 While JP's handing those out, I'll call the meeting to order. It's a joint special meeting. The select board, the zoning administrator, planning commission, developing the review board and planning. I want to thank everyone for coming. Certainly in my time here on the board, this is the first time for something like this. And it's really come out as I was hoping to get the board really consensus on some subdivision regulations. The planning commission has been working on them for a considerable time. They came to us roughly maybe six weeks ago, so eight weeks ago, looking for select board approval of those. And at that time, we had one person from the public, Dave Russel. Jonathan was here. And through the discussion, it really became clear to me that there was not a error at the time. Certainly it can send us even Jonathan who was proposing that the regulations was hesitant on whether we needed them or not. So that question came up, do we need regulations? Dave posed a number of good questions. Just if we put these regulations in place, does the DRB have the wherewithal in all the things that they need to make these decisions? And so there was some confusion there. So I thought it best if we got everyone together, all the parties, the parties that make the laws, the rules, the parties that are trying to enforce them and interpret them, if we got everyone together, I think maybe we can have a consensus and move forward that is best for everybody to have. So I'll start with, I think the Planning Commission would be the first to kind of explain what they're proposing, why they're proposing or why we're even working at subdivision regulations. Karen, Jonathan? So we have, as you said, been looking at these for a couple of years now. And we adopted, just to give you a little bit of a chronology, we adopted the municipal plan that was approved by the Regional Commission. And the next stop after adopting a municipal plan and getting it approved is to review your zoning regulations and determine what needs to be changed so that the two are consistent with each other going forward. We say a lot in the municipal plan about smart growth, about sustaining our pattern of compact development in village centers around the neighborhood countryside, which is also a goal of the state that's been in place for some time. So subdivision regulations give towns the capacity and the authority to look at things like when there's a parcel of land being divided into multiple lots, to look at things like, what's the size of the lots? How are they, how close are any structures to each other? What's the erosion of the roads, the septic, the storm water, the management water? Put all those things into a plan as to how it's going to look when you actually start building and how all those lots relate to each other. We looked at subdivision regulations from a bunch of different towns. We decided to go slow and be more conservative in what we were proposing. So what that really means, at least as I am understanding it, is that if you've got three or fewer lots that are being divided, that goes through the regular process now. The zoning administrator would approve that kind of a proposal as is the case now. If it's four or more lots, the development review board would take a look at the application and would evaluate it for consistency with the standards that are set up in the subdivision regulations. And they would make a determination about whether it should be approved or the plan should be amended or it should be denied. So that's really their bones, what subdivision regulations are about. We are one of the few towns in the area that doesn't have subdivision regulations. We are a town that is seeing some new development on our road, house road. We've got free houses in the last two years, which is actually almost stunning if you think about house road. But there is development happening. There are a lot of large parcels for sale in more town right now. And we think it would be helpful to be prepared in the eventuality that anybody does come in with a significant proposal for development here. Well, I'm going to get ahead of that process soon. But Mike, I'm not against this. I'm not clear on what it is. And if it's significant, as Karen ended talking about, it seems like Act 250 steps in. It's more than 10 acres. If it's more than 10 lots being created, a lot of what we're talking about here is development. And it's not clear to me how interchangeable these terms are, because we're not talking about development. We're talking about subdivision. You can subdivide it a lot without developing it. And you can do a developed property without subdividing it. So it's not clear to me where all this fits. One of the things that is a factor in this is that without subdivision breaks, as we are now, we're a one-acre town, is that right? For purposes of commercial development. For commercial development, Act 250 would step in in one acre. But this is commercial development. In more towns, we have a commercial district that's pretty full. There's maybe two lots I could think of that could be developed on the Route 2 car there, which is our commercial district. I don't know if some division would be a factor there. There's pretty small fields across there from the Boy Scout place. I don't know how many times you could subdivide that before you start getting into lots about the size of this room. So I mean, we're really talking about subdivision here, not development. And in this case, it's commercial development. When Act 250 gets involved, I don't know how much of that goes on. If it's going to go on and add res district, then you'd be having Act 250 or, I guess, there'd be some kind of conditional use review that would have to happen anyway. So again, I'm not speaking against this. I just don't understand why we need this. And that's what I'm here about to turn and hear what everybody else has to say. I'm very interested to hear what DRB has to say. Can you guys deal with this kind of thing? Yes, well, J.B. or John, whoever wants to go first by the zoning door, and then for DRB. Well, I'll speak to a couple of points. I was on the planning commission a long time ago, and I remember twice. We moved towards subdivision regulations, and we did surveys at the town of Eden. And there was pretty strong support in the