Okay, public to be heard is the time when folks attending the meeting have the opportunity to speak to the board on town business that's not on the agenda. If you'd like to speak to the board, please be brief, please be civil, please refrain from using inappropriate language. Please address your remarks to me as chair of the select board and please do not attack town staff or others. And so if you are interested in speaking during public to be heard, you can either raise your hand here in the room or you can raise your hand online by moving your cursor down to the reactions button at the bottom of your screen and clicking on that will give you the opportunity to raise your hand and I'll let you do what's appropriate. So I do see one hand in the room. Come on up, identify yourself and... My name is Sally Flurry. I live off Towers Road. Forgive me if I'm a little behind the times, but I have a question about the $100,000 deposit that the town put on a piece of property to look into a new town hall, public works.  So we're in the process of, we have made an offer on a piece of property. It is 80, 90, upper main street. The Sogoloff property. I've heard it referred to as that. Yes. Okay. And the price tag is... It's 3 million. I just have a couple of questions. You answered two of them. Where is it and what's it gonna be used for? But the Sogoloff property is a planner's dream. Why are we wasting it in pulling it off the tax rolls to put a town facility there? Why does the town need Route 15 road frontage or public works building or a town complex? Whatever we're playing... Why do we need 20,000 cars a day going by our town hall? Are we trying to attract business? I mean, I think the 15,000 cars that go by every day are people that are going through. And I believe it would be better use of the property if we got some of those people to stop, spend money and go on their way. But I just don't understand why such an expensive piece of property. There's Saxon Hill, plenty of room there for a municipal structure. There's property on Old Stage Road that overlooks Mount Mansfield and Campbell's Hump, which is a lot cheaper. I have a piece of land for sale at $100,000 an acre. So how much is this land per acre if it's $3 million? The going rate is $100,000 per developer acre in town right now. And that's for housing, $100,000 an acre. Are we overspending? Or I think we are. And what was the big secret? Oh, we put $100,000 down on a piece of property and we're not going to tell anybody what it is. What was that all about? It was never a secret. It wasn't? No. OK. There was time when we were negotiating contracts. But once before the decision to go forward was all done publicly. OK. All right. So those are my questions.  And we need to spend the money right away. Were we going to lose the money? Could we not figure out a better use for the money? But we we did that we're using the ARPA money to purchase the land. We did go out, have public comment sessions about how to use our ARPA funds and the preponderance of response was that we should do something lasting something. And so that's the and number of properties we looked at. And this was chosen as the the most appropriate. How many acres? There's 30 acres, but it's not clear that we use all of those. We may. Are you going to run the sewer on that side of Route 50? It's already there. It's already in the sewer core. The sewer line is on that side of Route 50. It's in the sewer car. I don't know if there's installation. Well, how come the elder property could never be developed? Or why did the Sokoloff property sit for such a long time if it had sewer? I thought the hold up there was sewer allotment. Or as Mr. Paulo Leary said, they're just asking too much money for it. Nobody wants to spend that much money on the Sokoloff property. And we turn around and go, yeah, we'll take it. The entire property is not. There's a portion of it sticks out into the not sewer car, but a large portion of it is the sewer car. Can I? Before you respond, I don't know if you can see the messages, but they're having trouble watching you online and hearing you. So I think that the video might be on your end. See if the town can get better as well. First off, it's probably not going to land well, but I think the deposit was actually one hundred and fifty thousand dollars to be fair and upfront. As Andy said, it's ARPA money, it's federal dollars. It's nothing on the tax rolls at this point. We have had the property appraised. It came in at higher than three million dollars, which is a purchase price. The staff is looking at it as a select board was discussing it. We did look at other properties. We get a conscious decision to try to be in the town center, try to have municipal presence there. And you mentioned it's 30 acres. We don't expect to eat that much. It's an opportunity to work with other developers, work with other buyers to try to really work as a planer's dream to figure out what we for the town of Essex. All that went into it. We had we did have discussions about it, an executive session. But once it became public, we put it in out in the front porch forum. Facebook newsletters, we've really tried to publicize that was there. And before that, a year ago, we spent a fair amount of time talking to the residents, trying to gather feedback about how to use this ARPA money. This was one of the criteria that people had said that they were looking for and wanting to support infrastructure development, facilities needs in the community. We felt that this would do a lot of those fit a lot of those criteria that people wanted for that ARPA money. OK, I just just want to voice my opinion. I do not think it's a good idea. Thank you. Any other John, come on up. They're going to speak well, please. Jonathan Lang Lang Farm. I want to support exactly what Sally said. I think this has been semi rushed into.  I pay attention to everything local. And I've picked up extremely small amounts of everything that you said was all public. I read from our forum. I read everything that comes from the town and I picked up tidbits of what you're working on with this piece of property.  And then you say, well, we don't need it all. And then what are you going to do with it?  A community cannot play develop. That's not proper.  My family owns a nine acre parcel, a little bit more, almost 10 right across the United Essex. It looks down on our golf course. OK, it's too late now. It's been committed other directions, but that property there is as situated and it is more in the sewer core. Nowhere near the money that you have agreed to pay for this property. This is an extremely inflated price because those developers had owned the property. And as I remember years ago when the song lost soul and the old wool property that was bought by a group of investors. And I do believe I may be wrong from the Boston area. And now you're paying the inflated price because you have ARPA money. And why isn't that money used maybe to lessen the tax burden? And I'm only saying this because I'm on the hook for over $100,000 a year. And I honestly, with all our holdings that we have in the golf course and such, I'm not getting any value. I feel like I'm being terribly abused at that rate for what I get. There's a lot of discontent within his community of the people who are the landowner. We don't feel we're being treated properly. We feel you're throwing money around like what you're doing now. That's a huge price to pay for a property. This bit of municipal complex on. Now they hit it right on the head. There's many other properties that do not have to be route 15 frontage. You don't need to be right out in the front of everybody to be a municipal complex. You can be tucked in the woods. You can be a lot of places, but please think. With your money, not the public's money, the problem is in all everything now is like, we have the money, we have this money, we have that money. Everybody gets a grinning and giddy. They want to spend. They want to do this.  It's very quick. And I don't shut my eyes to public activities. But I've picked up so little of what you're working on. Very little, very discontent. I am a major property or in this community. I've got more time in this community than most everybody stacked up on top of one another with family. I think you're making a major mistake. I'm going to leave it at that. Thanks, John. Anybody else in the room? Longest quick. I almost feel like we're building a monument for ourselves. Wow. Look at our town hall. Well, somebody else drives through town. We're not fine. Matter of fact, when this office was being renovated and we were going over to Saxon Hill, Alan Martin Drive to do business, it was kind of pleasant. And a lot cheaper over there. Hey, I'm going to look looking online. I see Lorraine Zaloum, your hand is up.  There is a, yeah, it's, I don't know what the... I think we have to... Yeah, like three years. It was something out of time that you have to turn that over. And anyway, just to turn it out for you, Lorraine. Sorry, I have a question for the police. I know there's a lot going on, but they're very constrained. I'd like you guys to be into it and be back to the public about it. Because I'm thinking we might have a solid health crisis related to drugs, yeah. I noticed that we have two deaths that are under investigation. Two overdoses. Last one, we had four deaths. Before that, we had three overdoses. Two deaths. We had one death for dose. Four deaths. Zero deaths. Two overdoses. 40 zero deaths. One overdose. And the other one was three deaths with four doses. They noticed there was a... They said, yeah, you're not published there. They're out of frightening as well. So I... And it's hard to know what the situation is far. Because the federal examiner's office is down to two labs. They can't get the results out of the test. Very quickly. We're talking about oncology. It's over a month right now. It seems like it's full-balling. And one of the ways to... To get... Yeah, to plan together what we're doing or working to get both them in the office or have our patients explain this kind of overdose. And if it's political, and it's not fully released, that's the right point. And now the investigation has started to escalate here as well. And if our plan is on that we need... as well, we're going to look into what the problem is. If we can get both types of communication so that we can do who we know about it. And we can try to help our patients reduce the number of deaths. That's what, you know... Okay. Thanks, Lorraine. Patty Davis, I see your hand up. She has... One part of the question like what she had to say about Ellen Martin being relaxing and having more communication with her. Whoops. I had an option for, you know, this building.  They obviously want distribution industry. They want a walkable human scale type business that has recreation for family-focused businesses. But that... The other thing I wanted to thank you, Sally, that the increased time that has an impact on her. I mean, I think it's a great environment. I wanted to be designed for people, not just for traffic. The reason I say that is every other distribution industry or manufacturer in this interesting located miles away from the NAPS of the leadership in general about traffic, trumps livability. Sally also mentioned traffic on the road and thousands of people. There's a reason that has stood up for 50 years in our zoning regulation that's the reason that we're doing this. And again, it's because they want family-oriented, family-focused human scale. This is a great idea. Barding, big hairs, things that we can do to make a difference. And I think it's a great idea to have a value. You want to have money, you have to travel. Thank you. Thanks, Patty. That's it done. Yes, thank you, Andy. I'm going to tell you just about our roads in 15 months, but I don't believe it. I don't think that's an expensive town this road's going to go. We've got and those are going to be barriers. And it happens. So I think that think about traffic that we are generating. Most areas that wise area in town have those areas that are like 89 or 89 or on 2A. Those are where those are all located. On major or 2B, right? I don't know how to fix it, but it is the problem. Thank you. Thanks, Betsy. Anybody else? I've seen your hands in the room. Let's move on to preparing for the zoning and subdivision regulations. Patrick. Good evening. This isn't the first time you have seen me coming before you about this topic, but I realize there are probably some people in the audience, whether they are here or online that have not heard a summary of the regulations. I'm going to run through that first if that's okay. I'll share my screen. Yes. While Greg is doing that, I can just do a couple of things. This round of regulations is considered a housekeeping round. We didn't do a big dive into a lot of big changes. I anticipate after the town plan is done, that is what we will do a bigger dive. Things have surfaced in the town plan and we really want to look at in zoning and around town. The last zoning update was done in 2017. Definitely don't anticipate waiting five or six years before the next update. Sorry, Catherine. I didn't mean to cross the interruption. No, that's okay. Just to quickly do a summary of how it changes to the planning commission. The planning commission or the public suggests changes. And there's a public process of workshops and people walking into the community development office with questions or comments or things that they might like to see changed and they all get discussed in public meetings and then we assemble draft regulations. And then the planning commission will have a public hearing. At least one public hearing. And then the select board is supposed to have at least one public hearing. And so the plan for the select board is to have two public hearings. So the first one tonight, the next one is in September, September 18. And if the select board approves regulations, they will become the active effective 21 days following adoption. And so just jumping into the changes and I'm not going to run through all the changes. But just to really hit on some highlights or just to give you a flavor of what they are. So again, like I said, this is a housekeeping round. So I would say most of the changes that you see are clearing up inconsistencies and updating it. So for example, there's reference to the village of Essex Junction or the town outside the village. So that kind of language was cleaned up. We were referencing the 2001 ETC next plan, Essex town center plan. Previously what had been referenced was either a plan from 1991 or some regulations from the 80s. So that is inserted where appropriate. We replaced the definition of family with household. There is summary table for uses and for dimensions that got out of sync with the district tables in some cases. And so sometimes you might see a use that is in a district table that didn't show up in the summary table. So just making sure those match. So not adding uses but making sure they're consistent. And there was some language added regarding the curb cut application process. And then some changes were made to conform with state statute. So pretty much yearly something gets added by the legislature into state statute regarding oftentimes housing and that's how it would impact our planning for the most cases. So changes to new boxes multifamily units group homes were allowing development on smaller lots served by public water and sewer and accessory apartments no limit to bedrooms and we're not allowed to have conditional use anymore and some more flexibility in size. And actually today while I was looking through the accessory apartments section I noticed another edit that would be good to make. It doesn't technically matter in a way because it's state statute