►
From YouTube: Winooski Planning Commission - 7/14/2022
Description
https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.winooskivt.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_07142022-968?html%3Dtrue&sa=D&source=calendar&ust=1658340114811121&usg=AOvVaw3VbBCpjU4DRIgPT4hpf7Hv
00:00:00 Call to Order/Changes to the Agenda
00:00:06 Public Comment
00:04:42 Approve Previous Meeting Minutes
00:05:31 Article IV - General Use Regulations
01:12:55 Draft FY23 Work Plan
01:16:01 General Discussion on Future Activities
01:24:50 City Updates
01:27:08 Other Business
Town Meeting TV is a free speech forum and the ideas expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of the Town Meeting TV trustees and staff. If you have a different perspective to share, we invite you to join the conversation! Create your own program or cover a community meeting or event. Contact maketv@cctv.org or call 862-3966.
Thank you for tuning into Town Meeting TV! Please subscribe to our YouTube channel and visit our website for more videos and information about how we open the doors to local government using community media. www.Ch17.TV
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.
B
C
C
So
I
just
wanted
to
get
a
quick
public
comment
in
on
the
language,
if
that's
okay,
sure
go
ahead,
so
I'm
Nate
dejes
a
long
time
when
you
ski
property
owner
past
resident,
our
family
business,
is
located
in
Winooski
I
noticed
there
was
some
new
language
proposed
for
historic
and
cultural
resources,
which
I
think
makes
a
lot
of
sense.
I
think
there's
some
some
work
that
should
be
done
in
that
regard.
C
It
relates
to
the
details
of
how
how
the
process
would
integrate
with
the
current
State
act,
250
process
and
just
how
a
developer
would
typically
navigate
either
altering
or
raising
an
existing
building
that
could
be
on
some
level
of
a
historic
registry,
so
I'd
be
happy
to
give
input
at
a
later
date.
If
there's
a
time
that
makes
sense,
I
didn't
want
to
dive
into
this
meeting
and
and
spend
any
more
time
on
it
than
I
needed
to.
C
C
A
I
I
susp
I'm,
not
sure,
what's
gonna
happen
tonight,
if
we're
gonna
I
suspect
we'll
probably
revisit
this,
maybe
the
next
meeting,
but
who
knows
it?
May
we
may
not
to
we
may
move
this
forward.
I,
don't
know
where
it
stands
with
the
rest
of
the
commission.
So
if
you
could
send
maybe
send
a
letter
in-
or
maybe
you
know
call
me
or
Eric
tomorrow
to
find
out
where
it
stands,
that'd
be
fine.
Yeah.
C
B
So
Leslie
fry
has
joined
us
Leslie
I
know
you
signed
up
to
speak
under
on
the
form
and
you
had
specific
comments
on
Section
4-4.
So
right
now
we're
just
doing
public
comments.
So
I
don't
know
if
you
wanted
to
wait
until
we
get
to
that
item
on
the
agenda
or
not
but
you're
free
to
unmute
yourself.
If
you'd
like
at
this
point
to
to
provide
any
information.
D
A
D
A
E
A
B
That's
correct,
so
we've
we're
picking
up
again
with
article
four.
We
had
a
brief
introduction
to
this
back
I
believe
in
September
or
October
of
last
year,
as
we
were
looking
at
some
possible
amendments
that
would
help
support
historic
resource
protection,
but
also
article
four
is
where
we
get
into
our
parking
regulations
and
sign
regulations
and
a
lot
of
the
other,
just
general
use
regulations.
B
So
there
were
some
amendments
that
I
was
proposing
to
to
be
reviewed,
so
we
were,
we
shifted
our
Focus
to
the
priority
housing
issues
which
we
just
wrapped
up
at
our
last
meeting,
and
so
now
we're
bringing
back
article
four
to
continue
this
discussion.
So
some
of
this
may
be
slightly
slightly
a
re,
not
sure
what
the
word
is
I'm
trying
to
say
here,
but
you
may
remember
some
of
this,
but
it
also
might
be
new
because
it's
been
a
while,
since
we
last
looked
at
it.
B
B
While
others
are
a
little
bit
more
detailed
and
obviously
like
in
in
the
example
of
section
4.4
we're
getting
into
some
new
language
altogether
for
historic
resource
protection.
So
is
there
any
any
questions
about
what
we're
thinking
about
or
talking
about
for
tonight
before
we
start
into
things
and
I?
Guess
what
I
would
like
to
say
before
we
get
into
this
is
there's
a
couple
other
items
on
the
agenda
that
I
want
to
make
sure
we
have
time
for
so
I.
B
B
So
that
we
can
all
be
looking
at
the
same
stuff,
okay,
so
like
as
I
mentioned,
Article
4
is
our
general
use
regulations,
so
there's
I
think
16
different
sections
here.
Some
like
I
mentioned
there's
some
amendments
proposed,
and
some
and
and
not
much
proposed
in
others,
as
the
language
is
fairly
fairly
good
right
now.
So
first
section
is
for
one
on
abandoned
stabilization
and
Demolition
and
I'm
proposing
some
changes
here
under
item
C.
