We have made full permission this evening and six and mission is mangan and Docs are virtual so today and you can go on camera whenever you possible. We don't we don't mind looking at you either one of you Most of the time So I'm just getting to agenda because I did not have it up myself You know the first thing we end up doing is asking For any sort of public comment that folks want so I'm not that down now So if there's anyone online which I'm seeing anybody Online them in the line or in the room that wants to offer comment to us on items that are out on the agenda Pretty all-encompassing agenda. Yeah I'm gonna ask Okay, no, we're good. We none. Let's go to our discussion about draft regulates the public hearing for a draft of the zoning and subdivision regulations and Catherine do you want to launch us into what you want to launch this into our So I am going to start out with a little brief summary of the changes and I'm not going line by line by any means but just sort of hitting on some of the high points and Then I also wanted to point out to people in the room at least we have Predocuments that also show the changes So there's one that is called the Planning Commission reporting form and this is what was warned and that's the public hearing version the draft and the other two documents are a Couple or a few extra changes that we picked up and added in after it was warned Mr. Catherine, I can air up for a moment. I'll call you're the only ones in the room If you'd like to sit at the table so that you don't have chairs in between us, you're welcome to Yes, you got to be quiet. We'll stay quiet. I will No, I'm not trusting of that Neither one correct though just to Make it clear in these two newer documents. There's one that's changes to sign lighting and anything that is Showed in color is what is proposed as new so that's not Except actually the red one That was new newly proposed already in the document, but I made an edit to what was proposed So that makes there's a cross out of that and then this document that has all The highlighting in it the highlighting stuff is what is new So if it's showing blue here that is in the document already that makes sense jump into sometimes you get when you have the Zoom thing is covering all my Little widgets. Yeah, right. So like I said, I'm hitting on really some of the highlights some of the First starting out with actually some really this is a minor changes some it's in some cases clearing up inconsistencies Some cases there are things that are just at a date so for example This this one is definitely not inclusive of all those changes, but so we remove some outdated lighting sources from the the sign section We referenced the ETC next plan, which is New newly ish adopted and so that was not in the old version So before it was a master plan from I think 2001 or not 91 So we also Replace some or change some definitions one for example is the definition of family was we play or Definition of family was replaced with household We moved some specific sign standards from the business design control District over to the sign section just to make make all of the sign stuff in one spot And then there were some typos and some things that were out of date. Well, I guess like the ETC next plan, for example So some more specific ones that we made were State statute every year gets amended and there were some things that we needed to get our zoning compliance with state statute and mostly it's related to housing and So for example, you plexus multifamily and group home in our Regulations have often been conditional use and we're not allowed to do that anymore. So we moved it from conditional to permitted And something to point out So permitted use means that you need a zoning permit. So you don't have to go like to the planning commission or ZBA for review But for something like a multifamily home that would still need site plan review, so it's not Escaping all review. It's essentially Not going into the conditional use so removing it from the conditional to permitted. Does that is There an option not to have it being allowed you still I'm not asking to do that But it does it yeah, so we didn't so what the way statute reads is that anywhere where a single family Home is permitted in the sewer water with on me this water and sewer And you and you have to allow that. Okay, so our more rural districts or anywhere where there's not sewer and water there I think we're gonna see some Very interesting Unintending consequences with that. I'm not saying it's a bad thing. Yeah, but you're gonna see some teardowns and some well, and there's Probably a new slate of changes that are I don't think the governor assigned anything yet, but s100 right it's gonna have some more Yep changes. Yep So state statute also changed that we need to allow development on solid smaller lots served by public water and sewer So I think it's like an eighth of an acre Accessory apartments there were some changes to that as well. So we had Some limitation or Requirements on bedrooms. There's no limit on the number of bedrooms We can't you it cannot be conditional use anymore and more flexibility in size And then we also updated the definition of affordable housing to match what's in Small back smaller lots. That's like a rollback to the sixties and A lot of the elements that we have in the Yeah smaller lots right kind of fits the character the only difference is their single family. Yeah with this it could potentially be All right, so some other changes Outside of statute and the little ones we have the in the business design control overlay district We added language from Etc next plan that describes the purpose of the district But we also added some additional design requirements for things like waste management pavement maintenance landscaping and maintenance and fire and safety hazards and Accessed standards. So this is for anywhere in town. We're not talking about the business design control anymore But we added some language to Include the curve pet application process. So this is kind of a minor one, but it's highlighted here and Signs of some additional language was updated to reflect new technology recent technology and standards and also allow Well, that's actually in the So this PowerPoint does not reflect the changes in here Because these ones were pretty much ones you you all agreed on these we haven't discussed yet So I didn't put them in here. So I will kind of highlight these in a second, but there There is some technology standards that were updated outside of the new the new change And then we're allowing Marquee signs in the MXD PUD B1 district. So essentially that's the around the Essex experience area And there's there were some changes to PUDs So changing the minimum number of dwelling units from two to six And I do have a little question on there that we may want to change that number to four That was a suggestion of staff that's in this Addendum here Dwelling area requirement requirements Restrictions were removed for the minimum dwelling size. So we said it could be any size essentially So just no restriction at all. We might want to consider putting a restriction on that Currently multi-family can be 350 square feet So we could change the single family to meet that requirement as well or just leave it as we said it with no no minimum What's the argument for having a minimum because I'm the one who advocated for removing it remember that um It's I guess a little less drastic of a change I would say if we do the 350 Um, that's really pretty small 350. I I don't have a problem personally with Not having a minimum My thoughts would just be somebody could come in with a 8 by 10 and by 10 um And what point is too small? Do we care? I mean that's an individual choice. I mean you you could literally build a tiny home and put it on I mean that that is the trend right build a tiny house those average say that because um I don't know if it's still trending. I haven't Seen a lot To be honest with you and I don't think that anybody would go so so small And in my mind 350 square feet is is small and that doesn't count. They can still put on a you know I have a basement a deck Not livable space. So the 350 square feet would be livable space so I just felt that that was maybe more aesthetically pleasing to other surrounding Development areas. Um, so let's ask the other question Why take it away? To promote this the flexibility. I mean I just What's the what would be a downside of having nothing? No no no requirement for minimum You know, I I frankly I'm thinking about this in the size of like the some of the older stock We have of the the ranches from the 1960s with 900 square feet You know cutting cutting that more than in half would be essentially like a living room in a kitchen would be a so I would advocate In a totally different point. We want to put something in say 1000 square feet or 900 square feet I think it's 500 500 500 right now Leave it at 500 but in current, you know allow But something in there that could outline for an exception. What do you say a waiver, but it would be a lesser amount Not sure how to What what would it do for us by allowing it to be no bottom limit? What would it Especially considering we've got now We can't we have to love for the duplexes and the problems and so forth it just ended Well, thanks.  Yeah, do we need to do we need the site sewer septic or is this anywhere? Still need to meet Modern wastewater requirements. That's why I'm not worried that someone's going to put a 10 by 10 shed with No bathroom and just be like hey, look at my new home. I mean, I see I think there's some back stop protection I can see that Josh or john any thoughts? Yeah, I would say about this one. I think as long as water and sewer the great almighty josh Oz Sorry, your volume came through really loud Sorry about that We can hear you All right, the mighty How about you mr. Mangan? Yeah, I'm in favor of it as well of removing limitation John I don't think in theory there'll be that that many people who want to go far below 350 So I think it's probably a moot point, but I I can't think of a reason why you need one I mean as long as everything else Sounds like there's a consensus to go with the proposal to remove the restriction So as written in the document currently Okay, um Paula I'm concerned about where these Places that are being allowed would be located. Is there any restriction? I mean If somebody decides that they want to add one to a quarter acre lot What is that going to do to the value of the homes and the rest of the neighborhood? Well currently they have to meet to put a structure on it. You have to meet the requirements of of a lot Um, you know the frontage and and whatnot. Um, but no they right now our regulations allow two houses to go on I was just gonna say they can do any they can do any of you by statute today. They can also do a necessary apartment So yeah, but you said two houses or a duplex to right now two houses Whether it's a duplex or two single family homes can go on a lot. What size? Well, right now the 500 square foot is what they are, but we're just discussing removing. No, no, no What's the what size lot depends on the zoning district you're in so you just you know Well, that's not I'm just concerned that we're going to create a monster that people are going to be complaining about for years And wish it hadn't happened Well, we've had the two houses on one lot for a number of years now And there's only been a handful of people who have taken advantage of that and mostly it's been relatives who kind of live Around each other. Uh, there's no great benefit to them for tax purposes And it's actually a little more difficult when you go to sell a lot. You have to sell both houses Unless of course they create condominium type situation so It's been in play for a long time and there's really I can think of maybe three that I've issued for two houses on one lot So they're not they're not knocking down the door to do that. Yeah Well, the ad use um accessory dwelling units All single family homes are permitted to have that as well And the