express a question i would like to speak to a question that may come up to this for this evening regarding any discussions on proposed changes or alterations to the density levels of allowable housing  village and if that's going to be brought up in this meeting will there be an opportunity at that time to make comments traitor i just i feel like i shouldn't even wait until there's a replacement for me to step up so i just like to announce it just as my last meeting and i would like to say that i've been offered  try to figure out today somewhere but over the years it's really almost every minute of it has been a real pleasure of working with some really great people including these people here other people marcy harding time forty one years ago i asked to be on the planning commission and that's like we're turned me down so the next year i ran and got on this like boards at least for nine years i got to appoint the planning commission but i all those in favor changes that you've worked on since you feed it in the fall so basically fairly question of the scale of development and wife is one of maybe several lost it could happen with this so whether my real goes through or not it's not made my day or pretty much day because  units and then i did a quick measurement of the area and divided the number who gets her her things you read up on the town play it says that fifty percent of the housing parts of town are fifty years old and i think it would be to the benefit of the town to try to figure out something that's only encourages owners to upgrade and right now  document in terms of supporting single family housing because up till then investor on housing could get twice the density of a single family home so the lots were more likely not to be lower density in the area because by taking the duplexes out and shrinking a lot size i thought the overall density would stay roughly where we w got to me to not only keep it the the exemption for duplexes in but the more exemptions just this is really harmful to the bill is from my standpoint i think we've got a lot of investor owned properties in town in the village already i think overall most people would rather live next to a neighbor who actually we looked at all the different types of units and we did the same kind of exercise that you did with looking at you know kind of average densities of the different properties and i think we were trying to strike a balance that would you know encourage continued single family ownership in single family homes but you know also if a lot was big enough and i realize art that ma village so but maybe that could be done again and that was when we do that for five years ago three three three years ago similarities in terms of this issue density in the town plan this is the inevitable thing is that a community like this densities would increase at the same time  i happen to be in favor of which you're proposing i mean look to the demographics of the two thousand census to two thousand and ten census and watched over the last thirty some odd years main street is not being renovated monster right next to her that is just to back this up so the hotel similar why would you want to buy a single residence that's next door to the hotel in this one so very high density development commercial property that is in under disrepair so where's the motivation buying creasing the density to minus marshall paulson i live on pleasant street and this may be somewhat difficult conversation to have because we're all neighbors and friends here lot i need to disagree with you about your comment about the condition of things true that be it takes time and it takes committed individuals with the resources they have to maintain or improve a street like army street and or other village neighborhoods and i think it is happening it can't happen but it is happening and this village is full of committed single family or duplex occupied owners were doing everything they can to maintain improve the look of the village so respectfully i disagree with your comment that we're not doing enough for interpreted correctly individual who lives on places three that i would say the same thing but why would i want to have my own surrounded by high density transients tended occupied investment properties that's a very real question that really speaks of the flexible part the nature of the mix of homeowners and tenants in our own village  an investment property with offsite landlords intransitive tenants living in the properties the concern that i have and the overriding concern passed through with the long term vibrancy and health of our village specifically and by extension around town for all i'm going to express an opinion that tenants by their nature are not as vested in committing to our town to serving on boards to volunteer or folks in this room with their one wonderful exception is a good example of if are planning commission is considering a direction that increases the density in your village of very well though maged may choose over the long run to contribute to having less of a voice from the residents of our village in the folks that make decisions for our town on this what we're planning commission and others if we have a higher density of tennis will these folks be volunteering in the guidance of our towns for what it will look like for our kids  i'm not against rental properties in the community but it's a homeowner who spin here we're just about thirty years on the scale perhaps somewhat of a newcomer i'm very proud of and very passionate about the mix that we have now the vibrancy of our rental properties and are single family residences along with businesses and the services we offer and i think that as a higher percentage of rental the density of rental properties really put set in jeopardy and jeopardy for those of us who are committed to living in raising our famil i just think closing all think of an example of a community right here in our county that in our lifetimes have had an experience of some charming single family residence neighborhood change to a fair number of high density housing that's the hill section the city of burlington i think we can all go back to reading the free press over many years reading about troubles that folks have in those neighborhoods joyce with trash with disrespect of properties and i'm not saying the fact kind of condition will happen here but who knows who can control it certainly dockside the folks that live in those neighborhoods and the hill section they had any inkling of the increase in those single family residences being converted to high density housing if they had any thoughts of what their neighborhoods would become they would have also been very active i think in trying to control that local gro so higher density in the village i think will dilute the likelihood of village and paul that volunteering for schools in our town over the long run it may crease the need for services occupied holdings especially in the village increasing lot coverage and encouraging if necessary or or as an option accessory ends for for folks to