ok we're going to quorum so look at the meeting started first item changes see agenda and are we going to change brought him i think that taping is not coming at some other staff are coming so i think we do not need to know them up on the agenda ok and the other changes to gender well it would be nice to put the before up to fifty was in favor i'm ok the changes approved public comment so opportunity for anyone from the public to make comments the board on anything not on tonight's agenda or any public thing non ok next is going to be a discussion of the champlain parkway and other projects from the city of broughton three children i look different yes  actually the project manager for the project and so we're here to present the project hopefully answer any questions you might have and give as much detail as you'd like to here so i'm going to start with susan actually walking through description of the product then i'll jump in at some point to go through some of the more nuance details  beginning at home ave and heading to lakeside ave is the section along the section maintains the two lane road way with twenty five mile an hour speed limit and it has a shared use paths on the west side of the roadway so that will accommodate bicycle and pedestrian traffic and there's also street bicycle facilities with shared lane markings on this see to section referred to as the c six section that starts at lakeside avenue on the existing street network and then continues along pine street from lakeside avenue north up to main street which is on the far right marble and kilburn street and along this section from lakeside to kill burn as i said we have the shared use path on the west side and we also have  street bicycle facilities through shared lane markings in this section proceeding north from kilburn where the shared use path terminates we have time street shared lane we will also be installing new traffic signals at the intersections with pine and maple and pine and king street which replaces the existing four way stop so those where does it turn for limited access to at lakeside ave so from an eighty nine intersection all the way along until late sign avenue is considered limited access what do you and they need to be paying attention and it's part of our our concepts of designs that we've been through to safety because what you see there is that area there's a lot of activity from the multics building to agreements we've gone through necessity and we've gone through condemnation we have two properties we have to peel's to the necessity process of which the two parties are not even have any as a need to be managed so with that we really have a pretty solid sense of what associated costs are obviously there's been some conversation between the trans and a c in terms of who's liability that is to manage soils i think we've said on the fact that it is the city's liability and we have had some initial estimates which were certainly less than what we had thought in terms of purchase pay not participating and so we're having to go back to our for our mayor and council with those details as we know more one thing that we found along this on the way in terms of vance's project is as projects advanced there have been other products that have occurred that  identified different contaminants example city city market had seen if it contamination on that site the state has expressed concern about that and how it affects our schedule so we are continuing to work with our environmental consultant to do further characterization in that area and identify costs and i think that's important to our mayor and council to know what liability they're expected to carry invents in this project and it's not insignificant i don't remember the exact numbers but i think our are we know and understand that this project is a priority and we really want to make this happen and we've we've tried to manage to a schedule both from a technical standpoint also a legal standpoint and there are a point to this project that have been successful at every step of the way to kind of interfere this project but we are trying to move ahead as best we can and i think we've made great progress and i am very hopeful that we will continue  take two years to construct and we're very mindful of this schedule as it relates to other schedules within the area and how it effects the operation so we've done some background we've this product doesn't involve  utility improvements that that work has been done in advance of the project through our water resource team to improve our water supply and all the things that are significant reinvestment in that area that that wouldn't destroy what we proposing to build in our plants or court or you've also might have seen in our history that we've installed a new signal at pine a lakeside that was not in significant cost that was for an eighteen thousand dollars to do a project in advance of the project itself but we see and understand the issue of public safety and we got that done for those reasons alone we also have a lot of business on pressure quarter deal dot com is a major employer the state has been you can see all the growth within an area and how we've attempted to respond to that the city see market petroglyphs is looking to redevelop at the the former site of barrett's trucking in their salt sheds so we've had to navigate the plane review process that relates to this product and its permits but it's not an insignificant process when it comes to legal challenges and potentials that can pack a product but we're i think are pretty probably moving ahead so i'm going to i don't know if there's really so one of the things that you that is relevant to here is obviously there's a significant cost it goes with a project that that affects the c c r p c another member communities that in terms of transportation priorities and we want to make it an understanding that where we can only enter a schedule that we are truly serious about delivering this product on schedule and not have it continue disrupt so you can see we're really on near the edge of final design and there are elements that need to be complete in order for the trend the federal have a review that specifically specifications and details that don't exist now but are there are consultants diligently on and if we prevail with all the legal challenges