state just doesn't I'd have to fit within the set batch Yeah, well anything you build you need a setback to meet your setback requirements, but It's it's allowable. They can either be attached to your home in your basement or a standalone building And that's been forever too, right? We haven't had any any huge kickback from that. So Even so There's something we're about but it could change the property values. I don't I don't see that Happen Not how things get settled. Yeah, I don't think we're gonna see a huge info I mean higher density is what the state is going for um, but you know It takes the right Owner to want to put another dwelling on a tight lot and you got to worry about parking I mean, there's lots of other things, you know wastewater There's lots of other things you got to worry about And I just don't see us jamming in high high density on super small lots because I just don't think logistically It'll work. Are we going to get a handful of people that Put in a small, you know tiny home or something that's two 300 square feet Yeah, I think you are even for ad use because you know if you could have mom in the back with, you know Bedroom and a bathroom a little bit of privacy. They're gonna do it I mean, there's some examples in the u.s of Amazing especially in the veteran world amazing little tiny house communities with Very small living areas and then a community space. I think that's getting more and more popular because it's affordable And and that doesn't bother me because that's a planned Right It's not the kind of thing that is going to affect Property values in a whole neighborhood So some of the questions that will probably come up is can they do a tiny home on a trailer? right and Probably should talk about that a little bit. Well, didn't we just have the rv discussion recently right now the rv What six months No, it's it's six. I think six. I tried to get it to go to the camping But that didn't fly so it I think the maximum is six months It's it's occupied right not storage, right? So you can store. Yeah. Yeah, what do we have? for regulations My mind if it's on wheels doesn't have a motor The mobile home I believe off the top of my head mobile home. They have to take the wheels off. It can stay If it's an loud structure Here we go I mean people get you start doing this stuff and you guys know people get creative. They'll I mean that's there's so many trailers in vermont that have Literally still have their axles and everything underneath the skirt They hold the wheels off and skirted them right and those you can't get financing on they have to but they uh, they exist I don't know Come on. Let's let's what you're looking for that. I don't think we need to saw it Yeah, so I guess since we dove into this question here about the square footage we could Come all over this pud thing that I kind of skipped over because I said we'd talk about it later, but So currently zoning says that two you can have two units for a pud Like they nothing smaller than that. I guess you wouldn't need it Wouldn't be a pud but Used to be six and so the suggestion that we put in zoning was to move it back to six Sharon and I were talking we're like, well, what is that to be six? Maybe it could be four Six isn't necessarily the magic number It got changed down to two because Sir felt what was that a previous planner felt it circumvented the simple parcel subdivision So there's an argument to be had for that. You are allowed and I'm talking about the river road Hemo drive they were like point five or point and shy of Being able to do a simple parcel subdivision. So they came in with pud. Yes. Um, so And it went to two though in the first place Hi, that's pardon me. Oh, it went to that was a david suggestion to way back when it was. Yeah For a pud? Yeah. No, that doesn't sound like david at all. I'm telling you what Really? Yeah So, uh, you know, I have no To me three and up but four. We just thought was Why six why not? You know giving if if housing is the crunch and we're trying to get more Why does it have to be six? so Who was the shoes? The only the reason people go to the pud is to try to get around You get more flexibility to get around Right, so the larger question is is Is there another solution to it or is the pud that we've been all struggling with for years? Is the pud still the right solution To the problem When you want to use creativity or should we be using looking at our regs and saying all right? Why why is it that so many people have to go to a pud like what's wrong with our right? I totally agree. I think there's been discussion about doing an overhaul of puds Yeah, we need that just not in this round. I agree Or or in lieu of that eliminate puds and change your dimensional requirements You used to have used to have a lower acreage right right in there. You didn't have to figure out anything so But pudies I you know, they're I think different in different parts of town and they're serving different purposes You know, so I think a conservation development pud makes sense where some other ones probably don't Well in the way it's been used is you know, we we talk about character the neighborhood west sleepy hollow places like that You have these you know Minimum frontage single house on a lot and then all of a sudden people wanted to get more density So they got created and they conserved a bunch of land came with the pud and all of a sudden the character the neighborhood went from Single on big lots to okay. We're gonna have a little mini Yeah, and we're gonna put 12 houses in here. I don't know if that's right or wrong. It's definitely different Outside the sewer core. So I feel like it's wrong to put that much pressure on the land. That's just my opinion And I think that's captain's point I'd almost I'd almost stick right now with with removing any reference to puds in this round And and visit puds as an entity And we can when we when we dress that we can address The whether or not we keep puds whether or not It goes we have a number whether or not the number is variable Based on the application and or the zone And the intent of the pud I mean we could ask for what is the intended purpose of the why are you asking for a pud? And that could bring in some criteria Not just how many units do you want? But there's got to be a reason why you why are we justifying it? um, we can't be completely Objective there's going to be some qualitative component to it, but might not be just a number so I think it deserves it it deserves given the amount of struggle we have I think it deserves a solid A look all by itself. I mean concentrated effort to address them with community input and so forth right I agree So it's not going to solve are you saying to just I'm saying not touch puds in this round period So it still leaves begs the question of the issue of some people thinking too Was an issue we have two on the we have two today Yes, then we leave it for two for today. All right, and we put it into The pug discussion Of full I mean a full comprehensive review and proposal Sounds good to me. Yeah, josh, john I like that auditorium sort of echo they got He's kind of neat to the punch. Yeah Okay, all right the last Point on this page then moving down the last thing here is municipal administrative requirement so We discovered some language that doesn't allow the planning commission or the zoning board of adjustment to Receive the stipends that the slack board has approved. So just removing the language that says You can't be a cop. It'll save money. What's the specific language because it is it is it future proof Is it specifically call out planning commissioners and zoning administrators or is it called zoning? It calls out planning commission and the zoning board of adjustment both So I'm I'm I understood but I'm just wondering if we could future proof that by stating that it Development appointed development Um review personnel Today, you know, including that it's planning commissioners and zoning board, but in the future there won't be zoning board well, so there I think we need a lot of other changes in our zoning two to six References to different words is that right now? Planning commission is a separate number. Maybe it's letter and zoning board is a separate one so I think it's going to require some other changes to get rid of You know those understood but but there'll be a point if we if we don't future proof this We don't have regulations ready to go into effect on whatever day is determined if Is were ultimately required And we won't we'll be back in the same but we are in now. So I'm just well. Yeah. Yes, but We didn't do that dive in this round to look at the other things So if if we want to do that, I think we don't think it's I don't think it's drastic. I don't think no, no, you know, it could be um appointed appointed development review personnel such as planning commissioners zoning commissioners or zoning board members But it's fine I'll go with what's written And the language shouldn't be in this anyways. No, that's a that's a town policy slash select board decision. It's not a So just we have no authority at this body to decide whether to get compensation or not odd statement And that the zoning board actually says that you have to be a member of a town of Essex Planning commission doesn't so act that is one of the changes in here For the zoning board to take that language away state statute allows out of towners Anybody else? Any warm body So did I capture that that you strike it? It's well, it's already struck. Okay. Yeah Yeah, so I'm just recapping. Okay. So those the other two on this page though Where changes new newly proposed changes. So, okay, it's confusing. I'm sorry All right Yes, pal. Are you when you're talking about people Not being required to live in Essex to be on any of these Is there a limit? I mean it seems to me that That you should always have a majority of people. Yeah, I think I'm pretty sure that's the way state statute reads. So it's not saying them. Yeah, some majority needs to be town residents. Okay allows for those Small number Okay, so subdivision regulations um again Mostly these are really minor. Um And some examples of that They're a fine language for development submittals um, yeah, this includes um our Uh Mapping files that we accept the way Shannon likes them for updating our our town maps um So an updated submittal requirements after a subdivision approval And we updated the term Conservation committee to the conservation and trails committee because that's what they are now Yeah, and that's there really was nothing major So what's next so the you see we're discussing this tonight And allowing the public to also Way in and you can approve the draft tonight or some other point And if you do approve it it gets sent to the select board. Well, they will hold two public hearings And after the hearings the select board will vote And if they do approve Then we'll go into effective officially 21 days after So surface view good. Thank you um We should open up the document with the more detailed changes. Yeah Touch on them The commissioners, I mean if you see that it's a good question about call it out Catherine if you've got you know the commentary in any of them Yeah, let's go ahead. So several of them are really things that we just missed we meaning staff but any reference to the village of s6 junction as Referencing in this document doesn't need to be there anymore Not it on the cover of the documents but not in the internal So there's a few references here that are noted Public utility commission Is the name of the board is it it's not the vermont surface board anymore So this table 2.9 d for the b1 district We were looking at this and don't understand why it says So the minimum lot area for existing dwellings as opposed to any new dwellings or like what it in every other district It says per dwelling unit It's just doesn't make any sense. So suggesting to change it to that And then also in this table 2.9 and the b1 district suggestion to But actually this was already done the changing of They're taking out of the one and two bedroom