either move out of their larger homes as people age and want to downsize in and have a smaller building on their property but still being owner occupied so that there's a direct oversight of of the rental properties that might be there that's not the same at all ronald properties are our bad example or do we want to prevent any and all rental properties because we've certainly heard an awful lot about from folks who are concerned about the lack of of bailable housing for young people and an elderly people who want to live in the village so it's definitely a tricky balance where we're we're wrestling with don to give something  she's going to live there and she said well possibility but promise is steps from the garage and it's a second floor so it's three level so that doesn't work very well he rented out and i live there now because it's a college student did don't have too much focus on anything so i just made puzzled about the high density of w heidi is a home across the street from mine maintained beautifully in the folks and she chooses to live there without exception have been to like the folks that live in the building behind my home where  putting these proposals here with the long term risk that they present if we could see that hiding dark with the landlords for all these buildings and people much more climb to feel comfortable about the analyze a building by building there's a number of buildings that have done conservative work and are substantially improved from ten years ago if your house on the corner done inside as really museum quality restoration work did you live you wouldn't believe the work is done in there so when i go building by building in look at where they improve with have come from they've come from single family and i look at the building that looked kind of rough or were fixed up but now they're slipping again it's the investor ok well i'm not sure if the commission has any intention on moving quickly on this i really appreciate everybody's perspective and put on this i think it would take  a colossal effort to move something through i mean we're right now while we are trying to push forward the flood hazard overlay district rezoning which for the most part was very popular and a component of the proposed regs that were defeated and it has been six months in the work and six fo and hopefully we might be close to that in another couple months so the speed at which we move forward on something so novel was as as restructuring  densities i'm a little hesitant to fast track at this point without a lot more careful thought and input from all those great to have a dozen folks here tonight it beats the the one that that we often have zero mm hm i think we're going to want to reach out to a lot more of the community and get a lot more feedback if we're going to change something so fundamental  as what it is specially if it's going away from the feedback and the direction we were we were headed so i really hope the folks will show up at the next public outreach meeting service that is a good question i thought we were going to have it in march and here's our last meeting in march we will definitely want to do something with the flood hazard overlay district specifically maybe there is some parking some signage that we want to discuss with the people we hope to well we have actually had visions of wrapping that up tonight with internal have spent a good part of this evening not focusing on that so i would hazard to guess that it might be the end of may there certainly will be plenty of outreach there will be items posted on the bulletin board there will be announcements and from porch forum any way we can to reach out to people and let folks know about the discussion session prior to what will become a formal hearing as we all learned in the zone and defeat once one gets to hearing there's not really not much we can change without having to rework things and then host another formal caring so we want to try and get the public outreach before hand so that the hearing we pretty much know what the decisions are going to be before him so we will certainly keep everyone as opposed so so that wraps up our density discussions and next on the agenda is some discussions regarding the parking discussions to see what the decision would be the town would vote about purchasing and investing in the development of the parking brake near the block that went through so there is going to be an awful lot of town parking now available for those businesses that we were so concerned about  think that brings up an interesting point i'm just going to throw it out there with that new parking and certainly i think it's going to be important for us all to be involved in making sure that that the parking in number of slots are is optimized as much as possible but does that not remove the pressure we have for removing the parking requirements on those businesses in the upper block because we now will be able spaces i just i just want to throw that out there there is going to be heard some people say it's many as forty or fifty spots to come out of that if designed properly that's the that's not the highest number i've heard we're talking about which was another one of the discussions that we tabled was how far this no parking requirements waiver would go for the in the old corner market and then the question of whether that would continue all the way down and include all the way to the railroad on both sides of the street and include no fire and the  just you know buildings that front truck on the street and there is no other property i guess some of them have some part in the back but that would be prim four years old so yes very very very limited right so i mean that was my original understanding that i have to say that though the definition of the central business block i find kind of confusing when he says all parcels a budding bridge street between ea main street and west main stre that lot since the the parking right is to overflowing levels that if we go and redo this parking lot and make available parking for the downtown area that people from out of town will rather than try to find a spot at the park and ride coming to town drop the car off for eight or ten hours and go to work in my ear so that that's where that permit is coming from it's something that's bounced around that's the thing we want to avoid we're just not sure how we're going to do that the best way to do it but it certainly it certainly is designed tom and we're not really sure how it's going to be designed this ultimate use that's part of the discussion at least now we're going to fix it up so that it can be used for parking i think that's the only firm decision that's come out of the top of  changing user something we have parking requirements they're almost impossible to me so what we're talking about is just hopefully in my view just those buildings that don't have any parking so the parking lot was kind of be got thrown into the discussion there really isn't anything that we have any control over although gary i think for just existing commercial units