and some some of which those legal challenges don't affect our ability to go out to bid we expect to be bidding in the spring ix and then do the balance of the work in the subsequent year following or following that sequence of work there will be some overburden placed on certain areas where soil conditions require it to give it a settlement and what would be really hard to have a long term stables street sections so that's a schedule three questions about the schedule on terms of the construction is there any point in time where you just shut down pine street so that you know you'll traffic or you can maintain traffic so we talked a little bit about this today and we've and i my belief is that we won't completely shut down pine street because they that is the condition of the pavement of the original or constructive extension of the way back and that when it is or what you know until you get it out i believe that probably the road is in good condition except for the that's what surface what's permit is was what we're going to build on reason i ask is what are the chances we're going to nasty cost surprise after somebody goes in the pit but i think dealing nasty cost surprise we're going to have is largely soils and so we've tried to is to not have contractors waiting to understand what the next steps are in effect to schedule so  addressing storm water strong water is i can't really speak to a great deal about it but only that a lot of that is being captured in retained within pond systems and prove water quality through all systems itself and there's been some concern expressed by the t of our straw more run off entering into the real right away and what we what darkon saltus of shared with b t r in the state of vermont is that this project will improve existing condition doesn't mean there aren't still continuing issues but for other reasons for other projects or other properties but we are we think that this project will serve as a significant improvement can so we've knocked it down to only two left and they're just simply non responsive and just not making themselves available to respond but they're really minor stuff those last two properties it's we're going to go back again to our cloth harbor associates are consulted to revise and update the estimates but they are constantly being updated and in real time because we have this whole issue of soils and where a liabilities are you know in probably the last two or three months we really have worked closely with the trans about what our obligations are what is purchased by not participating and to start conversations we had those numbers updated but so that's just all the site is just to kind of take a look for questions call us and then our contact information bullshit in the directory myself and susan j p couldn't make it tonight he has a count commission meeting at  recall some of the history i want to say maybe going back like five or six years ago you know there were some concerns in that neighborhood or pine street yes you know there's traffic it's pine street and so there was an agreement between the city and be trans and us to try to look at alternatives to you know some of the traffic are away from the the pine and maple point king in or so i think the general idea was that the idea was conceived to be a economic development opportunity for that area  monumental and it's in it's change of how we look and develop streets in one street that's actually underway that you've seen the kind of torn up mess but it's making silver progress a st paul street between main street and maple street that product is actually underground utilities it's done see if it work to improve the utilities prior to doing all these above ground prudence but it's adjacent to chimping columns project and all these investments really hope to drive greater social interaction better quality of life within those areas and improved business opportunities for adjacent property or so it's i think it's a great thing it's obviously stepping up our game in terms of how we invest in reinvesting streets but we think this is the direction we need to go this is the first of many streets one that is going to be pursued is of course main street between and in t box sections because we get aggressive trying to do more but me street between pine street and church is would be potentially a next one and then we're also working on design around the product in town center or approach to see place redevelopment and design of bank street and cherry street and there's where that seventy five percent design for those two blocks and we're kind of on somewhat of a hole to so we understand sort out where the developer exco look those are two great projects one thing i would know also is that bank street is designed to because we're pretty aggressive in doing so many things in the city in the in the last five years we've created destruction portal it lists and identifies where we're at and what we're doing so that it can be quite neat into the public can understand  next and how do i get from point a to point b and i think we've reached the i think we've reached the point of saturation for the public to contend with us and whether we doing so what products  repaving major projects we're having to coordinate that in a very active way and this is our way of doing that both to communicate the public but also communicate internal to ourselves so it's been pretty useful and then by can secure share overview i am not going to step into this and offer any sort of details because this is not my thing i've not been involved those conversations but cheapen kidless speak to it in more detail in more go and it's think that's kind of the next item on our agenda is his act to fifty recommendations the regina's going to take us through this and what we're going to do is have regina go through and give a little summary of of the different musicians and then we'll take questions we're hoping we don't want to get into the word smithing thing but it just to concentrate on the context of the of the document itself k thanks so getting back to the back to fifty so our region is going to take us through britain we're concerned about content versus word smithing if there are some spelling or grammar things that you can do you see you can bring those to regina after the meeting and she can incorporate