Regional Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

recording ready to go. We are all seven here in person which is very exciting. Happy new year all going to go into the next new year um with some continuation of some topics we've been working on. Um, so in order to exit the building in the event of an emergency, we go out that door and in either direction, either down the stairs or stay at the top of the elevator in the area of refuge and wait for someone to rescue you. Um, open to the public for items not related to the agenda. Do we have anything? Or if you're joining us online, um you would unmute and unv video or rev video. We need it's just us.

Okay. Not hearing anything. So let us move on to announcements and staff report. Um um did you do additions? I'll change the agenda. Oh no, I didn't. So, I do have um a suggestion suggested addition to the agenda. Um would it make sense to do it under other business? Yes.

Other under other business. Um just a recap on the capital improvement plan processing that and warning. That's just an update. Um anything else for the agenda? Okay. Um announcements. Um I last week participated in a very nice little like coordination meeting um about the open space and parks plan um with the other committee chairs um and got an update from staff. So we'll be um just mainly about coordination and kind of the update on how it's going and some of the final content coordination. So, it seemed like it was nice. There was a general suggestion to consider the possibility of having one plan um because there's so much overlap between the parks and the open space. I think that's something that we kind of talked about a little bit about how it was hard to separate them. So, that was one kind of major thing and and a discussion about um kind of how some of the mapping was going to be kind of incorporated to it. So, not not a giant content update. Did they have any sort of final views on any subject or was just just

No, it wasn't it wasn't with the consultant. It was really more about like internally how are we coordinating with the different committees that kind of have Do you know when they're going to deliver that? that was part of it just I mean it was supposed to be December the 15th or something like that but

yeah so I think what I can say um because um councelor Smith shared this last night that um uh the to do all of the elements in the way that our community expects to do it it's going to be a little bit of a longer process than previously envisioned and so um I think that you know that's What councelor Smith had shared is that this group had discussed that there are elements of this that are too important to have time be um the precedent for quality. So he asked he said that the the coordination group is going to spend a little bit of time sort of working out what needs to be um completed in order to wrap up this plan in the way that this community deserves it too. So update to come but not a immediate timeline to be

known right now. Um any other announcements have anybody? Um no. Um I just want to report that city council passed the budget after a public hearing last night. Do you want a quick rundown on what's in that budget or is that under business? I don't Okay. Part of the money in there.

Okay. money for these new stipens that we introduced this year, right? Next year, we're maintaining our general fund support for community justice centers. Um, we've got a new contract for community outreach for the police with Howard Center. We've increased our tree care by $16,000. We're going to have a new economic director, new position, and also a new position for the public works staff to support city center and cemeteries. Um, we did challenge all the department heads to decrease their budgets by 5% in order to come in with a level increase. They may align their budget lines with the actual spending for the prior year. And we're going to go to AI generated benefits a year from now. And uh we also uh set to zero the social service funding in lie of probably a change in using the opioid directed settlement funds. And we also use some onetime funds. And so that'll result in a 3.3% tax rate increase for the just the municipal side. And the average condo should see an increase about $53. The average house $78 for the newer. That doesn't take into account those homes that are income, you know, sensitive or the ones that aren't. That's just an average. We also passed um uh utility rate increases for both water and sewer because of all the construction with the Bartlett Bay bond issue, right? and also the water tanks. And uh that's about it. So the ballot language is set. There was one typo where it said 90 90 instead of 90, but we settled that. So please remember to vote on March 3rd or get your absentee ballot.

3.2 3.3 3.3. Very good. We will meet with the the school on the uh 21st at the steering committee meeting and hear what their budget is. They're supposed to settle that tonight as well. They're seeing a proposed budget and hopefully they'll bring forward something for us in the 21st. Both city and school will present both those budgets and then that's what will go on. I'm guessing we just there were some numbers thrown around but I'll just wait to find out what it is. That's all. Thank you. Great. Thanks. their announcements.

Any staff items? It's 2026. You see any typos from me that say 2025? That's a typo. I am I know this about myself. I will write 2025 for probably the next three months. So, yeah. Me, too. I found little tiny. Did I write 2025? Oh, there's a missing word. I'm not talking about general typo. Yeah, those are different. Anyway,

um the only thing I'll add is that um you have been doing a lot of work um already on the subject of Act 250 tier 1A status. Um we um have uh started um we've organized and then had our kickoff just this week of a peer group um of other communities that are interested that are likely advancing. Um and so right now there are believe eight communities around the state in four different counties that have um that are participating in this that are very seriously looking at doing it in the next 8 to 12 months. So um it's going to be really interesting for us to hear uh both you know what are their what are they learning from this process what are they hearing locally and then you know to work together on submitting quality applications and really success in this is really not just one community having this but many communities doing it um in parallel in ways that meet their own needs. So um it's exciting.

Yeah. Great. That is great.

Okay. Um we can move on to item five which is the bedrock removal noise regulations which is an updated draft. Um we do have a memo in the packet um which includes some specific changes um based on kind of our discussion and some of the decisions we've made on the December 2nd um meeting which is really interesting because in my notes here I say December 2, 2026 I was ahead of the game. Crazy me. It was 2025. [laughter]

Um, and you know, so the staff memo kind of lays out um a pretty clear um specific changes that we had requested at the time and then also has some um more information about the noise ordinance or the nuisance ordinance. I don't know if people have some specific items they want to talk over in the memo. Um, before we get into the draft language specifically, I have been a few notes to um Paul and you and

yeah, you have some typos. So, let's or not typos but like language changes. So before we get to language changes, how about does anyone have anything related to the rep like the nuisance ordinance? We had those questions. Did the memo kind of answer the questions? Yeah, I think it did answer the question. My takeaway is that yes, by codifying what we're proposing, we're essentially eliminating the city's ability to use the nuisance ordinance or at least make it extremely difficult. So I think we need to keep that in mind as we move forward with the language here that this really is the first and last line of defense.

Yeah. I think unless someone's doing something outside of their approval and then then they're outside of an approval session, that's the nuisance that but if if we've given them the permit under this then right we have largely given away our ability to come back later and say no that's too much. Um then do folks want to just jump into the language? I know Michael did say he had some items. Yeah, there are there are language items. Um are we ready to go into language items? Sure. Right.

Page 10 of the Yeah, page 10. It's um friction B2 where we say they can operate from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Um I would like to add that that's weekdays weekends and public holidays are out cuz that's the that's the time when families are out weekends children are out playing in the garden going to the parks. Uh but it's not a good idea to have you know 120 dB of racket going on while people are trying to enjoy a weekend of you know during the week fine folks are working kids are at school but uh I I think it's important to exclude public holidays and weekends

[clears throat] moment.

Page three. Page 10 of the I don't have it that way. I won't get the the draft red line is page three. Yeah. Yeah, you got it there moment. So, under B2, you run into after 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. Monday through Friday. Oh, and weekends public holidays excluded 16:05. It actually there's two it appears.

Oh, yeah. There's two places for Are those federal holidays, state holidays? They're different public holidays that are observed here, I guess. Do we have other places in the regulations where we have that time frame? Um, we don't have weekend work. I mean, it is common. We see that in my projects like permits or approvals will give a not on holidays. I mean, there's lots of weekend work that's not um disturbing. No, I mean, so if we wanted to do this, we would have the language be the same and use like public holidays or

bank holidays. I don't know what we would call like if we have a precedent for like and some kind of holiday exclusion or anything. No, I just search for the word holiday in the LDRs just to make sure and it does not appear. I guess one other question. The noise ordinances I don't believe reference day of the week. They're just time of day

currently. Um we uh only looked into this this afternoon with Michael's question. We did do a couple of spot checks of um act 250 uh decisions where blasting specifically and in those ones we did find a couple of examples where they excluded Saturdays, Sundays and federal holidays. That's the way that they framed it. And this would just be for the blasting, right? No, I think it would have to be for jackhammering or hydraulic jackhammering and blasting.

And so in this in this first section, it would be to be dimminimous, you would have to be only hydra hydraulic jackhammering, not exceeding 40 hours and not outside of the hours of 8 to 5 on a or um on a weekday. So if you wanted to be considered dimminimous in this section, that's what the effect is. If you want to be considered dimminimous, you can't do any work on the weekend or on a on a federal holiday. I I I other sections slightly different. But

part of my concern, I do definitely hear the argument for not wanting to have on the weekend. I guess I'm concerned particularly in the dimminimous amounts like if you're doing weekend work construction, you find like a rock, you know, yay being on Saturday morning. I I worry if that's undue. I would that's an undue expense to like any contractor was like, "Okay, now it's got hall work for the entire weekend because you have to wait two days to spend an hour or two removing this one rock that we found on a Saturday morning." Like that's my concern. I hear why we wouldn't want to do that, but we if it's like if it's unplanned, like oh no, we just found a rock by mistake. I'm hesitant to ban on certain days. I guess if it's planned like it's going to be long term, yeah, you can plan around that. I guess particular to minimist I'm a little concerned. I'm hesitant to limit it for that reason.