B
In
response
to
some
comments
that
have
come
in
from
the
state
from
the
division
of
historic
preservation,
specifically
the
language,
that's
being
stricken,
as
we've
heard
in
the
past,
the
the
state
division
of
historic
preservation
no
longer
wants
to
be
involved
or
has
any
intention
of
being
involved
with
historic
resource
protection
at
a
local
level.
As
far
as
zoning
is
concerned,
so
they
don't
want
to
be
involved
in
that
component
of
it.
So
they've
asked
us
to
remove
this
language
and,
oh
sorry,
go
ahead.
Joe.
F
B
Think
it's
I
think
that
was
part
of
it,
but
also
from
what
I've
heard
lately
they
they
don't
have
the
ability
to-
or
they
I
guess
aren't
they
don't
want
to
get
involved
in
local
zoning
discussions
about
historic
resources.
They
they
really
want
to.
Have
the
the
municipalities
address
those
concerns
on
their
own
and
not
be
the
Arbiter
of
those
those
issues
as
they?
They
really
have
no
authority
to
enforce
local
zoning
so
right,
because
this
is
part
of
our
zoning
regulations.
That's
why
they've
asked
us
to
remove,
remove.
D
B
Language,
so
really
what
I'm
proposing
here
is
to
kind
of
shift
this
to
say,
because
it's
specifically
related
to
demolition
that
it
would.
We
would
look
to
this
section
4.4
for
the
the
requirements
on
demolition
of
of
properties
or
properties
that
are
structures
that
are
listed
either
on
the
national
state
registers
or
the
cultural
resources,
cultural
and
historic
resources,
map
of
the
master
plan.
And
then,
if
we
had
a
local
registry
which
we
currently
do
not.
B
B
G
B
Good
question:
it
could
be
that
the
two
so
right
now
the
cultural
and
historic
resources
map
only
shows
the
state
and
National
register
properties,
so
it
doesn't
get
into
and
it
shows
I
believe
the
the
national
registered
districts.
It
doesn't
show
any
any
specific
local
resources
and
it
could
be
that
so
in
order
to
qualify
for
the
the
national
register
and
the
state
Register,
it
has
to
meet
the
federal
standards.
So
it
could
be
that
we're
also
designating
local
resources.
B
That
may
not
necessarily
meet
the
strict
standards
of
the
federal
requirements,
but
do
have
a
significance
to
the
city
of
Winooski
and
winooski's
history
that
we
that
we
may
want
to
identify
independently
from
those
other
registries.
So
it's
really
I
think
it's
really
more
of
a
way
to
identify
properties
that
have
local
significance,
specifically.
H
B
I
B
Yep
I
think
that's
right
and
I
think
it
also
gives
the
the
community
a
better
better
opportunity
to
to
ensure
that
the
information
is
more
accurate
and
up
to
date,
as
we've
discussed
in
the
past,
the
the
state
registry
anyway
and
I
believe
the
National
Registry
for
for
Winooski
was
last
updated
in
the
70s.
So
some
of
that
information
is
pretty
far
out
of
date,
and
you
know
a
lot
of
buildings
have
met
the
minimum
thresholds
forward
listing
since
then.
B
F
Yeah
and
to
Echo
your
statement
there
Eric
what
you
just
said:
there's
a
lot
of
structures
as
we
know
that
are
on,
like
the
state,
historic
registry
that
no
longer
exist
anymore,
and
because
that
was
done
40
years
ago,
a
lot
of
buildings.
It
probably
should
have
been
on
there
that
were
never
included
in
what
was
a
pretty
preliminary
pioneering
document
in
the
first
place.
A
A
B
Looks
like
she
is
staying
muted
at
this
point,
so
okay,
next
section
is
on
access
and
circulation
again,
not
much
new
here,
not
much
changing
here.
Anyway.
Sorry
for
the
quick
scrolling
just
hear
some
clarification
on
looking
to
the
specific
standards
identified
by
the
Department
of
Public
Works
and
removing
the
citation
to
the
exact
section,
because
I
don't
think
that
actually
exists
so
really
just
clarifying
that
Public
Works
will
have
the
standards
in
whatever
form
that
they
take
the
next
section
here
number
three.
B
This
is
actually
I'm
proposing
that
this
be
moved
so
keeping
the
language
as
it
is
just
moving
it
from
this
section
to
the
end
of
this.
This
the
end
of
this
part,
so
this
language
will
remain
just
not
in
this
location
again
here,
just
a
reference
to
Public
Work
standards
and
getting
rid
of
this
specific
citation,
adding
some
some
titles
in
with
the
figures
just
for
clarification,.
B
B
If
we
had
one
and
then
also
if
there's
a
structure
or
property,
that's
in
a
low
State,
national
or
Local
District
that
may
not
be
individually
listed.
So
this
this
new
section
would
apply
to
those
those
specific
properties
and
I
should
also
mention
before
we
get
too
far
into
this
just
for
full
disclosure.