is going to trump anything that's in our regulations. But if you continue with me in this discussion there are a couple other changes that I think I had mentioned I might be suggesting. So if you want to go that route of suggesting some changes we could add but first my last thing is hidden by my we also then updated the definition of affordable housing to match what is in states debt. So some other changes that are not related to like the little technical ones and state statute there were some significant changes to the business design control overlay district and again that is going back to really the ETC next plan also then just making the document more readable. So we specifically added some design requirements for onsite things like waste management and maintenance and fire and safety hazards. We moved the sign regulation section in the business design control overlay section to the sign section is to make it more I would say like one stop shopping if you're looking to signs you might not think of going to that table but of the sign section and speaking of signs we also added some language to reflect more recent technology and standards and then a new section to allow marquee signs in the MXD PUD B1 district. So that's really the internal portion off of Essex way where the Essex experience was in that built environment so it's not on route 15 and then another change was removing some restrictions for dwelling error requirement sizes so we have said there does not have to be a minimum size for a dwelling unit and that was in response to some public comment as well as really responding to the need for housing affordable housing and a couple other ones in our B1 district which is mostly in the Susie Wilson road area there's a section that allows you to have a certain amount of dwellings if you're over one acre and we lumped that down to say if you're you have a lot that's smaller than one acre for residential development for chickens we're allowing the number of chickens that you could have on a larger property to 12 chickens with a permit and then also there's a section in our municipal administrative section where the planning commission and the zoning board are not allowed compensation they're not allowed to have stipends essentially which you have I believe it was a select board action to allow boards and committees to be to receive a stipend for attendance of the meeting so we thought it would make sense to allow the planning commission zoning board to be compensated so subdivision regulations again most of those are really minor there's not a deep dive into that document at all identifying some language for development submittals updated some requirements after approval the term conservation committee was updated to conservation trails committee as they're called now and then we updated some definitions to reflect the zoning regulation so I mentioned to you about some potential changes that we might want to consider in this round that would be new there's a process that you can follow if you want to make some changes and I can jump into that after I explain what I'm thinking here so remember a few slides ago I mentioned there were changes that we made as a result of changes to state statute when the planning commission was reviewing this document the new state statute hadn't been updated yet to where it is currently so that was July 1st of this year and when I read through it's called act 47 or the home act when I read through it there's a lot there's not a lot but several things in there that the state agency of commerce and community development the regional planning commission they're not even sure how to interpret it yet so I think it would be premature for us to go ahead and blanketly adopt everything that they're proposing but there are some certain things that are pretty cut and dry that I think we could put in if you would choose again you don't have to because what I mentioned before the state statute will trump our regulations so if we don't update it now staff will still go to the state statute and make sure that we're implementing it correctly probably need some legal counsel on some of the items until there's better guidance for it so the ones I'm suggesting are pretty basic so the first one is that duplexes by the state statute now are supposed to be considered the same as a single family dwelling as far as dimensional standards go so if you have a lot where it says you need one acre per dwelling unit now you say have one acre per single family or duplex unit so the changes I'm suggesting would be that to allow the duplex unit and then just changing some basic words like family to household or unit and again changing to family to duplex unit that is really it now there is some additional language like I noted that we're still trying to figure out if we how it would apply so I'm not recommending that and I can dive into those changes but I since I'm not suggesting it right now I wasn't going to so the process well one more change this was a suggestion by the zoning administrator there have been some issues of cars parking out on public roads especially the major roads for yard sales garage sales the premises so it's been kind of problematic and a little dangerous maybe even so this was a suggestion she had that I think just got lost in the shuffle so the suggestion is adding in that auctions or garage sales are permitted for only for a residence provided that there's adequate off street parking that exists on the premises so if you can envision yeah that sort of situation this regulation would help and we found that there's not really going to be a lot of support from the state in order to help with so we're talking about a state road so this would help in that situation so what's next so you can make changes like I was alluding to if you do at this hearing make changes you would need to send back to the planning commission their report which was included in your packet and they would take a look at the changes and just make sure that your changes comply with state statute so they don't need to hold a public hearing they don't even really need to discuss they just need to amend their report I would guess that they would discuss it but it's not really their opinion it's more of does it comply with state statute and then they send that back to you and time for your public hearing on the 18th at that point you could vote to approve or if you feel like you need another public hearing there could be more public hearings or more discussion that's it thank you Catherine any questions or comments from Birdman Catherine you mentioned that you updated the definition of affordable housing and I thought I missed it the first time I just looked through it again and I still don't see it just tell me where you stuck that and I'll be happy to answer yeah I believe it's in the definition section okay I thought it was going to be on the change sheet that's why I didn't yeah so I might have not gone into that level of detail so in the definitions so that's page 155 got it then I'm good any other questions two questions just for clarification the housing the home act understanding that that needs some more clarification is that going to happen during technical corrections or does that have to wait until next session as far as our questions about I could think that is a question that's I keep waiting for some updates from the department of agency and commerce you need development and they're saying it's coming later this summer later this summer so I don't really know for sure I think it could be just a combination of people have a lot of questions and they're trying to put them all out together at once or it could be that there's some more more housekeeping in my other question is around the garage sales item which it may seem like a weird thing to call out but I see that it said adequate parking who and how is adequate determined because if I know I've had yard sales where I think nobody's going to show and I think I'm going to be fine but then more people come or they're not parking where they're supposed to park so who or what would determine adequate and if it's not how does that get held at that point it seems sort of a weird thing to have in zoning bylaws right well it's also like you're saying probably hard to please you know so it's someone's not going to come into our office to get a permit for a garage sale so we're not going to go out and look so it's that is a good question I don't have a good answer I think our hope is that it's going to help some of the problematic situations that we've seen just give people pause and think about making better decisions about having problems with traffic Thanks Any other board questions? Board member questions? Okay then I'm going to go to the public I see Patty Davis your hand is up and he sees good suggestion language I have to agree with her not on a specific language but I went through all these and it's a lot of pages and when you're talking about posing just I'm thinking one of those developments on steep slopes I have a question about language for a 5.6 site review the beginning features the problem of having language is site layout to the extent feasible it's just like what Tracy said I find the language the extent feasible is not specific enough to photography what do you mean? I don't know if I'm going to do that I just I don't know if there's a way that's my problem I think we have to say instead of a job we have to have a stronger language so that whether we have a lawsuit or something I have that language that's my problem Thanks Thanks Patty Any response you want to make Catherine? No I think there's probably a lot of areas like that in the zoning regulations that we need to do a deeper dive clean up and I think like I said after the town plan we're going to have some suggestions coming from the town plan that I think we'll want to begin to as well so good idea I think it's there would be there's more discussion that would need to happen inside of something it would be my recommendation Okay Alright thanks Lorraine go ahead I can't find anything but there was a segment on there A or B I can't remember but it was that what it can't be used for you can't use it for this water but then there when you look at the under there the D I think it is it does allow the waivers to continue to contradict themselves I think that was one of the things that was discussed at the workshop in terms of one way or the other we should get rid of the waivers not allowed but if that could be appreciated Alright thanks Lorraine okay anybody else want to comment ask a question Sally can you come forward what I've learned tonight is we can put a duplex on a ten thousand square foot lot now I don't know what the dimensions are well it used to be one home where I live okay it was one home per ten thousand square so basically four houses per acre they were single family homes but now the state says that we can do eight so the state had to do this so I believe our restrictive zoning law our major cause of the housing shortage for a long time we didn't want growth and it was great everything was fine but now our kids can't live here town employees can't afford a house here the school people can't afford a house here I want our town to be more affordable so I think this is a great step in the right direction what worries me is the XTC ETC Next document a lot of fluff a lot of junk words I'm not a real life depiction now whereas last fall a man from Williston came here and said boom this is where this restaurant is this is where L.L. Bean is this is our setbacks this is what we did to do this now I'm not a big fan of what they did in Williston and I'm not a big fan of what was going in downtown as a junction but at least they're taking this density thing seriously I want to know in the future this new plan is it going to free up uses we're not talking about the town plan we're referencing it for the new regulations we want to use the language that's in ETC Next so what does that mean so some of the language in the ETC Next plan has to do with changing zoning to allow a particular type of development which would be more dense development looking at streetscape looking at design and so that needs to be updated and changed but it's a again a deeper dive look and right now we're working on other projects with the planning commission including the town plan and so the first thing is really to put that language in the plan of what we want to do we're going to hopefully get a municipal planning grant to help us do that deeper dive into zoning changes for ETC Next with the public participation process okay so this has been going on for quite a while nobody's ever embraced the uniqueness of being in town and the uniqueness of being outside of the water sewer or right out of town and I just think that we need to free up our uses and this is not just residential talking businesses I live where there are a lot of businesses that are no longer allowed if Lester Pelkey was going to open up shop today he would not be allowed if my family wasn't allowed to repair cars I don't know where I would be right now I wouldn't own the land that we own now so I'm a big fan of these services that other people might kind of look down on the log yard on Towers Road the LaMelle Lumber and I think our zoning everybody's got to think form-based design and not necessarily you can't have a car wash in the middle of town who wants a car wash in the middle of town the man that presented ETC NEX vilified drive thru I love drive thru I think 80% of the people in this town use drive thru why are we going to vilify them so I think we need to think inside our water sewer core and density and upgraded uses and then outside the water sewer core let's encourage our rural character and the traditional uses we've always had and try to make it unique to us so we don't end up being a Williston and we don't end up being a NNS extension I'd like to see us be a Middlebury or a Waterbury that would be lovely they have a nice mix I don't think that we should go and recreate the wheel because it's taking too long this ETC NEX thing has been going on for quite a while we don't seem to get anywhere and then when we do get a document it's full of junk words like Tracy says what is adequate parking being patty what do these words mean we can't have any junk words even though I love to use them but I'm not in your so I think we should look at other towns Boulder, Colorado Madison, Wisconsin other places to see where they've had successful housing because we really, really need it my daughter moved to South Portland, Maine why should South Portland, Maine have those two kids and we can't have them here so thank you thank you any other comments they say we've got to stop meeting like this I've been before this board too often in the last few months so identify yourself for the record here I'm Martin, I live on Maple Island Drive and I'm on the zoning board and shame on me for a little bit here that I haven't followed all of the changes that were proposed and so on and then just the other day I started looking and I said wait a minute there's something missing that used to be there anyway and it has to do and it's very simple section 3.4 and there was a proposed draft back in 2022 that had this language in there and then apparently in the review process and hearings or whatever the planning commission decided to not put the language in there I have the language here and I'll read it through simple sentences fences may be erected on the side in rear property lines and shall not exceed 8 feet in height fences shall not be placed atop one another any non-transparent fence located in front yard shall not exceed 29 inches in height unless it meets the front yard setback for the zoning district in which it is located that