first of our revised workflows for trying to really focus on these activities we have a visiting member tonight from the village p c so diane welcome  and as normal we relate to any members that show up we like to have you sit at the table with us and participate in the discussions it's just a nice thing to have and you guys join us public comment so w this is what we would call being in the we and you know a lot of time here we don't want to be in the weeds but meetings like that but this is a time that we actually do need to be in the weeds so the people that come after us don't have to go there and that doesn't mean that you won't have to analyze the regulations that we develop as part of this process against develop means that you are going to participate in creating the regulatory framework for the new towns for this town center and that doesn't happen all that often especially  joking but one thousand nine hundred was the last time that we can visit this area of town and then we rode the implementing regulations and we don't often get around to planning on this elevation and then get into the weeds that often as six this is where it's going to get really fun really yeah just about how yeah so that's why this project this project is so interesting and fun you know to just leave off where we got with the end of the town plan the draft down plan process is we had a lot of we had some community input through the survey was particularly interesting and we didn't learn anything we didn't learn that a lot of things were totally aligned we heard contradictory stuff and we heard that people wanted didn't want buildings that were too tall but people didn't want sprawl but people wanted denser areas in our town center so what do you do with that is a planning commission that's really at the heart of what's hard about community planning it when people make it a community planning process tell you different banks and that's what you're in a deal with as part of this base you know people say we want connectivity up there that's great but how do you cross route fifteen in the you know safeway when people that respond to surveys in this part of the focus group in the open house say we wanted to just fluoro as part of this  commuter arterial so this is the kind of challenges that are going to be for you and there are a lot of easy answers which is why this is going to be interesting  we were told that design should respond to use the village preference survey told us that they responded favorably to images they reflect traditional vermont architectural styles and burnett gabled roofs more than flat but also that context and setting were important well development these days can be really really boxy as you've seen what we're getting out there is box and it's expensive to do non b do break buildings up into there ius or you know townhouses or cottages or whatever you want it's not responsive to the market because it's too expensive to build so what the market gives us is what we have there which is a bunch of boxes so if we want cottages with porches this is the nexus that you have to write this into code and that's what's going to be so hard about it and so interesting about the way that  long process this is not a two week sort of effort this is almost a year effort ultimately and the most important thing that i will say that i that is i will commit to is we want to understand what you want to do our job is not to impose upon the town the regulations that we think make sense our job is to clean out of this kind of the conversations we're going to have what you guys want and then try to find the best way to  something that articulates the vision that you have for essex town center and gives you the regulatory tools to make sure that it can happen so it's going it's going to be a very good it process and i think what we'll talk about how we first structured this  because there was a lot in the e t c next plan there's a lot of information in there i know you guys have had a chance to look at it and we've had some very subs and convert comments from the town from different apartments in the town all of which is really important some private residence have given us some good comments as well but at the end of the day there's a lot of information in there in the best way that we can think of to actually break it down into the coming of the regulations is to break down those those critical things and work with you guys to understand what you want to regulate and what you don't want to regulate because you don't have to regulate everything but when we find ourselves out of at a crossroads of saying this is something we should regulate or not we have to keep going back to the vision that you  don't regulate this or don't provide guidance to this point what happens to our ability to achieve the vision and that's really kind of the that's the complexity of this the vision statement that's actually the draft vision statement for the overall as it sounds center that was  plans on page twenty two had it you know it talks about for the first time really i think and in a clear way for this this part of essex that talks about the architectural character as being a really important component of so as this process goes forward we're going to have a conversation at some point actually i can tell you exactly when we're going to have that would be january twenty fourth and february twenty eighth but we're going to a conversation about architecture and we have talked conversation about height sim conversation about form around conversation all those things and when you guys are faced with the the questions of should we regulate building types should we regulate massive buildings and types of architectural characteristics you're going to find sure there are some people that will really that there are some people that won't agree with that we have to keep going back to the vision statement thing if you don't regulate some of these things what happens to you what's the consequence of providing that guidance and regulation to assure that it does develop in a way that you feel you see you see that it's good i also preface it professionally i'm really pleased but you know even though this is still a draft plan  and it's purposely draft because we want to go through this process so at the end of it we can actually finish it along with the regulations you create to actually have a very tight clear presentation of what the committee wants but i've also been really pleased with it actually i think the plans already had some of the intentions that it has that we wanted to have some of the conversations with staff about one hundred going efforts within the town center are i think are being informed by the plan as it exists today and that's a good sign that's a good sign that aig has some residents with with the community also that there's some there's some truth said here that may be really useful and touchstones that we come back to as we need to to keep make sure we don't lose the overall tension here in terms of sort of effort here were we were i was involved more in the development the kind of the draft plan sharon was sort of supportive and they were kind of kind of switching roles a little bit but at the end of the day i think what will end up doing is is you know bringing forward these pieces of the puzzle and helping you understand how they fit to the overall vision and make sure that the end of day we don't lose sight of that there could you pull up the road map i think that would be a good graphic to start off  with right there ok so it's not the most attractive document but we have taken time with staff to to try to map out this process for you and we are here on the on the twenty seventh of september and we've got seven seven buckets of information that we need to go through in this in this engagement with the planning breaking down a lot of the core elements of the c t c plan into its constituent parts and our job will be to make sure you don't lose sight of the big picture and that but i think it's really important to break some of these things down because you may decide that you are comfortable regulating these elements of sight and not comfortable about regulating these elements of sight and if you are comfortable regulating some things that has downstream consequences that we'll be able to understand and articulate that so you don't find ourselves at the end of the day unsure as to what's happening the other thing to talk with staff about and this is this is you know i