Last
week,
I
met
with
Sarah
and
Joe
to
talk
about
some
of
this
language,
just
to
make
sure
that
I
wasn't
missing
anything
or
kind
of
misrepresenting
anything
so
I
have.
B
F
B
B
Have
this
apply
to
all
of
the
zoning
districts
where
there's
basically
for
the
entire
city?
So
if
there's
a
if
there's
a
property
or
a
structure
or
something
that's
included
in
any
of
these
locations,
I
wanted
these
standards
to
apply
or
that's
that's.
The
intent
here
is
that
the
standards
would
apply
once
we
get
into
it
here.
B
H
D
B
E
Eric,
how
many
do
you
just
just
as
a
ballpark?
Do
you
know
how
many
residential
so
I
see
under
the
old
language
it
didn't
apply
for
residential
use
of
three
or
fewer
units
do
do
we
know
how
many
buildings
there
are
that
are
it's
a
residential
use
of
three
or
fewer
units
that
is
on
one
of
these
lists.
F
I,
don't
think
I
could
give
anything
off
the
top,
and
actually
this
is
partly
why
I
think
Eric
is
potentially
referencing
forthcoming
documents.
Is
that
there's
a
lot
of
work
that
hasn't
been
done
on
this
just
I
would
say:
I,
don't
think
there
are
I,
mean
I.
Think
the
city
has
an
idea
of
how
many
structures
were
say,
built
pre-1900,
but
I,
don't
think
we
have
any
real
gauge
of
like
we
have
the
work
Brita
did
for
the
Gateway
corridors
and
we
have
whatever
the
state
documents
are.
F
But
beyond
that,
there's
not
much,
whereas
if
you
go
with
like
the
village
of
Essex,
it
seems
like
looking
over
their
documents
like
every
block
of
the
village
of
Essex,
like
almost
every
building
is
documented,
which
they
have
very
I.
Don't
know
what
transpired
there
that
they
got
that
level
of
scrutiny,
but
Winooski
doesn't
have
anything
like
that.
Okay,
what.
F
No
I
mean
it's
yeah
for
what
is
documented
right.
It's
60
structures,
32
in
Gateway,
Corridor,
originally
I
think
they
were
I,
think
there's
only
29
now,
yeah
yeah
and
I
think
that
doesn't
include
like
St
Stephen's
church,
the
textile
mills
and
the
Winooski
blog.
Those
might
be
on
National
Historic
registers,
which
were
not
including
and
I
thought.
A
A
I
A
B
I
A
F
A
B
I
think
what
she
was
referencing
was
that
they
have
the
potential
to
be
a
district,
but
they're
not
formally
designated
districts,
gotcha
okay,
so
this
is
basically
shifting
where
this
this
regulation
would
apply
where
this
section
would
be
applicable
and
these
items
some
of
them
I'm
I-
am
proposing
to
be
deleted,
and
some
of
these
are
just
moving
to
a
different
section.
So
you'll
see
these
here
again
later,
the
the
specific
yeah,
the
specific
actions.
B
Basically,
they
would
need
to
document
who
was
there
have
minutes
in
essence,
they're
holding
a
public
meeting
or
what
we're
calling
a
community
meeting
on
the
proposed
Demolition
and
include
that
information.
The
information
on
the
meeting,
as
well
as
some
other
documentation
as
part
of
an
application
for
Demolition
and
then,
if
the
property
is
listed
on
the
state
or
national
register,
they
would
need
to
go
through
the
department
of
historic
preservation
to
to
get
it.
Delisted
and
I
still
need
to
follow
up
with
vdhp.
B
On
some
of
this
to
see
where
they
stand,
so
it
would
need
to
be
delisted
before
a
demolition
permit
could
be
issued.
And
then,
if
it's
on
a
local
register
or
only
on
the
cultural
resource,
culture
and
sort
resource
map,
then
it
would
need
to
go
through
city
council
for
approval
to
to
d-list
or
to
to
remove
it
from
that
that
local
registry,
if
before
a
demolition
permit,
would
be
issued.
B
A
Yep
so
since
we're
just
talking
about
Saint
Stevens
and
it's
not
on
a
state
or
national
register,
it
looks
like
is
that
on
the
cultural
map
or
is
there
some
provision?
And
maybe
we
need
some
provision
not
just
for
Saint
Stevens,
use
that
anything
as
an
example,
but
for
properties
it
may
not
be
listed,
but
maybe
have
historic
value
and
I.
Don't
know
how
we,
how
we
do
that.
B
Yeah
I
think
that's
that's
kind
of
where
the
intent
of
the
the
local
registry,
or
the
local
designation
would
be
is
so
that
those
properties
that
are
specific
and
significant
to
the
city
would
be
able
to
be
recognized
as
well.
I,
don't
know
what
the
what
a
process
looks
like
for
getting
there.
Yet,
though,.
A
B
So
that
is
something
I
do
intend
to
follow
up
on,
but
right
now
that
I,
don't
know
kind
of
I,
don't
know
what
that
process
looks
like
one
of
the
things
I
will
say
about
the
this
community
meeting.
This
is
similar
to
language
that
is
included
in
South
Burlington's
code,
as
it
relates
to
master
planning
of
communities.
