about making some revisions that would allow all for some increased development one of the big pushes for those amendments was the fact that the war mission was considering extending the water and sewer lines down that means march seventeenth or else in essence the proposal dies and you have to start the process all over again in one of several ways so we continue to debate the proposed amendments there but one of the other things that was talked about at the last meeting that the select board hasn't made any movement on was the requirement to change the proposed largest building footprints guys which was going from ten thousand to seventeen thousand square foot engagement and correspondence communication about concerns and one of the things they came up was that there are some issues with the gateway zoning that haven't been addressed and one of the things that we noticed with th minor amendments that were brought forward really aren't there's deeper issues that people have with the zoning and that we want to take a closer look at all of the gateways and things so what's being proposed now the amendments don't address some larger issues that we think would really fit in with the can't town planning process to look at all of the gateway as we look at our new town plan and engage the community and really disgusting other changes that may  and it's been great to see so many people come out and be concerned about another issue that was actually an idea that was brought up as a t v and i don't know clear if you could talk a little more about what that is but from my understanding it's when you are looking at one development as a whole development that maybe allow for some other options aside from changing the zoning fully in the gateway so that would be something  process that ellen and there and it's a recognition that it the bond passes on the expansion of the water sewer system it fundamentally changes the development pressure in  so the feeling was that we needed to make sure that if if we do have that extension that we don't end up having a whole lot of development in a relatively short amount of time the people will point and say how did that happen you know the idea was that to put some brakes on it so that it would slow it down that we could take the time the two years it will take the extension actually built to to consider what we want that development to look like but to me that would involve retail and restaurant at some point i mean i'm not i'm not going to be around to make those decisions but it was i just want to make that statement that was the intent was not to exclude for me the reasons that you just way to avoid that was seen by by putting the those pacific restrictions on there and said you know i'm not an expert in that kind of development i think one of the big just in the last you know less than a day getting additional input on tools that might be used to restrict their kind of development in the in the short term processes with the processes but you know again i think the ten was to avoid certain kinds of cemeteries there is the land the land trust recently purchased for conservation and so we remove that i believe the totals that are shown on the piece of paper that indicate there's about twenty six acres of  and just another point if you look at the shape of it there's really only very few areas where you might be able to have a larger type and right so also on that map there there is a dash purple line and that reflects a two hundred foot setback which was one of the considerations in the planning commission proposal when they were looking at what the setback would be for a larger scale building and they're also in the lower corner there there it is a blue rectangle and sitting within that blue rectangle are two small light blue rectangles thousand foot footprint in the gateway and the rectangle sits about that is that seventeen thousand square foot so you can see the even peel off you could kind of put them e just just a little bit right  so for those of you who weren't here for the preceding water sewer commission being we've talked about this issue if feels to me like every meeting for the last ten years of my life but frequently about what would the project cost and how would we pay for it and it's somewhat complicated because the sequence of events goes like this we have to approve a bonfire for the entire cost of the project in order to apply for grant funding to support the project so yes after two point five million even if you're going to get one and a half million in grant fines we actually talked about this in today's meeting we talked about it numerous times about the extension hanscom both paid for itself and be a modest benefit to existing users in terms of their payments into the system so we passed a resolution in tonight's earlier commission meeting saying we would not approve the project unless it both paid for itself and offered some reduction in payments where necessary revenue from existing users talked about this a couple of times put out something which i think will be reflected in the timesink article shortly which is at least based on conversations here my personal conclusion the waters of the extensions can work economically are not economically feasible without three things first is the bunch of that time we didn't pay for a significant grant federal grant you know we're using an estimate of forty five percent but if we don't get the grant the revenue doesn't look one and a half million over twelve users it's actually easier to spread their money over one hundred fifty or one hundred sixty users over the lifetime of the loan including grants when the other things we're doing is little don't because right now i would suspect this is not a big chunk because if you picture that mobile home park is going to tend to have low income folks and relatively low users so if they that the village is that range would go down further for instance if there were new commercial users in the gateway vamped revenue has a beneficial impact on the rest of the users the basic problem we have in our water sewer system is a i think in the beginning it would not be a huge benefit because if you think of the users we're not going to suddenly get a windfall of mobile home park residents reducing the rates for all the people in town we expect to see a modest  benefit the potential benefit is greater for development people talk about development pressure an opportunity and you know depending on how you look at that that's part of the conversation today why so many rules in the waters of our expansion that will cost something here's the downside in a small system where if you spend half a million or a million dollars and you have about four hundred users you can only divide it so many ways so one of the big benefits is to get more users and more flow when spread those loan and therefore the town needs to prove it but historically in every other time we've done this before it's the responsibility of though one of the users of the water and sewer system to to on it so i think we will move ahead at this point what's the what's the process from here just the people who are clear on what happens next so you can debate changes you can make additional decades ago when there was a look to say change the cookie cutter approach to subdivision and provide more flexibility to integrate different uses within a subdivision and to say cluster  uses ensuring that there was connectivity transportation options and suck so that's kind of the premise behind a plan to do development it's a more flexible turn of the design approach to a regular subdivision so generally it's applied to pieces of land where a developer has a master plan for a property with multiple buildings with multiple uses our re with some additional other uses residential maybe some commercial in that they have the option of going through our planned unit development standards that give them some flexibility lot layout and such  some communities require that developers go through a planned unit development process for either certain types of development or in certain areas of town  o in the gateway that as an example developer could look to propose a kind of multibillion multiuse development as a planned unit would then require an applicant to go through the process of the and the administrative surveying work required as part of our subdivision standard and that's generally with the thinking that there would be multiple forms of ownership within a planned unit development if you were to sell all condominium rise