think really important is that we will come to some can we will hopefully come to some conclusions and each one of these steps like tonight when we talk about the neighborhoods of the district we need to have some i think for this process to officially and you get to to get to the to the end point here we need to have some clarity with the planning commission that that's the right direction and we're going to say yes we are going to ask you something at some point throughout this process to vote and say yes that's what we're going to agree to now i know that sounds sort of you know back of eliot if you will but it i think it's really important because if we if we decide to to just to determine boundaries for certain types of districts and then start changing them later there's really complicated consequences of that not to say you can't change your mind and i'm clear about that but but we will try to work with you to make sure that when we get the clarity from you in the direction of we get from you is clear and that we can continue to march along in a way that actually makes sense because again this is a building process of building very cognisant that if over the course of the proper process we come to a new revelation we may have to go back and get our boated on because it doesn't make sense with regards to something we've learned direction that the plane commission wants to go and how that might how that might sort of manifest itself is where we're meeting with you almost every other meetings you're planning meetings obviously you guys are meeting on your own you know there are other meetings so there may be moments in other meetings where you guys have to continue the conversation with staff and that's the i know that that will happen i think and you know jump on that again as well we have a line item on every meeting or on our scheduled meetings to do follow up so we may be in a point where we may not be ready to vote on something tonight but i think we should commit to voting on that at the next meeting and closing it off and not not letting it carry over unless it's really drastic i would have asked us as a group commit to this closure of each topic if not on the night we discuss it then on the subsequent meeting where we have room for a follow up discussion and i think we should let these drug drag out unless there's an absolutely solid reason to do so that way we can we can not let something the cycle for a full month before we get back to you appreciate that i think even that would make it just make it work and we would be there on staff to to make sure that we're all sort of  then so that we don't lose the thread i think you know we need to keep keep that going and even sometimes you know two weeks or four weeks we you know that's ok because there are going your fears goal should be to to close it subject out the night that we discuss it that should be our goal but we do have time built into the next meeting to do a follow up so i don't think we should vote because if we're not ready to vote we don't vote no no absolutely i think so in some of the meetings that some of those who exhibited tacit architecture birds simple and uses actually were anticipating to work sessions with you on those particular topics because we know there are going to be a lot more things to deal with and you know i also w say i think you could see it from the previous work that we do in phase one we're flexible about the stuff we have to reassess some of this as we move along we can work with staff to do that as we're trying to map the road provide a road map so the road working up the same road map but if we need to reassess that road map because of other external factors then so be it going into sort of the next part of this i mean one of the things one of the one of the assumptions we are making in in this process is that the goal for the regulatory framework goal for this outcome of this project is going to be some new code that will have more visual accompany  allow for you to communicate architectural character and form and some of the other things that work service to brought to forward in the e t c next draft plan so we're making an assumption and it's a well educated and some have already had some discussions around but the what the what the regulation that you're going to create is going to look like is not going to be what you have today it is going to be born formative and visually informative to the outcome you're trying to achieve so we've built in some process around creating the graphics and the sort of supportive materials that help you do that obviously the plan was written to provide a good starting point for that but there will be some additional visuals that we may have to create to allow this to happen and then the last thing i'll say it is an insured please jump in and make my point the last part of this is the drag elations part of this is we also including in that housekeeping they're calling it and sure can speak to this at length but we have not found a code in our lives i've never seen a code yet that couldn't couldn't do with a little pruning and that's the case with the orse there are things in the code today that just we know by virtue of time  or things that change that probably need to be looked at our job will be to identify some of those things and that's where staff will come in i think in large measure to help us identify with those things that are so that they can work with you as well to sort of gets get through some of those houses that's something that well yeah i would say that both the districts that will be proposing as part of this project don't exist in isolation from the rest of the town and the district tables or however they end up being don't exist in isolation of your other zoning and subdivision regulations so part of that odd it is to make sure that any changes that we make in this section  reflected elsewhere in the ordinances unintended consequences yeah exactly i'm trying to get and that ranges from looking at the allowed use is if we decide that you don't want them in the center districts then we need to make sure that they're accommodated somewhere else looking at some of the subdivisions standards and things like that to make sure that they're everything's consistent across the board and that actually takes more thought than we normally think when you're just starting with the bylaws and so that's why we proposed a full audit of the regulations in relation to what we're proposing under the master plan and then the second part of that is the other thing that's really important in there is that is the development of some model research so we're going to come back to you and this will be something we'll probably do relatively soon come back with you to you with some ideas models that you can see of what we think the regulation can  become because visually and just sort of sort of feel it because you get helpful for but you know if you have an idea what the end goal might be in mind it helps you as we have these conversations sort of make sure ok i see where this is go i got a road map and i also got sort of a reference point so one of the thoughts was you'd actually come back with some some model regulations you get not we're going to copy them or use them necessarily and it's as code but to help you see the pathway for  i would say to that master plan we recommended a hybrid approach base of the feedback we got originally so that you know in that range is what we look at range from a full light form base color because we were x to consider that which would be a totally new model for the community but again it's something that we can present in terms of what that would look like to going back to just updating what you have now in terms of your zoning district tables in your does design it in the future but it also incorporates a lot as mark said a lot of the design elements that will be new under the proposed regulations in the one day i think you know should only welcome a plan commission members input but the one thing you should always be asking us is is if you don't understand something or it's not clear or yours or if you're feeling like you're just not getting it let's talk about that because at the other day you have  it our job is to make this york regulation not our regulations so it really need you need to be comfortable with it you need to feel like you can you know in the future apply it you know clearly clearly and uniformly with consistency and we didn't really talk about public input into