They
do
require
that,
if
there's
an
alteration
or
a
change
to
them
to
a
master
plan
for
an
area
of
development
that
the
developer
holds
a
public
meeting
basically
to
take
input
on
the
change.
B
A
So
with
this
right
now,
the
way
this
our
regulations
are,
there's
no
teeth
in
that,
so
someone
could
have
a
public
hearing.
You
could
have
a
hundred
and
or
200
people
come
out
everyone
against
what
they
plan
to
do,
but
there's
nothing
to
stop
them
from
doing
it
right
and
so
I'm,
assuming
that
that
we
have
to
develop
language
so
that
the
public
hearing
will
have
some
teeth
of
some
kind.
I
don't
know.
B
I
think
the
idea
here
is
that,
as
part
of
this
process,
there
needs
to
be
a
request
to
de-list
the
property
from
the
state
if
it
is
a
state
or
national
register
building
and
the
the
comments
and
information
from
that
public
meeting
would
go
along
to
the
state,
and
that
would
be
as
part
of
the
record
for
the
state
to
review.
So
there
would
be
some
potential
who
I
mean.
B
Obviously
the
outcome
of
that
would
be
anybody's
guess,
but
at
least
there's
an
additional
layer
of
public
comment
that
for
a
meeting
that
happened
in
the
in
the
community
rather
than
the
process,
as
it
is
right
now,
where
it's
just
a
meeting
at
the
state
where
they,
the
notifications,
are,
are
not
as
widespread
and
are
a
little
more
limited.
So.
B
A
G
A
G
A
I
This
is
what
I
think
we're
trying
to
create
so
the
right
now
we
don't
have
a
local
register
or
a
ranking.
We've
talked
about
doing
a
ranking,
so
let's
assume
we've
got
one
together.
So
let's
see
so
right
now
this.
If,
if
a
building
is
on
the
historic
preservation
list
for
the
state
I'm
going
back
to
the
mansion
house
story,
they
don't
they
don't
have
any.
You
know
they
can
make
their
designation,
but
the
city
itself
didn't
have
any
designation.
To
add
to
in
that
situation.
Is
that
right
so.
I
B
F
And
just
just
to
add
to
that
point:
I
once
attended
a
a
lecture
by
Devin
Coleman,
who
is
the
state
architectural
historian
currently
and
one
of
the
takeaways
was
that
he
said
he
said
you
know
the
dhp
relies
on
people
in
the
town
to
tell
them
what's
important.
He
said
because
he
said
we
don't
know
every
you
know:
251
Municipal
in
the
state
Vermont
all
of
the
resources
that
could
be
contained
there.
So.
F
A
A
I
B
I
B
B
We
can
do
right
now
through
some
sort
of
local
Land
Development
regulation,
where
there's
at
least
I,
don't
want
to
say
it's
a
roadblock,
but
at
least
it's.
It
requires
an
additional
look
at
some
of
the
some
of
the
properties
and
projects
before
just
going
forward
and
and
moving
on
to
to
demolition
or
partial
demolition
or
whatever
the
case
might
be.
As
was
noted,
it's
not
to
say
that
these
properties
won't
get
demolished,
but
at
least
it'll
it'll
provide
a
a
local,
a
local
Avenue
for
input
to
be
to
be
provided.
F
We
can
delist
it,
but
then,
like
say
like
up
on
the
the
hogaboom
parcel
on
like
upper
Main
Street,
you
could
say:
oh
that's
a
really
outstanding
example
of
this
architectural
style,
and
it's
really,
you
know
intact
and
has
all
of
its
Integrity.
But
is
it
really
that
important
of
a
building
like?
Is
that
something
that
needs
to
be
saved?
I
Yeah
and
and
I
agree,
Mike
I
mean
it
is
we're
sort
of
putting
the
horse
before
the
cart
before
the
horse
a
little
bit
but
I
think
what
Eric
was
trying
to
explain
is.
If
we
get
some
of
this
in
now,
it's
it's
gonna
help
and
then
we
can
really
work
towards
the
ranking
and
what
buildings
we
actually
are
talking
about
and
have
a
you
know,
and
that
report
that
that
Brenna
did.
He
has
a
great
report.
I
mean
it's
just
packed
and
but
it's
a
lot
to
pick
apart.
B
E
Then,
if
it's
on
the
local
list,
you
have
to
apply
to
the
city
council
to
get
it
delisted
and
demolished
it
kind
of
I
guess
the
way
I
read
this
right
now
is
like.
If
it
were
on
both
lists,
then
would
you
need
to
go
through
both
or
would
you
need
to
just
go
through
the
state?
It
kind
of
reads
to
me
like
it
would
just
be
the
state,
but
I
don't
know
if
that's
the
intent.
B
F
Right,
wouldn't
the
idea
be
that
a
project
in
question
would
like
start
at
the
local
level
like
you'd,
get
your
you
get
your
input
and
then
whatever
commentary
or
lack
thereof,
would
go
to
the
state
like
when
they
make.