multiple family dwelling units But then the the new proposal Yeah, this should be highlighted sorry as 12 units per half acre And what's in there now is 25 units per acre So if you have a small lot why shouldn't we allow them to have Some ability to develop this is a really kind of weird regulation. That's that's in that section It's not in any other district that has this this statement So turn and I were just kind of batting that around and You got a half acre. Maybe you could get about half half that density And again, I think that was being creative to try to meet some housing needs before you guys go into a dive You're going to look at dimensional requirements and maybe reduce those in the future or whatever Yeah, so the b1 is already uh supposed to be a dense district. It's on water sewer um It's the type of place where we would want to see more dense So in the the business design control, there's a couple Changes proposed for some additional screening for trash enclosures Suggesting like taking out The language about Mechanical equipment or just or clarifying that Some mechanical equipment is exempted in table 1.1. So just reminding people to go to look at table 1.1 Again, there are a couple more of these bdc design requirements Just changing the week to 48 hours for the dumpster pickup Um Thought fire lanes should also maybe make it clear that vehicles should not be there not just objects and debris Um another s extension reference um so this one Is in that for the um in the rpdi For some reason it says parking can be in the buffer and when you've never done that before so say that No parking The 50 foot buffer either You either want to on that uh No size thing either change it to add an A at the start of the sentence or just dwelling to be dwellings Single or multi fail and where are you dwellings maybe of any size? Okay. All right. Yeah, so we talked about that one All right, so fences and walls in this section This was in the proposed document. Um, but you already had reviewed. Um Thought we needed to add some language here that's highlighted with in the state of disrepair Um sort of on second thought looking at this language, it's um might be stretching a little bit to be be this Uh restrictive If we were talking about the bdc district where we have design standards We don't in any other part of town is this reaching a little far On that language that you added when it falls us should we say that they should uh either repair replace or remove That's an option as well I guess I would ask Why we need to do anything with it To put to sort of put a counterpoint why we need to ask or require learning to do anything about it What are we trying to I guess what are we trying to accomplish with this and that's and that's to be clear We don't have we don't have covenants throughout the town other than zoning regulations and so forth So I know these are essentially the town covenant, but Why are we Why am I going to tell you you got to fix your fence if you don't want to Business of it. I mean what business of his mind to tell you to fix you Well, I guess the argument would be that if there was a fence separating our two property lines and you put up a nice stockade fence and then four years from now every other panel you know One was good. The next one was missing all its pickets. The next one was good. I mean that would just look like I I don't argue that but so if you want the fence, I think the argument would be To put up a structure that's a visible structure That both parties can see you got read to keep it in a state of good repair Now the other argument that is there's no requirement to keep your house in a state of good repair If you want to not paint it you can not paint it but anyways, but we're also saying it doesn't require a permit So I mean I my personal feelings that we're getting into this stuff Noise ordinance space a little bit. I mean we're getting to very subjective What looks good to you might not look good to me and maybe I consider art. Maybe I don't I might have put it up for security in the in the one my kids were little and I don't really care about it But I want to go through the excel. I mean I'm just saying it's It's an expense that may or may not be appropriate either way. We do this. So I'm just I'm I'm Personally struggling and I I mean We can limit the height. I don't I'm not agreeing. I've the height is a different question. We can limit the where it goes um I'm just curious as to why we limit anything else about Any limit where it goes if it's in the property So I will just say that We probably all know where we're talking about but there was a complaint a few years ago that Somebody has two pick fence. They sawed off And put on top one another The neighbors complained and said it was depriving them of lighter air. I had to get the town attorney involved and The town attorney felt that it wasn't depriving them of lighter air because even though it was blocking it took their view When it was kind of in your face, they still were getting some light in the air So there wasn't really a view and it wasn't really a view. Um, so That's kind of what started off. He suggested at that point to put something in If you if you go back a few years we had a discussion about Sheds in colors Which you wanted to paint. This is another previous planning commission and there was discussions about Hype of painting and so forth. There's you know, somebody wanted to do paint polka dots Yellow background they might like it, but it might be offensive to the person next to that So there was there's question about that and but frankly my memory is that it came down on It's my yard. It's Within the setbacks for my structure. It's my structure to paint It's you know freedom of speech freedom of expression all that sort of stuff. So I'm I'm just I'm hesitant myself To start requiring people to maintain their parcels in a certain way If we're not in the design control district, we don't have neighborhood covenants So it's just I'm it's wiggly. It's a wiggly spot. Do we have a problem we're trying to fix? well one one and Maybe maybe if you don't like this one, I'm just trying to find my uh, that's right the Maybe it can be massaged a different with better wording With depriving of light of air. Maybe we can expand on that or we we can take this up At the next go around I'm just saying strike the whole thing. That's fine. I'll go back to what it was. I'm just I just um ask a question. Is there a general exterior property maintenance requirement for like mowing your lawn or not having a front door fall off or Yeah, my god. Okay. Is that something that you want? It can go on and that select board could consider it for an ordinance. I mean they could like I mean again, it's a Trying to solve a problem. That's not a problem there, but I mean there probably is that problem, but It's such a problem that It's not a problem till it is right. So then there was the guy in burlington. I forget his name maybe I don't remember his name that rehabbed all the houses in burlington and his way of Going that he rehabbed the houses was he painted them these really loud colors like really And that got a lot of attention You know because a lot of people didn't like it and other people were like, oh my god What a great sign that this has been rehab.   So I don't know It's in the eye of the beholder I think that's that's a that's a keep that's that's a real good observation on that really is this is very subjective sort of discussion Yeah, I mean it does seem like freedom of expression and also some people may just have a really difficult time maintaining Things are trying to maintain and they're doing the best they can but they're having a hard time and Maybe the other way is trying to figure out how to help them if they're having hard time Going up the mind to fix their house or something else that can be done So I'm and so it's strike. I think strike everything that's It's all the right because even the front, you know the You can object you can erect a fence on the side in rear property lines But not the front and the front can only be, you know, the proposal for 29 inches. I think that's Primarily just a decorative That's and that doesn't do much of anything. So I think again same sort of same sort of question same sort of thought You can't have No, that's that's what the proposal was it said if the fence across the the the proposed line language was Um, trance any non-transparent fence Okay in the front here. I shall not exceed 29 inches in height Unless it means you can't see through it There are different degrees and not being able to see three things Well, I mean my my point is that 29 inches is lower than the height of this table And it doesn't do anything for protection and doesn't know anything to keep kids in dogs out or anything like that If you meet your setback you can have it higher The way it reads right now for for your front yard if you're a corner lot or if you can't Walk traffic visibility from anybody else backing out of their driveway As well as yourself you've got to be able to have vision And that shouldn't change and I have made people take the panel off for This change created because we were trying for a while there we were trying to merge The city and our regs to mirror as much as we can where we could and that was one of them And of course it didn't go as expected. So no problems to just delete that right out It went as some people expected Let me just say Okay, moving on The language of before you completely move on the last sentence talking about electric fences And barbed wire fences. I think that's fine Because that's makes you know, that's I don't know why we need barbed wire electric in the residential areas except on halloween protection Okay, um right just uh A bow that it's the mxd puti b1 district. It was headed as the mxd um So adding This was a suggestion the town attorney for the third party technical review I'm just adding that it should be done at the expense of the applicant the All right, we already talked about this puti r1. So let's get that And Right at the village We talked about this The board of adjustment that's so additional Change was that all members shall be residents of the town of esx. So got rid of that As a new deletion um, I'm on Let's see page in definitions 8 section 8.1. I think it's page 2 Page 3 page 3. Oh, yeah. Yep middle at the last page Yeah, right at the end of this the zoning regulation changes Um Suggestion for this short term rental to just to say that it's per year. Um, so not just 30 days at 30 days per year And then moving on to subdivision regulations. We've got a lot of village Stuff And then this one that's 2.10 f with the plat recording requirements. Um Sharon and I were talking we don't really know why the assessor's department got added in it Assessor never gets a copy. So we didn't it's an add-on that didn't need to be added in And so we just sort of move things around a little bit to still say that it Copy gets returned to the applicant merged a sentence So that's not new. It's just a rearranged sentence And it's a typo in that one. So no different language Residential development phasing so this did not make it into the draft But you all had talked at one point about just deleting the residential phasing section of subdivision regulations Um, so But we haven't didn't talk about it real recently. So I'm not sure what you all think but I from my understanding Um, there really has not been issues of meeting the maximums um, I think recently just recently though in More rural areas we did see that but we have plenty of Capacity from previous years to borrow from what you're allowed to do. So I think in the end, it's kind of a wash Like we're not really exceeding that either. So We worry about having like a sudden bloom Of housing and then we want that though, don't we? Yes, we do I've never understood why we bother going through okay. Yeah, we got lots left. So next So this might be a question we I mean if if public works isn't weighed in I mean we'd be increasing usage capacity on sewer So if we're if we're talking outside of the sewer core And see that's not really an issue. I mean I would see supporting Removing phasing for outside the sewer core because that's going to be limited by state storm state sewer requirements and regulations But inside the sewer core that's going to be an impact on services. It's we've had discussion before about services not just um, not just uh A town sewer or a town town public works, but also emergency school and so this it's In past years there was discussion about not overloading the school not having a bolus Come in and hit the schools all at once or hit the ambulance all at once or or plowing stuff like that. So I I'm thinking that Wouldn't this I want to do away with it Isn't the backstop on the sewer though that gonna select board Give sewer allocation. They have to vote on sewer allocation in the sewer core. Anyways, we've got one backstop there If someone tried to come in and jam in 300 units And there's no capacity. They're gonna not yeah public works wouldn't they put the brakes on yeah What's the enabler for that though? I guess I'm public works back to the sewer capacity But I have the ordinance. Yeah, so so the select board is going to be reviewing sewer capacity Because they have to increase it to try to meet the needs of the etc next plan so um But as and maybe when you open the public hearing I'll can speak to that a little bit too, but when they're proposing developments Part of that is is part of the review for planning commission and I mean um public works So they will be quick to say So that's just sewer Yes, what about the rest of it? What about the the the overall impact of the rest of the infrastructure in the community schools?  