the process because we had hoped we got a lot of that as part of the master plan and we are using that master plan as the guide for this but in terms of this process a manner you know the public can participate in the planning commission's work sessions and once this is done the bylaws such as they are all exist in draft form so there also be time for public input after this process so i just want to make sure that draft and i think he did provide a very valuable role in just what i like in relation is the unintended consequences i don't know that we am sure you guys can but it would be it would be worth it in my mind to have somebody who hasn't been doing right this to look at it and see what they could do with it yeah no i think that's a very good suggestion and that's actually pretty common to see sometimes that's that's the engineering department of community or a template you know tell the road crew it you know we found that a number of times you know we we want it we asked for this and all the sudden oh you asked for this but now you're allowing this because of the way you asked for this i think the bill only the only caveat i would put out there again it's not i think it that the the the feedback you want needs to be focused i would think would need to be focused on do you understand what our are intentions right not necessarily if you're asking question of the consequence of the intentions that's a different matter because that goes back to the spend more like your focus you know what what was our goal with this what was our intent is that you know is our design is our intent valid or is the way we're crafted it valid or is there a will bowl or is there a something that we're going to have to live with for fifty ask paul's in member of the steering committee to comment i would say we get pretty well formed maybe in there like the public and closer to the public comment section sort of thing but that's that's no it's a very good question it's a very good suggestion sherman i think the other thing i would say is that there's also all the little elements that we're breaking this down there may be times in this process where you want like say criteria for example maybe one invite some certain folks there to be part of the conversation around this because at the that's a great thing to do and the good news we have a bit of pretty good road map i think we can be can give people enough notice and say you know john for example you know we're having architectural discussion on the twenty eighth of february next year would you be here for that if you would have  you'd have some thing to say that would be useful here not to put a lot of overhead on it but yes i think that would save us some grief the other thing i would say on that point is and you know a you know there is i think built into this some moments where there may need to be some pause and reflect as well so we just need to be working with staff to to do that and it's our intention to work very closely with staff for this project process because we want to get the other day we want staff to be as equally comfortable with understanding where this regulation is going to go so that they can provide you guys eventually with the best input as to how development is achieving the objectives ok so i think that's the roadmap discussion i think would be good to do now is be to maybe we can just sort of focus a little bit on the on the district boundaries could you bring up i think it's page twenty fifty four of the draft or sorry twenty four all right so as you may recall from april we had one of the one of the kind of constructs within this proper planning process was to do was to break the e t c up into some neighborhoods and for the plural and some are over conversion from a plan to zone a regulations the idea would be that that these neighborhoods will transform themselves somehow into districts district now whether they co opt existing dony districts or they become their own zoning districts that's hopefully something will have a conversation but the idea was that you know we felt that the e t c wasn't one place that there wasn't one you know one district here there was unique characteristics within the entirety of it and that there may be some value in breaking it down into some pieces so that we can capture some of that very variety that's actually what's going on today because there's a y different zoning districts in the d c but i think that this planning process resulted in maybe a little bit better clarity as to where maybe some of those boundaries were going to be we did have some discussions you were very call about the conservation recreationists that was probably the one that was the most discussed with the the planning commission there was some concern about the conservation recreation district in part because of property ownership issues related to that there was concerns about sort of whether that was going to not allow at this part of the a t c and this is this is tower road for old stager rose or comfortable where we are there was concerns that that there wasn't enough opportunity there that discussion also as you may recall brought into the into the discussion the fact that that we know there are a lot of weapons on that particular area and that the are consensus and whether this is the planning commission desired op barca consensus was that there was a lot of development potential there anyway just because of the natural resource constraints that exist that being said i do think that coming up with some discussion around that would be useful because you get that if that the site if we decide to not even include it in the new districts of the d c that's an option  you could just say well that's going to revert to the underlying zoning and that'll be it or we can change the boundaries and adjust them accordingly or we could stick with the plan and deal with that just to  everybody reorient a little bit too in terms of the district so we have the mixed use district mixed use south district which is here which includes the bulk of the as external center as accent or shopping center and says and the rest of that real estate and we also have the mixed use north which was across the cross fifteen we have the residential district which in compass is the the bulk of the traditional single family residential development as well as lands on the distinctive you know historic center so that's already codified in and zoning and there was this and there was this you know area in between what we could argue was a very calm you know very mixed use environment from storks or so there was a sort of interest issue a land that had characteristics of commercial development but also some potential for residential infill and some potential adapted reuse of existing buildings from residential use to non residential use and so we felt that it had to it seemed to be evolving and now it exists in several districts the idea was to consolidate it the zoning districts that exist within that area make them work better together writing  to the element process in the area and part of the part of the impetus for that was you know there's a lot of curb cuts on fifteen here and the idea that if we actually brought it all into one neighborhood slash district we could a little bit better control over how we provide access to these properties as that evolution continues as dana mentioned you know the connectivity across fifteen was a big issue and will continue to be a big issue and you guys have already taken steps with the green bell and other efforts to make to first to facilitate better crossing of fifteen in this area there's always a little more definitional stage got a crossing point there's there's a little more definition to it when you get into the transition neighborhood it was just it's been kind of left to its own devices it's kind of all the vault so there was a i think of a good rationale for the connectivity issue to bring the to consolidate the district around those different districts into law and then hopefully through this regulatory process speak a little bit more clearly as to how do projects and properties develop so they provide one curb cut shares access to both watson and that we limit curb cuts in that we take a look at the uses that are there and make sure that there's not uses that are actually you know work against you relative to having a lot of kirk like things like drive through banks for example again not to say that we're going to conservation land and we don't really see any