You
know,
because
they
have
to
have
an
advisory
Council
hearing
on
whether
to
approve
or
de-list
a
building.
E
But
that's
still
different
than
I
think
from
actually
needing
formal
approval,
from
both
the
city,
council
and
and
the
state.
If
it's
on
both
lists
and
I,
don't
I'm
not
saying
I
have
a
position
now
on
what
whether
I
would
want
that
I
think,
but
I
just
I
think
we
need
to
clarify
what
what
the
process
actually
would
would
be
and.
F
B
I
think
that
was
under
the
review
of
of
projects
that
we're
not
looking
at
demolition,
so
I
think
for
for
demolition
yeah.
We
did
have
a
conversation
about
that,
but
I
think
and
I
think
it
was
kind
of
an
unknown
at
that
point
where,
where
it
would
be
best
to
go
so
but
I
guess
so
back
to
my
question.
So
yes,
I
I,
don't
disagree
with
you
Joe
on
that,
but
in
general
does
this
seem
like
a
like
a
process
that
would
work
or
that
you're
all
comfortable
with
obviously
not
the
way.
I
E
F
B
B
This
is
what
needs
to
be
followed,
obviously,
demolition,
being
one
movement
of
the
building,
new
construction,
exterior
remodeling,
and
then
these
others
I
didn't
think
these
were
really
necessary.
Quite
frankly,
and
change
of
color
material
lighting,
existing
walls
and
fences,
I,
didn't
I,
I,
didn't
think
those
were
appropriate
to
keep
in
and
I
wasn't
sure
about
signage
I
know,
signage
is
one
of
those
things
where
we
can
have.
Very
science
can
be,
can
be
really
important
to
folks
as
far
as
their
historic
quality
and
character
and
sometimes
they're
considered
art,
sometimes
they're.
F
A
A
A
F
B
I
F
B
B
I
So
on
the
number
two
movement
of
buildings,
I
wonder
if
we
should
Define
that,
in
other
words,
are
we
talking
about
moving
a
building
within
a
plot?
Are
we
talking
about
lifting
a
building
up,
for
example,
the
the
one
across
the
river
over
on
the
corner
in
Burlington
by
the
chase?
Mill
I,
don't
know
if
anyone
noticed
that
they
took
that
building
and
they
lifted
up
put
another
story
underneath
it
just
that.
I
F
Parents,
it's
just
to
like,
while
you're
saying
that
Sarah
I
think
that
kind
of
the
spirit
of
how
we're
trying
to
craft
this
is
so
that
it
will
be
flexible
enough
so
that
it
will
like
reflect
how
kind
of
dynamic
and
changing
Winooski
is
yeah,
like
which
we
know
but
like.
We
also
know
that
a
lot
of
the
standards
that
are
approved
elsewhere
can
be
very
restrictive,
and
that's
not
really
what
we're
looking
for.
But
we
are
looking
for
something.
F
B
G
I
B
B
Yeah,
those
are
the
specific
standards,
then
this
is
just
a
line
on
General
standards
to
to
avoid
undue
adverse
impacts,
and
then
we
get
into
the
documentation,
that's
needed
for
this,
for
specific
drawings
and
information
and
and
site
sorry
photos
and
other
site
planning
information.
And
then,
let's
see
so,
this
section
is
getting
into
a
challenge
of
the
applicability.
B
If
you
wanted
to
challenge
the
validity
of
the
listing,
it
also
includes
language
that
basically
says
the
city
can
say
thank
you
for
this
report,
but
we
want
to
have
a
third
party
verify
the
the
information
in
it
as
well,
so
that
that
is
included
in
case
there's
some
inconsistency,
the
folks
here
at
the
city.
We
are
not
experts
on
this,
so
having
the
ability
to
forward
this
on
to
someone
else.
F
Eric
I
think
we
had
discussed
this
too.
Was
that,
because
that
could
create
like
an
uneven
playing
field
where,
like
you,
have
a
developer,
say
higher
a
consultant
to
basically
prove
why
it
should
not
be
considered
historic,
but
then,
like
you
know,
you
have
nobody
on
the
city
end.
Who
can
say
you
know?
Yes,
this
is
in
fact
who
you
know
is
on
the
same
credentials
and
I
think
we
had
actually
discussed
about
like?
Is
it
possible,
like
Winooski?
Could
pay
like
somebody
in
a
similar
office
in
a
different
municipality?
B
Right,
yeah,
that's
I,
wasn't
exactly
sure
how
to
to
get
that
in
here,
and
that
was
one
of
the
questions
that
I
have
outstanding
still
is
you
know
kind
of
what
what's
the
threshold
for
doing
this?
You
know
at
what
point
is
first
of
all
at
what
point
is
the
the
validity
of
this
report
or
study
questions
to
where
we
want
to
have
that
additional
review,
so
I
still
need
to
kind
of
work.
B
Some
of
that
out
to
see
who
might
be
somebody
that
would
review
the
report
whether
or
not
maybe
the
state
would
look
at
something
like
that
or
not,
but
I
don't
know
if
they
would
get
into
even
that
level
of
detail.