I mean that's very hypothetical. Oh, it's not hypothetical at all. I mean you you find little rocks that you weren't expecting all the time in construction and people do do construction work on the weekends. Like it will come up like I don't think this is some weird crazy hypothetical that someone might find a rock while digging on a Saturday. Um well if if they can dig it up fine but if they have to have it blast it or hammer it or jack hammer it should be done on the weekend. Um Donna

um stepping back just a couple of a couple of uh steps from where you are. Um I was looking under the submitt requirements and I don't see anything in here that says that this you know it says that the um bedrock removal plans must be prepared by a qualified professional but um I think

it says volume location and depth of excavation location of any on-site processing you Where here does it say you have to actually design designate where on the property um excavation is anticipated? Is is is it clear from this that you need to show where the bedrock is located? Um, and I'm I'm kind of per kind of questioning this because um on the Jam Golf property um it was actually the city, you know, um planning department or plan the the reviewer actually put a requirement into the plans which was adding a pathway and it was right where the bedrock was. I mean, it was actually outcroppings. It wasn't even bedrock. those outcroppings and the city was proposing to put a a a pathway through there. And that bothered me because I said, "Okay, a plans are not clear where the bedrock is and where these outcroppings are. It didn't accurately show where the trees were." Um, there was a lot of destruction had that plan been followed. Um, and you know, I had not and I had not made a stink about it. Um, that would have caused a lot of blasting and that was a city added requirement. So I don't think if it was clear that there was a lot of rock there that that requirement would have been made. But I'm just questioning the clarity and accuracy of, you know, submitts that are currently being reviewed by the city and do you really know from those submitts? And is

anything that we're asking for here making it more clear where you know where you're expecting to see rock? Now, obviously, as Colin pointed out, you know, there are things that you're going to find that you didn't know about. That happens all the time. But I'm not even saying that what we're asking for here is a a clear indication that there has been drilling or test bores done that indicates where and to the extent of how much bedrock there is. Well, doesn't F1 answer that? Yeah. Is that F1? Is that not clear enough for you? You want more language?

That's not what it says. That says showing the property where bedrock removal is proposed. Okay, you have a 5 acre property and somewhere on there there's going to be bedrock. That's what that says to me. Where on the say specifically where and volume, location, and depth of excavation and where where the removal is proposed. That's kind of the mapping of that. I mean, it it seems that way, but I mean, I guess they're saying that you don't have to indicate everywhere where there's bedrock, just where you plan to just just where you want to be moving it. Well, yeah, that's what I think that first sentence says. So,

I think if they're not proposing to do anything with it, it would just be Here's here's what I'm kind of getting at. It's just like it seems almost backwards that um nobody's doing test porings anymore. You know, you rarely will see test porings on properties. You know, back when I was doing architecture, we did them all the time, you know, because it was Pennsylvania and there was a lot of rock everywhere and same condition exists here. Um, so engineers and designers are going into these projects laying out properties without any idea of where the rock is because they haven't done any test borings. But if they if they need to comply with these three points, they have to map it.

Yeah. Well, they they do it. It kind of goes back to the the later paragraph. It says something about thoughtful design using thoughtful design. that's uh to limit on it's 8 8e and I'm like okay um I just want to know that this explicitly says don't lay out your don't lay out your development until you know where you have bedrock and I'm not sure if this says that yeah I don't think it does at all but

yeah I don't I don't read it as saying that it's required that's what that's all I'm thinking it should It's like before you lay out your development, you should know where the bedrock is and try to avoid it and be more clear about it. [clears throat] Yeah, because that's the problem with a lot of regulations. They're just not clear and so people don't do it because it's not it's not clearly stated anywhere that you need to know where the bedrock is and then you lay your property out around, you know, to try to avoid it. I guess the question I had though, I mean that that definitely changes scoping. I I see the RV book where it sounds like you're suggesting basically require if there's a reasonable suspicion that they're going to be bedmark in the area to do test borings.

Yeah, there's probably even modern ways to figure it out. You know, I don't even know if they have to do borings anymore. Maybe they have echolocation or in the state we still do that. I can think of these one project that they missed a giant concrete slab by a foot and that caused $100,000 delay. Um I guess I'm wondering though is it trying to say how figure find all the bedrock before you build is easier said than done because how many bores you kind of

or maybe in preliminary plat or something like that when you're doing preliminary plat identify where you've got bedrock you know to the best of your knowledge and you know there's I don't know because I'm not an engineer so I don't know what methods are out there to identify where bedrock I mean on on Jam Golf, at least some of it is really obvious because it's sticking out of the ground.

You know, it's a cliff. It's a small cliff. It's very rocky and there's a lot All the trees on the property are right where the rock is. You know, it's no accident that the trees are there. It's just because you can't do anything with that land. So, proposing to put a path right in the middle of that was clearly they just didn't know. They didn't understand what was on that property. [snorts] But that's not the developer. Well, that was the city.

Yeah. Well, which means that the documentation was lousy. They didn't show it didn't show the correct trees. I mean, I I had rocked it and looked at what was submitted and I'm like, this bears no resemblance to reality. This is not what's there. And you know, so I just I just think that there should be some better requirements that you know, you have to submit accurate, you know, an accurate site plan and show, you know, where trees, where rock outcroppings and where bedrock is located because without that even the reviewers don't really know, you know, because they're not going out to the site and walking the site to figure out like, [clears throat] you know, is this appropriate? And I think we get a lot of inappropriate development because somebody's just taking a stamp and putting house plans down without understanding at all what's on that land.

Well, what kind of language you I guess my I definitely hear what you're saying. I guess I worry that having a like fixed requirement to say you must do borings gets into it's a whole one piece of legislation. I think you have to say the method because that's usually you don't want to you don't want to tell a builder what method to use but you know I think it's a reasonable expectation to say you know whatever current method exists you know we want you to identify before before doing you know before going beyond preliminary plat you know like where you know where where you're expecting to have um have bedw encounters. Are you talking about a bedrock that's not meant that they're not going to lose?

Well, because that's what this is about. This is Well, you don't have to remove it if you're not building on top of it. I'm just saying if they don't know where it is, they're going to propose putting a building site on a site where But what that right there says a map or plan showing the property where bedrock removal is proposed. So, they have That's not what that says. It says that you're getting a site plan and you say there's bedrock somewhere on this property. That's what that says. It doesn't say it doesn't say you have to identify the locations of that drop accurately. No, it's it's where the action where where someone is proposing the action of Bener. That's what that's

I I see how the grammar is a little ambiguous in that I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to take away some of the ambiguity. I didn't think we could, you know, fix the second volume, location, and depth of excavation, but the excavation bad, right? Yeah. We wouldn't hear it, but you know. Okay, maybe it could be possible. It could be boss up a little bit, but I I You're giving I think you're just giving a lawyer some room to maneuver there by not being clear what you mean, right? They're showing the proper step work. Exactly. Well, I guess the qu So, it doesn't sound like you're even talking about bedrock to be removed. Like, are you talking about adding it to like

like a site plan submission? Because you're talking about bedrock that was hidden over in the woods that they weren't planning to do anything with and then the city came in and said they want to put a path there. So it like if they're not doing something in an area of the property like they're not doing something there like why would they even need to Well, it looked like they made some effort to put the put the house plans, you know, a little bit further away from that just because there was a big drop off on on the property in that area. So they avoided that.

Yeah. Um, but I mean there's bedrock everywhere on that property. I mean, and you know that Jam Golf, I mean that is ledge. I mean that whole a good bit of that site is ledge and you still don't know where it is. So are you but find out? Well, let's back up one step. Yeah. No, let me finish. We should before they lay out the house sites. So that's a E. So it's not up to them. That's what creates all the noise because they're planning to build where there's a lot of bedrock removal. So AE,

but they have to show where it is that they're going to move remove. They got to define it. But just make it say that. Just make it doesn't say that though. It says here that you have to have a map or plan showing where bedrock removal is proposed. That's English for me. that says you have to show exactly where it is. Smile small proposed tweak in F1. You could remove the words the property and that might be dramatically a little more clear. Showing where bedrock is blue. Agree. Yeah. Where on the property or just showing

showing you want to tell where it is in Arkansas you're welcome to but it's not relevant. Yeah. I like that. showing where on the property. So you add where and on. No, you're suggesting the property having fewer words. A map or plan sheet showing where bedrock removal is proposed. Yeah, that also works. Yes, simple is based. Okay, so that seems good.

