Remarks by Elizabeth Losos
81 remarks on the record, newest first · Page 2 of 4
- Play at 2:07:23
“That doesn't address the issue here. Floodwater, the controls just aren't that strong. I remember a couple years ago we had I think it was someone from the YMCA on Estes, were you here for that one? When he talked about, I think it was after our- Amity Methodist Church. Amity Methodist, after they started with, I think it was Ora, he had such flooding, he had to spend $50,000 addressing the flooding created by Ora. All right, so I'm sure they had stormwater controls, and I'm sure they were as strong as they could have been for that size development.”
Planning Commission · Oct 6, 2026
- Play at 2:09:01
“Are you asking me or Taz? I'm asking you.”
Planning Commission · Oct 6, 2026
- Play at 2:09:06
“Well, I mean, I see three types of recommendation. One is recommendations to this, and there's a handful of things that I would suggest, and we could discuss those next week. The second is to sketch out what a stormwater overlay would look like and entail. I have been told that that's not reasonable to include in the LUMO. But the third is to add to that language, strengthen this idea that in the interim, there could be some clear Requirements for what the town manager with his staff have to do in the interim to make sure we don't have Projects that are high risk slipping through the system…”
Planning Commission · Oct 6, 2026
- Play at 2:10:22
“And I could, we can go back and forth, you know, by email? Or is that? I don't think we can. Individual. Okay. All right, I can come back on the 20th with a list.”
Planning Commission · Oct 6, 2026
- Play at 2:13:37
“We could do that, but the idea is that they would be doing that with the stormwater overlay. This can't be so burdensome that the idea is this is the interim until the stormwater overlay is developed.”
Planning Commission · Oct 6, 2026
- Play at 2:16:52
“So if nothing else happens without language, how do you envision this going forward, the use of that provision?”
Planning Commission · Oct 6, 2026
- Play at 2:18:01
“But also, if all of that is formalized at some level, it just makes it much easier to enforce, because otherwise, oh, come on, we don't need this, and we've got so-and-so. If it's done case by case, it's just harder to enforce. It won't be enforced in the same way.”
Planning Commission · Oct 6, 2026
- Play at 2:19:07
“I think that could be a result of the downstream analysis.”
Planning Commission · Oct 6, 2026
- Play at 2:19:44
“So if everything... worked well if there was a property that was that appeared to be at risk and so that provision was enacted, and they did the downstream, what came out of it could easily say you need to be, that could be one of the findings from the downstream analysis.”
Planning Commission · Oct 6, 2026
- Play at 2:20:14
“Right. So it could be cheaper to just go straight to the use the 100-year standard. The problem is then it's getting a little arbitrary, and I think TAS is going to be more Anxious if we start but yes, it could be a broader power that allowed several of these different stormwater control management features to be at the discretion Which is more or less what an overlay does I mean that is what an overlay is So, hopefully this is an interim issue I Just wanted to clarify”
Planning Commission · Oct 6, 2026
- Play at 2:23:21
“Uncertain that there is a very clear signal townwide of what the requirements need to be We're aligned I think I don't think it has to be quite case by case I think it's better if they're the principles are really clearly laid out for the public ahead of time So one isn't arguing on a case-by-case basis Basis and the stronger you make them the more there'll be an incentive to get that overlay done and Yeah, so I don't think we're wildly different. I think we would like to see a bit more language. And by the way, one other thing I would add to that, in a lot of similar sort of regulations,…”
Planning Commission · Oct 6, 2026
- Play at 2:26:38
“But not the larger lots, right? I mean, the more units, the subdivisions.”
Planning Commission · Oct 6, 2026
- Play at 2:26:48
“There's some residential that goes up to 70%. I can't remember what.”
Planning Commission · Oct 6, 2026
- Play at 2:28:23
“But why not just, instead of dividing, just make it by the amount of imperviousness?”
Planning Commission · Oct 6, 2026
- Play at 2:28:56
“broader considerations and interests around housing affordability and attainability And so that's why I don't think I'm just saying like instead of making commercial Distinguishing between residential and commercial you just distinguish between You don't make that distinction and it's impervious for that little piece and if it's affordable housing It's probably not going to have a huge amount of imperviousness. So it probably will be at the lower end.”
Planning Commission · Oct 6, 2026
- Play at 2:30:16
“All right. Well, at least for the high risk area, I think it should be use agnostic, which is the overlay.”
Planning Commission · Oct 6, 2026
- Play at 2:30:34
“True. I don't think I could have done those nifty figures.”
Planning Commission · Oct 6, 2026
- Play at 2:43:30
“Do they often request a waiver that they can't reach that 30%?”
Planning Commission · Oct 6, 2026
- Play at 2:44:28
“It just seems a shame that in these missing middle, they won't have as many trees.”
Planning Commission · Oct 6, 2026
- Play at 2:44:55
“Maybe. And then the 1,500 square feet is the size of the property. I mean, the size of the home.”
Planning Commission · Oct 6, 2026
- Play at 2:45:07
“It doesn't have anything to do with the size of the property.”
Planning Commission · Oct 6, 2026
- Play at 2:45:10
“It doesn't have anything to do with the size. It could be a huge property with a 1,500 square foot house, and they could cut down, make a golf course out of it or something.”
Planning Commission · Oct 6, 2026
- Play at 2:45:27
“And that was just because you felt, I mean, it's kind of funny to go from 30% to zero for 1,500 square feet or smaller. That's because you think that equates to affordable housing. That seems a little... Yeah, again...”
Planning Commission · Oct 6, 2026
- Play at 2:47:10
“I'd rather see it just a lower percentage, like 10%, because when you have zero trees, that's because the developer finds it easiest to just mow them down. And if these are people who, I don't know, it just seems a shame to denude that people who have small houses also get bleak houses. I could see making it fewer, but 10% maybe?”
Planning Commission · Oct 6, 2026
- Play at 2:47:43
“No, no, no, the all top right corner where 30% is required, and then if you have a small house, it's 0%.”
Planning Commission · Oct 6, 2026