language was in the 2022 draft and disappeared with this new draft also there's another line the zoning board of adjustment through conditional use review may authorize residential fences which exceed 8 feet in height specifically for security or safety purposes it may require landscaping to mitigate visual impacts so it's kind of a it's one of those dual edge swords the regulation is there but there's opportunity for the zoning board to provide an exception if it deems appropriate I can give you a classic example a fence that is fire exceeds what is considered reasonable in my opinion a fence is 12 foot high we locally call it the fort and it's a stockade fence that surrounds property and I know that out of character the area is something that is sometimes subjective but anyway I would encourage that these sections be included in this 2023 draft I'm not sure why the planning commission struck those before but again shame on me I didn't pay attention I thought it was in there and it wasn't also I'd like to comment that the subdivision regulations and so on there was so much red ink in there it was like red October here anyway I think the major part of that was lining up the definitions between the zoning regulations and the subdivision which was there was disconnect on some of those things which used to cause a little grief on the zoning board but anyway, glad that that's happened that those are coming in line so that's all I had any other questions thanks Yubi let's see I see hands up again on line I did losing track of whether folks have spoken already though does anybody who hasn't spoken yet anybody who hasn't spoken yet you'd like to speak Paulie are you yeah my apologies thanks thanks for the cue so yes sir come on up hi Don hi Tim Mack here Tim Mack I've lived in Essex for 60 years it's fun I don't participate in the zoning planning side of things recently in the last year I purchased some property in Route 15 and I've been paying more attention as to what's going to happen with this property for an ex-surprise dropper and I've been thinking about Essex I drive around I'm self-employed and I drive around the state of Vermont and for Gens this morning Middlebury, St. Albans and it's really obvious to me that Essex doesn't have like a downtown there's nothing pretty about Essex anymore and I've lived here for 60 years just very unattractive we have Route 15 as our main street and I'm really excited about seeing the direction of figuring this out these challenges with figuring out where the town hall might be it's a concern that that $3 million purchase price would probably cost $15 million by the time the town would have town offices there I've taken a number for conversation but several often three to five times more than when you pay for the land but it's exciting to see the difference because we really the town only has really from John Lang's property down to the historical district on the last house in Essex on the left-hand side across New Way Christmas Street Farm and I love where I live I think it's beautiful we don't see a downtown, right? Essex town is a nasty little town to look at if you follow Route 15 that's the truth, ask anybody it's not like Virginians, we used to laugh about Virginians and St. Albans and we used to pick on Milton and go on and on I'm in these towns every day and they're beautiful now we've done nothing to make our town nice now we're re-identifying who we are, right? we're trying to figure out who we are in the town I'm so excited about it, but I'm concerned about making an investment next to Price Chopper and the lack of the use of that land I've got my own ideas what I'd like to do and even to expand on the thoughts that I currently have but I'm so concerned about resistance so that I can't do anything I'm 60 years old it's like oh my gosh do I really want to develop a town or should I just run, right? I think Sally's kind of hitting on that as she's we're the same age and she's looking at selling some more property should I look at buying that or should I run because there's no real movement that Essex is not making any steps forward and I don't have that long left right? do you have comments on the zoning regulations that were I'm getting there general summary would be like we need to make some plans, I mean I've only been paying attention for a year or two and so to cut me off it would make sense that we do something sooner than later. We've seen the Planning Commission have these subcommittee meetings a bunch of great ideas that they've been articulated actually through here and I'm really looking forward to seeing movement go that direction so when zoning comes through and you guys pass rules and it doesn't take the next five years to happen that's all I guess it's a summary statement I'm not on point perhaps only to say that you know let's do something in the next year let's get going with this. Other towns are I mean Waterbury, Middlebury, Virginia, and Bristol Milton they're all moving ahead right? Winooski go on and on and on Essex is the last in the fold and I know I'm from here I'm in all the towns every week let's just move I don't know what pace we can do it but let's make it happen whatever that means you know that's it. Thank you Anybody else who's not spoken yet? Patty I see your hand up 62 1 9 I'm here for you I'm from Colchester I'm from Colchester I'm from Colchester Go out you know what I mean you pull back all the towns they go out to you all the time you know that's it all the towns around us and my suggestion this is just a suggestion is that really think we have put all our energy into just the towns and having all this input it's all healthy So, it's Sally, that guy, me, Lorraine, a bunch of us, we're on the same boat, but we want our millennials to move here. We want our kids, my daughter too, works out of a company in Maine like Sally's. And, you know, we want our kids to come here. Yes, yes, my comment. Yes, I want to know why are moderate we have to spend money by February 1, 2024 on the bylaw modernization grant, which has to do with this subject that we're talking about. Because if we don't spend the money by then I guess sometime this year 2023 we're supposed to submit. You know what our plans were like, are we going to make route 15, not a truck thoroughfare but a main street. What are our plans because we have to spend that money by 2124 I looked it up. The other question I had about zoning on page 139. I want to know if our public works standard specification for construction that that green book I was given that it's really boring to read. When I was on the planning commission, are those regulations lined up with the town plan and the new zoning that you're now doing are they are finally on the same page, because I read that CCRPC, all the towns that are moving ahead of us have their standard specification for construction in line with their zoning regulations do we, that's my question. Thanks. Thanks, Patty. I don't know the answer to that question. It's he done. Thank you to things quickly. Adequate parking for me for the condition what we were talking about is not having all the cars stopping on route 15 and causing a hazard and parking on the other side of 15 from the people's home. There's a lot of nice things that are out there, but it really does cause congestion they could park over in the price chopper parking lot, pardon me, and walk across the street, much easier, so that you don't cause trouble. And the fence that we were talking about. I was at that meeting and dusty and the whole planning commission said we don't need to make a rule about that plant that fence. Forget it. They just dropped it. It wasn't just kind of lost. They dropped it on their own. That's all. Thank you. Thanks Betsy. I'm sorry about repeating Andy. Just quickly about the fences. I guess the Hubey wasn't there, but I was at that meeting as well. It's one of our concerns living on route 15 and the truck traffic is the 27 inch limitation for front yards because a lot of setback, and we, I need a way to mitigate the sound and the pollution. I think that 27 inch is not going to do that night. I think that was part of the discussion that day. And I know I still need to do the setback but I just in terms of some of the districts that have to do with the noise pollution and the air pollution. The fences are really important and critical to us here to be able to mitigate. And also just a compliment that reading through the regulations and the updates. They were fairly thorough and I do appreciate that we're, you know, they were lined and combed through like that. So, just, just to thank you because I'm sure you guys don't hear thank you is very often, but I do appreciate the work. Thanks. Thanks. Anybody else. Any select board. Questions or comments. I have a question because we circled back into fences so many times I was reading and I did follow along through the process and I see that it's been changed again but in fences D section 3.4 D. Now D it was C. It says electric and barbed wire fences are only permitted in the C1 AR and RI zoning districts for agricultural purposes and less otherwise exempted by the state. I don't want to just say agriculture is exempt from barbed wire and electric fences because that gives you only three districts. And then again says that you have to be exempt by the state and all other districts. And that could be defined under agriculture and the definitions for any livestock, horses, equines, anything under the sun except for meat processing facility for beef and chickens. I think we could simplify that to just say agriculture is exempt. I was changed at one of the meetings and maybe I don't remember that discussion. You got copied back in but that was my concern was I have electric fences not in one of those districts. And I don't know of a state statute that's exempt fences. You think it does. I don't know that's what it was mentioned originally but why put something in there that doesn't need to be in there. So that's the presentation of my part. I booked the Catherine and others. But as I read it talks about how electric and barbed wire fences are only permitted in those three districts. I think that's the way to say it's not permitted in denser parts of town, the downtown stuff like that neighborhoods. That was really less exempt by some ways puts the onus on the state to determine something is agriculture rather than firing on our zoning administrator and our staff. Unless otherwise exempted by the state. The state might allow. Right so towers road is in his own agriculture. It's low density residential. So it doesn't necessarily mean the zoning district though it would be the use. That is we're talking. This doesn't say use this says it's only permitted in C one a our one for agricultural purposes unless otherwise exempted. Right so that the unless otherwise exempted. Further that allowance for anywhere. If for agricultural purposes. By the state if it's under state statute. But we don't know if there's a statue that exempts it. I don't. Any other. They brought that up like four months ago. We've come back to the board at this point so we're. So if there's a right we're not going to verify in this meeting whether or not there's a statute that says what what's exempted and what's not so I think I think. Maybe that's a follow up somebody has to look at that. I would speak for the staff and for. If that's something we you would feel like it's not research enough or you don't feel comfortable with it we can break that. Change and I. That would. Yeah I mean personally I would just use the word. For agriculture. Electric and barbed wire fences are permitted for agriculture. And if you want to use those other three sections for anybody who wants to put a barbed wire fence around their property then put them in there also but. Don't see where they need to be lumped together with agriculture. That only restricts. Animals being in districts in this town. And for anybody you could have one horse you could have chickens. Electric fence and electric fence you put electric fence around your chicken coop. You have 12 chickens you have 100 chickens. So. Everything else is beautiful. I forgot about it until somebody I was reading at the other night I was like oh man it's in there and I forgot all about it until we brought up the fences four times. And I was like oh yeah. So we have two suggestions for changes. One was to to. Actually revisit the height fence height question. The other is Ethan suggestion about the. Anywhere like fences can and can't go or can't go or I don't know. That. Anybody else have any other comments. I would just make sure as you go through the document that. Everywhere it references six chickens has changed to 12. There are a couple places where it still says six. Okay. It's consistent. Yeah. The other question we were asked is there were a couple of changes that Catherine asked for about with wording change small I think a fairly small wording changes about. Family versus unit or or household versus family that were duplex and duplex unit instead of two family. This was to make it more consistent personally to make it consistent with. Like 47 but it was also to do. I guess to say family implies one thing. And the household is another. And that is the more commonly used term. Right. We have any concern with with making that change. The other change specifically to a duplex was about density. Allowing the two duplexes. Would be the same as a single. Okay. And that was state driven. Well, yeah, whether or not we put that in our regulations, it's. So. Like I said, there are some other changes that we'll probably have to do. We just don't know for sure yet. What they'll what they really look like so. We can hold off on that one. I think for this, for this round of update, we really, you're only asking for that. That one fairly small changes. And the. Parking regulations around. A garage sales. Right. Me. Right. Around that. I think that was kind of discussed a little bit already. I think it's a good idea. Yeah. And then the. With regard to the, the fence height and. Ethan's suggestions, how, how would that. Receive. I mean, I guess if we chose to. Yeah, I don't want to make, I don't know if we want to make changes. On the fly here in this room, or whether we need to have. Any staff review of any of those suggestions or. Yeah, you know, I. I think with the. It was sort of a split discussion. Which was brought up here tonight. So part of it was why that 29 inch, that seems sort of random arbitrary. And I think that initially came because that's what the village or the city now says. And so there was a. Hope to kind of bring together zoning regulations. So it wasn't really. The. The plan was to make sure that the fence was as much as it could be. Through as much, I think, for. Towns. Situations. So. There were seem to be supportive of that being removed. And then the other part was the. Side. Yard fences being taller. Or allowing them. Or. Restricting them from being taller. And the planning commission felt at the time that it was putting too much of a heavy hand for design. Or aesthetics. Really. Can I ask you a question? Do we really need the electric fences in. In. Sorry. In. In that section in the fences section. We really need that. And how many people are putting up a bar bar fence. Which I remember neighbors. I. I've never heard of anybody that I don't talk with most people about those. Sharon. I just don't know if that was an easier solution. Just get rid of it for now. And. If it needs to be in there. I bet it's been in there for a long time. Yeah. Well, before it exempted every. District except for. Conservation. And. AR. One. Yeah. Yeah. So this is more saying where. Where it's allowed. Yeah. Where it's not allowed. I think what's being proposed allows for some more flexibility than what's there now. Yeah, I agree. I just. Yeah. I didn't know if that was the easier solution. Just what's. Struck in. And then the. A new proposed language not being added. Because other than the electric. And it never included bar bar either. It was just electric fences. Yeah. Yeah. So this is more saying where. Where it's allowed versus where it's not allowed. I think what's being proposed allows for some more flexibility. Then what's there now. And so. That's going to last. Barbed wire was an issue. But. Yes. How many thoughts about that? Personally, I don't think that many people are putting up bar boy already more other than. People that are. Yeah. I am though a little reluctant to change wording on things without having any of the background. To it in. Without. Feedback and review. From others. I mean I. Well, it couldn't they research it and bring it back to you for a next hearing. And I don't know, right? Does that, is that then trigger a third hearing if we make changes to the next hearing? Would. Yeah. Yeah. So if it's just a minor change, like a tweak in. A little. A word or two. And it's not really changing that the meaning. Then you wouldn't require a third hearing, but I would say this. Be substantial. Which is fine. I mean, if you want to do this, right? So. If you have a request, then. We can come back. An hour and 20 minutes into this hearing. Am I. That's okay. We can keep going. I have a question though. If this has already been presented. As the original language struck in. And we approve to strike the language. I wouldn't actually be in addition, right? It'd just be. Just keep what was there. Yeah. And you can also make any changes here and send it back to the planning commission now. And we're still on the same schedule. With this. Keep that in mind. But if you really want to look at this. Which sounds like. Good question to bring back to the commission. Staff. So this, this language was discussed. Say substantially before I got here. So it's been floating around for a while. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know either. I guess that I had attended the meeting about. When they were going over the section of the fences and. There was no barbed wire originally. It was just electric. Right. But. First morning. I think I would say. Agriculture. So. Yeah. I don't even see. How do I find what you're even looking at? Page 54. I do. I mean. Agriculture is clearly defined on page 155. Also. I can read the definition. Oh. Is it the page 54 in the document? The labeled page 50 for. In the document. And I read. Agriculture. So. So. So. So. So. So. So. So. So. So. So. So. So. So. So. So. So. So. So. So. So. So. So. So. So. So. So. So. So. So. So. So. So. So. So. So. So. So. So. So. So. So. So. feeding or management of livestock, poultry, equines, fish or bees, operation of greenhouses, the production of maple sap, the on-site storage, preparation and sale of agricultural products, principally produced on the farm, and the on-site production of fuel or power from agricultural products or waste produced on the farm. Firm shall include commercial greenhouses and riding stables that specifically excludes the slaughtering of animals or poultry for commercial purposes. My recommendation would be to allow electric and barbed wire fences for agricultural purposes. Okay, so you're suggesting that the phrase in the C1AR and R1 zoning districts just strike that so that it says electric and barbed wire fences are only permitted for agricultural purposes, also the way it's exempted by the state? Do you want to leave in the last part? I can. Yeah, if you want to leave in the last part, I don't know what else would be exempted by the state. So previously it was written to restrict to make it to say where electric fences were prohibited is changing it to say where they're permitted. That was the default. Originally, they were only allowed in two districts, now they're allowed in three under this change unless exempt by state statute. I do think it was the same districts before. I thought they added one. I think that it's it was so R2 is one of the Rs that's listed but R1 isn't listed. So I think the districts are the same, but like Andy was saying, saying where they're permitted as opposed to not permitted. Your suggestion I think gets probably at the reality where we're saying we want to see them and it's for reasonable suggestion. So Catherine, you just said something was a reasonable suggestion. What exactly are you? What you two were saying so then? To take the the list of three zoning districts out and just say for agricultural purposes. Okay, what else okay with that? Okay, all right. So the changes that we've been asked for are the language around family versus household, unit versus those questions. There was the parking associated with garage sales and then there's this this fencing change. Do we want to talk about the fence height question that was brought up for the public across around the zoning park? I'll leave that for another discussion. Be interested in why it was in a previous draft in the rationale for removing it. It was there previously? I think Catherine had said, oh it was in a previous draft. It was never right wasn't approved by the board. But before their public hearing it was during the workshop where it was discussed. But this has come up before where there are also provisions within the regulations that you cannot lock or prohibit was it light and enjoyment of someone else? So if you have a fence that is really that high, I mean you're impacting the light cycles. So I mean an argument could be made that the fence height is directly related to that and therefore shouldn't be permitted based on our regulations as they exist already. So from my perspective it may be worth cleaning up that confusion. I believe and I this is something that I'm my memory is a little foggy on but there was a particular instance where our zoning administrator asked our town attorney about using that language for a high fence and it he determined that it wasn't strong enough to actually help in that situation. So I think this was the way of trying to make that stronger case. And I think that was though the first part of the request the second part was the front yard shorter fences only. And I feel like the planning commission came across pretty clear on that that they thought that was a little arbitrary town to just follow something city had might not be appropriate for the more rural parts of town especially or as I think Lorraine said and setting a long route. But there are really two different issues there. So one is the larger first side yard side and rear yards versus the front yard. So we're going to go with the fence thing do you want to or to include something there or defer it for more discussion and another pass later point in time if it's not not not the electrifying thing we've resolved that. I think because it was requested by someone I should be looking into. We can we can do we want to you know in order to two ways and go right we can we can we can decide to put that language in this round and have it go back for a report and then have a second and then it would it would be we'd be overriding a decision of the planning commission to take it out which we can do the and then if if there's I guess Catherine your explanation was that it was looked at as a essentially design review in an area that we don't normally do design review. I don't know if we want to we want to do that because then you know right that would if we put it in there now it would avoid having a third rather than asking for more information about it avoid having a third public hearing which is not a problem we can do a third public hearing. We're talking about what Mr. Norton brought up is that correct? Yep. Then I would like to see it put in. Anybody have any other thoughts on that? Insight? Description to feed feet? This must be why ES6 originally had fence fevers. Are you thinking about that the whole section that he's yeah let's see look at what what is that like oh that is not it that's not it right it's no I'm looking at it would be in an earlier that is the regulations it would have to be an earlier draft right um it would be except for I just pulled up the wrong you have you please. Okay the one in front of us goes CDF I'm curious whether that's the east that you see. Why is this? Can we kick the climate down a little bit? Unless everybody else is cold. Thank you. Okay and I'm that'd be a hard time pulling up for some reason. Is that anybody else? We are fine. Okay so it says fences may be erected on the side and rear property lines shall not exceed eight feet in height fences shall not be placed atop one another any non-transparent fence located in the front yard shall not exceed 29 inches um again I think that was done because of back when we were trying to uh have common things with the uh we're trying to merge we were trying to be consistent with the village. Exceptions the zoning board of adjustment through conditional use review may authorize resident residential fences with a residential fence and say fences fences which exceed eight feet in height specifically for security or safety purposes and may require landscaping to mitigate visual impacts um I think uh leaving out the 29 inches in the front do we want to leave in the 29 inches? Do you have any favorite 29 inches in the front? If it's consistent with the city now we want to put in the eight foot fence restriction and then report to the planning operations. What do they say? Thank you man for you to have barbed wire on the front. You're not well there. Yes, please. I'm sorry. I saw at least three nods on this. Yes. Yeah I think without the I think without the 29 inches and the conditional for the for the height security and stuff like that it still gives you the availability to have the zoning administrator look at it and I know it creates the process of more work and that could have been far the reason why they were doing it that way but it allows you to write um an allowance or I forget actual word for it or she can make an exception variance variance yeah to construct that fence to a to a separate design so all right so if there is an existing fence today that's 12 feet this does not does it doesn't make it come down it doesn't right right so that's what kind of a thought so it doesn't do anything to existing yeah yeah this would just be any new fence built. In some respects I mean we we already have some semblance of design right because we dictate where sheds can be how close they can be to the property line they have their own setbacks so it's I mean I don't see this as anymore hesitate to use the word encroachment because that comes with other thoughts and feelings but I don't see this as any more stringent than the regulations that already exist that dictate those sort of things similar sorts of things. Okay so I think a consensus that I think I understand what we want to go back with but now that we've suggested some changes should we go back to public comment so I see Patty Davis's hand up Patty. This is my last comment I promise I I'm speaking of encroachments so this this is something I witnessed at the end of hillside circle the condos that have fencing attached to them so it's not it's it probably doesn't pertain to what you're talking about but the reason I'm mentioning encroachment is when I spoke about public work specifications earlier for construction what whether those rules were consistent with our zoning rules their present zoning rules are new ones is because the erosion that took place underneath you know because now we can build you know condos triplexes duplexes all over creation and we're an R2 but because it happened to be on an area that was a slope and and and the stream wasn't nearby it's way down at the bottom we we spent $56,000 of taxpayer money not me personally but the town did to to prevent this condo that on the end from going down a 45 degree incline embankment you could see the poles holding up the condo so like the fencing attached to it was even sinking so I just wanted to throw that out there because that's why earlier when I asked about public work standard specification for construction whether those have been updated I understand what we're doing we're trying to update the zoning but is is our public work standard specification for construction updated too at the same time is that something that we're doing I don't mean to get off topic but when you were talking about fencing and I witnessed this thing sinking actually Lorraine saw it too I she came over to visit me I showed her and I just thought I'd throw that out there because we have to build housing everywhere right that's the law our two our one you know all over so we live in a lot of steep areas here sandy soil but underneath it's silt and it slides down creation down steep slopes and we're building more and more housing that are duplexes and triplexes what are we going to do about that thanks thanks buddy I just want to clarify so is that are you guys going to keep the 27 inch or not we're not going to keep the 20 the 29 inches in the front yeah 29 and then I just want to remind you I was also asking about which I didn't hear you guys passing on page 52 it was 3.2 3d and d that conflicted each other the rvdi 50 foot buffer which was brought up at the workshop I don't have any numbers that either but thank you hey I don't see you let's see if I look at this um so when you say you said on page 52 is it on the marked page 52 or 52 of the document they're not the same uh it's in the packet that's page 52 so I'm not sure I got it from the packet but it's 3.2 so whichever one would be 3.2 should be the same thing anyway on both and it's a buffer it talks about the buffers and now that's going to go in the bones of the contention but it included in that d it says you can't do anything in that 50 foot either and it was just before it was 100 and the 200 so the 50 was been added but when you look at d the d says you can waive so I remember that in that workshop with something that was um contradictory and was discussed in the workshop I personally want to get rid of the d part that you can waive it this should be no it's not permitted okay so the work the workshop you're referring to is the rpdi workshop that happened fairly recently right no no no with the county workshop it was a while ago it was a couple months ago it was a while ago yeah well I guess I guess I guess a while is a point of is is is it meaning months ago any this was months ago this yeah yeah it's that's what I was referring to a month a go doesn't seem a little doesn't seem too long ago to me no no months not a month ago it wasn't the pizza workshop it was months before that months this is a long time ago it's not the recent rpdi workshop it was I think it was a county workshop or something like that it was a county was there I remember and so it was brought up I think you were there even or I think it was a training or so this was the when Taylor Newton came to the planning committee meeting oh okay I might have been back in April that yeah okay I didn't I didn't recognize that as a point of time that we were working on making changes to regulations we weren't no yeah everyone so so so Lorraine I know that they're they're this may be disappointing but I know there's there's other work going on to understand what needs to happen with the rpdi and I think this that your question that you're asking right now should get bundled up with us that is done consistently with everything else is done with our pdi right so that's why I'm not why it's in there so because it was why it is it is something that is contradictory so it's interesting that that change is in there I applaud the change but it is so contradictory right Catherine I had missed this before but in that section 3b