Okay, that that's a lot less ambiguous. And then I think the second part of what you're talking about I think is the AE where they need to kind of understand where the bedrock is so they can plan their design to limit unnecessary bedrock removals. That's that's how we put that in there. So it's not saying you have to do borings on 10 foot intervals like it's not saying that but it's saying you know they need to be planning for it that I think is that I think does say what you intend right

I would note also that letter D also gives the board the authority to require as necessary. Mhm. So basically if we we suspect there's a lot of bad work there, please figure it out. Yeah. Right. Shall have the authority to compel a subsurface exploration. [clears throat] So does does that does AE give you I know we talked about this the last meeting where we discussed this that we talked about basement. So you know they want to put a building with basement in there. They have to blast all the bedrock. Does this give the DRB to say the authority you you shall not build a basement because it doesn't need to happen

or or you know I mean they focus on books anyway one that doesn't need a basement. Yeah. But but my question is is that something that's enforced? Can the DRB say to the developer you guys want to put basement there? can't because they not that is that I think it might say that they don't get a lasting permit because they didn't use their thoughtful design. Well, they haven't been thoughtful enough. I think that's pulling out my dusty old VRB hat. I don't know that we would have swatted down an application based on this language that we would have said, "No, you can't have the basement. You didn't need it. You should have designed around it. you can't do it

right. I I I don't think this gives enough authority to the DRB to really say that. They might make the power grab for it, but I don't think that's clear enough to tell the DRB that if you don't like the design, if you don't feel they did a good enough job, if they didn't need they don't need a basement and they have one, you can strike that from their plan or deny it. I'm I'm not sure that that's the the guidance that the DRB would get in the middle of the meeting. Yeah. Well, how do you say it? I think this is probably is that what we intended? I mean, I would certainly like to have that come across to the Yeah.

developer, you know, that you need to plan this better to avoid all of these problems that you're generating with blasting. Yes. I guess the counterpoint comes what do you have something where you have like apartment building that the basement's going to be a car storage and if they can't you know get those extra 40 parking spaces below the building that has a bedrock in there like that feels to me more necessary than oh do you have a pool table in your basement but then does the DRB get to decide what isn't as necessary because it feels like what I'm trying to say some basins are more necessary than others but I don't want to be the one trying to say which are which

is there a way to not use the term from unnecessary because I think that's really debatable. Is it? Yeah. Or something. I mean unnecessary. Well, I want to build a house with a basement. So, you know, and basements are important. I can have a smaller, you know, lot because I'm going down as well as I don't know. I mean, I just think unnecessary is difficult would be difficult for the DRB to say no cuz you're you're putting in a basement and we don't think that's necessary.

Is is there anywhere if we move back up the ladder, is there anywhere in the plan that's submitted that that would be fleshed out? In other words, they came and said, "Hey, we want we're going to do 10 single family homes on this property with a ton of bedrock and we want to do all base." you know, where does that conversation happen that planning might go or DRVM might go, you know, that's probably not a great idea or is well, and I think that's why we tried to put it in there because the context of this section is balancing several objectives.

The goal being how to uh have the um minimal disturbance to achieve the the product that certifications otherwise allow, right? And so it's uh duration, level of noise, um impact to the built environment, limit uh cost, and then unnecessary bedrock removal. And I think it's a very hard thing to write to capture all circumstances. Um, and also to not put the DRB and the city in the position of, you know, neighbor versus neighbor and arguing necessity of a specific thing, which then just puts the whole thing in the courts. um about you know how you know taking an entire you know neighborhood of 20 homes or 50 homes and bringing down the question of a basement in one house because the question is really more about the overall development and to not lose sight of that in the DRB's review but

this is a tricky one to write. Didn't we put this in to incentivize on which house plan is going on each lot? She had her hand up and you didn't. Yeah, I didn't see your hand up.

But I mean, the builder often doesn't determine which house plan is going to be used immediately. I mean, in in cases, some cases perhaps they do, but there is some flexibility. I know in village at Dorsa Park where I live um all the houses that back up to the park uh to the the ball fields um all of those were different designs than anything else in the neighborhood because there was a lot of ledge right there and you know Homestead determined right away that they had to put different plans in there to to so they wouldn't have to do much blasting because there were already plenty of houses in the neighborhood at that point. So, I think a reasonable builder who has an architect on staff, which John Hner was, you know, was able to make that decision at that point. It's like we have to change our plans for these sites. And I mean, even even in Burlington, you know, like I think they ended up not putting the lowest level of parking in, you know, they ended up building building the parking up levels instead of going down to the ground because it was just going to be too expensive uh to go down. So those decisions do happen. I just don't know if residential builders who kind of have this fixated idea that you have to have a basement in every house that they are allowing themselves the flexibility to change the change house plans like that.

Um Michael and then Colin. Uh this I I thought we put this in because we were trying to incentivize developers to do a different kind of construction like pole construction and not require a full basement or only require enough basement space or below grade space for utilities. Isn't that why we put this in?

It is. But I think what we're hearing is some people feeling it might not be strong enough language. I you can't force a developer I mean if he's if he's got his wits about him and he can build without blasting and removing bedrock which is very expensive uh more power to to them but I think this was just an idea that they should think about maybe we don't need a basement maybe we don't need to blast maybe we there's a there's another way of doing this um unnecessary removal of bedrock you That's Can we just take out unnecessary? I mean, you might want to replace unnecessary excessive, right? If we took out unnecessary,

it feels like there's consensus around taking out the word unnecessary. Well, then the second one that we it may have to be excessive because the last sentence, any steps taken to avoid the removal of bedrock. Do we that makes like there's no bedrock or I guess you think to limit the removal of bedrock on the last line to limit you know yeah you have to have the word limit back in again something else too column

yeah I guess it's more to I I guess all I want to say is just to reiterate the point that I definitely hear that this is not is you [clears throat] know it's going to be it's a little weak to say oh you cannot have a basement app but I think it's just reiterating that like it is a holistic process with a bunch of other points in there. And I think I I guess I keep going back to the worst case scenario that we kind of hopefully we already seen the worst case scenario of this with long drive. We're trying to avoid that. I guess I see in that sort of circumstance you could just it it does feel like just trying to say, "Hey, why the heck are you chipping here? Why aren't you just blasting here?" Like I I'm not sure we need I'm not sure we're going to need to lean on E that much as more of a part of a multi-step process. And I think we need to keep in mind that like we can I think it's easier to compel a developer to say hey can you please just use lasting instead of chipping versus remove entire basement. And I like that our current the way it's currently written does give us that flexibility to sort of do the least difficult way to sorry I whatever I I'm my my thoughts are getting too convoluted but I think you get what I'm trying to say.

I think what you're trying to say is that it's part of the balancing test. Yes. It's not a standalone standard that says you must limit bedrock removal. Yeah. It's in the rest of the context of the other factor. Much better put than what I was saying. Yes. Yeah.

Go ahead. Well, what Colin was just saying is that yeah, the the blasting may be a lot cheaper and easier to do in some respects, but we also have to remember in some cases, go back to jam golf, there's some valuable trees and blasting tends to do a lot of damage to trees. um you know and I think you know usually that I guess usually you're supposed to limit excavation within the within the circle of um yeah what it's called but within the drip line within the drip line and everything but blasting goes well beyond um that because it's it's underground it's affecting all the underground structures um around it too. So, you know, it's like you can't really separate tree protection [clears throat] from BL. You know, those those two are kind of interconnected and you just have to recognize that, too.

Um, it's it's it's more localized. I think I guess that's where they're connected. I I know who's currently acting in a lawsuit that shipping on adjacent property destroyed her foundation. She's trying to sue them. Um, well, blasting I mean, you know, cuz I mean, we feel the blasting. I mean, I I'm not even in an adjacent neighborhood and when they blast up on the hill, we could feel it, you know? I mean, glasses shake and things like that in the house, but it is just a loud noise. Yeah, it is still a multi-art process though. Like there's no there as you there's no hard bands on anything here because right it's so sight specific, right? Yeah. I mean, no matter what you do, I mean, it's going to damage something.

Yeah. Is this the the development where there was a court document that specified where the trees were and and which ones had to be saved? And I don't think they complied as I walked around there as well. Um could I return some

Paul wanted to say something about this language. Um, I guess the only thing I just wanted to make sure that um um acknowledging the circumstances that have been shared in this meeting, the subject of bedrock removal can happen in all circumstances citywide. And so, as we think about this language, I'm hearing what you're saying about basement. I also want to note that like Beta needed to be removing bedrock to have their, you know, 100,000 square foot manufacturing facility. um and putting that on more than one level is not really feasible. And so thinking about like this language applying in all circumstances because we don't the DRB doesn't get to pick and choose once this language exists when to apply it and when not to apply it. So as we've been thinking about like using this in the context of five considerations rather than a standalone. That's some of our thinking is that the DRB will need to be nimble enough, have the power to appropriately regulate and be nimble enough to take everything from a basement to a, you know, 100x,000 square foot facility for manufacturing and manage both of those through the same set of rules.

It's and I absolutely agree with that. And along the same lines, is it worthwhile? Do we need to call that out more clearly? Because obviously the main concern if you're working next to uh a like a daycare center or a senior citizens home is going to be different than if you're over at the airport, which of a daycare? What's that? There's going to be a daycare in that facility.