those and i think it's important to note that what what this group did so this these comments were put together recommendations that went through the pack and the executive committee and so the stuff it's also important to know that this is consistent with past things that we've done like the the two thousand and fourteen recommendations you're standing is that this process has slowed a little bit so what are the chances that something is actually going to happen this session or says we're going to have the whole summer to talk it because that will frame my level of concern on many of the things that we're proposing versus you know so if it's if the outlook is that it's a little bit because people  raise some concerns about certain things and it doesn't seem like this is going to make it by crossover day and that we might have the rest of the summer to deal with that crossover days that have passed one chamber in order to be considered year bill but from anything i've seen i've not seen that stated for sure clearly so i'm not sure what to make of that you know and actually there's kind of the big bill that came out of the activity commission stopped me from covering so if you're going to cover but has not actually been introduced as a bill so there isn't technically a bill that incorporates all the stuff  that was proposed by the commission and a lot of which you'll see kind of the committee really was reacting to something that's not a draft bill yet i'm just trying to make it more confusing really there's also the administration's proposed  in each house that are similar that is a little more confined to the enhanced as a nation idea having said all that so there's a lot of uncertainty i i tend to believe what you said is hoc committee took was let's get some kind of higher level ideas on paper route you know so that they're not trying it thinking i think it would behoove us to try to respond to a bill that three weeks from now  directional closure discover solutions and ok so just briefly what ever going to talk about and what we're asking for tonight so just quickly a little bit of background on why we're talking about this but we really discussed a lot of that at the last january meeting then we're going to do just a summary of the eight statements that are in that position statement and then i will open up the discussion as mike said and hopefully we can get to an action so i've only got twelve sli total just so you know where we're at so quick background at two fifty was originally an act of the one nine hundred seventy and in twenty seventeen a commission was asked to think about how actually fifty is working and looking forward to the next fifty years so what's currently happening this is essentially what charlie just said that full commission bill up top it's with it's weird number it's not really actually introduced yet and then there are there is essentially it's a bill from the administration but it's introduced in both sides so it's in the house it's one hundred seven in the senate it's one hundred four on the house side the natural resources committee is taking  testimony and really lots of information on both everything concept altogether plus the full big bill and h one ninety seven is also and i have natural resources committee also so just sort of stepping back a little bit the intent of these proposed statements in front of you are really to and  they're very much in line with the general concept in that twenty fourteen permanent reform statements that we had but also really helped move our five of our eco strategies so these are eight ego strategies these are are five of them but essentially really trying to get across the concept of smart growth and enabling smart growth to happen in the place where we want  other things that are active fifty committee you really wanted to sort of focus on is really the system as a whole and just really trying to make it more effective and efficient as mike said the  ity committee had two meetings to develop these executive committee review this on the sixth and the pact reviewed it on the thirteenth so their comments are incorporated in what folks have in your pack so the summary of the position statements so the first one again is really just trying to reiterate effective and efficient predictable review process what's underlying in here a little bit is really trying to get at better integration between the local and state levels so it uses the phrase in the get put the right review in the most appropriate hands in other words not every hand  weight the second concept is is really the second position statement is really supporting the concept that actually fifty would be not exist essentially you wouldn't go to active fifty in areas where we quick background about so you can sort of think about this enhanced as a nation concept a little bit better currently there are five state designate the three on the top are the poor designations meaning you have to have one of those we don't  anybody has to have these but if you're trying to go down this system and take advantage of some of the state benefits the base designations of the top three the bottom two are add on designations so they basically sort of sit on top of those original designations geographically and expand a little bit the enhanced designation in the proposed bill is now a six designation that a municipality would have to go back to the downtown review board get approval and it would geographically not get any bigger than these are on the ground right now to just show you quickly this map in the purple on this map our our current state designations in the county it's near zero point six percent of the land area in the  county so this enhanced designation concept where actually fifty review would not happen in these areas is limited to those purple areas on the map and only if the know this map is also sort of transitioning to position statement number three which really is talking about critical resource areas now in the two separate bills that are out there this concept is defined in two different ways in the big commissions bill they use the phrase critical resource areas and it includes these specific reasons the river or two or wetlands elevation over two thousand he and soils that have steep slopes over fifteen percent and shallow depth and the concept is that