So
that's
something
I
want
to
find
out
from
them
also,
but
yeah.
We
did
talk
about
how
how
or
who
we
could
use
to
do
that
review
and
I'm.
Sorry
I
wanted
to
make
sure
I
pointed
something
out
and
now
I
can't
find
where
it's
in
this
draft
language.
B
Let's
see
any
any
of
these
standards
that
are
being
met
or
any
projects
that
are
proposing
an
alteration
that
would
go
through,
and
actually
maybe
it's
in
here.
Well
anything,
that's
any
project
that
is
proposing
something
other
than
demolition
to
one
of
these
properties,
as
is
listed
here.
This
would
all
require
review
by
the
development
review
board.
B
Yeah
I,
don't
remember
if
I
mentioned
that
or
if
it
was
clear
in
here,
but
all
these
standards
would
have
to
go
through
the
drb
through
a
public
meeting
to
be
reviewed
in
order
to
have
some
dialogue
and
some
feedback
on
what
the
changes
look
like.
So
that
would
not
be
some
sort
of
staff
directive
that
would
be
done
by
the
development
report.
F
B
B
That
is
a
good
question.
That
I
think
is
something
that
is
I
still
need
to
figure
out.
Quite
frankly,
and
now
I
lost
my
place.
Oh
there
we
go
okay,
yeah
that
I
wasn't
entirely
sure
on
that
part
either.
So
it
may
be
that
the
whole
process
needs
to
be
goes
through
some
other
review,
so
that
I
still
need
to
think
about
that
a
little
bit
too.
All
right
and.
E
B
E
A
That's
okay,
I
read
it
I
read
it
that
it's
a
challenge
to
a
determination
made
by
the
city
or
the
state
or
whoever
that
it's
not
that
it
not
be
delisted.
You
know,
I
mean
that's
the
way.
I
read
it.
It's
it's
challenging.
It
is
a
decision
that
was
made
by
the
city
about
not
delisting
it,
as
opposed
to
challenging
its
listing
on
the
register.
A
E
B
That's
that's
not
the
way
that
I
intended
it
Mike
the
way
that
you
just
described
it
but
I
think
Brendan.
Your
point
is
well
taken
that
you
know.
What's
the
difference
here
between
a
request
to
de-list
and
because
the
challenging
of
the
applicability
is
really
also
without
going
through
the
formal
process
of
de-listing
a
way
to,
in
essence,
say
the
building
is
no
longer
historic
and
these
these
regulations
shouldn't
apply.
So
there
may
be
a
way
that
I
can
wrap
these
two
together
and
kind
of
link
them
back
together.
So
yeah
that.
A
B
E
D
B
B
B
B
So
they
could
incorporate
that
facade
or
a
part
of
that
building
into
a
new
structure
and
wouldn't
necessarily
need
to
wouldn't
necessarily
need
to
use
the
entire
building,
but
they
could
use
part
of
the
building
as
well
to
just
give
that
nod
back
to
back
to
the
historic
nature
of
it.
But
it
would
also
allow
the
developer
to
build
on
the
lot
with
new
construction
new
techniques
and
still
keep
some
of
that
historic
fabric
there.
So.
F
Yeah,
to
dovetail
I
mean
this
was
really
Sarah's
idea.
I
should
give
credit
words
to,
and
so
like
I
think,
maybe
also,
for
instance
like
if
you
have
a
structure,
you
know
with
a
PUD
involved
or
something
like
that.
Maybe
like
a
bonus
unit,
you
know
if
you've
kept
a
state
historic
register,
building
right,
something.
I
So
I
also
wanted
to
going
back
to
that.
I
was
going
to
make
this
comment
sort
of
towards
the
end,
but
it
fits
in
perfectly
so
going
back
into
the
intent,
which
is
the
very
top
of
4.4
I,
wonder
how
people
would
feel
about
adding
a
line.
Something
like
the
city
encourages
creative
repurposed
uses
for
its
older
structures
throughout
the
city.
E
I
really
I
mean
I
really
like
it
I
know.
Sometimes
we
have
conversations
here
about
like
like
these
documents
should
really
be
setting
out
rules,
and
if
it's
not
setting
out
sort
of
something
objective,
does
it
should
be
in
there,
but
I
I,
really
like
that
Sarah
I
think
it's
like
I
think
it's
totally
consistent
with
like
the
master
plan
and
our
values
and
what
we're
trying
to
do
so
more.
F
G
E
B
J
Both
kids
are
being
put
down
right
now
by
not
me,
but
yeah
no
I
feel
really
good
about
Sarah
and
Joe
sitting
down
with
Eric.
This
is
like
their
topic.
You
know
if
they're
feeling
good
about
it.
That
makes
me
feel
good
about
it.
I
liked
the
audition
Sarah
just
said
about
that
language.
Encouraging
adaptive,
reuse,
I,
think
that
sounds
great,
so
yeah
happy
to
hand
over
the
stage
to
our
public.