particular need to modify that very much other than for attention lay again taking a look at it in terms of how it speaks  things like recreation there could be some improvements in the language around the uses that are allowable and you know we're getting more of a modernization of them of recreation versus saying recreations not already being used in some of those sent you the kind of evaluation i did of the proposed against the current zoning but the current sounding is based on the ninety one master plan and back then a lot of this area was and developed i think what we've tried to do in this is basically  one replace the paradigm that has developed since then to recognize that but also to allow for a little bit more development as specially the mixed use snores and the expanded residential north of that so the as north up as up as north yeah and is that that  road so it allows for a little bit a new development the other thing we looked at was relationship to the sewer core obviously because in the areas where we do a lot more dense development only to be supported as for second of you have questions please don't hesitate right now this is really it we're entertaining questions and you have them i don't want you to lose it paul is a great example you have a question ask because we have to lose it if it we forget so discussion of in the draft masterplan a fairly different land use pattern in the us the southern portion of the big issues district versus the northern portion if you just are just as a just without getting into the the weeds on what sharon did up to the weeds but i will say it relates to the vision and in zoning the purpose statement is so when you're looking at these districts i think in chapter six it outlines the vision statement for at least four of them yeah it does and so that's what we would be translating into presuming in actual purpose statement that defines the reason for that zoning district and why it's different than the other discourse so characteristic be labeled probably architecturally bludger mass doesn't mean all those other things that are important don't get ignored but just generally speaking more density here less density here probably a greater proportionality of residential vs more mixed use here that's kind of some of the characteristics of that and the idea the overall idea behind them is that they kind of work symbiotically in terms of supporting it economically do you know about a valuable mixed use vironment so that this area can provide a little more residential density to the whole of the d c to make any economic activity here better and it's pretty close to walk it's pretty easy to get to all of those things with the right design and you know a consistency of applying pressure and spaces and all that would make this a very functional living environment relative to the overall a t c but we felt given the location its provenance to the fifteen and its proximity to some of these natural areas and such that it couldn't it couldn't be as dense as this but it could certainly be more dense than it is today  context so my question is is that sewer cooler and the history that i know of the town has always been a selling lock and and holding block as to the vellum and and further expansion of any economic activity in the town we are other it be residential or commercial y well kinds of things because i can't make that assumption that one corner is going to have there's a person not right now ok there's a good point so just to be clear on page seventeen of the mad draft  ok and just a just tick i could be can go back there after second but this portion of meat is actually in the soup or this land is in the circle and your point your bigger point i think is actually there's been some very substantive conversations at the in the able discussion pulse table discussion with the planning commission previously about the issue of the sewer core and i know there's been resolution of all of those issues but i think it was a fairly well established premise at the onset of this project that it's kind of chicken egg that if you if you want this vision to be realized this vision can only be realised if the sewer or supports it that was the fundamental mistake one of the fundamental mistakes of the last master plan was it didn't get the clarity around the need for aligning the sewer core with where you want growth so i think again to the to  sort of let's acknowledge that the plan is actually had some value thus far that conversation is starting and to happen which is good the other thing i would say is that we have and you can pull this up again during it's on page seventeen but there server does include the bulk of the of the more dense areas of the t c the question that i think it has not been answered yet is how much allocation can be applied in that you know the boundaries the boundary that's important but there's also been developed realty of capacity in the allocation of that capacity we've had a number of discussions on that and i would like us not to get derailed with sewer capacities and and future so forth because that really denis has done a lot of work on that in to some degree i think related to chicken and you've got to we kind of have to come up with a plan and then work to try to enable it so we disorder has always been a factor reality how far out is this playing going to go on understood ok so i mean it's you know we can have pie in the sky and we can talk about a lot of different things is the vision ten years of the vision twenty five is a fifty is a hundred that you guys made almost every week if you like in your stats every two weeks you know when you know doing that so i mean that should be a it definitely been part of our discussion is what i mean and we had i think the last time we spoke about this it was a quite a lively discussion about you know what's realistic versus what you know what do we want to see versus what could we realistically see we're not going to solve it here but we are going to potentially drive the conversation public works and developers and so forth to set some of those targets and then if i miss and the point please jump in but we're trying to drive we're trying to drive change and not just maintain status quo because status quo doesn't work i think we have a break here and president as a real practical example i think the points are a good one but a real practical example if you get us saying this is the recommendation but if we wanted this to say to require a minimum density in any of these potential districts right we couldn't i wouldn't feel comfortable proposing that unless i felt like there was a reasonable probability that a developer could actually get the sewer density they needed because they wouldn't be couldn't achieve so that w create a really useless zoning regulations right so there is i think there is but it i would agree with you in premise that there is a little bit of chicken and egg and i think we've got to we've got to push this forward a little bit so that you can feel comfortable that th something in front of the engine you know public works to set a target can we get to it how do we get there because otherwise it's only going to be this is what we can do this is all we have we can't do any more than this so we've got to find a way how do we get there we had this exact conversation of you know do we ask for what we what we can have right now or do we ask for how do we get to where we want to be and that's i think the question that we're trying to get in front of public works and also you know this process is going to happen at different tables at different times and hopefully some at the same time but i mean meetings with dennis and the select board and so dennison you guys are going to have to there i talk to the thing we really need to be more integrated this so be it but to just make a big very clear point i think back to the districts and the boundaries of those districts is that i think there does need to be there is alignment now on the way these winds are drawn today with the existing sewer corps boundaries so there is there is alignment there which i think was was purposeful on our part we wanted to make sure that there was not the not a gaping hole like we're not suggesting higher density in areas where at least the sewer core browner didn't exist so i think that's something that plan commission should think about and say in terms of you know that should be the way we approach the districts in the d c we want them to make sure they