What are we you know, how is this going to affect the school? We used to get the school board coming in and giving giving us a projection for the next two years four years whatever I do have that information for the town plan So but we used to get I mean that used to be a regular thing and we would use that we would more or less tie that to the There's no words here tonight I think this phasing the schools are shrinking So I don't I just I haven't had a conversation with Essex schools, but when I was in Jericho They were like oh increase your density. We want we need more kids in our schools so Well, I mean in the 17 years and you've been here longer than me I've always looked at the phasing as an unnecessary evil in terms of an exercise we've never It's never been an issue Builders can't build them that fast in a year. There's just not enough workforce or demand To it's not like someone's going to come in and slam in 300 houses. It's just We just it's always just been something we've done and kind of like blessed and as shoe said, you know, yep That's good done. So I mean it seems like we're doing it for no good reason in my opinion and I wouldn't argue against the the lack of Impact because I mean I would agree and the time that I've been here. I don't believe that we've ever hit a maximum Only maybe once or twice allocated from a different a different different subdivision something that never went through so capacity was allocated but never used so it was never reclaimed So from that side, I don't I don't see an issue at all With dropping it. I'm concerned that If we do have a a significant of both because my memory of the school Was it went in in waves? So you'd have a you it was not a straight line. It wasn't a straight line in either direction it occurred and You'd have a you'd have a Class that you'd follow through the the schist system and then it'd be low And then there he appeared a time that there'd be another group come in another next Generation so to speak it wasn't by year. It was more by Group of kids going through the system I'm starting to finish So you will still have waves and looking back like my my daughter's year She was born in 2008 and that's like one of the higher years Like anything there's has been nothing as high as that since it's not higher by a lot But overall Projections numbers are going down Family sizes are shrinking Um, just our demographics have changed a lot. So I don't foresee Big shifts, you know Make it a problem for the schools if we were to allow more density Um, you know, I I realize we really haven't spent a lot of time Looking at this or talking about it. Maybe this stays in now and We look at it at the next round. So I I don't mean to push this through either It's a good, I mean, I think it's a good thing to have a discussion about because the points are valid that it What value has it brought to the table? That's question one. Well, and then a lot of the development we've done in the last handful of years has been congregate or elder care Alzheimer's type buildings Zero impact on schools, you know, but maybe on the ambulance and the fire trucks. Yep I mean you look at we we talk about the fire anyways, I think it's That's a fast question. Yeah, so Suppose we keep the regulation in And next year we have 50 people too many And then next year we have 50 people. So we're gonna say no to anybody or It's always been first in first out first application In gets gets the capacity up to the limit And then they're just not And then they have to make you space it out um I mean, I guess that Could potentially be adding cost to a project if they have to wait and come back later Does anyone have any objections on the commission if we engage al on this since he has some direct experience Does he want to well, we're gonna ask him in a minute, but they're gonna ask it a mission first Now you're relaxing Okay, al do you have any thoughts on on this topic of phasing? I don't think over the years that I've been here. There's been any problems at all where You know, there was always the fear of overbuilding, but it never got there So I just I don't think there's any need for it. I think when when that day comes You can add language to change it then but I don't think there's anything That's going to be overwhelming right now. I mean Builders can't build them fast enough, but there's not very many builders. I mean that they're aging out and so Getting people to Know is I mean even when we put our 50 unit buildings online. It wasn't like it added much to the to the services An occasional trip by Emerging emergency people. It's it's not like they have to spend a lot of time putting a fire out It's usually you know a smoke detector in the apartment or somebody needed some medical attention or something like that, but I think it's overburdening That's really just the burden is really just on staff to keep track of it. I'll just keep track of it It's a pretty minor thing. Yeah, that was going to be my question. How much time is it a very burdensome thing to kind of keep track of? Or is it just No, it's just it's just one more thing to try to add and coordinate and then just One thing the expert is taking your attention away from doing something else The only good thing about it is if in five years or so Somebody asks what's the history bed? Yeah, it's it's I mean, I think it would be nice to keep tracking You know closely how our population's changing that would still be good Um to have and maybe there might still be projects that you might want to phase for other reasons, whether it's traffic or Your capacity or something maybe there'd be a rationale you'd want to phase A project I'm concerned that if we don't have something like that in there, we wouldn't have that enabler To be able to case that it would be I mean, I'm not in respect of the you know, the developers They're gonna they're gonna they want to build when they want to build and you're gonna build when you can build But we also have I don't know it just it it doesn't feel baked enough yet to take it out I think it's a good conversation and if that's what we get we get but I'm not I'm hesitant to remove it because I don't know enough yet what the consequences could be That's where I'm to um, um, let's go with what the what the group thinks on this because I think it's a valid question like just like Uds and I have something that's might seem like a weird question This was the number for the town outside the village, right? So it change it doesn't change this wasn't the number for the whole town Okay So let's go around the table a little bit with that david I guess I'm for taking it out just because in 17 years I haven't seen much upside other than a lot of administrative hassle so I'd be for Removing it, especially given where the school numbers and service numbers are josh I'll I also be in favor of of removing The the entire section. I think it was meeting or two ago. I had the same question. Have we ever hit the limit on this? but I'm sensitive to your point about still collecting the data and In some sort of investigation we found out we wouldn't be able to collect the data unless we have this that Changed my mind, but the provisions themselves never seem to come into effect Chew I did exactly what josh just As my feelings also I wanted to strike it and then I then after what you said can't it's like, no, okay So there's value in keeping track John Uh, same that there's uh, I feel like The day's point if you've never even seen that's the issue and I'll point What he's saying I feel like I'm much better I kind of like it I but I I don't I'm I could be persuaded otherwise I think it's a I think it seems like a good thing to have there if it's not a ton of work I don't know for for the future I can see good reasons to keep it to be perfectly honest, but I mean it's never been if it's never been hit before Okay, so so Josh and shoe I'm not a hundred percent sure where you guys landed on this because it seemed like a middle of the road Yeah, because right now the way I'm reading the room There's there's two to remove it and two to keep it for now And then two I'll be more decisive. I'm I'm happy with striking it out. Okay Josh Yeah, I'm happy with breaking Okay, so I think there's a majority right now that's that's in support of striking it out And again, we can keep it going on our own. Yeah having to report it in your staff. So that will be an internal discussion Okay, so that's it for there So the other thing is some new language here for Some sign lighting And also too just there's a little edit up here in this one just Rearranging that sentence to read a little bit better Also adding this language this Bear balls shall not be visible to the person's viewing the light source So this is more like if you have a gooseneck light or something that's the illuminating sign Versus the bottom the last one here is Um More I think more specific Um, maybe not maybe we could strike that because it is it is down here. I was thinking this is more for Um, like our backlit signs, but this e doesn't really pertain to the backlit signs. It's related to this Light sources for externally illuminated signs So we currently have this language here for reverse channeling also known as halo lighting there was a request from Sign company to expand our language to allow New technology in sign lighting that's not internal, but it's it is backlit Just a different way to do it and so this language comes directly from That like the sign Association of america something like that As some suggested language and It also with it, there's some new suggested definitions that would Be helpful with that that definition and change And Removal of one And this is the gal that came in and gave you with Yeah, it was the push through lighting I think she was talking about in particular But she's also said there's new technology every day that's not internally illuminated, but it's similar to these other things so if we have Apparently williston is working on this too just having more flexible language to move with times We go back up. I got a couple questions Actually anybody else I'm good Go back up a little more and I'm on language the Bear bulb should not be visible to persons viewing the light source. I'm thinking that that bear bulb should not be visible Because the light source is the bulb The light fixture So so potentially bulb should not be you know the lights We