town to have subdivision regulations. I think in the idea of trying to control unexpected or inappropriate development. Today, I have mixed feelings about it. I think I'm kind of like Jonathan. I'm not sure what is the best path forward. Jonathan talked about a one acre town, but for Act 250, the subdivision trigger is six, because we don't have subdivision regulations. Six parts, that's right. Six parts. Six lots. If you create six lots, within a five-year window. And it's just within more town, or is it within the district five jurisdiction? It's within five years, within five miles of any concerned piece of property. So one individual, if he controls land anywhere within five miles of his property. But also within the town, if we meant to or not. So if I did three lots over in Jones-Brook, and then I did three lots at Moretown Common, we got nine out of six. So I mean, the point is, a large significant development is going to trigger Act 250. And they act to 50 commissions with their professional staff. And they have additional criteria that they look at that typically we would not, like archeological sites, and certainly delineation of wetlands and things like that. So the question kind of is, are we seeing, as the planning commission is the zoning administrator, and I read with interest JV's now, because he talked about a number of small subdivisions that he's approved. And he has some concerns about that, because he had no authority to address the roadways that were being created within subdivision, or stormwater runoff, and that there may have been some issues that have developed as a developer implemented that subdivision. But to some extent, if you're a purchaser of one of those lots, I think you need to do your due diligence. And I think the other direction, as the development review board, we do not have any professional staff. We know something about things from our different individual experiences. But in terms of reviewing and approving the stormwater plan, I don't really, I'm not an engineer. And I think the other, it's funny how things have changed. But 20, 25 years ago, we were worried about the school and whether we were going to have capacity to take all of the kids that might want to attend there. And there was an extensive associated with that. But now we have the statewide education tax, so all the money goes to the state, and what people pay is really governed by the state. And there's a concern, do we have enough children to keep the school open? And so when there's new homes that are going up off House Road, and in more town where the Gallagher acres develop, and it's going to bulk out, maybe that's a good thing, the town should welcome that, and not add additional hurdles and expenses to people that are trying to create lots. Because as we all know, it's extremely expensive to build. And the land and the permitting expenses are a big piece of it. So it's kind of what does the town want going forward is part of the question. Now, that point was brought up. I think we all agree that the town, we would welcome homes being built with new families coming in. In addition to that, and it was Carl Wimble's comments. He was the one public person that attended. And he talked about, as a town person, being able to sell this land, being a farmer or a past farmer, if he doesn't have 401ks, that's his 401k, so he feels like he's being kind of restricted on when he can cash that in, if you will, if we were to go with subdivisions. So that was a concern almost to your point as well, as far as limiting people's ability to build. JV? Just to that point, as I mentioned before, these regulations or anything similar that's relatively bare bones would not affect Carl Wimble or your usual mom and pop, one lot subdivision here and there is really more geared towards a higher density of development. Would it be three, four, or five lots, something like that? And if somebody's going to go out and develop those lots, I think they should have prepared beforehand, including for whether it's storm water or roads. If you're going to be carving out four lots to sail, the effort should be put in upfront to a certain degree. Whereas Carl, he peels off a lot here and there, and this wouldn't be any different. As I mentioned, you might have to put a couple more arrows or an aside plan to maybe spend another five or 10 minutes in that respect. But as far as those one lot subdivision carving off a lot here and there, it would really not be affected. Would it not jump to Act 25, is it bigger than six lots? Is that what we said it would be? Yeah, 10 lots commercial one, yep. I mean, I think that would be the change. Well, and I'm a little bit gray on this, but if we had subdivision regulations, instead of being a six lot subdivision town, you'd come to 10. But apparently there's an option within Act 250 that you can elect to remain a one acre town for commercial development and a six lot town for residential development. Yeah. And the commercial piece of it is a big one. I don't know, I think. That was my concern for the viewing of the commercial project. This is a list of the towns. By the way, only half the towns would come on to have subdivision regs accorded to A&R, so everybody's doing it is not everybody. It's about half the towns. 131 to 131, actually, it's split even more. And then a few of those towns remain one acre towns, even though they have some to be. So places like Benson, Brandon, I know one where they did. Did the petitioned to be a one acre town or was it just the application? The Act 250 board recognizes it, so I'm not sure how you get them to recognize it. I think you notified them that one acre town. Yeah. So, it's just a notification. They retain the right. Actually, even if you're 10 acre towns, they retain the right to claim jurisdiction on a project, according to this stuff. But the commercial review, that was my concern on the DRV is 10 acres or less versus one acre. Most commercial properties in one town, 10 acres or less, so almost every development or redevelopment of the commercial property that we adopted has come to the DRV. And as John said, we don't have the staffing to handle that, more probably the expertise. And I'm just thinking of the landfill, the review that was done on that, just at the DRV level, that wasn't even the additional criteria