respectful of either the way the district is drawn today or perhaps how you think it should be redrawn in the future that's i think that to me that's a very good touchstone to get to it's like this clarity around so i'm curious is there an overlay first of all that shows the existing zoning you know overlay those yet no and that's we will do that i think that's pretty critical because i know like for example that you're taking away some of this historic preservation area and without being able to see that here unless and literally point them up on a computer to share it be good to have those discussions as to like ok why was that decided what was this decided what what is this going to gain us like they were in section there you're along allen martin parkway and all of our martin parkway residents use the green area for recreation it's not that you don't need a sewer core you don't need a sewer but when you're talking about blending  all of that area you know fighting back to make nine you know that area all the way to saks and it's like really feel like we're one district even though you have a divided between browning green i just want to point that out that all of us tend to use that green area for recreation and maybe if you're looking at the right not sure that we're putting that in this well i know but i just wanted to give my two cents that that that district this is the center district they believe and so one of the things that i think it's important to recognize this goes back to the point this year was making at the beginning of this is the unintended consequences of changing districts the eat the c boundary itself doesn't line up with the zoning districts they're not coincident which you know again in hindsight twenty twenty would have been nice to make that wind up but they don't so there's actually a need to see boundary that does not actually line up with the existing zoning district so there are some interstitial areas outside of the e t c that would be the historic district for example that we're going to find ourselves having to deal with the consequences th of the the six down center it's also the balance of what the laying farm property so there was a reason we came up with the idea of changing a sort of debt reclassifying it so that at a different characteristic  one big area where there's sort of again changing looking at stage road is this parse these parcels here was looking at those as being contiguous to and near the sea but not currently as dense as they probably could be and being able to provide some residential growth there recognizing there has been an investment in crossing and walkways and all of that to convert them so and then obviously looking at the balance of this this is the center distribution centers are currently goes up you know quite far north and that that was part of the contention discussion around whether that conservation recreation district boundary made sense because that that was at the heart of that the fact is is that today it's called the center district and we were suggesting that it's planned intention was not consistent with the rest of the senate history that had to it was something else so i think that is a really important part of this conversation then you can sort of see the balance of the consolidation of the zoning districts related to that transition kind of came out of the center district came out of some of these other districts and  residential business which is this one here and the high density residentially they crave so there's a it's kind of recognizing that there's a this a patchwork of of districts in this area and it covers all most of that land the other thing i would say the district boundaries that are presented on the on the in the draft c plan do follow property values we were very clear with the fact that we didn't want to do the old over a hundred feet into a property where you have an arbitrary zoning boundary because we thought that's we know from our own experience and certainly talking to staff that's not  usually a desirable thing that helps orient people a little bit more about the sort of the underlying zoning and how that kind of transformed our question and probably find so there's a bit of math to time forus it sticks out to yes i think again that was i think that was a recognition of of the pattern it's evolved and there is a sliver of what you're right there is a sliver right of where that actually pretty gnarly ravine it is an hourly intervene yeah and i think that was part of the discussion is that we didn't feel like they were probably much development there anyway but for the purposes of keeping the district boundaries a little bit clear that it made some sense there so mark just to the left of where you  not an inch to the left as a property that extends into yes right there there's that long ring taylor session right now that the proposed boundary is cutting off the does belong to that parcel to the right here yeah yeah i thought there was a book to take a look at the zoning to do it i thought there was a pretty good there was a boundary there or maybe there was a is in they in the previous one you can show the both of those were contiguous in the zones that they were in of those two parcels so in general they guess a sports car walked through these if we can and in turn you know the question on the the center district is you know if the center district actually goes over well this is i think pretty consistent with the cent district got that right we did extend it further down right we did and that was apparently to recognize the fact that there was already some historic properties that were not incorporated in the original there was a question that came up one point earlier in the discussion about actually going to leave a little bit further than people felt that this was kind of the gateway and there was a discussion about well it wasn't technically in the e t c but it might be good to f zoning perspective incorporate that in because then it leased the character role models that you know come flowing with the character i'm not sure the planning commission thinks of that i think there's some merit to that and then as a ghost as it goes to the west this was one we really had a kind of a it was tough to figure that out but we looked at the r and l looked at those of the character here and there kind of was a breakpoint as you got to the shopping center where you know there was some remnants of historic structures but it did sort of peter out the further west you and you know it's not the said there isn't a few there are a few properties here were very less so and it got less it got more or less intact so there was a point where we decide we sort of looked and said ok based upon the characteristics of the of the structures in the the form and you can you can kind of almost see it because of all the buildings are lined up you know there's a fairly consistent set back from the transition sort of got into this trend this is where it became the transition commercial and some of these other uses actually have subsequently turned to there's the you know it was the tempo place that there was now a commercial enterprise continues so there are some things that are sorts of this but it really felt like it needed to line up better with with the historic center itself and also where the overlay the scenic the design overlay fits the yeah and that's another consideration in this is that there's already design overlay for the historic center and we want to make sure that that wasn't sort of misaligned with the zoning itself so if we were to if we were to extend e t c section more southeasterly on fifteen yup off the top your head what what i mean i wouldn't want to introduce another another type of is here yeah i would actually continue that with the center district honestly i think there's a good argument to me that as you come on fifteen and you get to this you know we get to this intersection sand hill road or so i got right as you get to that intersection you know there are a few properties there know i think there's that's a good quote mean you get this depends on what going back to the earlier discussion making new districts if we decide we want to make new distressing give them the definition of a purpose that actually aligns with your goals and what are the intended unintended consequences of expanding it out beyond its current piece i think that would be something we can look at but you know i would i would argue that the arrival points into the essex