D
D
1969-2005-
and
so
forgive
me
if
I'm
telling
you
stuff
that
you
already
know
but
I
just
want
to
to
make
a
pitch
here
about
Saint
Stevens,
because
I
only
learned
about
the
in
fact,
I
don't
even
know
if
it's
a
deed
that
can't
be
revoked
at
at
this
point.
But
you
know
that
about
its
Demolition
and
in
Dan's
book
and
if
you
don't
know,
Dan
Higgins
he's
like
at
one
point.
D
He
was
named
photographer
Laureate
of
Winooski
and
he's
been
documenting
the
history
of
Winooski
for
many
years,
and
the
main
thrust
is
let's
so
many
big
changes
have
happened
due
to
the
changing
tide
in
fashion
of
let's
say
at
one
point:
all
of
the
East:
no,
the
west
side
of
Main
Street
was
going
to
be
torn
down,
plus
the
Mills
plus,
even
maybe
the
Winooski
block.
And
then
oh
the
tide
changed
and
then
historic
preservation
was
in
Vogue
and
and
then
in
the
80s.
D
We
had
the
Champlain
Mills
full
of
shops
and
it
was
quite
thriving
until
then
you
know
the
rotary
blah
blah
blah,
so
I
I,
just
I'm
just
worried
as
a
person.
Who's
lived
in
Winooski
since
the
early
70s,
first
as
a
renter,
and
then
for
the
last
31
years
as
a
homeowner
and
watching
how
things
change
and
knowing
this
history
that
an
incredibly
like
the
Saint
Stephen's
church
is
truly
unique.
D
You
know
what
what
do
we
become
and
and
the
state
of
Vermont
I
forget
how
many
years
ago
you
know
Commerce,
isn't
everything
so
Billboards
were
banned.
This
now
makes
Vermont
a
unique
place
to
visit.
We
don't
have
that
commercialization,
and
you
know
that
was
I'm
sure
many
business
people
were
horrified
about
that
and
I
just
really
I,
don't
know
if
there's
anything
that
can
be
done
about
Saint
Stevens
but
I'm,
just
I
just
think
it
would
be
a
crime
to
take
that
building
down
to
me,
I'm
a
sculptor
to
me.
D
It's
like
a
huge
amazing
sculptor
sculpture
with
the
stone
work
and
everything,
and
that
just
now,
when
you're
talking
about
repurposing
historic
buildings
and
so
on,
what
little
I
know
about
the
case
is
that
parishioners
approve
it
and
don't
want
to
see
it
being
used
for
any
profane
use,
but
I
think
there
are
plenty
of
opportunities
for
Community
welfare
that
would
not
be
considered
profane
and
that's
pretty
much.
What
I
have
to
say
and
thank
you
for
listening
thanks.
G
A
B
I
was
going
to
say,
I
think
that's
a
good
place
for
us
to
to
stop
right
now,
with
this
review,
the
rest
of
the
section
and
I
I
should
I
should
have
mentioned
at
the
top
I
didn't
give
you
the
entirety
of
section
or
sorry
of
article
four
I
gave
you
sections
4.1
through
411
on
purpose.
We
pick
up
with
Section.
B
412
is
our
parking
section,
so
in
the
last
three
sections
of
four
of
article
four
are
I,
think
it'll
be
pretty
heady,
so
I
just
wanted
to
get
try
to
get
through
these
first
11
sections.
With
this
one
section,
four,
four
being
the
the
biggest
one,
probably
right
now
so
I
think
this
is
a
good
place
to
stop
on
this
discussion.
We
can
pick
up
at
our
next
meeting
with
the
rest
of
of
these
changes
and
I.
B
A
B
G
B
Me
stop
my
share
quick,
so
I
didn't
want
to
spend
a
lot
of
time
on
this
I
did
send
out
a
draft
work
plan
with
the
agenda,
but
I
also
did
send
out
the
the
policy
and
priority
strategies
that
Council
went
through
and
voted
on.
Just
to
give
you
guys
a
sense
of
what
council
has
identified
and
ranked
and
kind
of
what
the
draft
looks
like
so
far.
It's
a
very
loose
draft
at
this
point
that
tries
to
incorporate
to
some
extent
or
another.
B
The
activities
that
were
prioritized
by
Council
that
are
are
relevant
to
planning
with
all
that
said,
the
mayor
is
organizing
a
meeting
in
August,
August
15th
I
think
is
what
you
sent
out:
yeah
August
15th
with
the
chairs
of
the
various
commissions
and
staff
Liaisons
to
to
have
a
discussion
about
work
plans
in
general
across
all
the
commissions
to
try
to
better
coordinate
all
of
our
work.
So
I
will
have
more
information
on
on
what
the
the
planning
commission's
work
program
looks
like
after
that
meeting.
B
So
I
didn't
want
to
spend
too
much
time
on
it
tonight,
because
it's
potentially
going
to
change
and
just
didn't
want
to
thought
it
was
was
best
to
at
least
give
you
a
sense
of
a
draft.
It's
pretty
similar
to
the
last
several
years
of
work
plan
items
with
a
few
things
coming
on
and
off,
but
then
also
give
you
the
the
policy
priority
strategies.