that Lorraine just mentioned to talks about how it added the 50-foot buffer that is not allowed to have parking areas access drive components of spill water management is that going to run into an issue if there's no access drives in the 50-foot buffer or is that essentially an element of the unintended it does look like that I think that the great point I think the tension was to say that the planning commission has never allowed stormwater management things like stormwater management well I think parking actually I'm thinking they do they have allowed some stormwater management and access you're right Greg I think but as I'm saying that it used to be that there were no access drive the 100-foot buffer have had right ways to access right lost 100 well seems like there should be some general cleanup as Andy was saying of our pdi and and maybe we shouldn't make this change right now and it's it's worked how it's you know worked I guess it's been if this adds more confusion sure we should okay so what do board members think about this question I guess the change that's proposed it's making a change it's it says parking areas access drives and components of stormwater management systems systems may not be located within used to say 100 or 200 foot buffers but now the change says to put it that's to say 50 100 or 200 foot buffers and then later two sections down allows waivers within the 50 foot buffer so that all those things can happen in the 50 foot buffer which is which is essentially not really a change putting that 50 in there because it's well actually it says specifically before that it may be allowed within 50 foot buffers and then it also allows it was redundantly saying that you can also have a waiver to allow it right I have already has a point and so I think the intention was to say really clarify that the planning commission does not want to waive parking and allow parking in the buffer and by making this change makes it more confusing okay but okay okay that's a good point it does make it more restrictive it does but what does it a waive buffer requirements it doesn't allow them to make buffer waivers on doesn't say what can be it says anything can be waived in the 50 foot buffer right isn't the town parking lot technically in the 50 foot buffer I don't know what you're which town parking lot is on tax in the older Thompson Drive yeah pretty close yeah but when you turn the corner and continue down the road so I agree that looking at the 50 foot buffer in the future makes a lot of sense like I'm rain saying about Taylor's comment but it really hasn't been discussed enough I think in general buffers need discussion and maybe the idea of the good intentions have made this confusing so maybe just striking the language that was proposed by the planning commission striking the change yeah that's probably better I would agree to that I wasn't going to bring up buffers because buffers need a lot of work on their own I think there's a lot of issues thank you for keeping me honest there Lorraine okay any other public comments okay so I assume we need a motion at this time I make the motion that we adjourn the public hearing do we do that first or do we need to make change I thought we had to adjourn it and then you then you as an action item you do but we don't we don't have an action I'm listed on our business to make the changes that's why I'm wondering I make the motion that we approve the changes as proposed and we adjourn this meeting and send send the report back to the planning I'll take that yep we have a second I just and to thank you Ethan to be clear the changes that we're talking about is we're accepting the proposed changes with regard to languages around housing units um garage sale parking laws that was that proposed um striking the three district list for the barbed wire electric and barbed wire fences we are adding in the the language about the eight foot height without the 29 inch um vintage um requirement and we are striking the proposed change the 50-foot buffer language that what everybody else understands that we're doing did you have the duplex household in them yeah the language about housing units and lesson consistent with that 47 or whatever it is okay any other discussion buddy understand what we're voting on do you think you understand okay all is in favor aye so yeah please say aye aye opposed in a motion passes five zero thus we've approved the proposed changes actually I didn't say anything you didn't because I think I probably should abstain because I'm involved with the planning commission a project current so um I'm just not sure per our per our our business conduct our conduct of business college you are not allowed to abstain you have to vote either either or or identify a conflict of interest and leave the room when we vote oh oh I will vote no that don't know okay so most imagine passes four one eventually didn't vote for any changes that should be right right right right right so passes four one it also closes the public hearing because that was also included in the motion and so let's move on to our first business thank you okay uh mr chairman for the purposes of the people in the audience can we maybe move move b to d and then move d and c up or d well the the the I'm sorry tax never mind yeah yeah I would consider approval of fiscal year 2024 tax rates yep all right all right good evening everybody I was thinking he was farther down and wanted to move him up sorry about that uh back in March the town voted to raise 10 million eight hundred thirty seven thousand and five hundred sixty two dollars in property taxes for the fiscal year that's just started um in regards to the grand list we've had some appeals and adjustments for the two tax stabilization agreements currently in place that has reduced our grand list value a little bit from where we projected it in March this results in a general tax rate of point six seven six six where in the annual town reported originally said point six seven two eight so we're at a proposed tax rate of twenty two point seven three percent just a twenty two percent um the time of the town meeting uh on top of that we have a calculation of local agreement rate relating to contracts and exemptions that number is reduced um by you know fractional amount from point zero zero two one to point zero zero one seven between the two fiscal years and as I'm sure you recall that capital tax rate has been increased from two cents to three cents between the two fiscal years so in summary we're looking at a total tax rate of point seven zero eight three um as you see in the memo it compares to point point five seven three four the fiscal year twenty three um so that's those are the tax rates that we're looking to approve today general tax rate is up from point five five one three to point six seven six six obviously the uh the largest moving piece in the group um the effect on a median home of two hundred and eighty thousand dollars will be a total tax bill of nineteen hundred and eighty three which is an increase of three hundred and seventy seven dollars compared to higher fiscal year so it's recommended to you that we move forward to approve these tax rates point six seven six six for the general fund tax rate point zero zero one seven for local agreement point zero three may the comments or questions from board members is there any potential that the local agreement rate would need to be changed question those are all pretty much set in stone right for the next year uh it we we um it depends we for some reason the local agreement and is the farm open lands contract veterans exemption impact stabilization right thanks so if one of those things were changed that would theoretically affect the local by setting it tonight setting the tax rate such a small amount that if any one of those things were to change bucks average taxpayer this if it was if there was a change to be made before this would have a minor impact thank you any other comments you want mine always welcome that's you always welcome I just like to thank Dan for all his hard work and ask him if there any possible way in the future that we can add in the value of the cost of open farmland and veterans exemptions exemptions we can compare that to what we're giving away to businesses yearly um yeah I can uh create a summary if you'd like to see the effects of these different kind of situations so I can I can do some work for the board they should be awesome and then the one other question I had for you because I didn't have it until you explained it when you were reading but um did we project last tax exemptions in the ministry part is that what you had mentioned um I don't believe we projected less tax exemptions the reduction stabilization rate I should we still have two stabilization agreements so those have not changed in in my time we've had we've had two all along we expected that number all along they were kind of calculated they get calculated a little bit over over the top because they're getting um spread out amongst other taxpayers so what we're doing initially as a as a as a town with the voters is trying to agree on a number to raise for taxes and then we're considering these effects of these other agreements and exemptions um in calculating the tax rate Ethan are you asking about the the local agreement rate and why it changed from point to point no mask I'm just talking about when he when he explained the summary of this he mentioned that they had planned on a certain tax collection and it was less because of the the grand list didn't grow as much as we projected at town meeting right and he had mentioned something about the stabilization agreement well I just mentioned the stabilization number had decreased from last year um I think part of that is because we don't have um a number of village city exemptions that were in in the group before so they were whittled away so that type of rate has decreased that actually brings it up that brings our grand list up which brings tax return we have less exemptions no no the local the local agreement rate um as Greg mentioned is there's a veterans exemption right and some of those veterans were in the city so we're no longer they no longer get an exemption in the town so there's fewer veterans that are that we need and so so the way this works is okay the the the money that you would have gotten from those veterans everybody else is paying for the money that we would have gotten from the businesses that we have stacked tax stabilization agreements with everybody else has to pay so and every and the way the tax stabilization so we we have fewer um veterans exemptions we also have in the tax stabilization agreements is typically they increase year by year how much they pay so if one of our tax stabilization agreements is at a point where they're now paying more than like they last year that reduces the amount that we have to spread across everybody right but that 17 cents isn't a direct reflection of the 67 thousand dollars uh what's the 67 thousand thousand dollars the 16 million 17 thousand 549 compared to the grand list 2023 16 million no that is very little to do with the grand list the grand yeah it's it's it's only it's very specific to the properties that are allowed the exemptions exactly that's what that was my question for two separate things right yeah we'll put a value on a 17th uh not 17 cents excuse me it's yeah 0.001 yeah 0.0017 so I was just curious there was a number that was related to the 64 thousand 67 thousand dollars so the the stabilization I'm sorry in the in the tax stabilization yeah it's just confusing the way I read it maybe I'm the only one that's confused by it but it says that the grand list growth of 16 million 17 549 after the tax stabilization but then it shows the actual grand list so we only collected 16 million 17 549 which resulted in the extra seven percent increase so that so the reduction in our assessed grand list for the appeals and adjustments dropped our grand list by you know about a hundred thousand dollars we took from about 16.1 at the time of town meeting that we were estimating to closer to 16 million now that has caused our general rate to go up from 22 to 22.73 percent in order to get to the voter agreed upon property tax number that we want to in terms of the um local rate that's that's more of a reflection of passing on exemptions and other other items that are you know we're relieving certain taxpayers from paying certain things like veterans and that's being passed along in just a little sliver across all taxpayers that amount that we had created for exemptions is reduced because no we no longer carry the city's portion of it so that's the biggest reason that we're not spreading out as much from this year as we were last year so that's why that rate has gone down from 0.0021 to 0.0017 okay yeah I understand I understand the local agreement right but my I guess I'm asking in a different way is the is the 64 thousand dollars from 42 alam iron drive and 131 red fine drive you're looking at the paragraph just under that first chart just under the chart that says grand list for the artist 2023 grand list 16 million 84 thousand right that's the next paragraph yeah exactly so essentially yes the 2023 grand list is that 16 million 84 thousand dollars right um for the local agreement rate you're effectively reducing the amount that you're taxing that 60 million 17 thousand dollars so you're effectively lowering the taxable and right but I'm not talking about the local agreement right I'm talking about it says the grand list value has been adjusted for the tax stabilization agreement for 42 alam iron drive and 131 fine right and those those are factored into look a local agreement rate and do effect those two tax stabilization requirement openly tax those four things result in effective grand list of I also want to add the tax stabilization agreements the two that we have in place um they were on properties that either weren't built weren't fitted to full value that's turned back so it's money that we've never really any mentioned the blodgett one we're just starting to collect taxes we're getting taxes first time property are we getting taxes on some taxes or full taxes I mean how long are these agreements municipal taxes taxes yeah a lot of these properties like this are set up on five year agreements here's we have two tax stabilization agreements in place right now the terms are different um all for those two I can't speak a whole lot too for that but we have the whole tax stabilization policy factor and like board staff the property owners can negotiate those and bring on something terms are all different depending on what's businesses or properties but so my I guess that's where I'm we're already right down this and I might as well get the understanding I need from it just the zero zero point zero zero one seven is factored into the sixteen seven sixteen million seventeen thousand five forty nine but it does not include the decrease in the stabilization so stabilization would still have its own value at point zero zero whatever that point zero zero one seven doesn't say it includes that though but it does it does the local agreement rate covers those two things all yeah that equals 64 000 plus there's other there's there's the open land and the veterans exemptions also right which is listed at seventeen cents or not seventy cents I think there's a number that's missing but I could be wrong if you multiply this this point zero zero one seven you know seventeen times to make sixty four that sixty seven thousand equals sixteen million or whatever it would be I don't think you'd get the tax rate at sixty seven cents because it's not all it's not it's not all in there you're right it's not it's not in there you're right there's a number it's not in there the number for