
commission
needs
to
attend
that
meeting
in
person
as
well,
but
that's
I
Believe
been
changed.
B
A
F
That
most
other
groups
that
I
belong
to
that
are
having
board
meetings,
are
kind
of
doing
the
hybrid
model.
Now,
at
this
point,
I
I
do
feel
that
if
we
can
I
mean-
and
this
is
what
I
think
this
the
statute
is
dictating-
is
it's
slightly
discriminatory
if
we
just
this
is,
for
you
know,
a
dire
pandemic
situation
that
we're
doing
this,
but
if
we
just
were
doing
this,
you
know
it's
slightly
discriminatory
because
you
don't
have
access
to
a
computer
or
you
know
you
can't
participate
in
these
meetings.
B
B
A
B
C
B
D
C
B
B
Had
one
other
item-
oh
quick:
well,
maybe
not
real,
quick
but
I.
Just
wanted
to
I
I
received
an
email
from
both
Abby
and
Sarah
about
a
a
speculative
real
estate
development
out
on
East,
Allen
Street.
So
I
don't
know
if
others
have
seen
that,
but
there's
a
foreign
's
right
next
to
CCB.
It
shows
a
rendering
of
a
potential
building
on
those
sites
and
as
far
as
I
can
tell
there's
not
Dimensions
shown
with
it.
B
So
I,
don't
I,
don't
have
the
specific
details,
but
as
far
as
I
can
tell
those
building
that
the
building
that's
shown
most
likely
could
not
be
built
based
on
our
regulations.
So
if
you
see
that
don't
presume
that
what
they're
showing
is
something
that's
been
permitted,
there's
no
permits
on
the
properties.
There's
been
no
applications.
There's
nothing!
That's
been
submitted.
C
F
E
B
I
thought
it
was
been
sort
of
funny
right,
there's
been
no
discussion
or
there's
been
no
applications
or
any
any
formal
action
taken
by
the
property
owners.
So,
what's
being
shown,
is
very
speculative
and
as
I'm
looking
at
the
renderings
again
I
don't
have
Dimensions
or
any
any
specific
numbers
with
it.
What
I,
what
I've
seen
I,
don't
believe
would
meet
our
code.
What's.