if you're in these green areas you're definitely going to go to active fifty regardless of the type of project our position statement position same in number four this is about really a little bit more specific to the process itself of going through active fifty right now it gets to be a very technical process very quick you've got to get your plans to an engineered state early on and then if there is any design changes or suggestions of movement at the at two fifty level you've got to go sort of all the way back and get those expensive engineering plans redone so the thought here is to sort of think rethink that a little bit number  a general concept that we should really be thinking about a lot of the effort and engagement citizen engagement that goes into mapping at the local and regional level  if if we go into a place where we are mapping either places that should be protected and go to active fifty and places that are designated for growth and maybe active fifty doesn't happen there we really should be rethinking and relying on the level of effort that has gone into the local and regional plan maps not that should not just come down from the state level position statement number six there are some new concepts in the proposed bill greenhouse gas emissions being one of them and the concept here is to just for the new concept take a little bit of a step back think more thoroughly about how those are going to be out before incorporating them into statute number seven is really think about phasing in this concept so just really quickly back to this map in the big bill the commission's bill it's pretty unclear what happens in the white areas on this map and it could very well be that everything goes to add to fifty that's in the white areas on this map in the administration's bill it's potentially that we would follow arse the paradigm that we're under right now for the way areas but super unclear essentially so the idea here behind number seven is if we're going to expand actually fifty just jurisdiction there should be some time allowed for the municipalities to get that if it's an hance designation or whatever it might be allow the municipalities to define those areas for growth first before actually fifty sort of expands more broadly throughout just so that we're not in a place where we've kind of halted development in full for a period of time and then number eight this where our position statement has landed is to keep with the current system which has local and state appeals going to the same body there is the proposal is for it to go back to the environmental review board and there's lots of pros for that as well but this is where the position statement testimony and that will be ongoing and then the ad hoc committee still intends to meet and keep thinking through the more specific proposals that come out and so this is this is not the end of the conversation but we we are looking for some help to figure out what what to say at this stage so we want to go but the before we do that anyone that was on the ad hoc committee want to add anything jim or tony or just i'm sure i mean i think it's  a great summary big takeaway for me is you've got a really encouraging concept of stimulating smart growth in the areas plan for growth at the same time you have some pretty dramatic both expansions of jurisdiction and musing about requirements to be imposed through the vehicle back to fifty you know notably originally it started out as all new president will be net zero that that wouldn't possibly stifle economic development or affordable housing production that's been tempered slightly to use the best available energy efficiency technologies cross the board the best not the most cost effective reasonable practical the best so i think there's a disconnect in some of the drafters understanding the realities of land use and development that hopefully will get you know honed into something more practical that offers the benefits we see on the the jurisdictional changes for designated areas while accomplishing some important goals for resource conservation i mean a real issue dealing with the indirect and cumulative impacts of sprawl is the flipside of the coin so they're talking about the right issues but the language on paper so far it's got some real serious concerns about how i outside of the purple areas we're not talking about overriding local development  and what do you mean by that well they're with the local planning commissions or or development review boards would have input on development in their communities outside of the purple areas standards and things like that even if they're in the purple area right yes so under the administration's bill that's where there is more detail about what's involved with getting this enhanced designation drafted it really is to your earlier question that any answer it is basically saying that the municipality will need to show how they won't believe me all the active fifty and then depending on which of those five designations you're in there's some other things that you've got to me as well i'm just looking at it more from our role as a regional planning commission where we are kind of like a local municipal community stakeholder group you know body or just didn't want us to be party to something or without the least discussing it that somehow somebody would be able to do something that would be able to use this it completely bypass local input and i just wanted to make sure that that i mean just want to get that on the record that that's what we're not for and that's not what this process is at least currently designed and not on a trajectory to do because that would increase my level of yeah and then patiently intent is much more that we should be supporting the work done at the municipal level because particularly in jenin county it's pretty robust work that's artie happening at the municipal level and you know there's a lot of detail under number two on the position statement which is about this enhanced designation and for the most part what we're saying is it's not going far enough in those municipalities there's a lot of work happening that should supported and we don't necessarily need activ to understand outside of those purple blotches where they find their growth centers and then to be able to sort of grow their growth centers if you