Yes. But it's a much larger area. But my point being, if you're in an area where there are no really close neighbors, the noise is not as much of an issue. So if the DRB is looking at this plan and everything's fine and they're going to do some chipping, but the nearest neighbor is 500 yards away, then they might not care so much. If they're doing it in an area that's far more sensitive, then they would I would think they would weight the factors differently. you know, cost may be the predominant factor. If none of the other factors are really ter terribly impact anyone, but if it's a great impact to the community, then I would think they would look at it and say, "Well, if you want to do it, you're going to have to spend some more money to make this impact less."

Does 8C kind of address that? Yeah, that's what I'm looking at. C limit impact to build environment. when it says privately built features like public infrastructure and privately built features to me that doesn't exactly say oh you know you're you're close to a a a neighborhood with you know big really nice houses and and or or poor houses you know or you know affordable housing you're right next to affordable housing it's the same thing but it could potentially be a reason to not necessarily put the days of the week because

you know if you are next to a daycare but no houses it might be better to do the work over the weekend um you know or you know it different parts of our city have different right needs for when might be most appropriate so

and that's what I'm just wondering whether there's a a place here for some language just saying that the waiting of these different factors is not necessarily equal and it's going to have to be sight specific in order to minimize the the worst impacts. Do you think under eight at the very top um like there's a like in that initial sentence like it could say um in the context in their context or something like so you're kind of considering these five things within the specific context which at the airport is very different than like in the middle of a neighborhood. physical context.

It's a physical context. You could have Yeah, physical. Physical context or um or location in the city, something like that. Built environment. It says balances the following objectives. Well, maybe we don't necessarily want to balance them for each case. You want to address and minimize the most negative impacts addresses the following objectives. Yeah. Yeah. Balances seems to say, oh well, some of these are more important than others and it may change depending on where it is. like we stumped ST

yeah like limit cost maybe directly in opposition to in design which is why doesn't happen because it's true about the balancing I mean there's some things that we want to like specifically balance there's some things that we want to like take in context so it would be a preamble taking into account the context getting back to just the exact language in E are we agreeing that you take out unnecessary on the first line and then on the one two

the fourth line um to not avoid but to um what was the word limit basis yet exact to limit the I think just limit removal of bedrock essentially the exact same phrase right that's what I wrote Yeah. Yeah. Does that work for you guys? Yeah. I mean, is that what we're trying to say? Yeah. Or maybe like maybe say to limit the quantity of bedrock removal. Would that be a little more what the original intent was?

Development could be an enormous amount of bedrock rem, you know, two truckloads. Yeah. Because Yeah. [clears throat] So the quantity well I guess that's what I'm trying to say. So we're not trying to say you can or can't off bedrock and we're trying to say if you got to do bedrock can you do less bedrock is what we're trying to say and and really you want to limit the impact of it. Yeah. Yeah. And maybe that's what it is. Maybe it should say limit impact of bed. But isn't that what all the other ones are? All the other the other ones are the impacts of the thoughtful design

and we were trying to not do a specific amount because this might apply to a singular building. It might apply to a 200 acre part property and so the amount is in the again in the context. So it's we were yeah trying not to say an amount because an amount just doesn't

the quantity in abstract terms like just minimize how much you're putting in. We don't we don't have like a number but like just sort of say hey just try to figure out there's ways to remove how many cubic yards. So I guess the question we would challenge back to you is it truly the amount in all circumstances or is it like you know the the if you moved the road 7 ft to the left you wouldn't need to do it in this section at all. So it's not really about amount it's about like design that doesn't necessitate it. Yeah, I think that's like I guess you could have it be about the amount, but I think you're trying to balance like good design also, right? Like do you want a bad design that has

exactly what Donna said like in her neighborhood the one section just doesn't have basements because you'd have to remove bedrock so they didn't put basement in that section. So that like the design, it's about the design. Yeah. Well, that was part of the difficulty of writing this was that we were trying to write language that could refer to both the design of a structure and the overall layout of a structure within the context of the parcel on which it's located or structures. Yeah. Um in a way such that it obiates the need for bedrock removal. if possible. This might not be possible, but we think the second if it could be that so

the second unnecessary should just stay in or maybe you go towards something more like because again these are the five things that they're saying their plan addresses as they're presenting this to the DRB as to why they should get approval and basically just to show that the necessity of bedrock removal has been carefully considered and designed for.

Right. Which is why I think we I I think we should keep balances in there. Balances doesn't mean everything is equal. It's you stack them up, you know, and some things have more weight. Whoops. I mean, just Yeah, I think you're right, John. It's It's to It's to have the developer describe what are the things that they did to consider the alternatives. It's like an avoidance like in wetland permitting the avoidance. These are the things I did to try to avoid it. And look, I did do these non-basement ones and I did move the road over, but these ones I really just can't,

right? You know, really need this for the Yeah, whatever. Or yeah, you can't have a manufacturing plant on three different levels, right? And that makes sense. like an a hanger is flat bottomed, right? Doesn't need a basement probably, but is it time for me to throw my span in the works?

Do you want to rework e in some way? We don't have to get the exact language tonight if you're not ready for that, but did you want e to be reworked in some way? Did we want to get rid of the word unnecessary in the first sentence? I think we want to do that. If you just use thoughtful design to limit bedrock remove that seems pretty clear. And then you can say how you did it. Yeah. Then the second unnecessary may be a good thing to keep in there with what you're describing. So just strike the one and that's there for the first line. I'm I'm good with that as a change. So

then if you you had talked about in the preamble at the beginning of 8 to talk about in its physical or geographic context um we don't have any objections to that if that's what you would like to I think that makes sense. Yeah. Yeah. Because they can say okay look there's not a single other business within 2,000 ft. It's really not a big deal guys. Like that seems good to add geographic context. Okay. Anything else on those ones we already talked about? Just to wrap up, it sounds like Michael, you have another new topic. Yes,

which was was a bit of a joke last time we discussed it, but I did a little bit of digging around. I um I I looked at a uh sound distance attenuation calculator and uh cuz I was I think I suggested last time that maybe we could define how much noise is acceptable at and where. And um you know uh they the the the literature says that the average construction site is 70 to 90 dBA but chipping is about 120 and uh so I looked at it looked it up and I calculated at 500 ft and at 250 ft from the point at which the chipping takes face. Um 100 dBA 100 120 dBA would be 66 at 500 ft or 72 at 250 ft. And I'm wondering whether we can't use that because we already know that the place where the where the bedrock removal will happen has been planned on the parcel. We know where it is. So we we can define uh the edge of this um bed bedrock removal area and work from there. Is it reasonable to pick 250 ft? It's might not be a reasonable number. Might might be too too far. But there are ways of of figuring out what the

sound level will be 250 ft from where it's happening where where the 120 dBA is generated and that would determine how they would get rid of the bedrock with method. No, they would have to take other measures to mitigate perhaps sound barriers or who knows, you know, they do hit the airports with blast balls, but that's a whole different ball game. So, you were here in December. We had like a hour discussion about not putting in the decel levels and agreed to that. Are you trying to bring that back up

because that was a big discussion where we I'm Yes. Um, and I think John was very eloquent that it would be almost impossible to do, but maybe it's not so impossible. That's the question I have. Okay, I never argued it was impossible. In fact, I was arguing the exact opposite. In fact, that's what I was going to bring up is along the same lines is I think what we have here is is very useful, but I don't think it addresses the additional charge, which was the noise. M

this is a nice plan and it could be a nice plan to generate an incredible and tolerable amount of noise for an almost unlimited period of time. It doesn't do anything to control or cap the noise. Well,

so I think there's there's something that's missing there. I would be more along the lines of performance standards and max noise at the property line or something like that. But I don't I don't think we've actually done what we've been asked to do if we don't have a limit in here someplace. The dimminimous part, there's absolutely no limit at all. They can do whatever they want under the dimmin the dimminimus. And we're counting on them going through this process and voluntarily getting the noise level down to something that that's acceptable. And by the the nuisance ordinance review memo that we saw earlier this evening, if they get it wrong and the noise is intolerable, too bad.

What's acceptable at, you know, at a domestic uh is it 85 dibels or is it 70 dibels? I would suggest I mean we've gone around and around on this and I know I'd like to see some numbers in here. Um, I think Michael would like to see some numbers in here. Clearly, staff is not supportive of that. If we think that that's something that we should do, I would suggest we form a subcommittee and the planning commission look at it and maybe go talk to some folks and write some language. We don't have to provote, we don't have to put forward what city staff is asking for.

We can add to it. We can modify it. We can send that on to to council. Yep. But I don't think we're getting any closer to that now. If everyone else is okay with this then, well, I got closer to it because I knew sweet all about it before other than it's loud. Um, but now I've done a little bit of digging and and looked at, you know, what's reasonable or trying to figure out what's reasonable. Donna.