downsizer from these directions are very important and the school is a very important sort of given you know to me i live in fairfax so i drive down one twenty eight and this is when i first notice i'm in essex that's turk this is my first point of arrival really so i think there is a good argument to be made to say extending it to here and then  you know the question where at the school that's there maybe a little bit of discussion around that but the school is a good reference point my mind or so i you know again i think one of the give you look at the i think this is a good time to look at the at the you know what has actually has evolved versus what you wanted to of all discussion and i i don't know you know there may be a historic house or two it's not quite there yet right yeah yeah so i just think it's like you know really you know it's the exercise is not always about just capturing all the historic buildings but also but trying to find where do they come in assemblage you know to sort of say something also where there might be redevelopment or changes over time that you want to sort of make sure don't make unintended consequences a really bad outcome there and i don't know if again i don't i mean i can see the schools not probably likely to change in the near term but as as a as a way of of d v r kaley arrival point i think that's a good reference that's a good reference point on a main road into town it can because one of the things that the zoning regulations can do is talk about what happens when you get to these gateways and if somebody does do something there could be language that says you got to take some care in the design of your permit because we we have a gateway so we don't want you to turn it into something that doesn't fit that character so i  i think there's a good argument to be made to sort of extend it to the south through this fifteen sand hill road intersection and also probably to carry it further on one twenty eight to at least the school the least in a corner along this and try to find the right property boundaries that  didn't you get a natural a natural point as you come around the corner going west for the first time around the corner yeah yeah i mean that's that's where it opens up and this land is the main this is where every every spring i go down through here it's pretty wet so much there's going to be a lot happening but sensual line up with the boundary between the business residential business district i think it's pretty much the same line i think it may be cleaned up a little bit but i was we are as we're looking at it we certainly you know we c certainly see you know there's a reader say that they could go into one of the other major sort of it's kind of arbitrary line in some ways but that was one area of transition that we we noted not much i think that you know that i mean right now the only there is a height was a high the high density residential is in israel cbre gets rolled into into the system into makes you south but in terms of density you know it's probably actually up up zoning it relative to density and all i can but is up doing it for rolls and zoning perspective and deal yeah down here you have certain open space requirements on that property because of the subdivision but i haven't found some much clarity as far as what i could pay for it seems like there is a little more potential  number of instances is that there is a hope that there will be recreation open space throughout the t c it may have a slightly different form than what is existing today or what might be and you know perceived as being recreational space but  that presumption is that there would be some requirements to make sure that there is functional practical open space associated with that albeit probably not an open meadow just another lot to bring them down conservation i think as a result of some conversations with the director after about that about the idea of wanting to make sure there was some provision for future recreational opportunities within the t c that may be also to go back to the question of our how realigning the district boundaries with that property values that area in the south part of the safer ground development is the boundaries don't align with the property yeah we don't want to yeah i think that the you know there's a couple things sort of if you look at it with some time behind us i think this is one where there was some accommodations trying to be made to reflect some of the natural resource constraints but also some of the goals th had for recreation so i think we're trying to find the right way to do that but you know it may be i think i think bottom line is i think there was a recognition that there would be up zoning if you will on portions of the property that may come at the expense of down zoning at others but the net effect would be sickly be the same level of density as they are only maybe a slightly more level density so we just where that density is applied yeah i it done here so that and that getting back to the open space requirements for any sort of higher density use that would be a very very good example of of open spaces you know them then dedicating a trail had to the town forest would be a very good thing of that process ok so let's let's let's let's pause and circle for a few minutes as i understand it our charge this evening is to sort or give you guys some clarity on whether or not we agree or like this or want what we want out of it is well what is the commission feel about this approach in this general structure knowing that we've we've already talked about we ask you to have the town centers not tons of space the this historic area whatever we're calling it wasn't you it is coca does sort of district expanded to some degree what are what are folks feel about this approach so far yet i'll start with you i don't have any objections to it i think it's probably a pretty good way i worry a little bit where the dividing line and and mark referenced to are where that cuts off with the brown commercial district and the middle there i am extending the historic district is fine i think as we develop a plan and what we develop for their historic district checks are going to be one of the biggest challenges we have here just because of the nature of what's in that area and and how it could develop with the traffic and everything else in there advocated actually expanding that historic center southeast in just the whole idea of the gateway and then phasing up as you drive along fifteen i'm very supportive about that concept i like a lot  so this is definitely more of a learning experience zoning regulations and all i find myself not really knowing one of my proving versus what was in place before so that's just my perspective i can appreciate all the work that's gone into already having discussions with what seems to be the appropriate people that have the expertise to decide what we're cutting into and what we're expanding and what not to say no way i can offer much in those areas unless i really dive into the weeds of the details and that's kind of what i feel like if i was to review this in depth i would look at the existing zoning regs pull up you know be in density residential and see ok where are we changing that and then look at you know looking at what defines that today eventually also is what are we gaining what are we losing you know by this that it sounds like that's what i heard is your honor really what's the net gain in the end i think you know but but from what i've seen in the draft plan you know it's totally different in how the planning is done and i think that's you know that's intentional for a lot of reasons but it's hard for me to compare what the way things were previously done when it's so drastically different to the new direction and i know we can we can say that we like something now and if new information comes out further down the road we can come back and revisit and say we want to do something different so i think your point of looking for more information or greater clarity that on the road is fine  actually insulated one one point to that and that came to mind is is do we know if there's a cost associated with changing anything so like to john's point if we think something is kind of ok right now is is there a redefine you know that area and what not and if we if we look at the cost what's the benefit of you know is it really worth our time and effort to make that change we may decide quickly that no it's not there's let's not mess with this it's