buildings or sell one commercial entity and retain some common land or something like that in the case where there's a hypothetical building being proposed for a lot and you're unsure if they'll be multiple uses within the building it's hard to say whether that plan to the development option is appropriate for that type of building but if you're looking at a piece of property where multiple uses multiple buildings are being  like i said there is the option for the developers choose that route or a community could choose to change their regulations where they would have to go through like most the planning process and come up with an integrated in the connected layout of a large piece of property so in addition with the current zoning at a specific civic area that someone may be doing that p g process would there be flexibility on some of the zoning based on certain characteristics of certain land and the way i plan to develop the sand as a currently written there is indication that the developer could have some flexibility on  density so generally speaking that would come into play if it had three acres they could only have one single family home per acre so they would get three homes but under a p u d there could be some flexibility on what lay out in the last size where potentially they could get four or five houses on that theory acres how that would work with there is a provision within our plan here development standards that would allow for larger building size for example that's not something the stuff supplied within our regulations ready to do that for march second or march sixteenth to stand on that yeah i think we should move forward i'm really wrestling with you know we have the sony regulations as they exist to live concerns about letting them sit in our current environment i hear changes and so the concerns that a lot of people have the community really deal with a larger planning process than the system tomorrow and i'd like to move forward with the compromise preventative action to prevent that kind of element from happening happening while we take the time to get this right and it's going to take time to get this right there's a lot of really will thoughtful opinion that's been bro isn't a whole lot of you look at the map there's not a whole lot that could be commercial industrial  think i think in the near term i'm concerned about it and nothing against residential some of my best friend really who's come who's used it overnight and it was not the second thing is when we bought that there's a language in the city that there had to be at least ten spaces i i'm strengthen this bill where this motion in front of us you were vince is really conforming to some mechanical pieces the broader question of parking and what we allowing in the various parking lots and there are several and maybe even side streets is really reasonable question parking is absolutely a limiting factor on the use of the businesses in town so how do we do that i think is a broader conversation and a valuable one it's the whole thing right and the idea is we want parking if we're if this came up in the earlier conversation if you want people to be able to like who are driving through town and not parking outside and working through but driving through town to give you pull over and use the changes that are being proposed and then another piece of this is providing more clarity on the technical review for use by proposing that  of somebody even requesting a temporary certificate of occupancy we're just going to leave that altogether because there is no such thing in our zoning so we don't even know why the offer because there's no standard in which we three hundred and this is primarily because the cost of us running we have to warm conditional use hearing is in the newspaper and just warning one application costs more than they're charging the applicant so we're not even covering our costs of just warming that here and so we're proposing to increase that from one fifty to three hundred which would cover the cost of not only publishing it but also covering some of the additional administrative costs that go along with running holding that hearing we're proposing to do away with the line item th t jumping down to the section those type of public works they're proposing to get rid of those technical review is there listed th a little bit of background what i was trying to research where there was technical review fees came from it appears they were rooted in the public works best implications but when you look in the public works   cations those fees are actually called engineering thius the purpose of which is for an engineer to view a project in which it will take ownership  we remove that and then we're proposing the draft procedures and standards which more clearly outlines what is a technical review the when will it be applied how will it be used when can somebody get it back and how can they also get it back basically we found was that have are sitting in an account have not been used and we have received some requests for people to get those so i think for is based on we received input from our municipal attorney on this and while i don't understand all the details behind it it has to do with a question on whether the municipality has the ability to collect for school educational services because of the change in sixty eight and change the funding formula and that wasn't necessarily funding that is heavily relied upon and generally speaking your collect the money and they would go into the construction of a new classroom because richmond was just so much new population coming in  looking at population for costs and what the increase in development would be and the potential number of students are we going into the school in that report it said that that study should be revisited every five years to assure the accuracy  f the population forecasts were actually indicating that we would have more population that actually really did happen if there is interest to keep that or to study it i think there's you know or to consider consider keeping it or there would be value in having a better understanding of what that actual cost should be but it may well be that we don't actually have the true ability to  sewer allocation and service fees this was the this so this is a new kind of line item here and this is because this was the only fee associated with development that was not reflected on our fee schedule and so to be able to kind of more clearly indicate to the applicant the different fees involved with development we thought that it would give the whole picture on things that they should consider by adding that we didn't want to put a procedures and standards that are just kind of moving those technical review b s to the other fees category and having that as a minimum fee of five hundred dollars and then adding the recording these to make it clear that  the changes that were made there was quite a bit of discussion about increasing the certificate of occupancy which is listed on the first page it's one of the one down there was back and forth about whether we should be increasing that fee currently that ten dollars only covers the recording of a certificate of occupancy where the actual work involved in requires the zoning administrator to receive an application make a site visit so you could be doing a beauteous so as i mentioned the technical review is that we're currently listed all of the schedule we're kind of lifted and borrowed from the public works specifications and they said that those views were says you know we're hearing conflicting testimony between the property owner of the developer we want a third party to come in and give us another opinion or to somebody to go out there and take a look then we have information we call on we get an estimate from somebody and we just pass that bill straight to the applicant and that we had we don't we don't even take any money that is directly between you know better right over there was you know if you're one of these you just give us five hundred dollars upfront you know it's kind of a little bit of a sick security you know for if happens when you get the stall upstanding citizen with a vicious dog that's not going anywhere and you're not a dog when you do this ordinance might get you a little bit before it would be able to  mention right it was done a fantastic job with the i was frank there was a little snafu with the whites right was generally generously donated seventy five dollars to cover the cost of i'm not aware of any an for ok good thank you