Um well, I don't disagree with Michael about on this. Um but except that the the way you're doing the calculations, you know, it's simplifying so it becomes theoretical. It's it's not an actual I mean you do modeling of a lot of different design parameters and things like that and so you don't really know how close it's to the reality. And this is, I think, one of those instances where, you know, position, vegetation, you know, all kinds all kinds of things can affect what the actual sound would be. But if you wanted to set up a theoretical and said, well, okay, within, you know, 60 dB within a distance of of 250 ft or something like that. It's not it's not that you're going to have somebody out in the field taking measurements to see if they actually comply, but it does give some protection to somebody who is, you know, uh, happens to work at home and and, you know, has

would have to buy me.

Well, yeah. And would would, you know, probably be willing to go out and, uh, find somebody to take accurate measurements. Um, and then they'd have something to say, okay, this is this is clearly not in compliance. Um, but it's something, you know, if you want to have something, it's going to have to be theoretical to the point where, you know, you're not going to have building inspectors checking this or anything, but it gives somebody a way of of making a legitimate complaint about a problem, n a nuisance. What about John's idea of the subcommittee to come up with something that's work that might be workable?

I don't know. I guess my hunch is I I absolutely hear what Michael is saying about how it would be desirable to get some kind of more performance based standards. But I I my gut with on with what I know about how no how sound transmits is trying to guess before construction how loud it's going to be is probably in feasible without like you know doing a really really in-depth survey like what materials are in the area is the rocks going to sound underground like what is your topology how's walking so I

trees yeah But like how much tree that is science specific

but but we if we have a number in there you will have to do calculations and trying to come with a good performancebased standard. I am just I would be shocked if a subcommittee could figure it out satisfactorially like this feels like something that's going to need to be hire a consultant and then it would be like a you know 100page long document with tons and tons of exams. weird stuff. Like I just feel that sound is a very complicated topic and I'm worried if it were easy to like if it were as easy as oh just set a 250T buffer great I' I'd be more mending that but I just feel I I'm [clears throat] not sure that coming up performance based standards is within the resources of a small municipality and and frankly complying with such regulations that would require a very in-depth site survey to actually model what your site would be would potentially be like, you know, taking hundreds of borings and stuff like that. Like I I I worry this also very hard to apply with the amount the level of fidelity you need to make this thing useful would be extremely hard to get is my concern. It's not like oh you put a single light up in the sky of 200 feet you pretty accurately model aware it's going to be light. This is a very complex problem to model and that's why I'm a little concerned with the feasibility of making a bad I would say because my opinion is a bad performance-based standard is worse than no performancebased standard because it's going to lead to arbitrary people being blocked doing stuff and I'm not sure if we can come with a good one is my opinion on the matter. I understand that that's it's an awkward situation. Certainly, I would like to I would like to I would like there to be a porn standard. I'm

just not sure if we can actually get one is where I'm at. I just want to agree with one thing that Colin said because I think there are a lot of people out there who just can't stomach the idea of any construction within view of their home and that this could, you know, creating something like this could just be an open invitation for everybody to just stop construction and and basically, you know, declare war on builders because I think there are a number of people like that in our community. So, you know, I've always sort of felt like, you know, we shouldn't establish things that are just inviting somebody to try to stop a development from happening, you know, for no reason, for, you know, for just because they don't they don't want it there.

Yeah. Um Duncan, um I I think I remember when Nick when you presented the information you got, I think you mentioned that it was incredibly hard to come up with a verifiable standard to defend noise uh limits. I hear what you're saying, but I my concern is kind of what Colin said is I don't see how is how could we come up with a standard that was enforcable? I don't know yet. Not that I I don't disagree with what you guys are saying per se, but I I just I don't know how based on the what staff told us. And again, I'm not saying we just have to completely agree with staff, but I think there's a world of information out there that staff didn't go look at.

I mean, the status certainly fits with my knowledge from studying physics about how hard it is to model sound.

You don't need to model anything. You're going on and on about modeling. I'm a chemical engineer. I understand all about modeling. There's nothing to model. You say you can't send a noise above this from your property line, but then they need to, and I'm not necessarily saying you set it at 60. You you put it at something that says your neighbors have a right not to get blasted off their property because you want to improve yours. But so what we're saying now is you can make as much noise as you want if you're doing construction and damn the community. We don't it's too complicated for us to try and do anything. And as one of those neighbors who lived through three years of this I can tell you it's it's not an easy thing and we're sitting here like oh it's only 80 dB. Do we want to have an 80 del hammer going for the entire meeting and see how much work we get done? I I am not I'm not disputing that this absolutely can and has been incredibly disruptive to many members of our community. It's more my concern if you put in a standard for even if we're even if we are just saying okay you can't exceed this number how are they going to know whether or not what their activities are doing would exceed that number and as we said it's it can vary a lot depending what they're doing what time of day exactly what conditions or do they hit a particularly hard rock oh then bam the noise spikes up briefly like it I don't I'm just I worry that Even if we are saying like, oh, you can't exceed this level of decibb, unless they literally are monitoring every area around their house on every property at all times. I don't know how the developer is going to be able to monitor that. And it makes the little easier too that I I definitely hear in

terms of I I get this isn't perfect. This is far from perfect. I just don't under I just don't see if developers can't model it how they're going to have any idea whether or not they actually can meet this standard. Like are they going to monitor every single person's house in the neighborhood? I can't see how they do that. And that just becomes a message of oh well I think it's above this desk level. Well, but was it above this desk below for a certain amount of time? Like it's just it's tricky to it's tricky to measure too. Um Helen, you had your hand up. No, I my comment isn't your meeting anymore. Then

okay. Can I just want to ask you a question? So if we put in a limit, how does it get monitored and who enforces that? In my mind, the developer would be responsible for responding to complaints. So if you've got somebody that's saying, "Hey, I've taken a measurement now." Getting somebody with a certified meter is thousands of dollars. Been there, done that. So the onus is on the property owner to come. You're saying you would like the onus to be on the property owner, not the

if for I I would like it not to be on the resident who's being impacted by to have to spend thousands of dollars to get somebody to come out and take a measurement. I think a standard and that's one of the reasons I think we need to talk to some people annoyed pollution clearing house which is a Vermont organization uh I think might have a lot to say about this but I'm not sure we talked to them and I think there are I think this has been done before and I think we can find a way to get a measurement that at least gets you in the ballpark. So, if the the measurements 80 at the property line, then if you've got somebody that's saying, "Well, my iPhone app says that it's 90, well then you have a legitimate complaint and then the developer would need to respond to that." Hopefully, that will incentivize them to do some things ahead of time to actually mitigate it, not just pencil whip it. Right now, this whole activity just has a developer putting something together and oh yeah, it's the best we can do. Really? Yeah. Yeah, we balanced it. No, we don't know what the noise is going to be because it's going to be, but this is the cheapest way for us to do it. We're going to do it this way and it's okay because you can't tell us no once you've given us the permit. So, they jump through these hoops and we give them a pass to make as much noise as they want. And then the city can say, "Oh, well, we gave a permit. There's nothing we can do." which is largely the response that the the golf course road Butler Farms area has gotten for four years. Sorry, there's nothing we can do.

I'd like to think we could do better,

but I guess bring it back around. I mean what we are doing I am confident that how it is written at the moment will avoid a situation with anywhere close to the scale of the impacts like it won't alleviate impacts but this I can't see something like that happening again how this is written it won't eliminate it no I I agree with that I would not fully eliminate like wow noises coming from chipping I just it I can't see that happening again with the language stated as at least certainly on that limit of multiple years running. I can't see that happening again. At least in my opinion how it's written now though I get I guess I get that that is absolutely a subjective opinion. Um not like a I can't be opinionated on that. Well, this idea of a sub company would be looking at not why we can't do it, which I take your point, but how we can do it. You know that I used to run an organization. I would when I heard that I would always say the difficulty of this project is not the yard stick by which we will decide to do it or not to do it. It's whether we need it. and we need this.

