so the first thing we have is minutes from january fourteenth does anybody have any corrections on the minutes that they've noticed since this is i was a discussion of five point six point eight it gapped of use of existing structures and i think this is being brought forth by the r right so in our letter tells you the house thirty two hundred seventy four square feet if you have the decks and it's a little closer to thirty that fall short of the four thousand square feet clerical if we needed for got good use we could put space in our yes why don't we put them why don't we consider him jointly and then of at four thousand square feet doesn't say how it's calculated from my answer to your question do you have four thousand square feet when you come to us just like that ok that would be my answer i don't know how anybody else can answer it but if you come to me with a permit and says you have four thousand square feet and it's got a new strain of officer or where we're going to verify your information says it's four thousand square feet who am i to say different and  thousand square is an addition it is not say four thousand speakers or feet of the original structure it does not say that so i cannot interpret it any different than you come in front of me that says an application for structur the attic yes and it has a full basement on the go and it's a full usable basement or just from ten foot ceilings in the basement oh no you're not including the square footage of the base i'm not right now now issues that if you become a commercial structure in what you have to have constructed it in your requirements for commercial structures when you go to a four thousand square foot structure you might risk some other regulations commercial use is my point because it was a residence it was a house originally right invention where you're looking to possibly do a level of commercial use that something different than what you've got permit it might have other regulations that we have to consider i have a question if there are other farm houses or houses other places in town that are over four thousand square feet and potential places we could use it i'm thinking potential places i'm thinking if application got approved for a house to be eligible for adaptive reuse of their other houses that could then become their other structure structure four thousand square feet or more over fifty years old potentially could be an adaptive use anywhere in town i mean with the provision would put it in the intention was for bars i know i was your question on the farm so the barn is if you read the letter you know it's in bad shape too it's not even it wouldn't meet agricultural code engineering code right now and to piece it back together and kind of sister in some framing to make it work it just it would turn into a mess so we would like to move the barn forward to the setbacks to root to take it down and rebuild it to look like the barn with as much of the barn pieces that we can use but also to build it to commercial code and have it you know it's going to look like a barn it's going to be that same footprint that same size if you guys agree to this but basically move it within fifty two feet of route to which is the setback that would allow us to i think the scenic corridor looking nice it would mean that parking would be back to that barn if we did it out of use now we could put parking in front of it which i know nobody would like to see so we taking it down  down and was rebuilt and we did for a lot of the inside of that building to commercial code we we didn't finish the barn and a lot of it it looks like a nice barn outside of a lot of it meets life safety and what's driven this section but i'd like to answer the question that you did it so i don't know if you had a response to comments beforehand but i'd like to respond to your question regarding this issue i would totally support adapted use of the existing structure where it is right now it meets all the criteria for where it is and if you wanted to work on a structure where it is as it is and prove it i believe it would fall under the criteria that adaptive use if you want to dismantle the structure and move it somewhere out i believe is its reuse of materials not necessarily reuse of the that's the difference and i'm not one hundred percent i'm not i might be convinced otherwise but in my first reproof understanding what you wanted to do for me it was adaptive use of a structure does not talk about moving structure move structures it talks about the existing structure and being able to turn it into something that would be productive for the community and use that you could do something with other than its original intent which was a bar playing devil's advocate let's say bob came to us and said hey listen the bars are great shape we're going to jack it up and move it twenty five feet which you know two examples i know of that is one in waterbury they just moved to a farmhouse of groups hundred over a little bit where they used to be and in and then built a new and next to it and then also were prohibition pig is behind it he took it all building that had been damaged in the flood and jacked it up and moved it twenty feet to make it more usable for this project so let's say bob came to us and said barnes great i just need to move i'm going to use the same structure but i'm going to move it twenty feet he's coming to us with not we're talking if you want to pour the foundation right next door for me right next door or like the gentleman who was elevating the structure i want to marry because i got flooded movie destruction because of flooding damage and things like that a different scenario so if you want to move this structure so that you can conform to the regulations more that's a different view for me if you want to move the structure so that you have more room for other structures in the  yes ok but that i don't i'm you guys are being so much more lenient that than i am with interpretations it doesn't mean i can't become more lenient is what i'm saying we said well i think the idea  your building is fronting on route to you have to have parking in the back but if you were to build like subsequent buildings behind those buildings then the parking could be in front of the buildings that are set back behind the first first building of the existing structure because all these doings reinforcing fixing i mean taking the existing structure whether he goes in and replaces you know fifteen beams or five beams or part of the