will so that act two fifty hopefully can stay away from those before you come in and put it as a default give us a chance first to figure out what are really purple area should be and then expand that were needed expanding and then  resources sort of unclear everything is in their minds and it doesn't replace the local it's just it's the same interaction that happens now just happens on different projects th i just wanted to i think clarified the point that regina mentioned but i think it is pretty essential to whether this in total represents any movement in the right direction you know however you might feel about adding actually fifty jurisdiction in critical resource areas there's a sort of a separate discussion of does what you do in the areas planned for growth have a meaningful benefit and visited opted by towns some of the language that we saw talked about the local zoning shall ensure compliance with the act two fifty criteri which is a shorthand way of saying you will touch all the bases of act two fifty three your local zoning which is not really from act to fifty it's a mirroring of active fifty at the local level and it's unclear how precedent setting decisions by the act of fifty process would then have to filter down to ensure that the towns are in turn compliance so we really tried to hammer that in one of the sub billets of recommendation to that that is sort of a poison pill interview i mean that's  for without a benefit that you don't have to go to that to the active fifty district commission do it all during your dear b process so that's if i had to put a bold underline you know highlight on something that would be  this question were the same body i mean maybe the word should be into the then it is in the actual this is just ignoring my wor and that the actual statements are in your package i read that and i thought play thought but it will be different so yeah everything else on the eight people generally good with the content yeah so this one essentially is we've talked about this already john asked the question about it so basically what this means is we would like to give folks an opportunity to really think about the purple areas think about whether there's opportunity to expand those tribal areas and get the places where we want growth to happen off the active fifty table more active fifty expands in all the white and the green that's what this is tallies have the resources to really develop their regulations so that they have the capacity to meet those needs and really in that the d r these are planning commissions within those d much more in the world communities but i don't think that our rural towns anyway at this point have the capacity to take that on so part of this should recognize that we have to work towards that sharon i just wanted to say that technically we've been supposed to have been incorporated active criterion or planning since  one act two hundred was passed it is in the policy statement when you schools that were supposed to be addressing that said i agree with you i think we often ignore it we haven't really paid enough attention to that and this would raise it to another just going back to the little small dog there in the village yes it's something that when we get that builds a center does it nation that that that dark period we're also going back not that long ago so this isn't going to be stagnant or up or i see the point trying to put more back to the bill is the found a village isn't and less of the burden on the state as far as addressing these issues activities but the consistency like justin said brought up the whole thing of you know who's who's making sure that this because then we're going to start getting you're going to see a lot of people i mean developers i think are going to come out of the woodwork with heels hey what about this why is this you know this community this is happening and you know whatever just keeping things consistent i  see a lot of problems with the consistency you have just a couple thoughts on that one there's a notion that if this jurisdictional change were to take place you could have existing properties that have existing active fifty jurisdiction but now are within one of these enhanced designation areas actually remove that jurisdiction from the property and simplify redevelopment efforts of a new site with existing jurisdiction  that's you know one thing that it to your question of consistency the state would have a bite at the apple every i think five years right and then there's a renewal period for these designations so there is a chance that over time additional requirements could be added through statute or through interpretations of the downtown board even if the notion that local derby review would ensure compliance with the criteria interpret is all the criteria in the same way as an act to fifty proceeding which is very different from practice whatever was intended and that two hundred but the that that would be a sea change and i think it would color our recommendations on whether this is even a good avenue to pursue and you know what would the outcome be would it make it easier to do smart growth work harder would it potentially capture all projects with active fifty criteria within one of those designated areas if it's interpreted as the local process shall ensure compliance with the criteria that's in there's only that's not just for projects that would otherwise get caught in an active fifty it's you will do this with your zoning in order to get this designation so we don't see a way to only have that extra level of scrutiny and practice applied to the projects that would potentially benefit by this that would be across the board so the devil's in the details and you know there's more concerns than answers at this point clearly because the other way where you don't have the designation never intended for use in active fifteen so they don't deal with a lot of the things that you need to deal with and i think that's a reason for the enhance that said there is  so they look at where are the existing wastewater service areas and where are the people that's a limited just point out that there's a difference between using the mapping and we've also levels of napping or interprete in the criteria so there's the proposal to increase all this mapping for use especially under criterion