I don't know that there's agreement that we do need it. So, so I mean we got saw a chart. No, my So, what I'm saying is like we talked about this for multiple meetings and you know had come to the conclusion that we didn't meet it because there were these standards. So, I'm so far east,

I guess. But, yeah. Um, so we we did talk about it. I'm hearing there's two commissioners that are feeling like they really want numbers. There's seven of us. Like, I'm not convinced that like this is something we do need. You're making the assumption because you want it and John's supporting. I'm just saying that's not how it works. So,

I I'm not sure because we, you know, when we had the discussion before, there was a lot of discussion about how the scenario that I think John lived in is a specific type of scenario and there's a lot of other scenarios where bedrock is removed where like a limit might may or may not be appropriate. So, I mean, I think that that was part of why we wound up with this language where, you know, if you're working on a important new covert or utility project in the middle of city center, like it's a such a very very different scenario than, you know, the one that we've been really focused on a lot and I think John is so that like how do you do you just say no, you can't put the new covert in or the new utility line because there's people that live there and now your property lines are right there. I mean, it's not as as simple as the specific scenario that the two of you are referring to because that's very specific. Um, you know, in this bedrock removals, you know, there's a lot of scenarios where, you know, I don't think we want to say you can't do it,

you know, because of where the property lines up. So I I don't know I don't know exactly what the answer is but I don't know that there's full consensus on putting numbers related to property lines um you know based on our multiple previous discussions. So we don't know there is you know usually when we have a subcommittee it's because like the whole group has decided this is a thing that we all really want to dive deeper into and then we form a subcommittee that's been like the previous subcommittee um setup

I mean there there is a a legal doctr doctrine which says that I have a right to the peaceful enjoyment of by private property and we would be infringing that. There is a kind of basic legal um that's not how would I describe it, but that's that's the those are the those are the words generally. And uh I guess what I would say is to follow up with what I just said is that um what we

usually when we have a subcommittee it's because the whole group

wants to do something agrees with the premise and has said we just need more information. I don't know that that's the case. So, I think if we do have a subcommittee, I think we need to go into it saying, okay, we're willing to hear more information if people want to work on it, but we're not saying we're going to adopt it because we're not in I think I think there's various opinions on this. So, like I guess I wouldn't want to have a subcommittee do like a whole lot of work and come back and and then for us to be like, well, actually it feels like it doesn't fit or you know. So I think there's a premise there because it's not at this point everybody saying this is a thing we're all on board with. This is it'd be more information maybe to consider. So I guess that's one thing.

Well, as you said there appear to be two of us who feel strongly about and I think to have a subcommittee we need to have some kind of vote to actually create a subcommittee and do we need three? You would need four. We need three. Three people have the committee. Um we have an official We've usually had three people that was the committee.

You can set [clears throat] it up how you choose. I would say that um the guidance that we have concerning open meeting law is that um if there's going to be substantive conversation for more than you know meeting once or twice to sort of look into a thing that that really is a meeting subject to the open meeting law. Um it would need to be under four people but you probably want three because two is two people talking to each other. It's hard to have sort of brainstorming at two. Uh but a subcommittee of two could succeed experts, right? I don't think I know what the word sakud is.

Have them [laughter] have them join the subcommittee some you know a construction company representative for example or somebody. You mean invite or do you mean invite or sit on? invite to help to to provide information and that's that's up to the commission in setting up a subcommittee is what guidelines we want to give them. So that's up to you all. Do we need a straw poll for a subcommittee or do we need a strap poll as to whether we're comfortable with this and let it go on?

What mean point? we agree with it and to move forward. Oh, two the two options. Yeah. Um yeah, I think we Well, we would definitely need like a full actual vote to have subcommittee, but um I think we probably need a vote regardless. You what? We we need a vote saying we we do or we don't want a subcommittee. It sounds at this point. Oh, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Well, procedurally, you only would need a vote to do a thing. You you you don't have a subcommittee now. You don't need to not have a thing that you don't have.

I guess I'm saying is there members on the commission that would like to have a firm answer is Yeah. I think what you're saying is if we have a straw poll to see if there's even interest and we would probably need at least three people to be interested in like serving on it also. So, Okay. So, um, so Mike, somebody Michael or John, one of you brought up the idea of a subcommittee. You did.

Um, okay. So, we're going to do a straw poll, which is non-binding, but just to gauge if there's interest in John's idea of um having a straw poll to kind of flush out the idea of decibel levels and distances. So, just pole. that we're gonna do the straw poll in support of the sub. Okay. So, who's in favor of having the subcommittee as suggested take more time to vote? Feel like we might have some people on the Okay. So, so in favor I Who's in favor? You can raise your hand. Of creating

of creating this. Is that a vote now or a straw poll? It's still a strong poll, but I just saw a lot of like, you know, indecision. Indecision. Yeah. Can we make a statement?

We favor two straw poll yeses and you can make a statement. Well, I mean, I I I think it's an important conversation and I think the public or at least some people in the public would have comfort in having numbers um in this LDR. I I guess I certainly am not um I guess have the background to be very helpful on a subcommittee. So if you need three people, I'm not one of them. So someone else would have to say, "Oh yeah, that's kind of an area where I have some um information." Um, I also I I I also think what we've put together puts some pretty good um um safeguards or balances or, you know, structure around future um bedrock removal that I think addresses is some the concerns or the um the possibility of what happened in the past of not happening again. But there's no guarantee of that. I mean there certainly are ambient developers who take advantage of things and you know don't behave as we all might want them to or would be sensitive to neighbors. I I just I mean I really would like this to go forward initially and I don't know

if having a sub committee come back with some numbers would make any of us comfortable enough to say oh yeah you nailed it that's the number I mean it's to me it's almost kind of like so how much bed bedrock can you remove? I mean, we don't it it's so different given whatever the um development might be. I think I mean I just if it's Yeah, it's very sight specific.

It it is very sight specific and I find that that's what's hard. That's like spot zoning, you know. it's really hard to accomplish and have it um stand up to legal challenge.

So that's so I'm really like on the fence. I mean, I don't know. It'd be not It would be great if there was some real easy way to do that. But, you know, I sat through a lot of information about the F-35s and that noise and it's just a really challenging thing to measure and then But they did stop. Pardon me. They did measure. They have 65 decibel. Yes. And there's lots of people who well whatever I mean they were

different um methodologies that were used and not everyone agreed those methodologies I guess I will say that but there's a lot still quite happy with the 335. Yeah. Yeah. But yeah, so Donna,

yeah, I' I'd just like to see what effect what we've already done has before we go ahead and, you know, try to define something that we know is going to be very difficult to define. But, you know, I think we've made some improvements already. Um, I would love to have a a specific number if it was possible to do, but it just sounds like it's going to be very difficult to do. And because it does invite um people to, you know, who are anti-development, it just gives them another tool. I think I'm I'm just kind of leerary about going that way.

One quick question, I guess, John, may just to clarify. You mentioned earlier that some of the language was precluding using the nuisance ordinance as an ultimate measure. Can you point to what language you were referring to there? The first memo, the previous agenda item. M

staff went to council and talked to them about the the impact of this ordinance and it doesn't strictly precluded but basically giving having this ordinance in place and giving a permit under this ordinance which recognizes and evaluates the noise level would make it exceedingly difficult for the city to then take the developer to court and say you have violated a standard that we never set using a permit. that we gave you that essentially said you can make a lot of noise. It would make it extremely difficult for the city to please jump in if if I'm incorrectly paraphrasing. I I don't think it's incorrect, but it does it maybe ignores the fact that by creating the standard that we have here, it adds frontloads a lot of review that wouldn't exist if this standard doesn't exist. So, it creates the opportunity for the public to weigh in at a DRB hearing or via the appeals process um that exists under zoning which is much more detailed and uh requires a lot more effort and offers a lot more opportunity for public input than any kind of enforcement of the nuisance ordinance.

Yeah. Okay. Well, thanks. That was to clarify that. I mean, I'll be also honestly from a personal level, I don't have a ton of faith in nuisance ordinance anyways, given that I've made multiple nuisance ordinance requests about certain things that the other thing ever came lack of enforcements. Yeah, that's capacity. Yeah, there is that is already a thing. I guess more but that's going to be tangent and we don't need to go into that. So, we have a public comment. You want to go ahead?

Yeah. My opinion is I have this opinion that uh I you have a delicate balancing act to perform here and if you lead too much one way you will attract attention from the business community and they will go to Mont Pilion and it's a Dylan state Dylan rule state and they'll probably pass an executive order or some legislation to override it. So I just want you to keep that in mind. That's a possibility and not that that's going to happen if you were to lean too hard, you know, with certain standards that not that it would backfire, but that become moot because they override it. Whereas if you find that sweet spot in the middle that was like a a really good compromise for everybody and prevents what happened, you know, at long drive over three summers, that probably is the best solution.

Sort of argue what happened with the building standards, I guess. went with the with the new update build that bills all got completely muted because they were a bit too far and now way back and the whole thing got tossed out. Sorry speaking loud. What about changing course a little bit and then focusing more on mitigation rather because then not much here. I mean unfortunately some of the mitigations uh measures that I've read about are expensive because they are they have to buy sound absorbing fencing if you like. Um, but I I don't know what it would cost in bulk, but 8 by 8 by 10 sheets cost $90 of of sound absorbing material. Is is there enough about mitigation in here

that wouldn't it's mentioned. It's mentioned. it would encourage them to address that in their application. So in terms of mitigation, a couple of key things that have been modified from the last draft was at your request. It says um that blasting is preferred over chipping.

So that is a statement that you asked to specifically say is that that's the priority. That's that's the first one. And then I think John you had pointed out that under 8B that it um appeared as though the um suggestion of sound blocking methods was applying to blasting. So we tried to make it more explicit that that is holistically for all subjects. So those are the two areas on that specific question that um that there are modifications to the text. So, our stronghold didn't have a lot of votes

un and unless somebody's looking to change their mind. Um,

you love when we have unsuccessful votes [laughter] even if it's so um so I think at this point I'm not hearing a lot of support for um kind of going down that road. Yeah, it doesn't. Yes. On the side. Okay. Appreciate your dilig diligence. Y um Okay. Next other items. And you look like you still have a list there.