have issues with the lights themselves being seen light bulbs being seen That's what we talked about shielded fixtures most of the places. You're not supposed to see the bulb And that's we have a number of places. We're Trying to think raise it we're trying. What are we trying to what are we trying to do with this? We want the lights to be shielded. You don't want to see the bulb directly So saying you can't see the bulb when you're looking at the light source when the light source is the bulb um Shouldn't see the bulb when you look at the fixture just trying to I would suggest that we don't even need that there because what we had An e down here. Yep that That was what was proposed before Um That that covers that's like a the all-encompassing you can't you can't bulb should not be you know Yeah, so we just get rid of this by recommendation And that's for all light sources, right? That's not just backlit. So right it is. Yeah, it's for externally illuminated signs That's a left finger. Yeah, I agree. Yes So what about the case of like, you know Some old style need where they want to use some, you know Old style of all as far as they're designing their science saying that's not allowed Yeah, we don't allow that Can we clean that sentence up a little more on e? Hang on. John. It would be oh, we go ahead. John's. Oh, sorry. Keep I thought John that I thought it was Well, it's a question. I think it's not allowed Well, it isn't but I mean I'm trying to understand figure out John what it is that you'd want but I mean we We currently look for shielded bulbs. We don't have open exposed bulbs I don't think anywhere even the even the ones that are creative over You know, what was the bank by Dunkin Donuts? I mean those those were an opaque globe With the ornamental framework around it. I think we did the same thing for Finest image There was a globe and not a bare bulb But I think I mean, I think that's in my mind. That's what we're trying to get away from is the is the exposure Yeah, I don't think we have any cases of it that I think they do but I'm thinking like say do you have a bulb that looks like Right and then that's um, you know victory e to a restaurant Look at a flame lit, but it's a bulb We're basically saying that's not allowed and which is fine. I just want to make sure we're aware of that You have to hire somebody to stand outside the restaurant with it holding the torch with a flame There you go. They could have a gas torch. So right Ha If it's not lighting a sign Right, and it's not a it's not a led. It's not a fluorescent. It's not an incandescent. It's not a backlit sign There you go Yeah, okay This planning commission and people that that think outside the box creative If you wanted to yeah, let's just I just I hate unnecessary words So I think it should just read fixture shall not include bear bulbs Or make bear bulbs or other direct light sources visible to the person's viewing the sign Just have some extra words in there that Do nothing Um, I missed what you're going to say that fixture shall not include bear bulbs Or make bear bulbs or other direct light sources visible to the person's viewing the sign Oh, so strike and fixture shall not yeah, that's all in just the word. Oh, okay Unnecessarily redundant Go for clean concise to the point. Boom More cohesive better more cohesive better connected right josh T-shirts t-shirts pendants Department we're done. Yes. Yes. All right. That's it. Okay With commissioners and let's let's open the public up officially form up officially so we can get Alan on this but we have people online as well. Oh, we do excellent I see one that says owner and I don't have a name for that so if they could tell us their name that would be great John your hands up. You have a question No, sorry. That was earlier. Okay. Just waving at us So let's take a motion to while you're waiting for that Sharon. Let's take a motion to open the public hearing So moved. Um, we open the public hearing just josh seconded josh. You seconded, right? That's what I heard. Yeah, okay Shoe josh all those in favor I Opposed Motion carries six zero public hearing is open so Whoever is listed as owner You could identify yourself that would it be helpful for Sharon's record keeping Okay All right public hearing is open I'm gonna start By a pointed question. I'm gonna look to al And and follow since you've been you know patient through this Now thoughts questions comments. I have a question and maybe two um back in in november of 2021 I'm brian and I sent the letter to the to the board requesting planning commission to consider adopting the list of permitted uses in the rp the I yes, and I didn't hear anything on that Discuss tonight. Is that being considered in this? round of discussions So in in this round we're leaving the rpdi out because there's more In depth. We really want to be able to look at this To talk about the buffer language and everything else that has been so sensitive of late So in that district. Yeah, so I think we're looking at we want that district Looked at again Like we talked about with the puds and stuff like that, but to give a focused look on that. We've got your your list I don't remember. I remember you sending it in. I don't remember the concept at this point I can certainly give you copies of that if you'd like to see that but well, I know we've we've we've got it but I think the the discussion point right now is we're trying to get a This group of amendments in so that we can get them up to the select board and get them Out in front of the public and then we can do we don't want to hold up What we've got what we do the deeper dive on some of these items and quite frankly the rpdi Is never casual Lift I mean, it's always I think we have to give it the all the more reason to start sooner. Yeah Well, I think I'm just I'm just saying this because you've got an active developer that has I think worked with the town tremendously over the past few years And we've had a lot of thing, you know Potential tenants that we couldn't get in there and and build a building for Yep, um because it's not one of the listed uses and in fact, uh, I'll I'll use the the rhino They wanted to put a little repair shop in and I had to sell them the land because I couldn't Least the building to them So they'll they'll they'll be able to do it Through another loophole, which is uh because it'll be part of they a lot now You know and it it abuts them, but I'm I'm just saying it it puts a little bit of a restriction on us to continue our operation up there to serve other I'll call them industrial users, you know, so The suitor that that could get looked at I feel as though it's pretty important, you know I don't think and I think that's one of the reasons that we want to Yeah, we want to do this and do it right. There's a lot of community Discussion and we've I don't know if you've been online for some of the last meetings But there's a lot of community discussion about what that area is what it needs to have who needs to use it We're the what are we doing the buffers, right?  Yeah, yeah, so That zoning is being Implemented into this into these discussions We didn't look at new what we did was talk about take away the option to put parking in that 50 foot buffer Because the way the zoning regulations are written today allow parking in that 50 foot buffer Potentially, okay, we don't want 50 foot We don't want that buffer to be used for 50 foot parking what we've been using is consistently especially on corporate drive consistently used for Water retention storm water So that but but it did say that it was going to restrict storm water as well. So is that going to be the case? Did I miss room water has been of the use that we have allowed consistent? Okay But we have one of the things that we've that we've talked about or tried to talk about is making that be Not something that has to be a waiver To make it be a normal the normal accepted component of it. Okay. I miss I must have misread it I don't know double check that I thought it was going to be parking as well as Stormwater being taken out of that area, but that's not the case No, I don't think that was on there I think that the parking was what I I interpreted that parking as a as an oversight on our part Because we've never engaged. We've never encouraged or allowed parking in that 50 foot We've always in and I think we've been pretty consistent on the Coming up with consistent vegetation And storm water Yes in that 50 foot buffer because it's made a lot of sense and it's the end of the parking lot It's the water. Yeah, okay Well, again, I'm just here to see because I didn't see anything with regards to the yeah, you know additional changes to that that request and wanted to make sure that we're still actively seeking that that change So to go off script for a moment if I could I would like to maybe propose that we put on our future agenda Specific dates or targets for these big topics so And even if we do it by month, you know two months on each or whatever it may require more than that But if we if we can put some specific dates that for example, we will look at the rpdi changes in August of this year And if that if we can do that in a month probably a two month process A month to review a month to edit and then If we can push through and then following that the PUD and so forth or if we can do to it once but let's let's maybe be In light of what we're trying to do which is to be more frequent updates Let's look at putting a roadmap item for These bigger topics So I'm going to push back a little just on this specific topic The one thing that I think is not fair to al and and potentially staff is Hypothetically you could be losing A couple of two to three year commission members who have the most experience with the rpdi and its history and its use and I I mean, maybe it's healthy for a brand new commission to have a discussion about the rpdi, but We go walking down the road. We're taking 20 plus years of that hill with us And the discussions are just going to be very different and in years worth Yeah, well, and it's true and the conversion and the uses and the intention and The discussions and I mean if staff that's what staff wants in the town wants that's great But in fairness to al I mean having a healthy discussion about permitted uses. I mean the whole reason that we Wanted development in that area was we defined it. We said that this is where we want the industrial growth So the time to have that discussion might be while you've got the expertise of the table that kind of know the I don't know. That's my two cents I'm willing to have the discussion because once I'm off So I think keep in mind that tonight was potentially going to be the point of which we decide whether or not we're ready to move You know a batch of Changes forward. It doesn't mean we're going to stop looking at it and I I'm I'm I'm very appreciative of your point But we also We've been in a rut over the over many years of never being able to deliver to a certain There's always something else to add in there's always something more something to tweak and it's been a very hard Job to actually be able to deliver packets And you know quite frankly being able to deliver something even if it's a small group of primarily grammatical or Housekeeping housekeeping, you know, that's I think a big step It puts us in a road to be able to do that to do the next one More specifically in a targeted review for the rpdi My mind has is is a good thing That said you there is the potential of having a very new slate of commissioners looking at this with the exception of a few old people Um, that's actually a bad thing. So I don't know how you you know, what are the thoughts of the rest of the commission You want to jump in on some of this now? We want to look at the the uses proposed uses Wouldn't mind just I mean, it's been two years out of fairness to how it's been two years. I wouldn't mind just looking at him and seeing if any of them are So controversial that staff says no this requires a lot, but if it seems like some of them are slammed down I mean because there's so there's only one conditional use in the whole freaking zone.  