the open land and the veterans exemptions is in there is not said anywhere here so you can't tell what it is you can't tell what it is unless you do right you know exactly there's a value there's math that can be done to figure it out there's a value missing on the on the stabilization agreement that was the only thing I was bringing out okay it's important to know that value if it's fifty five thousand dollars it's fifty five thousand dollars right I think Dan you said this pretty when we first started this conversation we can get we can pull it together or I understand that information of how much the farm is important to know how much the veterans exemption is and how much he's taxed it right I'm not trying to change the rate I just want to know where the money is going any other comments or this is based on our current grand list not the new reappraisal okay any comments or questions from the public see any hands in the room online what's your plug you make the motion I know I'll make the motion I said I didn't know if somebody's trying to talk to you over there Mr. Chairman I make the motion that we set tax rates as the following amounts for physical year June 30 2024 as follows general fund tax rate 0.6766 local agreement rate is 0.0017 capital taxes 0.0300 total municipal rate paid by taxpayers will then be 0.7083 you don't I have a second you trace the further discussion was in favor please say aye aye this is five zero damn you and I gave the piece of paper that you asked me for to I've left it over here and I'm hoping Greg slide you wanted my signature on that document it is sorry right okay moving on to our next item of business that we've deferred a couple of times is the discussion of proposed charter updates there are so we probably want to display this do you want to do it display Greg yeah so as you recall the charter committee came to us uh it was early December and asked for some changes we chose five of them to go forward with but there were a lot of other language changes and things that didn't address and that we wouldn't make an attempt to get through them all before the next voting season and so the first two sub chapters are here in the agenda today we can if we run out of steam deposit any point we want to but like to try to get through some of this so um the document that was included in the packet uh the green text is added there are also some comments in there in parentheses that I've put in um hopefully for a little clarification in the red um strike through is language that it was proposed to be to at the um blackboard take out so starting at the top there is a proposal to add a preamble we want 50 years after the fact to add a preamble to our that was there already the preamble is already there the green my section says preamble but you're asking you want to you're adding why do I have an echo here all of a sorry yeah so here this is not already in the charter you're saying the green text is proposed new text all right so um as as far as I have been able to ascertain the charter the original the first uh s6 town municipal charter was approved in 1971 here we are 52 years later do we want to add a preamble to it has to do that we want to do that or do we we've kind of got a sense of my thoughts based on how I said that I says we the people not we the founding peoples well I like the the third part of that because we just did that whole inclusion thing and that it's our each individual shall have an equal opportunity to participate fully in the economic cultural and political life of the town discrimination is prohibited based on race color religion national origin gender aid sexual orientation gender expression and marital status economic status military status or physical or mental disability I mean I think that needs to be somewhere because of the inclusion that was done with us I would just comment on that that when you specify what discrimination is prohibited you may unknowingly not include one we need to change anything yeah and it could be argued that we already that we have approved a resolution that includes all that but you haven't in your charter then it's a requirement so harder to change it's already a requirement based on other state law so my comments we're going to be about adding potential redundancy as far sorry I should as far as what is already identified in existing state law and if something is added to that state law they're out of sync so it may make the most sense if we want to keep that there to refer to the protections under this the specific statute so that it's this is always kept up to date as that statute would evolve or change I know we've tried to eliminate redundancies before in other areas you're suggesting that rather than list them explicitly to just to have language referred to state statute which was subject to regardless of whether we put this in the charter map just in the last paragraph for the whole thing I'm I'm I'll tell you what I think I think that 51 52 years after the charter was initially signed I think it's it's unnecessary to add a preamble I think town already exists and if I were to you were to ask me whether or not I would ask for the town to vote whether to just add this section I would say no but I'm gonna I'm gonna I'm gonna probably gonna ask that question as we go through it says okay if we were doing a charter change and this was the only change would we do it and we may end up and we may end up in the end with enough of those that in add it added up they may add up to something right but I'm less inclined to change things just for the purpose of changing them just my opinion but only one vote we'll vote on the whole document now I need to I don't I don't recall whether you stated this but this language predates our declaration of inclusion and I think our declaration of inclusion covers everything that's mentioned here so I guess unless it's unless it's how we do business or it's granting us authority from doing the things I'm not sure it really belongs in the charter belongs in our declaration but not the charter from my perspective can we do a simple yay or nay call the question what do you think yeah what do you think Ethan you want to dinner out I'm saying do a yay or nay what's called question on each section we can keep it moving otherwise we're gonna talk about stuff all night don't I mean right so I'm I've got a I like it I've got I've got Don saying yes you want something to have it in there I think I mean I understand what you're telling me but I just want to make sure that it's somewhere that it stays I mean it the charter lasts change it forever that statement of inclusion where did it go we signed it where does it go the charter is a living document that's just my that's just my I'm okay with changing the last section to be something that more or was in the statue there's a statue that says you know Essex is a is a town you know keep the first sentence say this excuse me discrimination is prohibited based on section there's nothing else in the two paragraphs is something that's going to be updated that's the change in a remark or something kind of I think you also said to change it to be consistent just the reference statue right and you like you'd like to keep the preamble in there because they're either but I would change it to reference the statue if you don't think it's necessary we're moving on don't we got a declaration of inclusion next okay so let's strike with a question mark and we can we can certainly revisit all of these after okay moving on to corporate existence the proposal is to remove the phrase the clause that says accept by annexation procedures to set forth but by the statues to the state of Vermont staff recommends that we keep that language in there I agree why because whether it's in that there or not it still applies right well if your charter is approved in a superseded state law it becomes state law for essence don't have it in their state law as applies one of those instances where you want to leave it open to state law notwithstanding the provisions of any other municipal charters territory within the corporate limits should not be annexed to or become a part of any other municipal corporate period somebody's taking rights away from your residence but essentially annexed or moved for a state law applies so if another municipal corporation had other rules that they had approved in their charter or you had a part of your town that wanted to go to another town which happens you're deferring to a statue so in or out what that I'd leave it I'd leave it leave it in change it no no leave it leave the language yeah leave it the way it's written yeah I think that's it so that's a key all right and then down two more sections powers of the town the power there's a proposal to remove the power of the town for us to start an open our own electric company I think we should keep it why would we take a power lose a power that we already have yeah they lose the power you have why would you want to build your own power station in the town of Essex because you don't know what kind of power I don't know what's going to come in the future yeah it'd be a big solar farm somewhere we can't be a utility much of the power um what about the change to the added language I personally didn't uh and it's in the same section right right I skipped it I did together with all the implied powers necessary to carry and do execution of powers all the powers granted yeah I thought I didn't see anything that had changed it just made it more clear in my opinion all it did was clean it up I don't know if it would go here I don't I don't I don't I staff didn't comment on that one and I just the sense if you want to keep that added language or all right so everybody likes that keep that keep the believe you have our own power company yep next change is in 105 where again another little phrase was added where it says uh nothing in this charter shall be construed or there's a couple of changes here right there's a as was changed to a two and then the other two was crossed out yeah because it didn't it's just to make the flow better it didn't fit the way we it was construed to to in any way limit the powers we got the other two yeah I guess that does make the flow better and then it goes on to say and functions conferred upon the town of Essex and the select for the town by general or special enhancements of state statutes or regulations I'm not sure what that even means I think that the general or special enactments relate to state statutes and regulations yep but it was okay so keep keep those changes yep all right then moving on down into the ordinances there's some um section c of that is the fees thing that we've already it's already gone to the legislature and also the set the next section 107 is the just cause evictions we don't need to comment on those but the is the change in a is is just consistency of where in the document the references so that's nothing because that was just to help with the flow of the charter that was all together and then the there's a new section added that's the town may adopt amend and force and repeal ordinances relating to any aspect of municipal concern for the peace order health safety comfort protection in general welfare of the town and of its citizens that doesn't really give us any new powers I think it just says what does it tell them what your powers are because there was no descriptive description of it earlier so it's just a thing of cleaning up I see a thumbs up from Gracie and Don as well a nodding head over there so okay keep that one okay and we were skipping down to 201 where the line that says this the final sentence of that first of 201s the terms of officers shall commence on the first day of the month following the month of election that was moved that language was moved down to 202b where it says the terms of office select board members shall be for three years and the term of the officer shall commence on the first day of the month following the month of the election the thing that that does to me is it removes the moderator from the discussion because that's a that section is specific about select board members that sentence is specific about select board and so the reason I think the reason it was in the above paragraph is in the officers generally so it applies to the elected moderator as well that mean that the monitor moderator would meant immediately following the election I don't know is on what statute says your moderator is elected a year ahead so whoever you elect in March of 2023 it doesn't be moderator until March of four unless you have some meeting unless you have a special meeting right its term begins just technically immediately on the completion of the vote he's then you know according to our current charter it doesn't start until April 1st okay and so this changes that that's what I'm pointing out it just takes the moderator because it's in a different section this is officers generally moved specifically to the select board does it say anywhere where the moderator term ends if you hold an election for a one-year term it goes until the beginning of the yeah I don't know if you have a special meeting three days after the special meeting then the prior moderator is still the moderator even after the election yeah until until just like you just like you would be there's that that lame duck select board meeting where that's what that language keeps intact the language that's cross if you if you keep it where if you keep it in section 201 it keeps it in fact you put it in in 202 it makes it makes the moderator election subject to statute which I don't know the answer when you come do we know it says some language is deleted and moved to a later section is that referring to that green one or is that did they move the moderator stuff somewhere else I wonder so the the the the words and parentheses are mine just to just to point out to me what the change is so language was deleted that's the cross the crossed out red line the last sentence there and it was moved to a later section so that's the green that's added into 202 b and so I think moving it changes it so that it only refers to the select board not to the moderator it's the no well let's see here we just leave it and add it to leave the existence why don't we just put the terms of office of select board and moderator because this is in the section called select this the heading is select board number mine's officer terms of office and I like oh you because I took it out officers put it in I threw what you're saying okay from general officer generally to specifically to the select board section so do we just leave it where it was so that it applies to all of them you could also consider going to an appointed moderator it wasn't proposed here anywhere I would just put take the yeah go ahead and take leave the red the revert to what it was yeah the problem is too is there's missing language in the change it doesn't show anything crossed out because it wouldn't have read the terms of office of select board shall be for three that's what it would read that you took away the green so some language was taken away okay there may be a there may be a mistake in my greenness there then years may have been you know when you when you're doing that I want to make sure we don't change the three yeah when you're highlighting texts sometimes it picks up an extra word yeah my shall be for three why don't why you couldn't leave the green there too I mean it's because it's two different I thought it was being this easy to read it is easier just put the same sentence leave the moderator here in the red and then down here in terms of select board members shall be for three years in the term of the officer shall commence in the first day of the month following the month of election which is April 1st