Oh, I just had a question about um the required notification. I thought it should be required notification of the city. um comma abatas and other properties in the immediate vicinity because Abatus should be sort of primate the primary people to be um notified and they're likely to be the ones most affected and your suggestion is to add that as a just that language

as one of the conditions under that the DRB or administrative officer may impose under it's number C um G1C like specifically use the word a butters because right now it just says properties in the immediate vicinity which is maybe less clear properties in the immediate vicinity is broader than a butters no I'm saying a butters and other properties in the vicinity makes no functional difference to the language. But if it makes it clearer to you, then that's fine. You put the word of butters in there. Like,

doesn't act 250 use the term abutterss? A butters is a legal term that's used all over the place. Notification. Yeah. Yeah. In this contest context exactly what does immediate vicinity is that adjacent property is that of others property owners or the way this is go ahead.

No the idea this is in the section of something that the DRB can impose these conditions. So the idea is that it's written in a more broad way so that if it's a a large project that's proposing to do a ton of blasting, it may be a butters and then three more properties and that would be a determination that the can impose as the condition. If you normally an application is notice to the abutters. So this is giving them actually a broader scope to to require notice to farther away things depending on things like topography and amount of removal and all that stuff.

So one reason that you might want to keep it as written is let's say it's the airport the airport's abutters are the entire 700 acres of the airport. It could be the other end of the runway. It may be irrelevant on that side, but it may be relevant for the board to say all of Shunpike Road um as a neighborhood which is not of Butters, but are maybe the immediate vicinity that says then to the airport should be notified. So, it gives a little more um less mechanical more um thoughtful as to the where does it need to go suggesting that you would leave out um in the vicinity,

right? But adding a butters does mean in the instance of let's say the airport that it's got to be um for our drive has to be notified of something 4,000 ft away at the other end of but also this is in the context of what the DRB may do. So ultimately it's a anyway. Okay. Um other language items from anyone? Well, there was a question from thoughts. Um, a was that on this or something else? Um, page 16 of the

I think that's in I think that's the next item. Yeah. Yeah. Oh, well, I thought we were going to finish this up. Yeah, let's stick to the um the rock spot stuff first. Yeah. Um, anything else on the bedrock? Sorry. Just so that we are doing exactly what you wanted. Um, what did you want to do about the aut Yeah. And then you had a typo in there that would address. Yeah. I mean, just just bring it to length. It was a missing

It's just a missing word in uh section E15. It's a minor correction. should be be it's a sentence I'll go back to Gaffy it's just the word is is missing the consonant the preposition is is missing okay we might be at the end here are we ready to move on to nonconformities [clears throat] yes okay let's move on to number six nonconform

so before you do that just so that we are clear. Um, we've got a few corrections to do in here that you gave guidance on. Um, do you want to see it again before you take action? Do you want to just leave it there and when you vote for things in with other parts of it, you've been voting to say include it in the next round? Um, we just want to make sure that we are delivering what you need out of this rather than just moving on to the next topic. Yeah. Okay. Um, do we need to see it back action tonight? But we

Well, we need to see it back before we take action or like warrant a hearing, but you mean just put it in with the next other items? Um, with other ones, you have said with the changes incorporated this evening, please include this in the next round of amendments as an action for you so that we have guidance that that's where you want to be going. If you are not prepared to do that, that is totally fine. We just want to um Yeah, let's do let's do that because that that means it's like moving forward. We need a motion for that.

Um I move that Paul needs to repeat what he said this a moment ago. Whatever Paul said. I think I said uh that with the uh changes decided upon or agreed upon this evening to the draft as presented that it would be included in the next round of amendments. You will ultimately see a full package before you vote on it, but it is direction to us to say please include it. I'll second that. Okay. All in favor of uh including in the next round that it's okay that was unanimous.

Thank you for the wrap up there. Um, okay. Number six, looking at the nonconformities, adaptive reuse and alternative compliance. Um, including our policy direction from back in November. Um, we did have a quite a detailed memo on this. So, um, are folks ready to just kind of jump into possible language changes? Did you have anything you wanted?

No, I was just I was just going to say if there's any, you know, understanding questions, conceptual questions from the memo like top, you know, this would be the time to do that and then you can um work on into the language. I think generally speaking the the policies uh you all gave direction on the other November 12th uh meeting um I summarized them in those couple of bullets towards the top and then there's a little there's some edits a lot of the edits in the language deal with with those and then some edits are instead um kind of cleanup language that connects those changes to other pieces because as with everything you pull one string and the whole thing kind of needs to be put back together again. So, um, most edits are directly in response to those policy changes and then any other edits that you see as little one-offs are cleaning up some of those references, um, places where the wrong standard is repeated, things like that.

But you had asked whether K non-conforming use of land within with no structure K2. So that was um inadvertently included in the packet. That's a note from Paul to me about um changing potentially that standard. Um we looked at that later and decided not to touch that standard. Um we're primarily looking in this round because this our project charge and project scope is about reuse of buildings. Um so the primary focus was the adaptive reuse that ends up being that section towards the bottom and then also um continued use and investment in um structures that are on properties. So that one is just a little bit outside of that scope. Um so we didn't sort of follow that trail

down. It's something that we could consider in the future, but it's not something that we're considering in this round of amendments. Okay. because I thought that could be deleted because it's the same as the basically the same as the next item three. Yeah, we didn't we didn't look at it in detail for its technical merit. We just decided, you know, decided it was something that was not part of the scope of this project because we were talking more about structures and non-conforming structures and what they can be used or reused for. Um so that's something that kind of where we drew the line between this project and another one. So for now it's just going to remain just leave. Yeah. But you did get the bonus of a little peek inside how we internally hook this stuff.

Yeah. And how how PDF Microsoft Word and PDFing things tricks me and occasionally keeps little thing little nuggets like that. I usually catch it, but not this time. January is hard. Apart from that, I just had a question about the last item. L Yeah. Why um why do we sit a a 15-year ask that same question? Yeah.

So that's not something that we discussed specifically but the concept being um this came out of a discussion that I had with our um city attorneys um you know city attorney deputy attorney um on the legality of this and the legal sort of basis for it. what we are trying to do and the spec specifically the 15 years comes out of Los Angeles and their adaptive reuse standards um as opposed to 10 years or 20 years 15 was their number so I stole it um the idea being if you build something and then two years later you decide like hey I I did this I'm now going to use it to like as a entryway into doing something that's further non-conforming you know the rules change for some reason and it's not really it's not really an old building it's not really a historic building. It's not really a building that's been sort of part of the fabric of the area for a reasonable amount of time. Um it's just a building that you could use to kind of get around the rules that was there sort of um what they saw as the benefit of that kind of time limit. 15 years in the age of a building is not that long. Um, I would say most buildings in our, you know, general vicinity right here, barring the ones next to us and the ones we're sitting in and that one, um, are older than 15 years. Just, you know, 15 years was 2010 [clears throat] or 2011, as upsetting as that statistic [laughter] may be. Um, so that was the that was the theory is that you couldn't sort of do a thing and sneak in a structure before you hear rumblings about a change in the rules or something. you sneak in your structure and then two years later you're like, "Aha, I can adapt or reuse it into whatever into the housing that I wanted to do even though I've changed the rules." It's a very niche case,

but it also reflects the general policy that the idea of adaptive reuse is that you are not making someone tear down a building that is otherwise kind of part of the fabric of the area. um at about 15 years is when people start thinking that's the theory anyway that people start thinking like oh that's always been here or that's just part of the neighborhood part of the you know commercial area part of this part of the city it's also well when somebody wouldn't build a speculative building just to wait for the rules to change right 15 years to carry an empty building would be a very

that is a long game that I don't think most developers would be intentionally doing Anything under five is not that long in the scope of building a development. Um 15 years seemed to be a pretty good number to kind of hit the policies we want to hit without the pro the likely very rare scenario that someone would do something sneaky. It just puts something in there and puts a stake in the ground about when is something when is a building integrated in into the community enough that we would want to keep it or allow it to be kept, I guess. Donna. Um yeah, the the section that I I sort of raised some questions with me had to do with the it's uh the E or F uh damage to non-conforming structures

and was is the new item two and it it kind of makes sense but then um you know in places where there has been rather extensive damage in communities ities like especially out in California, you know, and you realize how long it takes to get something done. I think getting applying for the application in 6 months, I mean, it seems reasonable. Well, it's 6 months and having to do with fire inspections and stuff like that, but then getting it complete within 18 months, I think, you know, the six months seems reasonable. How long it takes to complete things these days, um,

it can be kind of out of out of an owner's control over how long it actually takes to get something complete. So, I was I was wondering if that might be a little too restricted. So, we did look at this and we did extend it. It was previously tighter than this because the six months and the 18 months were being measured from earlier points in the process.