You've got one swing at the piñata massage I'm like So, I mean I would if you're up for it I mean, I'll let you drive it But I wouldn't mind at least taking a look at Al's list to see whether it's a whoa no or whether there's some low hanging fruit Do we have do you guys have access to his to the memo? I'm looking for it right now. Remember when you brought it in November of 21. Did you say? He's I think A few bodies that you could Sure, if you could take a picture and oh good idea The only challenge is we got two commissioners online Right. So I was thinking I could take a picture maybe and publish it up Number 23, I can turn I would just add Into a PDF pretty quick if I could say that looking at the uses now, you know might help him get this Mr. Centiple get businesses in and maybe the businesses that doesn't have as much heavy truck traffic um Which seems to be another hot topic for this So just looking to read the room john josh You guys okay with looking at We can get the uh line posted up online Yeah, definitely Georgia shoe Yeah Let's see if we've got it I'll do remember what meeting you because you presented this to us. Do you remember which meeting it was? I don't remember which meeting it was we actually It's it was the planning on 127 22 On the on the third 127 22 it's dated On the third page Which meeting it was at the letter was dated november 23rd 2021. I believe the hearing was on again 20 27 Yeah, it's right in that it's right in the past packets Looking right at it It is uh brian bursch letter to s kelly uh one one two Three two one that in the google john spade I'm not logged in I can't Can you email it to kathryn and she can pull it away? Well, I'm just I I have the google drive Yeah, so it's in uh, it's in it. I'll let me go back here. Oh, where's the listing? Past packets uh 2022 127 no Yeah, oh 127 over 127 And then it's the letters right in there. I think it's under other business Didn't have that No, I can't Here it is. I got it It introduces on why did you write burn this? You know, he's a troublemaker right now. He is So you're specifically looking at two table 2.1 right 2.1 2.10 And basically that is the industrial industrial And the the highlighted ones on that are the ones that are not in the RPDI. Yeah, okay, right remember. Yeah And then at the hearing on the 27th of january 22 We highlighted the the things like the last paragraph that in yellow You know, we asked in addition to those highlighted to consider A restaurant because a lot of people are asking for a place to eat up in that area There's a lot of workers up there now. So yeah, the small restaurants or some type of a restaurant associated with a brewery car wash and a medical clinic so If if the need arises we would be willing to do I mean we we had a school come to us I'm on it. I do believe the school is in there. We're still talking with them We're hoping that you know a little 10,000 square foot school, you know small for young kids school Free schoolers. Yeah Early education All the amenities But they they can also have all the trails to walk kids around So just to throw out for folks to think about Yeah What is what are some of the main main negative comments we've had from The residential neighborhoods that have but the RPDI to date What are the main points noise? Truck track idling truck Or all noise. Yep. And if those hours are compact Yeah Seems to be a big and and and I think out that right now we don't we don't have I'm looking at a lot of these things and they're all potentially noise Noisemakers noise producers. Yeah And that's been one of the major the major complaints of The neighboring residences and and we've continually Struggled with it's an industrial zone. Oh, it's RPDI It's still an industrial zone And these are industrial use uses that you've brought in and were brought in before But there's a lot of challenges with just opening the door to more so recycling we've already got one establishment that is a recycling sort of facility a reuse facility and it's generating issues with noise and and Smell I think the smell has been Okay, but I mean the the thing like we don't there's no there's nothing in here that says that has to be remediated It currently yeah, and that's and that's one of the uses that are allowed. So There you go, right? I'm just I'm just asking for consideration on it because There's gonna be noise in an industrial zone The good thing if you look at where we are right now, we do not have any residential butters To our property on in the RPDI district right now because Everything's been permitted that has the the residential of butters. Yeah as we go forward We're gonna we're gonna be heading down Thompson Drive And there's literally no residential of butters even Close and and there's still that it's the only district that has a 200 foot buffer Yeah, you know to the residents and there's no there's no argument on that. I think it's for example The the buildings that are adjacent to maple on building that is adjacent to sacks and hill road The building those are all impactful That's correct and the buildings that are uh from corporate drive that are that are near the circle drive Those are impactful. Yeah minimally, but they are impactful, right? So I Think this needs a different level of review than we can do tonight and I'm I'm hesitant again This is the commission. So there's seven people that side on this But we don't have without Without knowing what we can put in for or Noise mitigation. We now have a noise ordinance, right? So we can buy noise So if we put them in is just I'm just playing double if we put them in as conditional uses that then at this point until we Ifricate into a brb That just simply kicks it to zoning zba for approval, right? And they look at all the they would look at all that right in in there They would but it would still go to the planning commission, of course for site plan, right? Yes So, I mean one theory could be to simply slide them slides All or some of these over into conditional uses under the argument that they're all allowed in the industrial already And then just to try to open it up a little bit but not make it a foregone conclusion that it's a permitted use It would still be providing an additional layer of review But it would start to open up that the possibilities a little more That's it Forget that you guys are online right now. John and josh Please chime in when you get a chance And also want to be sensitive to this is the public hearing. So if somebody has a question not good at keeping track of hands raised, but please do Kind of like what davis saying her to allow more Not necessarily give approval, but we're allowing more flexibility for a discussion I'm kind of good. Yeah, please Um, I'm sorry that I don't know this off the top of my head Or the uses that are already happening in the rpdi area. Is there A a current noise limit or time limit on the uses that are currently there By application. Yeah, and noise. We didn't have any we didn't have an ordinance So there was a very subjective discussion. We would ask for mitigation and Up until a few years ago everything in the rpdi was at the complete discretion of the planning commission Look at some no idling and no no truck idling hours on a couple of approvals We had some operate hours of operation as well. I was in operation. Yeah So, I mean again, it's it's a different It's a different area. It's it's has a recreational component Or the recreation preservation industry. So I think it's a it's a it's an odd interface, but it's still there Now we're budding up against the Expanded use of the expanded public use running into The industrial use So I mean, I'm not opposed to your that's an idea Dave that Move things in what's the what's the downside from a staff perspective that everything is now If if a greater number of these are become conditional I guess my Only concern does it goes back to Maybe the rpdi needs a little bit more study before we go ahead making changes So this is one element of a change, but there are other things that you wanted to look at and they could all impact each other so I would hesitate to Open it up more to more uses I think just with that in mind I think it's it should be a package review of the whole district uses standards Do you think we could put this on on Early track for review Like this summer not not not a next year test and not a not a sometime but a targeted date to do this The only so yes, I'm not sure necessarily this summer. I mean maybe That the town plan you're going to need to really start looking at town plan things soon And that that would be should be during your planning meeting, which is when this would be so Um, we can figure out how to make it work absolutely, and There's no need to wait As long as till after the town plan. That's what I mean, and I'm blanking on this right now There's rpdi called out as a separate To look at um That did come up in comments So we haven't put that in as an action item, but I was thinking that we should because maybe we can do a simultaneous review You know plan but Only subdivision changes and they still touch it this year See the other I mean Like the highlighted items that are on here the you know truck in term of Parking facility Those are all would be in conflict with The public observations that have been shared with us about the impact of truck traffic without along that section of Martin That's been a primary that's been a primary source spot. Mm-hmm um neighborhood shopping center again, we've got potential of Conflict with industrial use. I'm just But that but it is allowed in the industrial use that's my point the industrial What you're looking at is the industrial uses and we're saying that is if the rpi If the rpdi is supposed to be an industrial use area But the problem is it's not a just an industrial use area for the complaints. Okay. That's what I mean That's it's where the complaints is coming from. Yeah Well, we were considering at one point eliminating the rpdi altogether. Yeah, we had discussions about that and just going to an Just didn't get traction Well, I again, I mean that I made this request two years ago I would like to get a yes or a no on it because I'm Investing millions of dollars in this community and there is a need for industrial uses. I hate to say it I mean all these people that are complaining about trucks and traffic. We all go to the supermarkets trucks bring food to the supermarkets We all buy services. We call amazon every day. We you know, there's trucks running around for us So, yeah, do we do we want to stop? Utilizing all trucks. I don't think so because that would change our lives drastically Yeah, you know performance foods is delivering food to the restaurants all over the county We could shut the trucks down and stop eating too, you know We have to be practical about it and if the town doesn't want to see any more industrial growth Let me know I'll I won't I won't focus on it, right? Yeah, you know, if that's what I don't think that's what they want I don't think that's what you want and I'm here to try to work it out. But you know A request that was put in two years ago, and then I didn't even show up on this Little change thing here or was notified that we weren't going to discuss it. I you know again, brian said I think you better get to the meeting today because No, it's good. It's a good that you're here out. No question about that It's good that you're here to represent your and I love this I live here, you know, so it's not like I don't see those same trucks going by my house every day and Waking me up and making sure I get to work on time every day So, I mean Dave to take your your idea and flesh it out a little bit You would you just say take everything and put in a conditional or would you be looking at this for the you know I would like to see some compromise between all and nothing and and maybe there are a few uses in here that either through the feelings on the commission or staff like no, I think This one is a definite. No, like let's not open