okay do you want to leave both sentences yep I would recommend again this because it's one more thing and if you have redundancy in there if you catch one take a change at some point but not the other you're going to lead to contradictions I would strongly recommend that yeah only have a clause only be there one all right okay thank you about go ahead okay just add add years to the yep I've got that marked here yep okay moving on to the next section that has changed is 203 minimum pay for select board members increase from 500 to 1500 currently what we're given today anybody have any objections to changing it the 1500 don't sound like it so let's go on the next section the next three there's three sections there that allow select board members to decline pay I don't think that belongs in the charter I think that's a policy thing that we could set if we wanted to do that um select board members have in the past chosen not to without even a policy or anything um agreed should it be in the charter to pull it out I'm not sure how to even get in there okay the truth there's nothing stopping you from doing it see don't need anything allowing you to do it that's uh that's the words I'm using right 204 is organization a clause was added as soon as practical after the first day of the month following the time being this select board shall elect uh organized elect a chairperson vice chairperson clerk by majority vote of the entire board and shall file a certificate of election um for the election of select board chairperson vice chair and clerk in the office of the town clerk so it sounds like this just clarifies that there's just repeats who's being reported in that report that necessary well yes because town clerk has ascended to the secretary well yeah and I know the report is necessary but is it is it necessary to report to repeat chairperson vice chairperson and clerk in that second sentence if it's if that's what's just been wanted to run on sentence there's not a single period in it so it doesn't need to say it again because there's no period from the last time it says chairperson to the next time it says chairperson the same sentence I'm no grammar so you say strike it no yeah strike it handle them and keep it Gracie would alter it and say and shall file a certificate of such election in the office of the town clerk and it refers back to chairperson vice chairperson and it's actually statute that defines that we have to do this anyway right yeah this is really I think with the really salient or the important part of this is that it's the first day of the month following is when you have to have your organization meeting right um that should be for offices not just select one that might be in a different section there's the charter only have power over so are you referring to other or traditional bodies of the town of Essex right yeah I think we I think we do we yeah you're talking about planning commission and whether they they don't they don't do it anymore they do it in July this is based on fiscal year right and they said first meeting after the fiscal you know they set their they set their honor they set their own rules of procedure so they don't follow the town charter at all they do follow the charter but they can follow their own procedure as long as it follows the town charter correct in state statute yeah okay so there you go charter doesn't apply the pre-organization of the planning commission nothing in the charter this is nothing yeah board or no no so he's so he's suggesting that we in just from select we're dulled I don't know the right word was it like Judy you know I'm saying something come on Judy you could say all boards and committees shall organize an idea we should be talking about judicial I don't like why did you just show thank you I had part of it I told you I didn't know where it's they can't put everything else was changed to be yeah but see we get elected in March so our first meeting is April they don't do business till July 1st so you don't have to say March you just have to say the first meeting after the appointment for the board but we're elected board those state statute says that planning commissions have the authority to establish their own elections and Rosa procedure I think it's appropriate for the select board to tell them how to do anything oh I think it is because we they have to we once we appoint somebody the the the statutes of the state of Vermont apply to everything that they do we can remove member you can't tell the planning commission how to do this through the business well I said someone that read that I interpreted it as they needed to have a meeting after their first or appointment but yeah so there's I know there's discussion going on right now about right and I understand that I'm just saying that I really think I don't know if we're gonna I was just yeah it's just a lot of stuff for the select board but we have an awful lot of committees that also have to answer you know that we're responsible for and I've got to be excuse me some kind of what do I want to set guidelines that they all follow like the rest of us I mean so with the exception of the planning commission I think they all are required to follow our rules of procedure state statute explicitly gives planning commission is the ability to set their own rules so can we put something in there that just says that the planning commission must follow state statute they have to follow state statute where you think regardless of whether we put you regardless yeah we're not missing anything that could be in there I don't think I was thinking of when I was thinking of a moderator I should get over there anyway that's not even in the section now I just sparked in my mind okay so so the the proposal on this this line about adding whether or not we want to remove the redundancy of saying chairperson if I so I would word it Tracy Tracy proposed right certification of what sort of certificate of such election in the office of the town clerk okay okay okay in the event of so what it used to say was the event in the event of death resignation earning capacity of any select board member um this was modified to say in the event of a select board members or town moderators death resignation or removal from office or forfeiture of office in any manner authorized by this charter or law of the select board member or town moderator that would just remove where it says of any select board member or town moderate yeah that sounds like the same redundancy that we just tried to clean up above and the part that says election to serve because that makes no sense where are you and the end of that sentence because at the next annual meeting the vacancy should be filled by election to serve by election to serve the remaining balances from an election it should be an election to serve yeah I didn't see a comma there put in in there by election comma to serve remaining no and election okay and election comma hey and and and election right not comma you don't need to come to serve no election to serve not separating to the next day it's two different options at the next annual meeting the vacancy shall be filled by an election to serve the remaining balance of the term right but that pause the vacancy is filled to serve the remaining balance of the term right why you put a comma between chairperson vice chair and then add and clerk like when you have a sentence that says chairperson vice chairperson and clerk no we're talking about select burden town matter yeah I totally get that okay never mind that's wrong I see what you're saying it's two separate actions it's an election and it's serving well actually it's an election to fill the vacancy to have some right but election to serve and then it goes on to say the remaining balance the vacancy shall be filled by animal oh by animal I know what you're saying Ethan but I don't know how to make that if you pause when you read it you need to put a comma at the next annual meeting the vacancy shall be filled all right I'm gonna put a comma in here this is very otherwise you say so it's language somebody needs to think about otherwise you'd say um to elect a chairperson vice chairperson and and clerk instead of saying chairperson vice chairperson all right why would you put commas anyway do you I can talk all day about an oxford comma if you want me to I don't know I'm just asking I don't think anybody wants to hear so I put a comment on here I crossed out the second occurrence of select board member or town matterator and I put a comment in here this is language try to figure out how to make that sound right because I agree it's awkward the way it's written in rather than try to wordsmith it right now we can we figure out maybe Greg can help us with the words yeah yeah I do the wordsmith you didn't hear me I'm I'm still looking at the red pieces and whether or not you want to pick out the incapacity all right definition right right right I need to forget we need they can't can't just avoid the I forget to look at the things have been scratched out because one of the reasons it says in the event of um uh incapacity of any select board member was removed from the list of things that might cause a vacancy is that 50 percent in our roles of operation it's in our charter don't think it's in our orderly kind of business kind of no but it's in the charter that if you but that wouldn't dictate that then that select board member is there's an incapacity and they would automatically vacate their seat so yeah I think keep the incapacity I think so I mean if someone's only showing up less than half of the time why well there there's a section down below that's added number three says for select board members only and not the town moderator failure to attend at least 50 percent of the meetings of the board in the calendar year shall constitute forfeiture so it does have that in there said differently yeah so the moderator misses one meeting we're kind of in trouble you're in it blew it come on but it's only one year so and then right above that like a lot of that at this paragraph if we want to go into this one tonight but this whole thing is wacky because of the way that it's written with the bio is any express prohibition getting to talk about this charter no that mean long conversation on yeah that's a crazy so also in that section so if we have a vacancy in say June there this takes out the interim replacement until next annual meeting so we would just be flying without we'd be flying down a member for the following annual meeting by interpreting that I think that's captured in the above that was up above it says you're going to point somebody yeah being members on the board may appoint a person eligible to fill that position that's a period give me a number C 204 C right where the comma needs to go right where okay well can I now that we're back there for a minute may appoint a person eligible right right at the next ending in to fill that position then there's a period at the end of position and then after that you think how does this sound at the next annual meeting an election would be held to fill the remaining balance of the open term okay but right you're everything somebody until the next meeting right like and if you don't that work for you and if you don't aren't able to agree then you have to have an election well it takes forth with it takes up for it also it's down it's down in section D it's added that's but just been moved to another place is number D on the list there yeah which is is weird so does that find it funny that I'm more confused by the one that's supposed to be more easily understandable than though it was before so is that working and you change that line for Ethan and the remaining okay so back up to C yeah all right and then we're okay the remaining members of the board may appoint a person eligible to fill that position then at the next annual meeting an election will be held to fill the remaining balance of the open term instead of all the other wording in there the next annual meeting an election annual meeting election will be held to fill the remaining balance of the open term for you and so the term shall be filled by election okay and then the part that's crossed out is the definition of what incapacity means but that's moved into the some of the lines farther down yeah I would say it partially moves it down there but it may be other incapacitation I mean maybe that gets captured by the lack of 50 percent but some other the their incapacities where you know it's not going to awake 26 things or 13 we want to lose the wording capacity we put back in the clause there it says incapacity of select board member and then say or removal of from office or one of us goes into a coma you're not going to wait six months before you isn't it incapacity yeah but if you're taking the wording capacity out you have to wait until one of the other criteria okay but that's FNC though well maybe not how I see it now if you left incapacity of any select board member and still remove the lower section it would still have the same intent minus the defendant well the 50 percent attendance is listed in number three below so yeah it is in there makes sense but the the one sentence I think you're talking we're talking about moving is the one that says incapacity shall include failure to meet the to attend 50 percent we explicitly say before for your seat you miss 50 more than 50 percent of the meanings is there any interpretation Greg if we use the phrase incapacity or is that pretty clear as of right now it only says shall include failure to attend 50 percent but it doesn't include from happening I'm just wondering if it's if it's clear to spend on its own or if we do need to define it further somehow I can try to get a legal opinion on it and in general I think for clarity is good but it's also one of those if you find incapacity very early then your because I'm taking this to the next step of well if John says I'm incapacitated or you know I have an incapacity to serve like who then determines that that is I mean death in recognition that's pretty um terrified great that's a hurricane capacitation well it also depends say you have somebody that has sounds really on set dementia or Alzheimer's they're not even aware of their inability did you make or remember are they gonna are you gonna consider that and incapacity so until medical deans well but you're saying right here you're gonna I think we need to find a definition of what I just I don't know maybe I'm wrong I just I look at it aware in the rest of this and we're gonna have somebody who has dementia not be able to serve no I'm not I'm just saying what you have to define what an incapacity is right but in that case I would do oh I don't know drop a good point yeah I think one of those things because it would be would be decided in the court if somebody objected I mean I would hope I mean I'm aware of the physical aid it would come a time I may not be able to do the job and yes I'm I would step aside if it comes to that point or okay so I'm gonna leave the incapacity flaws in the first sentence of C with with a question about getting a legal opinion on that take out the incapacity shall include because we've got the 50 percent down below I agree with no longer a town resident I'm not crazy about violates any express prohibition of this charter who's gonna determine that they um think that one needs to be much more clearly defined of what it means to be no longer a resident of the town of Essex that's a good question too pardon that's a good point too right you could own property here and be here occasionally primary or you sell your house you move you're living someplace else you stay here only they're temporary coming back I mean there's a bunch of it's what if you say primary resident because if you're not a primary