Um, we landed on 18 months as being from the date of the zoning permit approval. And the zoning per permit approval is what you get immediately before you start building something. all of the infrastructures, if it's building infrastructure or rebuilding any sort of any infrastructure, all that sort of is there. The zoning permit is that last permitting point that we have. Um so some of the delays that come in um materials or in in city permitting or or site plan or whatever it is that may have delays up to that point are not included in that 18 months. Um, the other thing is that we changed it to the submission of the application within 6 months, not the beginning of reconstruction with the acknowledgement that that's right.

That's probably about as long as it would take to get um zoning permits. The first part seemed fine. Yeah. So, we did extend it out. Two months seems like maybe that still could be tight in some situation, particularly for larger buildings. Yeah. you know because those larger buildings I mean to be completely transparent um when we do some of the work like this in

um some of the LDRs we are trying to update the language with as little policy change as possible. Um so up changing sort of where those points are that the times are measured from um updated it a bit. Um but if the ca if the commission wants to extend that to you know 24 months or something else that would also be um fine I would think well zoning permits expire so that's already you have to start within within a year a year is the easy part finishing within 18 right so that's already built in though we could I think we'd be happy to extend it just sort of in terms of how we got to here we were looking at the adjacent section

and then saw oh my gosh it says that you must reconstruct within six months of the fire which is just impossible. people are waiting to hear about whether they're going to get, you know, insurance from Irene. Right? So that's how we got into this subject at all. So we're open to additional tweaks. This is the 18 months within a threeyear period there. So this is this is a subsection where Donna is talking about damage to a structure after a fire. Yeah. Or damage to could be flood too. Well, flood has separate, right? Is this specific to fire? No, it's it's force measure meaning things outside of your control.

Yeah. So, that was the other thing that was unclear that we cleared up. It's it previously said by any means dream damaged by any means to an extent greater and I went oh no implied in there but not stated was not like implied was you don't just go knock it down yourself but it didn't say that. So, we cleaned that up that it was something outside your control happens the proverbial act of God. Um that's you know force majour is a legal term for act of god effectively. So something happens

but but the flood is a good one because like like you said I mean there's still there's people waiting many many years for FEMA but is that covered under the flood specific regulation? They would have gone permit if they weren't approved by FEMA I'd assume. Oh okay that's a good point. So it could have an empty period for a long time in between. Could you with FEMA money and I I admit I don't know exactly the mechanics of this with if you got money from FEMA could you rebuild in exactly the same place or are you restricted from building in the area that was affected by a flood you know I think this is actually covered in our flood rag

chapter of Vermont is a good examples of that Mont Pillar because they obviously aren't going to move the buildings but they have to move all of the equipment out of the ground floors and move it up to the second floor and this has been a long time coming. They still they still don't know what they're going to do. My understand I'm not an expert. My understanding of it is it's pretty restricted what you can't get can't get built. I mean they're buildings in the hurricane area rebuild but dozens of time the same site because they can't I maybe that's changed recently but I've definitely heard that is an issue that is very restrictive what you can do with money. Right. [clears throat]

Right. But I haven't city by city. So ours is specific and we do we do talk about substantial damage and rebuilding in a spot or not. It it is actually covered. It's just in a different section for the properties that are flooded that are in the FEMA zones. I'll talk about FEMA reconstruction fun. Yes. And that Oh, my thing is there strings attached to when you can use the money for separate from our regulator.

Okay. Might be misunderstanding question. Yeah. But I think there is a scenario where the force major is water but isn't covered by the FEMA zone because it's like you could have flooding in a spot that's not in a FEMA zone. So I think it's good to keep it broad here. So is there direction from the commission to extend the 18 months or change the goalpost from where the 18 months is measured?

24 from zoning per 24 months from zoning permit feel is a bit more reasonable to me. I' I'd say you know y we moved it moved it a little bit more in the reasonable direction. Yeah. two years to finish construction.

Um one very important thing that um we is in this specific section is we removed the cap on uh we proposed to remove the cap on the value associated with it um because in the costs of construction now that is completely irrelevant. So for example there was a fire just recently on um a condo on Dorset Street. We just got the zoning permit in. The zoning permit for rebuilding is for for repair of the damage is about the same as the value of the unit and that's just what it is. So the whatever was in the standard before that talked about 50% of the value of market value.

It's just it's irrelevant anymore. So that's why that's gone to just get to you can rebuild under certain circumstances. So we just want to make sure that you're aware of that, right? Why do wink cool about the walls being loadbearing? You want to answer that about the removing the walls? Yeah. So, um, so this is onto this back to the subject of like when when is it voluntary reconstruction,

right? So, this is on the back on voluntary when does it count as being still a nonconformity. So this is something that there was a lot of discussion on and Michael you may remember this uh back when the formbbased code was adopted when the formbbased code first came in essentially every building in all of city center became a nonconformity um there was a lot of discussion about when do you consider the building to still be existing and not and we have had a couple of circumstances where there was advocacy for things that would sound very silly. So, um, you know, there was one example where prior to, um, form-based code adopting, there was an entity that really, really wanted to keep the parking in front of a building. And so, they proposed, what if we took all the building all the way down until the vertical columns were 6 in off the ground? Can we keep that? Can that still be the building?

Um, the building was everything. They would tear everything down that they would keep six in of the columns in the building to say it was still a building so they could keep so tall parking kind of structure. They want to rebuild the structure in the same place and not have to build the building up the street.

Oh, okay. And so there was a lot of discussion and saying well there is um an inherent cost to redevelopment that you know the water lines the sewer lines the the um infrastructure underground it's expensive stuff. So there needs to be sort of a point where it's fair to say you can do modifications to a building. It's still nonconformity. At what point have you made such an investment in the building that it is reasonable and fair to say whatever you've got sunk in your underground infrastructure is no longer relevant. And so that's where that 50% came from. If you were taking down 50% of the things that are holding down the build holding up the building, you're not a building anymore. You don't get the protection of being considered nonconformity. So

the finest of thesis basically I guess the finest ship of thesis. Yes. Yes. Yes. I had to think about my high school's uh description, but yes, there's a point at which the amount of what you're doing physically is no. And the load bearing is doing the weird what the heck is a wall, right? And this isn't about repair. It's about making a decision to take. Yeah. The word load bearing made it feel like there's some weird hole in there, which there was clearly, right? Yeah. Yeah. Which is distinguishing from like, you know, partitions within a building that are irrelevant, right? Those are walls, but they're not Yeah, you can reorganize them as much. Yeah, you can. Who cares?

I have more discussion on this item. Um, I think if folks are feeling comfortable, we could do the potential motion to um accept as written and move it to our file. Yeah. Our next next set of amendments. Well, with one change, right? 24 months. 24 months.

Yeah. I heard from two commissioners. Is that the if I say is that the general heads? Um, okay. I'm not hearing any more discussions. I think we could do that motion.

So, what what's the language for this? A memo.

Oh, okay. Yeah, I wrote a just in just in case somehow motion. I move to include the amendment to article 3.15 related to adaptive reuse in the next set of amendments to the land development regulations and to consider warning these changes to article 3.15 with the set of amendments reserving the right for potential small edits to the language at that time and incorporating the the slight change of 18 months to or the edit to 24 months.

Second. Great. Um, any discussion? Yeah. All in favor? I. That was unanimous. Um, we have the minutes of December 2nd. Approval is presented. I'll second. Oh, I guess one minor correction. That's fine. Uh, my name spelled with a U in it, not W. L A U R E N C E. Fair enough. It doesn't get my name spelled. Oh, you take exception. It's not R E A L. It's confusing.

True. Okay. Okay. On track here. Any other edits? Um, can we just accept with that one edit? Yeah. Yep. All in favor with the one at it. I

Okay, unanimous. Okay. Other under other business, we added um so we had gotten the update from councelor Barrett that the capital budget program passed. Um technically uh we got a memo which gave us some information about the process. They were supposed to tell us about the warning 15 days ahead, but they forgot and they apologized. But I mean, I think we got in our emails like lots of information about the warning and

it seems like it was reasonable warn. We all knew about it. So, so I don't I don't personally feel like we have any kind of action to take. like I think it was well warned and they've acknowledged that they forgot to tell us which is reasonable. Um what we would appreciate is a motion to accept the comm that um to uh acknowledge receipt of communication. Okay. That way we're just tying up that you're aware that it happened. You're aware that you got a communication. You're not making a value judgment about it. You're just aware of it.

Okay. So, I would like to make a motion to acknowledge receipt of the correspondence on the 2027 to 36 capital budget and program. I'll second. Okay. All in favor of the motion? I I unanimous. I didn't see it because I still have difficulty getting emails. From the So, we have Are you abstaining? I'm abandoning. Okay. So um so it passes and one abstension um and then any other business. Okay then we can adjourn.

Thank you everyone for a very good robust discussion. [music]