roof or all the slate or some of the plumbing or all the plumbing that's not our jurisdiction and why can't we just undo the whole breed new barn that looks really nice closer to me to better better materials and you something exact size and design and that the adaptive use opportunity it's obviously there's more there you have it there is it has a brain structure in that zone so if he tends to provide more options for the land lot and i think there's lots of reasons why for your come occur the that it's not going to happen and it's not that expensive to dismantle entire structure that is perfectly functional right now and we were two different spot you know there's a lot of structures that are not functional his structure is not functional right now but he's just asking to use that gap to use clocks and not necessarily using the structure after he's got the permit approved and i'm i'm not arguing for or against that i'm just picking up on the and so i mean we do have some interpretation one way or the other for what bob is proposing one is going to be moved to is what percentage of the old barn needs to be in place for us to could continue to consider as an existing structure and that could be anywhere from zero to one hundred percent because we're getting no guidance here but that's typical you know easy you try to write an ordinance like this and you're never going to cover absolutely every situation yet which is why we have the d r b so it's up to us i think to interpret this and we can come down strictly and say no this is just existing structures where they are that's it will if it's things if it meets this you know the three criteria or we historic in that it's more than fifty years old i have also studied that a study on the history of the bar in that the history of the property and it's everything about it is historic but i mean other structures in town doesn't have to be in this formal structure the ability to use five point six point eight as he relates to an application for a structure to move to a structure to build or measure or if it's just administrative change that if it's if permit process and redesign it drop you know so i'm not well what are your what i would say is if you're leaning in that way i wouldn't invest a huge amount of time into the design work and instead and take advantage of the adaptive use with a lot less confrontation in discussion or discussion as we've and because it really does it it's an existing structure you just reacted and now you want to do something else with done a lot of work at civil engineer i know what what the parking lot of it would be that all front yard would be the parking lot to because you can't park in a back like a put it out back but i'm saying i'm  what you need to do is just kick off the discussion with an application in front of us you come up with your sketch plan is that you want to relook at the structure and you want to use a percentage of the structure if you only if you want to look at this structure and only use the framing material of the structure keep the design of the structure to look the same there was a consideration of this that and i think i i just don't think we can give the divisoria opinion on him and we needed that we've always taken that position that we can't give advice or  opinions because that means that anybody can come in front of us and say can i do this can i do that and we'll just spend a lot of time doing that whereas if we have an application in for and and then also fosters some misconceptions because we're speaking and making of giving our opinions it on a fairly nebulous topic i mean i think bob's a little bit more has a little more of a project in front of us that some people would but i think to given in pfizer the opinion puts us into dangerous territory and i personally like stay away from it and that's why i would like an application in front of us because then formal decision by the school board but once the board has issued a formal decision then any interested party has thirty days to appeal that decision and you have to be present and you have to qualify as an what you're coming in front of us for then instead of a sketch plan review you're coming in front of us for a site plan review with a conditional use permit ted i guess that that is a question of to what level of detail w conditional use application yes ok so he's actually not doing what we discussed in the beginning about discussion and he's coming to us with a conditional use application and so i guess that's like decision and we can actually ok next on the agenda where has asked us to have another discussion about section four point seven non conforming structure bit this was based on some complaints that we've had from some folks that are becoming into the office not conforming structures and i guess just wanted to get maybe just a temperature read them aboard  owns the structure doing the damage t value athletically more pleasing in the community i support i think i don't disagree i mean the one i'm thinking of is a commercial structure but it's really a poor shape and it ugly as can be and what was what someone must do is take it down and rebuild it make it less non conforming in this instance and you know we jetted about this provision and my feeling was it's a gray you're going to claim that the casualty or the purposes age that how do you start the three hundred sixty five days really big i think it's when you noted it when you come forward and say there's damage you don't know if you don't know that if you haven't got it there's damage there to the sound we don't know there's no period you can have a fire in your house we didn't know you had a fire in your house if you get to claim that there's damage it's not just because the fire department there of course that then it even gives us the next doubt that this is a d r b may permit such extensions of the three hundred sixty five day died period as may be i don't know why they can't think they don't want to change a little you i think the thought process has to do the legal issue if you have a non conforming structure kind of loss by no means you know by whatever the means are not to be we're here for somebody who's asking if a structure has damage to it and the cost of repairing that structure it's better to replace the structure how do does it work and as far as i'm concerned with this it it then they can live in it but they can never rebuild it wait a second i hear what you think but i'm just saying i don't necessarily think