leave that piece alone so and same with like some of the densities like when we look and we say oh and this could use more density well do we look at the current regulation is it even coming close to what how it's regulated right now and if it's not is it worth their time and the money associated  you know the existing zoning districts in the entirety i mean you could make an argument you could make a reasoned argument that just doing the mixed use north and south this district probably has the biggest bang for your buck because those are the areas where there is probably more likelihood for redevelopment there's probably more likely that the writer densities were some of the architectural discussions of the master plan or brings forward will have the most probable value i'm not saying that that's the case but you bring up i think a reasonably good point that you could decide that the existing center district boundary and underlying zoning and everything else is maybe with some tweaks is perfectly fine and that there's been no more resources put or worked effort put towards some of the broader so i think that is something to be thinking about as we move along with this process just one zero point what's funny about this matter is that this looks so big but if you look at what the town has designated it's a growth center if we were to look at this in the context of the of the town as a whole it's not that big and  we don't want to make the mistake of under densify in this area this is where your services and your infrastructure are so we need to keep mindful of that and then if you know you are thinking as a regional planner then it gets really crazy i mean this is what is where it's appropriate to grow not only in the town but in that region another good point to read just to go dana said the other thing that happened as a result of this draft is we've actually made the t c smaller but also by making it smaller and concentrating the density in a tighter area some of those other sort of side objectives like being proving connectivity and increasing the likelihood that the economic activity c actually improve so that's why i go even hang on just one because i just want to go back on this for a second because i'm in generally in favor of this a couple points have made up i don't think we should be cutting properties and so we've got a couple of those properties both north and south that hair extensions into you know the crescent jewels owns one of the other ones across from across from my  anyways going to park close to to the st hill intersection we've got the catholic church on one side but you've got a lot of relatively current residences you know they're not they're not historic residences across the road from they are  but we're not talking about that yet again where but that but visually as you come into it there's a there's a change and so i change in direction so right so where is that when the state project comes through to put lights in that intersection what is that what's the scope of that going to be so mean we can pull up right up to where the intersection is going to be that we're going to lose it again this isn't a big area how much are we going to lose to the state state when they design the intersection so how much benefit we're going to get from shar places in we do see it where it was i think that might be a trigger for some people in the properties but i think i definitely like the idea of trying to keep the reduce its own district less and so you get your you know you get the money story school you get the old friends i g a they're all there within this designated historic district it's all those neighborhoods i mean we would love to be part of it that's all so the other piece on that i'm questioning on this and i mean it doesn't sit well with me is to have those two little blips of the residential recreation in did intrude into the conservation recreation i don't most just assume just wipe that and call it conservation recreation for my own personal point of view i don't like seeing little blips because what are they going to do with that different then this is the recreation of being the key piece on  a differentiation for us i don't know that i don't know where that delineation is just for for clarity i gather and that just leaves a little blip in between the two either make one parcel that's presidential conservation or make everything conservation recreation as that would be my thinking on that just for clarity for the future people looking at this and they're not having to go up there with the sex and to try to find out where exactly it is and get a surveyor out here one foot into the recreation conservation recreation area one foot into the residential recreation no residential that spot so again that i think tom's question about is that private town forest you know does that mean if if that's the case then make it all the same whatever the whatever saybrook is that i just said bothers me to see little little little isolated cells of one one versus another and i don't know the exact answer but i'd i'd almost rather see conservation because where were kind of on the flip side of that and the flip side of that those if you save it was incorporated into the mixed use south you know there are there are other parts so there is some potential value of you know making that you know keeping it makes use north because our south because you can apply that density and then presumably that would become the open space or the you know i mean you might get it getting the same result  i would i mean that would i would be agreeable that i just don't like seeing it will blips you know i'd rather see you know as much contiguous i believe that is that is the boundary of the forest if i am correct in my jarius data that was in the forest in that case then i would advocate more making it the same as the saybrook section so you have you could use the you use the density or whatever there's a there's a logic to that obviously w that we have that right now is marginally in the center district they were considering that to be residential recreation  so you know again from what we're going to work out density and all of the master plan level the idea was that this would not this would be lower density and would not have the same characteristics yeah so this is is basically everything that we've got outlined in front of us that's in the stork or yeah those are goes up here does not include this tract here it does include all of this it does include this yeah it's on the page seventeen so that's a big get either again that's that's a big that's a you know for that particular property we're talking about a fairly we're suggesting a fairly substantial change and it's a change that we think is is is supported by the fact that it's probably never going to develop to that see that it going back to your point about what could develop on paper today versus in reality there's a big difference and i see the reasoning behind that you don't want to prevent the sprawl to right you want to  more condensed right and you know the concern is you know there's i guess there's a misinterpretation or you know there was some thought that they the feeling that they had probably developed more densely than they actually could really achieve at the end of the day  where you start looking at the constraints on this property and we got some mapping from an r that i think to my satisfaction showed significant conferences on that property and so even though it again if you do the mathematics if you do the mathematics based upon the acres in the zoning district and as old as we can do the rational number you'd actually get to as is would be substantially lower so i think our our the plan that we've resource suggested reflects that and probably ends up within the day giving that giving a density there that actually would be achievable based upon the natural resource constraints but there was there was concern about that  ranging i might even consider taking that that section on the old stage do but it's conceivable that you take away one area and apply to others that better fits your desire to lead us out cars so again i know circle up again because  run out of steam we want to tonight we want to tell you whether or not we like the neighborhoods if there's an area that we want to expand that might be a question that you walk away with you know what would be the consequences of this or not i don't have i don't hear a clear consistent agreement to expand the historic  section