it wouldn't be are i was going to say gary i think you make a very good point that in some senses we do pass this and i think generally there's consensus that for those parcels that have no  place to put parking in meet current requirements that this action may improve the chances that those properties will be upgraded but the point i think that this is the important one hears that by passing it we then do implicitly force the park elsewhere whether it's reached those discussions you know we're in we were just talking about can we get a bond passed to make it possible and there were a couple of conversations about as mark indicated long term commuter parking and we already have that problem of the bakery so you know the question is then surely i think that the community is going to have to address that question do we need to take it do we do all those kind of things so basically the motion bids before us i think is just a couple points one is what is it sounds like the consensus is that we should have a a waiver on parking for businesses in the block now we have to define how far that area is and then agree on this matter of this language whether this is how we want to present it and i allude brings up a very good point about the on between mainstream maybe we should try and and take any reference to main street out of it and clearly just i mean we could even just define the buildings themselves as as limited as it is by property or or down to real real street in pleasant street any issue here and that is whether or not this is something the planning commission should be doing in a spot zoning sense or whether this should be a discretion that we give to d i r be in a variant sense where they were they would look at a petition from an owner on any business  the richmond village of it could it could be any any but that the issue is then the discretion is that the d r s be granted a variance and some states use variances much more aggressively than i understand from david sunshine we tend to in vermont but you know that's just my question is is whether or not because i've watched us struggle and i think with good intentions struggle with this parking issue of those commercial buildings along the street and i think there is there's a potential solution the question is who who should be the official community body so to speak could be potential trouble so i just soon go forward at this point and if this works out and it makes sense i'm parking gets hammered out and who knows what happens with the current parcel i think it's definitely something that could be should be revisited either by the planning commission and maybe even as a component of the new regs went away and we go forward with proposing the new lot it may take care of people with just a coke but by having this you can you can probably week and not do anything see how it develops over been trying to do that within this system of regulation and they have done waivers because people think it will park in the parking parking lot or on the street or whatever so but i think it's because of the r v did seek some relief because in these in these particles where there are there is basically no maximum of two one food sections per anchor would not be one two foot section how many are there now separate section in the home supply and then the space down below is the language for smaller ones which is now richmond rescue has one but there's room for one foot section right at the bottom so that there's room to add to that song towards the bottom  words just to break it down what we're really saying here i understand it is there are six one foot sections and you can theoretically break up each one of those commission was more productive with seven although it was more pinions it was more balanced and i wouldn't mind rick's band in the number of seats to seventy again which is going to watch so if you don't have a three of those two didn't really want to talk about the accepted agricultural practice marks fairy really likes to go with what's in chapter one seventeen chapter shall not regulate except that they are cultural and so so cultural practices including the construction of our structures as those practices are defined by the secretary of agriculture food and markets or the commissioner  whatever i think your experience with talking with folks and zoning and the fact that i don't think that that statement goes beyond the regulations or is nonconforming maybe variance in redundant to what what the standard is but it doesn't hurt to let people know about that in our ranks as long as it's not contradictory to what the states are sort of correct so yeah i think it clarifies it and it's good to keep it and if remarks very really can't stand it may but weren't we talking about allowing someone to find out if they were which would before they even disk file any kind of problem and that's what this was what i was  where it is the all right only want to give to the point of exceeding so if a guy buys a three hundred dollar window and wants to replace it does he have to go tell the indian street officer that he is replacing the window or five hundred dollars i don't think you should have to be checking in with her change the door you know well that i know i don't have to get a permit but i want to tell you that i changed my door and all of it was thirty seven are we clear about really terms so if someone was a recreational vehicle because a recreational vehicle from my standpoint it's one in two i don't know what i make sense but the question i have is does that mean after a flood say after i remember when people all their houses were unhappy and some sought to bring a is saying if you have a recreational home blogs for the last six months there's an issue i mean i can look and see what could be it mean i guess i was with i would err on the side of the judgment of the industry you could put it off blogs you can put it in your driveway so you can stay in three sixty five and as long as it's ready to go there's no problem you had a structure that was built in compliance at any point prior to the regulation to these new regulations that you would need a c or what this means is if you built you're you describing in that sentence in essence is a get out of jail free card for people who are in limbo as he struggles to refine and it doesn't doesn't take us anywhere then in a month from now four weeks we could actually hold a second reading the second meeting there bill would be the public outr way everybody knows about it in time to actually put in constructive criticism and voice their opinions before it's locked down by us in the form of hearings so we'll do that and then so maybe you and i should get together with before our next action to sort of map out a power point in a flyer so that we can share with everybody the gist of it with what i'm trying to compare here to here anybody who has followed so closely that they're actually familiar with the original so they got it but i think i should say i think most people are going to be interested in what's the ten o'clock that's more like it