that's a disservice but done enough we have to go by what was written down like we're now our own personal interpretation of what was written gateway commercial district there were changes made to that as that's what's reflected in your new packet here that has the latest date of march thirtieth two thousand and fifteen when we were talking about the gateway there was something that i was just looking at when we were talking about the parking and i think there may be a typo in this section regarding parking section and hopefully made it clear for applicants and giving them kind of clear development standards and providing with all kind of diagrams and examples and breaking out you know what's allowed what's not allowed  so that section has been redone and then with the gateway commercial district which is manufacturing business office office business office professional before you couldn't have those uses that were more than five thousand square feet but now we've eliminated that minimum so they could be more than five thousand square feet restaurant was not a restaurant has been removed that was a change of the select  manufacturing but it would be capped at three thousand square feet so i believe the rationale behind that was that if there was somebody that was manufacturing t shirts then they could have a small so no building exceed ten thousand square feet that's what if then with the exception that if the buildings are set back more than two hundred feet they can be up to seventeen thousand square feet so that's good and giving an allowance for a larger footprint building set for that then there was an additional provision added where the intent was to encourage more commercial development and not allow for strict residential development in the area was that it's the residential mixed use requirement where any new development where you wanted to have residential use had to have at least forty percent in commercial use so making if you want to the side rear of the building here i think is where the typo is it needs to be fixed where the second sentence reads or the second sentence i believe which i'll check out some are should read for a lot without frontage  forward it's going to be that writes the so if the application you see next month has the bar as for adaptive reuse and there are additional buildings on that lot then it'll be that  be reviewed under the plan due to development standards were someone came to us with just one building built it and came back later that they and then moving down to character of the neighborhood under the first small i this used to read the single principle structure must have an entrance and windows but that was changed and trans or windows and than the roof pitch the second one second sentence was added to give more flexibility for a larger buildings are saying that if you're going to have that building that is more than ten thousand square feet that the roof pitch requirement can be waived and the rooftop equipment has to be shielded from  changes that were ma due to the town planning process that is currently underway where we have set up a steering committee that world guide the process and that we are going to be doing a lot of creative  engagement as part of that and so that will the steering committee is help helping provide input and help kind of give like volunteer assistance to that and it'll include  write they want to see and we distribute i think we have to decide but we may be doing something along the lines of like distributing some coasters having people write on them and dropping the boxes and we'll be having a large visioning for the second saturday in september so those are some of the things that we've kind of started laying out as part of that process but the template process is about a two year process a the consultant gave us this in the first place so of the other stuff that's going on other than to select board did approve some changes to the fee schedule and i should have given you a copy of that i can get you a copy of the key is basically we the change of the schedule or it won't go into effect until the first we can june but they include increasing the cost of conditional use applications to actually cover our costs of having a conditional use hearing and we did away with the option of people being able to get a temporary certificate of occupancy that was for some reason we offered that but it's not in our regulations so we go technical review these just to clarify like when we would charge there and putting in writing that if they want to use that people could send something in writing and they'd get that money back to pine and all because grew out of the public works specifications that so but so there's the technical review fees that you can ask of an applicant to give as part of the review of the application so once  outside expert to appoint on that and so we've used their technical fees to pay for that and we can then once we make our decision that money right if it's not used and that but that also doesn't preclude that in your conditions you could say for a subdivision project that you wanted to have some kind of security you know you could you could specify that that could be something that the town holds to ensure that the project is done but we're kind of making kind of just making it clear that there are technical review fees that are used during the review process if they weren't used when the reviews are over you can get them back and then as a condition you can add other you know requirements as security or a bond and i think it's kind of more express applied in the subdivision regulations where you say ok but that's not for defeat schedules my concern because it's it's because the fees schedule is if you're coming in with an application these are the future going to have to pay back and that's what would change with the schedules what we're talking right here right what you're talking about in a decision has to do with the ability for us to request a bond like a parking lot that's going to be down or something like that those are totally different things like that ok so we've made that clear by specifying the technical review and saying what they are when they're use when you can get them back in and then also knowing that the d or b has the power to have attached those conditions i was confused by your talk at the same yes so we did that because i think they were kind of being used like has the same thing for you know like follow up inspections and stuff so we've tried to