that up just yet But I think there's a bunch in here that we can can move over Into conditional that would at least open the door for discussions I think it's safe to say that the residential component of caretaker apartment should not go in there I would agree with that. I would totally agree with that. Yeah, so that's what I mean We could pick a couple and be like, yeah, that is not was never the intention You know, I'll be not important on my list either So that's I think, you know, 10 minutes you you'll go through and be like, no, yes I mean a contractor should I mean that's you know, you can't get a Better use in an industrial zone than what I would like to see that I love your idea of making a conditional and think I mean I have to come in for we'll say I come in for a spec building and I put up a 30 000 square foot building I would have to come back in if one of those uses that were either Allowed or conditional Anyway, do you know what I'm saying? So, you know if I say a tenant comes to me and says I would like to be in half of that building I would have to come back in here and pose that to you folks to say yes or no So when I think some of this stuff's already happening in the art, but like don't correct me if I'm wrong But like machinery repair Believe there's a tenant in there that does motors now like pumps and motors Maybe in one of the other buildings. Yeah, not yours, but I am on corporate drive Um, there's somebody over there that does those pumps and motors like they rep they pull them from places like IBM They bring them in they repair them. They take I'm not saying that those uses are illegal But right what I'm saying is like they seem like natural fits for an industrial zone So I to that I would say if they're there I haven't heard any complaints to know to go and investigate it Maybe they're doing it as an accessory to their primary. I don't know. I just first I hear yeah I mean I could go through and write off and like Even under the conditional uses that are on the i-zone. I would not want to have a junkyard I I probably wouldn't want a junkyard Again, I was trying to make it simple by saying everything in the industrial zone This but I but I think I absolutely have that I think the public interface with the rpdi is different than the public interface in a in a straight i-zone I totally agree and I'm slightly uncomfortable with this all still I I think it Needs a bigger planning discussion or we start adding or so realistically if we touch this in the summer when's the earliest we would be at this point that we're at right now for Warning of public hearing Yeah, it only takes Um, I mean, you know several several public hearings. You have one Slack word has two. So the whole thing takes maybe like three months We're in the midst though of town plan public hearings in the fall Do then it gets into budget season two for the select so that's that's kind of what I'm worried about is that you know We table this and next thing you know where This time maybe next year Perhaps but I I think it's Valuable to have more discussion my my two cents Let's let's be very specific for a moment. Oh, are there Specific uses that you would like to see now in conditional use Automotive repair Contractor yard machinery repair and Major and minor again, that's a you know That's a a shop that's within a four walls of a building. You wouldn't even know what they were doing in there anyway um Neighborhood shopping center, I could wait for that. I don't even know if that would even I've got one lot that I could think that that might be well suited for Um parking facility for sure. We've had to turn a tenant away that wanted to store some vehicles and We we had a potential for uh What do you call it rv? Storage where they wanted to put storm for the you know What they have to do is they have to commit to so many and then they get them shipped in And they have to store them before they can sell them on the yard So they were looking for a spot and we couldn't get them in there Um recycling establishment. I mean, I think that's a a great thing to have up there um Trucking terminal, um, you know, I can see where it might be questionable especially where there's so much discussion on trucks, but Again trucking terminal should it's a pretty popular thing to have in the industrial zone rather than the residential zone Um convenience store. I don't think we need to worry about that Take care is there um Earth extraction. I'm not sure about that one. I think that might be already approved for that It better be right. I think it is. Let's not dig that one up. Yeah, let's not go there No pun. I would pardon the pun. I think that's That could go either way. I don't I don't anticipate that anyone's seen that Firewood processing and sales It'd be nice to have if a business came along and they they needed a yard They probably wouldn't have but a small building and then You know cutting firewood to sell um, and then public facilities I don't know if you guys want to move up there at all, but you know, well, they did exclude yourselves. They did I did Temporarily, did you share? Did you did you wish it was zoning violation for that? I loved being up there. I did too, but being in a warehouse was really tough And you had mentioned earlier Yes, and then on the other page we said, uh Consider a restaurant and even if it's if it's part of A facility, you know, like like a brewery Car wash medical clinic and then cannabis grow was something that's uh Kind of a big item these days is a lot of people coming to us looking for that stuff But that doesn't fall under ag agricultural. Yeah, you know, again just clarifying it, but light manufacturing Light manufacturing. There you go. That was cannabis. It's considered what I've been doing with really You know I have a conditional use What's already I mean Contractor yard to your point Dave We actually did talk with pool and lumber. I mean did you mark and we was trying to get them in there? Everything had to be inside the building and it was just No, they didn't have any out. We couldn't have we were talking about pole barns and things like that, but That fell apart as well. So, okay so Mishers, what are your thoughts on this approach? The approach of potentially moving some uses into conditional uses In this round I would like to hear my opinion. I sort of agree with What Catherine's saying is it does require a deeper look at like What we're trying to do up there what the original plan was When they first created the zone um And do we want to honor some of that? Certainly the residential we don't want in any way um But yeah, my my other the other side of it is a disagreement with the Catherine. It's like this is an industrial park basically There's only few sections and Essex through that way Everything that goes in there have trucking noise all that stuff not noise so much But certainly the trucking and the traffic is all reviewed by engineers and figured out every time they come before us We look at it It's that's that is its purpose. It has been set aside for that and it makes an impact I mean I live out in that area so it makes an impact noise makes an impact on me But that's what it's for that's what it was set aside for originally it's you know The economic development people would they want it so Not like Not saying yeah, let's just throw all these things in here and and go for it But I'm also saying let's remember what that purpose of that zone is is Is to you know get industrial in that area while creating lands that are forested and used by Republic use and preserved So that it has a has a dual purpose and it's been it's been divided up that way and set aside that way That's what it's for There it's at my piece My feeling is um, I have not been Part of the previous conversations But I just know this is something that people in town care a lot about and I wonder if it makes sense to talk about it When it's on the agenda So other people can weigh in I mean it makes sense to me a lot of these and I totally hear Getting the ball rolling. I like the the machinery repair that that completely makes sense But I am a little hesitant since it does feel to me like it's a very Hot button issue that people might want to see an agenda so they can speak their piece there That's why I thought your approach is good. Let's just let's make it a let's also be very purposeful about having this discussion Yeah, that makes sense to me too josh I was just going to say pretty much what george has said that this is an interesting discussion And it sounds like a lot of them are kind of no-brainer But we're in the middle of a public hearing and this was not warned for it So I'm really hesitant to make any moves right now But the idea of expediting in this and maybe at the the next available meeting Just have sort of a sense of the room take the temperature so we can know where we're going I think that's great, but I'm not I'm not comfortable with making any moves on it tonight for those reasons John I have to I agree it makes sense what bolster gorgin josh said I Think it makes a lot of sense to be a little bit more formal about this. My biggest concern was Um, we shouldn't let it take as long as it sounds like It could take I don't think we I think we really do have to figure out a way to explain it Okay, so anyone from consider a second meeting is anyone in the public have a Want to offer any questions or comments on this topic? I kind of hold my comments for a moment There's a hand up because I can't read it. I can't see that right now Sharon Irene Hi Can you hear me? Yes Sharon so I'll try to be quick because I have like three things one this wasn't um notice specifically and we and I don't get why like we're talking about it just To rush it through and I agree with everybody that this is is a really Hot button topic for the town as you know, there was like a lawsuit and whatever But I also have to comment on a lot of the comments that this is what the industrial area was for You know, this is what it was designed for That's why I think it's so important to go back and look at the history Because this is not what it was for it was supposed to be industry that sort of blends into The recreational and the natural side not the reverse You know, it's it's an rpdi area not an industrial park like people keep talking it like everything should be fitting in with The trees and the natural area and we're reversing that and and I also think that Putting all this stuff into conditional uses is just a back door for it to happen It should either happen or not like I don't want a lot of this to happen But I'd rather not be a conditional use than a discussion with the planning commission Let's just decide if it's permittable there or not And and let the public discuss it also I just think we're pushing too much noise and Big industry that's not compatible with the natural forest there and that was the original idea in the history Which is why people are so Worked up about it every time this comes up and it just keeps coming up. Let's have more conditional uses Let's decide what The area is for and what the public wants Anyway, that's it. Thank you. Okay. Thank you To anyone else okay, um I think the historical intent and so forth Basically was resolved by the lawsuit. Yes a few years ago. We've more or less started with a clean slate Understanding that there's a tremendous history going back Quite a few years of The original creation and all the discussion and implementation and back and forth and so forth We're really starting from a different perspective But with that in mind All of a sudden I'm sitting here thinking That maybe we should go backwards And go back to the point where the planning commission has full discretion Everything is considered a conditional use and there's no permitted And no accepted. No, no prohibited uses and every single thing comes back to the planning commission And then it's every single thing by its own merits Um, but I again, I don't believe that any of this can be done In a short term. I think we need to feel what the what the best approach is for the community