resident you don't live there more than 50 percent of the time and if you don't live there more than 50 percent of the time you don't build a 10 50 percent of the meetings or is that not true because of the virtual but then you're still attending the meeting you're just not in person that would just you don't have to be in town I would just say primary resident even that's not near enough I don't believe well that's my statue of 50 percent of your time has to be spent now at that residence you have to say that you're how about if you said no longer a registered voter because don't you have to be a registered resident to be a registered voter here yeah you can do that in Florida though I have to stop no I'm serious I'm saying it I'm sure you can vote in Florida Florida but you it's you still be attacked you can do that I got it I think I missed my point but anyway this is too late I can't think just keep going never mind you know I mean though so do we want a legal opinion on what town of that resident town of Essex means yeah that's a that's a very valid point that uh who adjudicates whether or not you're a resident right there's a sheriff who spent all of his time in Tennessee right somewhere probably was down see but somewhere else mail-in ballots make it a little hard to determine anyway yeah so so we'll we'll have to ask a legal question about how I've asked why determine the residence how do we adjudicate that too I mean yeah that's what I would that's what I would say but as long as they make 50 percent of the meetings they vote in Essex and they own a home or a resident and so you don't have to own a home I mean to say that a resident if you're talking about having to be a voter thinking of a situation where there may be a new American who wants to run for office do we want to require that for someone who wants to serve the town I wouldn't live in town but they just haven't become a citizen yet right you could be here four years yeah right you can still be a registered voter you can't yeah oh boy this this gets into the question of what do you if somebody becomes homeless do they forfeit their select board seat I mean that's why you need a legal opinion on what right no there's no resident in the car yeah you don't have to have a an address to be a registered voter yes you do you can't use a p.l. box you can still you can use a p.l. box but if somebody becomes homeless you can use a p.l. box you can throw them off the select board boy you can't use a p.l. box and because we're talking about having a residence in in Vermont I mean the way the way they're going to finding that they're more apt to say if you're homeless in Essex for a period of time you're a resident of Essex you're here you're not in Burlington oh it's I mean that's it's a definitely it's a sticky question but I there are a number of people that I think most people define a resident as somebody who lives or is in the town that I mean it moves out of town still has their name on the voting rolls stuff it's not necessarily still yeah all right so I'm gonna so so we need we need more thought about what it means to you resident of the town of Essex about the question about violating terms of the charter I think that's the one that's possible to adjudicate I agree with I do too I would prefer if we do wish to go down this road I would prefer to see a list of like amenable offenses so to speak so that it's very clear you know like if you violate acts this will will result in losing your seat I think it's very clear but with this I I'm not in agreement but who is to make that decision the court no you get a list of do's and I'm saying you just find out no yeah I'm just thinking like in in the case of like you know do you if you did something like that would you use a court system or would you hold a special election and have people vote them out I don't know if I meant that's that's part of why I recommend it come out I think it's just too open I would take it out I think it's there's a me there's a difference between and I use that one example about approving minutes but sometimes you just can't do it there might be stuff in there the charters complicated nobody has memorized every single word and make mistakes and so is it are you just mistake is it a repetitive mistake is it a one-time honest mistake and I just think there's too much vagueness in that pause that's that's why that was the reason I asked that question and just let us into the next section because we call us like for a member it was kind that's already passed do we need that oh but do we need that other wording when we have oh okay so I'm gonna take this this I would just take violation yet section c and d and we need to reconsider whether or not to keep the original language or whether any of this other because if we take out oh well I get a review of the town of Essex question that may make more sense to just pass back to what we have to those other chains all right move off yes 205 is the recall thing so that's already been covered we can skip over that tonight um 206 uh meetings section e is added talks about excessive executive sessions this is a the case of who's going to decide what's excessive there's already statute that talks about how when you're allowed to have executive session and dictates that we publicly announce the matter yeah teams redundant and any action right it tells us we have to tell them any action that we yeah yeah we come back and open section so right section e recording of minutes um language was added to say meeting minutes it says an official record of the proceedings and in parentheses it says meeting minutes which shall mean printed or electronic copies of rented written minutes and not recordings of the meeting the select board shall be kept by its clerk and there's a staff comment says staff believes his language is unnecessary that Essex should defer to statute open meeting law around minutes agree recordings may eventually become say that again i'm kind of looking at you i'm looking at your feet pardon i didn't hear you i just said that i agree that you should pull it out it's unnecessary just defer to statute the meeting laws and can use though by the actual language that's already there an official record of the proceedings of the select board shall be kept by its clerk who need not be a member of the select board doesn't our officer of clerk need to be a member of the select board um believe it says that it's you know it's where that could probably be recording secretary or by recording secretary from have a great yeah yeah that is the existing word in there right where it says it doesn't need to be so the and then the final sentence added to that section says minutes of the meeting shall be available on town website it's required by statute that if you have a website you have to put your minutes on it within a certain number of days so far so it's again it's reading the the um added language in that section a and also b well i guess i would like to know how people would know that in statute though same way they would know that a charter is statute on the statute it's part of the law um staff we're responsible for making sure our boards and committees are up to speed on that um and state law basically speaks to what goes into minutes how quickly they need to be posted where to post them pretty much everything that's there it's part of state statute and it's this um because every committee has to have this or is it just a select board every every public body public body which includes all entities that are appointed by okay thank you so we want to add in language that may be redundant with statute or pardon as long as it's being covered by statute i don't have a problem i'm not really sure i don't remember this part of our discussion today the truth so i think all this out or leave it in i'm fine was saying shall be kept in accordance with email ever appropriate reference would be were you eating a watermelon soft and chewy when you picked the color for the pink and green everybody knows i thought in the green that's like the best soft pink chewy ever the pink i keep looking at it a longer form are we keeping b then under recording proceedings in that part of the now that's that's all redundant as well it's uh this is just statute tells you what needs to be in your oh okay that's a lot of times the minutes don't get in there well there's also any vote with a record of the individual vote of each member is never we do five one or six one or however you do it it's not unless unless a member is attending remotely and then you you do document who votes no okay with a record of individual vote what i'm saying is we don't do that we just say the vote past four one or five however it is if we they're asking for something if the vote is four one it will say vote four one and they'll chamberlain okay they'll say who voting don't essentially it just i don't know i i'm just taking an example no i know what you're saying but i'm not sure if i always see that in the minute i've written that way i see the vote is four one but i don't always say who voted no or who then then we should update the minutes to say that i'm just saying yeah it's it's the important part of it's uh it's it's i don't know if it's statue to our practice to i think our our early like our early uh losing the name of our policy for running meetings just says that navels will be documented i'm just saying i just and and if anybody attends uh remotely i think we also do a roll call vote if it's not unanimous it's a roll call if it's not unanimous certainly and if the minutes if we miss it you notice it in the minutes let's make that correct then we should make that correction i feel like i have seen it before i just don't know if i've seen it every time like yeah but i definitely have seen it before yeah yeah i know all right yeah um all right in the second section b which is below the pink and green part there's a sentence added this says only the printed copy needs to be signed oh there's language added it said that oh no right right right right so so i'll talk about that first then we'll step back a second um so there's a only the printed copy needs to be signed are we physically signing every anything right now or is it all done electronically um i haven't brought in any hard copies and wait some time so it's all electronic is the clerk signing it electronically yes my signature okay i don't know why i never see it so i would not have signed because when i was clerk it just automatically got signed but um did we hand sign a letter for susan no we did it online we just did it online we usually do those hand signatures no that's different i'm sorry i'm just thinking i think there were only two people in the meeting yeah so i figured i was just thinking about that when i was so they wouldn't use your signature electronically that you gave them permission to do so yeah i gave them permission to do so but they don't call you up and ask you every week you just say i'm in the clerk i'm on a sign in the minutes here's my signature and then produce the signature on the minute so there there may not actually be a printed copy with a signature on it so that's why i'm oh there should be then somewhere i think we print out the copies when we store them but they're been signed electronically so do we need that sentence that says only the printed copy needs to be signed well because technically it's an electronic print you're already printing you're producing it you know i mean no yeah if you send the paper and your cheaper to the internet it's still prior statue it already says that and it already says that this is going to be uh right i'll just remove it minutes of the meeting shall be approved um and the official copy authenticated by the signature of the clerk of the board so right kendall is signing all of them now whether he does it physically or electronically or signed but do we need to have a comment in here this says only the printed copy needs to be signed because he's not always signing a printed copy to begin with i think i'm suggesting we take that line out yep i'm seeing it's okay and did we moving moving back up it says at the next meeting and that's almost sometimes almost impossible to do um and so technically we've violated our uncharter whenever we do that so that we'd all get thrown off if we technically it's happening right now it's gonna happen tonight all right previous meeting tonight doesn't we had two meetings tonight right so we don't have the minutes for the last meeting we had at held at five o'clock available in this meeting right so um this is a good one to bring up so right so the the the suggestion from staff is to um change the language to say as soon as reasonably possible yep we're good with that yep okay almost there um oh right the next one the section appointments by the select board some of this is already covered by the uh planning commission changes that are already gone forward the things to talk about here is we have a section number four that says commission on public safety do we want to have that in our charter we have established the the dab i want the cb to stay yeah do we want this in the charter do we want to have it specifically in the charter that we do this or to use it so the select board has the power to generate any committees that need their commissions that needs or to operate given it's not a commission advisory board right right it's not what this says you're right well actually we don't have a commission on public safety we have a three advisory board so i would put i would put dab you know i would not put anything in it just say that we establish it oh i'd rather not that's my vote i'd rather leave cab in there only because it's new and i don't want it to get lost and i want to make sure that we're responsible i would recommend keeping the planning commission the development review board at the zoning board of adjustment the adjustment those are statutory things that are called out by law um charter allows you to create other missions committees as you see fit many words i think if you start putting more more into the charter that you have to have this environment that you have to staff it have to provide funding for it you have to support it so many in so many ways that's going to change over time absolutely support the cab you can create a cab you can make sure a cab is staffed if that is doing its job but put it in the charter box you didn't advisory board the cemetery commission coordinator can create all of those right putting in the charter you take away your flexibility not have those that's good agreed this was a cemetery commission new in this list as well yep because it was used it was originally on the town manager's job list and we thought all the commission should be under the select board i would in that case recommend taking out of taking out of the town managers pointing at forty right i think they did i think that's enough that's the next section Greg i think it's other yeah section so they need to be i'm saying you can take it out of there but i wouldn't add it in here i would just leave it on as a it's one of those boards and committees that you want to create because you said you're charter saying the manager's mandate and then where do we put energy coordinator because that's not a commission that's a position same recommendation he has is not to put it in the charter that we have a staff position defined in the charter don't find any other staff positions except for the town attorney yeah we do there are others that are mentioned but i but it says if you have them this is the select board shall appoint have to appoint an energy coordinator that's something that you would take up feature select boards would take up the managers would take up as part of the budget process staffing process crea