B
B
So
if
a
recommended
actually
I
will
give
you
an
example
here
so,
for
example,
the
land
use
code
incentives
had
five
stars
here,
five
votes,
but
it
was
in
the
recommended,
so
it
moved
to
the
top
of
the
recommended.
It
didn't
move
to
the
top
of
this
whole
list,
because
it's
still
just
in
the
recommended
category
and
not
in
the
must
do
so.
That's
you'll
see
that
they're
all
kind
of
regrouped
based
on
their
priority
category,
so
the
must-dos
are
all
ranked
appropriately
the
recommended
or
all
ranked
appropriately
as
well.
B
A
B
Yeah,
so
this
I
just
wanted
to
put
this
on
the
agenda
to
talk
about
kind
of
as
we
move
forward
into
the
summer
and
how
often
we
want
to
meet
over
the
next
couple
of
months
also
just
to
get
any
thoughts
from
any
of
you
all.
As
we
start
in
on
a
new,
a
new
fiscal
year
and
kind
of
a
new
year
of
planning
work
for
the
for
the
commission.
So.
A
I
G
A
So
so,
technically
we
we
should
be
electing
those
three
positions.
So
I
don't
know
if
people
want
to
do
that
tonight
or
think
about
it
for
the
next
meeting
and
then
and
then
the
second
thing
is
in
terms
of
meetings,
Eric
and
I
talked
and
and
we're
thinking,
maybe
not
doing
another
meeting
in
July
and
doing
the
August
meeting
at
the
end
of
August.
So
we
have
a
bit
of
a
break.
G
B
B
K
B
G
A
I
J
B
Like
I
think
I
would
recommend
we
wait
until
the
next
meeting
to
do
that,
one,
since
it
wasn't
included
on
this
agenda
and
also
I,
believe
we
will
have
a
a
seventh
member
at
that
meeting.
Well,
I
guess
we'll
have
our
second
alternate,
who
is
the
potential
candidate,
is
on
the
meeting
tonight?
Just
so,
you
all
know:
okay.
B
That
was
the
other
thing.
I
was
going
to
bring
up.
That
folks
are,
are
so
right
now
we're
doing
only
remote
and
so
I
didn't
know.
If
folks
wanted
to,
we
could
go
to
a
hybrid
version
so
that
if
people
wanted
to
come
to
City
Hall,
they
could
or
we
could
stay
fully
remote
or
do
have
all
of
you
come
in
person
and
then
still
do
some
sort
of
hybrid
for
folks
that
didn't
want
to
Republic
that
wanted
to
tune
in
remotely.
K
B
E
E
Yeah
I
don't
know
I
I
do
really
appreciate
the
convenience
of
zoom
and
and
I
I
know
we
are
all
busy
people
and-
and
it's
really
nice
to
be
able
to
get
home
10
minutes
before
the
meeting
starts
and
like
jump
on
so
I'm
not
pushing
hard
for
in
person,
but
I
I
would
be
open
to
it.
If,
if
sort
of
what
people
want
to
do,
I.
E
Right
I've
I've,
seen
I've
seen
Mike
at
when
I
went
and
voted
on
town
meeting
day
I
met
Mike
and
then,
when
a
little
before
I
closed
on
the
house,
here,
Eric
was
doing
the
fire
inspection
so
met
him
and
that's
it
so
I
mean
I.
Think
at
some
point
we
should
maybe
do
a
in-person
meeting.
I
don't
know
if
it
needs
to
be
our
regular
thing,
but.
F
B
The
one
thing
I
will
say
is
when,
when
town
meeting
TV
is
not
supporting
a
meeting
in
person,
the
logistics
of
running
a
hybrid
meeting
are
a
little
tricky,
because
everybody
has
to
be
able
to
see
and
hear
both
sides
of
the
of
that
hybrid
format.
So,
when
town
meeting
TV
is
here,
it
makes
it
a
little
bit
easier
because
they're
running
all
the
cameras
in
the
room
and
they
have
cameras
in
the
room
but
I
mean
I
I
have
been
able
to
make
it
work.
It's
just.
It
can
be
challenging.
H
B
B
The
other
thing
we
could
talk
about
is
and
I'm
I
don't
really
have
an
opinion
one
way
or
another,
but
the
start
time
for
meetings.
I,
don't
know
if
6
30
is
still
a
good
start
time
for
folks
or
if
we
want
to
look
at
an
I.
I
would
only
suggest
an
earlier
start,
not
a
later
start
so
I
know.
For
example,
Council
starts
their
meetings
at
6
PM,
so
I
don't
know
if
folks
have.
B
E
G
K
K
A
B
G
G
A
F
B
They
are
working
on
addressing
some
of
the
conditions
of
the
approval.
Okay,
but
yes,
there
is
a.
There
is
a
proposal
that
was
submitted
and
you
can
actually
see
the
plans
they
are
on
the
city's
website
under
the
project
Review
Committee
section,
so
those
are
publicly
available
and
the
conditions
of
approval
are
also
listed
there
as
well,
so
they're
the
applicants
working
through
those
conditions.
Okay,.