because this is a valuable resource I haven't heard. I've been asking but I haven't heard from economic development About how valuable this is to the community And we've heard from members of the public who are Um Not happy with the directions that the planning commission has taken on a number of projects which have been in support of industrial development Um In the midst of the recreational use that's there I think if if as you mentioned that you're planning on continuing the development down Thompson Drive There's going to be a lot of complaints about that because that's going to take away some Unofficial trails That's going to be an impact. I mean, this is this is the one. So we want to know and I just I want to remind everyone one thing Um many years ago There was a fight with Hector that went on and on and on and I helped resolve that by saying This is what I get This is what you get you got 277 acres. I got 130 acres And that was supposed to be buildable I then went and put millions of dollars in infrastructure Thinking that I could do this right if all of a sudden People in town think that they can shut that down That's a that's a really tough Pill to swallow quite frankly and and I think that's why I said What I said is that the history was basically rewritten or resolved by the lawsuit and the and the Settlement that was so I think that that that's what we're starting from And that's why we need to look at this There is still an interface with the with the r-section of this Maybe and again the r-section is the 278 years that were Given that's Given to the town so that there wouldn't be this dispute in the future This was the part that was going to be built on. This was the part that was going to be played on Agreed both parties agreed and signed on it. You know, I don't know that Everybody knows the history the real history of how it went down. You know, so anyway I think the struggle is that it's been a year and a half since the request You know, no fault of anybody but it's been a year and a half since the request and we've had no substantive discussion about this and You know, it could potentially be Another six months to a year and I just if we can fast track it great, but um, I think Gbic has made it very clear that that area of town is prime for industrial development And the town has said it wants that and we're in like one of the Biggest economic booms in terms of development like we're leaving a lot on the table and missing an opportunity that the thoughtfully So that's my two cents So i'm gonna back up to what I asked for earlier understanding that we're in town plan Oh Can we put I think this potentially has a is a greater impact for the community Across the board both from the investment that you're putting in and the Perceptions and the perceived impacts of the community. Can we can we plan To put this in the review process and they may be incorporated as part of the town plan And give it its own give it the historical connotation That it needs and include the settlement and What we're gonna do for You think it's hard to be pushing it down the road but I'm just feeling it would be absolutely the wrong thing tonight number one We it wasn't warned for these use changes, but I think it would be the wrong thing tonight To try to push this push anything through Because again recall that our purpose tonight was to meet to try to see if we can put something some batch of Regulation changes up to the you know select board. This is a public hearing To move things up to the agree to move things up to the select board. So that's that's like our first question tonight Can we move what we've agreed on? Forward and and let that continue its its process to the select board or Do we need to stop and incorporate some of this other stuff? It's to me that's that The question is in front of us. Can we move what we've got up and we've been talking quite a while about cleaning up the the Administrative details the state statute requirements and so forth. I don't I don't really want to lose that so Let's think about this again respecting the ask But also respecting, you know staff, I mean we've got input from Catherine if she feels this is this takes Is going to take a deeper dive. I think it takes me to do for diving um understanding the history not being limited by it, but understanding it I do think the settlement rewrote the game plan so What can We work with tonight josh I've got the whole team here with me and Yeah, I think I think tonight my my My position is we move up something tonight like you said and then expedite next available meeting and have a talk about d rpdi. That's that's where I am hey John Same yeah same position Ditto, when are we when are we when are we gonna have the rpdi discussion? What's that look like? We can have that As soon as we can convince Catherine to fit it in Georgia yeah, I I really like dating of having it and and putting it having it be part of the town plan process just because I I think I would I would learn a lot and I I know there's a history there But I don't know a lot of people in town know that history and the transparency I think I think would would be good I think it would be really good key word there transparency David Load me in that this one. So we'll move on okay Let's keep massage therapy and as a conditional use because that makes a lot of sense And let's not add in machine repair because that also makes a lot of sense That was my sarcasm. Sorry. Is there a combined cannabis and Okay cannabis and massage therapy you can get high and relaxed um So Catherine let's if we can let's let's Don't put this at the bottom of the pile. Let's put it on the top of the pile Let's give it its own pile and let's talk about how we can work this in and maybe what we do is get a public hearing to review the rpdi And we can talk about we can talk about buffers we can talk about What we want to do we can talk about The expansion we can talk about the uses, but let's do it Let's do it soon I agree At least get it at least get a game plan out of that. Okay See we have our Pint size commissioner in the window Is that a ventriloquism? This is the quarter commissioner Stand back to watching star wars Okay any Other comments Or discussion points from anybody in the room about items or anybody online about items that we're proposing to move forward tonight potentially You've been extraordinarily quiet worries me She likes what she's seen Anybody online have any any additional questions and I'm still thinking Well, we're closing them closing the public hearing here in a minute So I take a motion to close the public hearing I move we close the public hearing seconded Move by Josh seconded by georgia all those in favor. Hi Opposed Motion to close the public hearing passes six zero I believe that the question before us tonight is can we move the packet as we've discussed tonight as has been reviewed by in massage On the table and by katharine and everybody else can we move that forward? Excuse me to the select board That emotion. I'm asking right now if that's what's in front of us. I'm joking Well, you know what there is one other change that dustin knows about this but I went through the definitions of both the subdivision and the zoning To make sure that they all matched. There were some things that were just a little bit different There were a lot of definitions that were not in the subregulations that are in zoning So we had a discussion about just trying to make them the same So same definitions Of all and that in each document is what I'd propose Not that I want to create extra work But it would be nice someday to not have these be two separate documents To have one document with one set of definitions and one table of contents already With you on that cool. Yeah unified. Yeah development regulations lots of towns have them that makes a lot of sense. It's a lot easier. Yeah Next round We should send a note to you being let him know if that's what we're pushing At least the same same and I'm joking but I'm not joking because he actually was one that brought the idea forward To have one set of definitions. Yeah And that was a discussion that I'd had with him with the zoning board quite a while ago So it would be good to let him know that that's A little thing, but it's getting there Okay, so I'm going to offer a motion To move the amendments that we've discussed this evening as discussed forward To the select board Discussion all those in favor I Opposed Motion carries six zero So these these should move forward Thank you Catherine and team And nobody we don't take a chance. Nobody catches a breath. We go right into the next round of Everything so keep the adrenaline's already high. So don't let it drop down I performing team actually we're just going to keep cycling like this. So let's Let's let's have a discussion about when we can get this and you give it some thought And let's see what we can do and if we can just roll this in I'd like to maybe have a public forum on the RPDI again That sounds really good to me. I want that wrapping all the issues in and sure it's well advertised and Yeah, take it out of the out of the public comment period and put it into an actual agenda item And just a point of clarification on the most so all the changes we made we captured that so phasing is officially going away Okay, that's what I heard. Yeah, I just wanted to get clarification on that Okay With that let's move on to the next item on the agenda A move we approve the minutes of may 11th 2023 as written Oh, no Georgia kind of okay. Does anyone want to offer any changes to the minutes? hearing none All those in favor of accepting the minutes as presented. Hi. Hi I opposed Motion minutes carry six zero. So who is that David and Chew me Ronnie Bobby Ricky Mike. Thank you Ricky Bobby Okay What else do we have anything? Other business Nothing for me Um, two brief things. Um, we did receive Assistance from the regional planning commission to work on the official map That will help us with our state designation of the new town center So I don't know when that would start it won't start before july 1st because it is part of their next year's work plan That's something that happens with shannon Shannon will be part of that I don't know which staff will be having from the regional planning commission to help Oh, they do have a mapping person who's actually on board But I almost feel like we wouldn't need her because we have shannon. I'd rather have somebody you can help with the planning and cool tactical stuff way a transportation person even and nice cool and then um Your next meeting I think there's only a consent agenda item So thought would be to try to do a little bit of planning at that meeting thinking specifically about the town plan And maybe we could do a little planning to talk about the rpdi planning Plan plan. Yeah This might be a good opportunity to Use our the process and the in the workflow that josh got started with the town plan stuff Maybe host like a public forum or something like this It isn't quite so wide open as the town plan. I mean, this is really I think to al's point that This is He's got land that you should be able to use certain ways so we I don't know has it Part of me wants to say have a public forum to just get just get able to spitball ideas and so forth Put dots on the wall so to speak um Part of me wants to just have the discussion fully in this room Maybe as a as if we have a meeting that's light that we have the second half of the meeting to be a like an hour rpdi discussion and not the only one Think about it katherine internally with staff because you guys are the limiter really on on How fast we can go on this with you know respecting Your workloads. I mean, I don't mind if you start working 10 12 hour days Yeah Anyways, let's let's let's let's see what see how much of a swing we can take it this way Yeah We don't have a we don't have a need for an executive session. We don't have a need for a deliberative session So I would remove the adjourn Like that. I'll second that. Okay. All those in favor I posed They are adjourned 09 p.m