nine where the capability in development plan was originally intended to apply to interpret the nine criteria and then the local regional plans would still apply under ten but the crowd not to the critter yonder night are basically those state interests that are that are not at the state level i'm not saying that there shouldn't be local input into those especially when you get into things like existing settlements and things that are defined right now in writing but not knocked on  so there's a difference between that and then there's a using the map is a form of jurisdiction like we're talking in dallas on any canst designations so i think it's in that they often get conflated and it's important to keep those mapping roles distinct in terms of how they are used to mean they're both valid but they're different the recommendations with regard to jurisdiction would be more limited than the recommendations for mapping in terms of interpreting the activity criterion that said i think there is a lot of support for having some kind of vetting at the local or regional level even if it's done in the state but i know b p a has talked about recommending that they use a similar process or use for enhanced energy planning that some of the criteria are defined at the state level  resource yeah i was just going to say we were certainly cognizant of the idea that this is a state you know determination of value our suggestion was that the process at least start with what the local and regional planning commissions have put together as their understanding of those baseline resources and if the state wants to move the lines or add new considerations that's great but at least then the process would identify that divergence between the local and regional planning and the state interest as defined in this process so let me go back to number seven had a lot of discussion kind of i think folded over a couple other points but the number seven included and the idea is to just do not hold on some of those and work out further details before adopting those concepts not one of sure i can speak for the committee we've sort of reiterated a comment from the two thousand and fourteen sort of broad permit reform recommendations that state energy policy should apply to all new buildings period and stop i mean the geographic skewing of whether it only kicks in and direct to fifty provides a perverse incentive to try to dodge active fifty that thinking hasn't changed comments then is everyone sharing was just talking talking about but it does as a pretty broadly explained that there should be some reliance on mapping at the local and regional level both to define jurisdiction and also define th not just again i would say that i think this is a great opportunity for us as a region to be thinking of that not just resources in our own local jurisdiction but that resources have across political boundaries  that we're thinking in systems and not in resources and we have to do that you know across political boundaries so from a you know we think about our transportation system we need to be thinking about what we're calling natural resources as systems and if we can really strengthen our ability at the regional level to do that incorporating what we know in each of our local areas but to think about it greater i think that would be be reasonable so in that case we got some direction try to get it is as aligned as possible and so i think from a process to employ those that work you know the without speaking to them what we exactly was all of them act two fifty you've got to have your ducks in a row your plans engineered engineer and ginny are done sorry i was getting tired and when inevitably there is suggestions whether from neighbors who are invited to participate in the process or actually fifty commission itself you have to shift things and move things you've got to go back to the beginning and get those expensive plans redone so this is suggesting back to master planning which is how the twenty fourteen c c r pieces twenty fourteen position statement just described and so i think the original idea is that this would happen for any if act two fifty is intended to be a forum where you're open to making real changes requiring that you not only fully design but also secure permits for all of those technical permits is not the best way to encourage an open dialogue between other stakeholders and the developer who's now you know fifty hundred two hundred fifty grand out on a limb of stamp drawings that basically are out the window as soon as they're checked off on the application requirements because everyone wants to take a fresh look and so it seems completely antithetical to the notion of encouraging a meaningful participation at the stage that you can actually influence the project without requests you know basically ensuring that the vela for has a very strong vested financial interest in not making meaningful changes to that site plan so again it's seems to be a pretty fundamental disconnect where you know the district commission couldn't possibly consider whether this is good land  without seeing stamped engineering drawings if we're going to reduce duplications and relying on state technical permits as a condition of an active fifty permit you have to circle back to act to fifty to reflect other general site plan changes that that happened as a result of getting that technical permit that seems to be a more an approach that's more conducive to real participation i don't know yet and so that feedback from the pack and that was that a they were concerned a little bit about making ak to fifty well let me step back a little bit further the pac felt the real solution to this is better coordination between the local and state levels like if we could really create a better better solution that's that's what we would be doing so you wouldn't be going through an intense level of engineered review at both levels really and getting different feedback and then getting ping ponged back and forth between the two  so that would be the ideal situation but we didn't get to a place of figuring out how to how to work that in but the concerns i think were about making actually fifty of a sort of a complicated two phase process that that's how it would essentially work out where you just sort of have a and ok on the land use level almost