even though the concept of a gateway is it's good expansion of the stork session and all i have heard clear consistent support to be go beyond what's here we've talked about i've talked about getting rid of those two little blobs of light green  that really is all i've heard for changes on this i heard a couple x s other things on the property making sure the parties are split yeah making sure providence but also i think what we can do for hear some can consensus around the idea of of looking at historic district boundaries and maybe the way to handle that is to blow that area up a little bit and give you a little more detail about we're all the property lines are and some of the you know pictures o some of the uses of chickens or make an informed decision or a if we should be splitting the property lines just expand you know for the sake of expanding it that's as much for the sake of clarity i think i'd like to ask the commission to basically vote on whether or not we like this concept it's not an absolute lock but i think you've got some clear takeaways that  it's north of where the brown race yeah yeah i was about actually looking at rick but what we've been talking about we're talking about extending the parcel that's brown up a little bit to cover some of that  development perspective but the two properties as i understand it the two properties that i originally pointed out one both in the north or in the south of the demarcation were single landowners and by splitting it we're having a direct impact on a residence not not a not a development where there's you know developer that's coming in that can either absorb or deal with changes but if if if i've now lost the ability to do something with my property as a for the long i think the point that was just raised that i think is a is a is an important one to recognize that we don't have to you know you don't have to follow property laws but there is a but i think a good reason to do it doesn't make sense if there was like you know real compelling reason to not do that the challenges in the past were a portion of the property was in conservation and abortion was in residential as i'm thinking and thinking of wesley b with the exception of of this area though for the most part i think you know a couple little pieces down here for the most part they do fall pretty closely to the property lines and we don't have to worry about those helic overly large lots so that makes it a lot easier so having a single zoning district in the covers a single small a lot just a small lot with multiple zone district is really challenging because then you have to figure out not just which one you want to pick but you know if there's two conflicting ones then what you really do that can have a real not recall any agreement from the property owners on the north side and only the property owner that i was referring to in the south side's been involved in this know hunting i guess in the home area because all the houses it's just a big deal you know near their house but i think you made a good point that that should be demarcated yellow something that conservation people know where the boundary is recreation space near looking at it yes it may be recreational space by deed restrictions because it's declared open space which you know period so you can't even you've already said that you can't build there so if you you know you need to know lose pieces right now i look at that and say ok you could do something with that but no now you're telling me you can't do something with that it's part of the yellow space ok it's it needs  that makes sense just playing devil's advocate though i mean i understand it from the property standpoint but from a functional recreational use you can develop it for types of recreation so the recreation residential district ma out more types of rare rare recreational use and again it would still be restricted by whatever the deed says but there is a potential that you could do more project creation in that district than you could in points i could get to come back and say ok we want to turn it into a park you know that's something that i get to the recreation residential district probably would allow for the development of the park and all that that would that would negate their open space requirements of  possibilities they go along with them so i think there is you know they you know you're absolutely right i mean as it is it functions today it's open space for that plenty of development but i think sharon's points also true in that if at some point they would like to say then say the residents go we really want some sports fields to do there in that facility and they all the neighbors want to ball field a soccer field it's not foregone conclusion that you could actually do that under the residential district today neighborhood the idea was that that portion of the p c would be largely focused on lower density residential would there probably be some accommodation for recreational assets both open recreation the ones you don't like and it's defining different types of open space and so more would be allowed in some districts it wouldn't be allowed in other districts so it become  type of use and it be important to make sure that whatever that ends up being that you know if it's it's more of a regional recreational use of probably wouldn't be allowed in a residential open space district  able i mean would you feel comfortable if we had done a fight areas such as that parcel and the parcel that's currently purple if we were to say tonight we like this plan but those are going to be dotted lines or does those are districts makes some sense and that you know there is this again that we've we haven't talked a lot about the mix used issue but it sounds like we've got some general agreement that the that's ok at least that's what i feeling that the mixed use north or northwest or west or purple that's purple district is is is a reasonable starting point for the boundary  very good there are it is west sure is the planning commission ok with this that's an area that i would like to remain as a dotted line or shaded that that would be the one that if we actually like i think to formalize this to some degree as we go through and i'd like the commission to like to put a vote out this violent whether or not we're in agreement with this stage with what we've talked about tonight i don't care that it's designed to be a super formal this exact match that we've we've got to this point we like what the staff has done we like what our consultants have done and we've identified the areas that we want to either call out for potential changes in the future or things we want to tweak a little bit very concerned about doing it that way diane i did beat your visiting so this one you don't get to vote in but i've been very appreciative of your of your gauge of this so i'm actually going to put the motion up that we accept the  what the consultant have presented or as presented tonight with the qualifying statements and discussions and we encourage them to keep going forward and will look forward to the next batch in the next month or cations second the motion in additional discussion on that and i want to tweak out of all of the i think this is already been said that i think what's going to be critical is when we get into what i think is the next meeting is basically a review of the cycle or two criteria that's when we discuss expanding that or leave it as it is i think the question and i think you've heard that there's some there's some consideration of is there a logical or is there reasonable expansion and contraction whatever it's it's as is  with the idea that it might be appropriate to expand it to something yeah and then these boundaries will not be finalized until the final zoning to structure this vote does not final now does not this is really just the knowledge or discussion tonight and to say that this process where there dana dan anything from your perspective that we need to take away it would be nice if we had some feedback for the next meeting just some verbals or something about if there's any ideas on the expansion of the town i'm going to give you some of those overlays i think it's good to know where the tea leaves are going and it's true helps a lot so is there anything else that we want to touch on on this or do we want to get to minutes another business i'm looking at dana for this or from september thirteenth the notice of public hearing for the solar that you're very familiar with now on the