The TC and PC held a joint meeting on Thursday, November 10 at 8 pm to discuss the central commercial district CPAM in preparation for a planned joint public hearing on December 8. Minutes were being taken, but may not be available for several days. In advance of that, for the benefit of those who were not present, I have prepared these notes based on my understanding of the meeting. Attendees were PC members Morrow and Cammarota (McMahon made a cameo appearance at the beginning to provide an excellent packet of background material), and TC members Etro, Byzdyk, Ramsey, Graham and Clark (Clark left midway through the discussion). Ms. Welsh, the lawyer representing the applicant for 7 Main St. was the only public present.

The group first developed an approach to further developing the CPAM amendment for the public hearing, which was that we would generate a single amendment that represented the joint consensus of the participants, as opposed to carrying several options forward simultaneously at the public hearing.

At the top of the meeting, it was first generally agreed that expanded commercial use is desired and necessary for the greater area, and that the types of commercial use envisioned were small "mom and pop", etc. businesses that are consistent with the existing town. Both of these things were already at the basis of the PC version. Some early discussion was also held on whether churches are treated as commercial or residential from a planning perspective, with most comments favoring a residential view, in part because they are only allowed as a special exception in the residential district.

The group then laid out the issues they wanted considered/discussed on the central district CPAM, using the PC version as the starting point. The most important issue identified, and the one that dominates public comment, is the actual boundaries of future commercial land use areas. Additional issues identified were addressing traffic and parking, mitigating mixed-use impacts (i.e. noise, lighting, buffers), whether to recommend additional business districts (or B-1 flexibility) for "converted residential" businesses, how to preserve architectural character of converted residential properties, and providing detail on shared parking concepts. A final overriding issue of ensuring adequate detail in the comp plan to guide rezonings and exceptions (to address the prior issues), while still providing flexibility was also raised. The need for more and better illustratives to tie streetscape and stormwater together with the Comprehensive plan was brought up by the mayor.

The group then discussed the commercial boundaries. The first consensus item was that both rezonings and special exceptions were desired as methods to expand commercial use. It was further determined that separate boundaries can exist for both of these, with some properties eligible for both rezoning and special exception, and others only eligible for special exception. This is the same formula as is recommended in the current comprehensive plan, though it is currently with a small set of rezoning area (one property is eligible) and a very large special exception area (which was never enacted in the zoning ordinance as it was tied to the failed Historic District). Providing phasing for rezoning areas (such that some areas are eligible during later phases) was considered and ultimately dropped as being too unwieldy.

At this point the actual boundary lines were discussed, with a consensus developing amongst those present that 3-5-7-9 Main should be eligible for rezoning, and that the east side of Main up to the existing market should be eligible for special exception. 9 Main was included in the consensus because its lot configuration is very compatible with 3-5-7 for a future shared parking area. Some discussion was also held on a larger special exception area (along Main Street further north and in certain areas along the West side) but there was not sufficient support among those present to keep talking about it. There was no real support of extending commercial along Loudoun street, though it was discussed along with the PC subcommittee report that recommended it. The primary objection to a Loudoun expansion seemed to be the lack of a clear boundary/bookend, though other arguments were raised including the Main Street Loudoun recommendations.

The group then agreed on future meeting dates (Wednesday, Nov. 16 at 8 pm, and the regular TC meeting on Nov. 17) and adjourned