like a pulling right area or a view and then that a final review and then the other concept was just that  they feel like at the local level you need that kind of level of detail in order to be able to approve a plan effectively and they felt like actually fifty probably needs that same kind of confidence just local same way which to nice importance are committees original designation of going back and saying that you shouldn't start an engineer drawings back to fifty and then expect to be able to have a applicant be happy willing to make changes right i'm old enough to remember the whole master planning versus piecemeal approach of the late eighty's nine hundred ninety s and early two thousand and the struggle was overweights unless you make it worthwhile of the developer to master plan something ok you're going to encourage people to break it off in chunks and they're never going to tell you what they're for plan is ok and so the whole idea between after fifty review of the master planning level was to see if you can take one of the twenty seven several of the twenty seven some criteria and do them and satisfy the requirements back to fifty and the local planning before you got into all the deep now there's always a you know that before you got into the details of phase one of a ten face master plan because if you don't make it worthwhile for the developers to participate master planning you're not going to get any master planning and you're just going to get piecemeal planning so i'm kind hopeful that we could say that we would encourage master planning by at least creating some incentives for people who want to engage in it to engage in it by allowing maybe certain don controversial criteria to be decided as part of a master planning process and leaving some of the more controversial aspects of what people have to go through for the development including engineer quality drawings and things like that that would be decided as part of one part of the master plans actual review but if there was an opportunity to close out ten of the twenty seven some criteria it might make it devise some way to make to reward people for going through mr planning we're not going to have any we're just continue to have beast meal planning which is not at least optimal and i say this as the person who spent ten years on a master plan  me and i probably spent more time before the environmental board testifying than anybody in the history of mankind on that but that was the struggle and at that time we were only trying to close out like a dozen other twenty seven some criterion act of fifty and we had at least a half a dozen appeals going forward so i think unless we can break that not we are going to encourage bad planning because we are not going to encourage master planning i think master planning more inclusive look is always a better way to do it and then you would just have to balance the double edges of the sword in terms of potentially closing out some review criteria versus leaving others open and so people have to at the best deplaning level and be satisfied to argue about the certain a certain criteria without maybe having the engineers in the economists come in and bor everybody so i just say that as to plant the seed we should at least be doing things to encourage master planning because i think it is good as a reflex of response from a planning commission to encourage master planning sketch plan in so there's kind of a sketch plan stage where you can you can take care of whatever criteria can be taken care of because without right detail in the airing and to jim's point that it provides that avenue to single  projects that really don't make sense as part of a multi phase matters a statement of principle you know how you do it is going to be dependent on the details as we all know and so i think we're at the principle state in terms of what we're doing to try to reply and our charlie with the ability to convey what we feel and if i could just to be frank the the my only concern with the softening of this proposal is it does sort of set a precedent that we're walking back the recommendation from our previous permit reform task force which was to say that technical permits should be technical permits and they can happen after the basic land use entitlement decision and that has carried over to how local communities deem the of having an r permits in hand out of appeal part of your local application requirements that is a cart before the horse that anyone has focused on that how genuine the process is going to be ask yourself if you spend one hundred thousand dollars willing you are to tear it up and start over and ask yourself how open and participatory is that process really going to be and i think that that's sort of a fundamental disconnect and in playing through how the supposed rational actor would  an applicant and not just for this point but for the whole shooting match and i feel like the first cut the state level has missed the boat on some of these things will see how tight it can get you know moving forward but  some of the broader strokes are really encouraging you know hey let's stop sprawl and do smart growth like yeah we've been pushing that for twenty years longer but you know is this going to be another shooting a miss at the state house i don't see how it's really on something practically at so mr acting chair short of word smithing this is the appropriate way to do this to encourage staff to capture the essence of this conversation and the actual language before we do i want to get  to talk about their number three so number three is just the general concept that we are ok with some shifting  orders they are record or a significant wetland which is probably class wanted to wetlands land at we're above two thousand feet and this one's a little bit weird it's land countered categorized by slopes greater than fifteen percent and shallow depth to bedrock so this map is really not just fifteen percent slopes it's so i guess in areas that have very limited zoning communities or have no zoning this is a way to put some land use and some areas that are a little tricky and i can see where that's a good thing on the other hand when you bring  down to sophisticated towns we're saying well let's have our local process plus the process on top of that one growth in eighty percent of the growth in our growth such as which means twenty percent is ok in other places and this will be part of those other places so what i'm trying to understand for the sophisticated communities what does remarry is john those green areas think what will or you don't look like they're in the middle there's a lot of weight in that map that's on a map does that kick you into jurisdiction just because you're on this map that was created in one nine hundred seventy s or is there the map is just an initial layer you review and verify for yourself then resource base jurisdiction for some resources but not necessarily for all of them and that's kind of my point either you're going to take visual homeowners who are going to have to go through an active fifty process to build a home on land they go on forever and maybe that's good in some places where maybe it's not that you know and just i'm troubled by a whole sale everything that meets these criteria when you know if the criteria aren't that broad i mean i'm sure too broad right so if you go by your recommendation here we're saying we're ok with the concept of just throw back to fifty all those green areas where it doesn't have any jurisdiction now and i'm saying i'm not so sure that's exactly what we want to say at this point in time suggested modification that we support the concept of using resource base jurisdiction however we really have to work closely with the state to define which resources  for all the resources that different resources demand for different regulatory yeah so number two has a lot in it but essentially it's sort of pointing out the challenges with the existing designation systems as they are now this is also not it's freezing again  sorry which is frozen in rights but yeah i'm looking at the writing you guys are got nothing to work with essentially sharing mention this before the original purpose of the designations were not to really define where growth should go and work growth shouldn't go so they're kind of being where using this system that's that's not quite set up for this purpose and just kind of adding i'm having on top of it to try calm accomplish this and so overall it just may not necessarily be the right thank you to define to define these areas other component of this is that it's really just been brought up earlier it's not a true active fifty release it's basically just saying that the municipalities have to meet all of this all the active fifty criteria which is not necessary the current geographic boundaries are just very small again if you think about our planned areas for growth which is on this back this is about fifteen percent of our land area this is less than one percent of our land area and it it ignores the concept of where we currently simple water and sewer where we have transit and where we have infrastructure where we'd like to see and fill happen number d under this concept is that this is almost a sort of a good thing that's in the designations particularly the growth center designation in the neighborhood development area designation this is just a we wanted to retain this concept that there are affordable housing incentives in those programs and so we don't want to see that last the current part of this is that the current designations do not have an appeal process this enhanced designation concept includes an appeal  process and again to jim's point earlier if we have systems in place already let's just work with those so if the problem is that these designations don't have an appeal process they just add the appeal process to the designations rather than coming up with a whole but yet it's not even mentioned in your most basic of sort of mission statement and number one it says economic development and housing i really love to see transportation in there it is what you exist on the road for the interest in that in the context of the project reach and another place that it could be is and for there's just this last little part of four on the sentence that says against us helping to reach affordable housing and as well and we could talk about yeah so we had it so to just quickly talk about the process of the ad hoc committee reveal we had some other statements that were very specific to some of the proposals like the development cabinet and that kind of thing and we felt like because all of that's going to be a moving target we really like rows up and got to these higher levels so some of that stuff was in that original draft that kind of fell out yeah i mean you know  there was an earlier wording to about even the municipal state permitting systems talking to each other which concept of coordinated state review doesn't have to include a specific recommendation and i can imagine about the meeting and i know it was a bit of a long discussion but i think it was needed tonight so they gave a prayer input tonight ok so let's move right through the next w bill about our p c s playing a larger role in helping the say particularly in our get water quality funding out to the municipalities and partners in the watershed bas so just a few this is my head's up let me know if you don't hear anything you have any concerns about that i think is really enough for because d c has been very adamant office has been over law  what i'm looking for over books water long under water something that is just so they really been jammed up with trying to get all the sub grants out so i think they're trying to outsource some of that so we'll see where that conversation goes but districts you know it really needs to be consistent with the patients yet i think there's the opportunity to make it simpler and also you know have more local control because it would really be the towns some consultant who is going to develop a new land use model for evaluation something about working out the service and i'm wondering if that office but the lane use point is your words some improvements are done for let's say it's widening or are actually more fun let's say it's adding x and twelve feet then we need to do it a ration to look at the land use implications of what what does  do in terms of creating development pressure in a place that you know there may be some now they would increase accessibility to that location and let's evaluate that so i was just trying to be thoughtful about making sure we're looking at all the implications