that would have been required. So, suppose they five years from now just come back or any of the junkyard there, I think is being sold or it was for sale, that would have come in. Any of the, at the, and at home center, any of that development, that could certainly come before the board is. In skipping act 250, they have the resources, plus I think for the applicant, probably a commercial applicant, I'd be more nervous talking to the DRV of unknown folks than I would have known quantity of the district commission that I've been before, and you know the people, and you know the decisions and they have a track record. You know what they wanna see versus a board of public, you may not know what you're getting into. Maybe your applications go forward, and maybe it would go forward under one board and two years later, wouldn't you know, it's like maybe it's the personalities that comes to the meeting. I think on the board, there's certainly, there's the expertise that you might look around but it's the resources that I'm concerned about. Anyone has any resources or money to pay for the experts? Go ahead. Well, I, you know, I think in our experience, there's been numerous situations where we've entertained applications and recognized that, you know, for one aspect or another, there have been other permitting requirements, stormwater to name just one or Act 250, and so as the development review board, we've deferred, we've simply, you know, kind of tacitly recognized that whatever requirements there that we might be concerned with would be picked up through the state stormwater permitting process or through Act 250 and we've sort of packed off and just left it with a condition that, you know, provided the applicants, you know, if we approve something, approve it with a condition that, you know, they get their stormwater permit or other permits as required. You know, so with the, I think the landfill was a particular situation where I felt, personally speaking only for myself, a real need to invoke the provision in the zoning ranks which would have allowed us to retain at some cost an expert with respect to certain issues. But, you know, ultimately they withdrew their application for the fourth cell and, you know, I'm not sure, you know, how others felt. I kind of suspect we would not have gone that way but there is that one provision. And then, you know, I think with respect to certainly residential, sub-divisions for residential parcels, when you're subdividing more than four lots, there's a significant value in, you know, I should say, perspective. You know, there's enough financial incentive to sort of accompany that sub-division to, you know, make it, to justify the additional expense of putting together a sound application under either local zoning just as that may apply or under perspective of sub-division regulations. There's enough at stake to do it. And by not including, you know, we do have, obviously, the zoning ranks as they exist now, but, you know, well, I haven't fully studied this or compared how certain proposals would be treated differently with the addition of sub-division regulations. But the prospect of haphazard sort of ad hoc sub-division of properties without giving enough, you know, advanced consideration of erosion mitigation during development or post-development, you know, sort of a one shot deal. Last week, I was down at the lower end of Steven's Brook and I, you know, we had a stretch of really beautiful dry days. I looked down at the stream and it is just money running very, very money. And I am concerned the siltation of small streams and the Mad River is a concern, you know, is it that significant? Well, it adds up. So I did some looking around and I saw that the town was replacing a culvert on Bob Boff Canaveral, the name of that road. Bat Hennessey, Bat Hennessey. At the top of Bat Hennessey Road. So, you know, it's obviously the culprits, there was a need identified to replace the culvert there and, you know, the work was going on and the beavers were agitated and resulted in a lot of, you know, that's a one day thing, hopefully. And then after replacing the culvert, the ground is stabilized. There can be lots of situations where that is not dealt with in a responsible way. And, you know, we wouldn't, none of us would know about it. So I don't know. Act 250 has a pretty, you know, good program for use the utilization of erosion mitigation. And, you know, it's not super effective, but that's just one issue. Anyway. I have two questions. First of all, people are talking about subdivision regulations and what I'm not clear on is we keep talking about commercial development and commercial properties. So, am I correct and deducing here that if we have subdivision regulations, it affects properties, commercial properties that are not being subdivided. It's just about, if you have sub- It makes more sense now, where if you're proposing commercial development on three acres of land, you no longer have to get an Act 250 permit. You only have to get a local permit. So that's the impact on, could be deferred. Even if we're not subject to that. Even if you're not subject to the lighting and spit-promotional use. Could you defer like, like what I very did for the subdivision regulations sitting in this six-block town, could we defer on the commercial part? I don't know. I'm not familiar with how that works. That seems to be a major, major concern. I think the way that Act 250 jurisdiction works, you say, we want to remain a one acre town in that. And so that applies. Or so Act 250 jurisdiction continues to apply the way it does today. Or we're gonna be attending your town and it applies under the other provisions. We couldn't like split the difference. I don't think that they have that. Waterbury for the subdivision part. I can't see why. No, I think you can't split it. Waterbury did it for both. Waterbury is a one acre town. So my other question is, if I have this record, without subdivision records, as we are now, Act 250 doesn't get involved until how many lots are created? Six. Six. And if we enact subdivision records, where do they come in? 10? 10. And unless we opt out. Okay. And trying to keep them coming back at six. Well, if we keep them at six. I mean, I totally understand that I'm sympathetic. I mean, I would not want to have to deal with the stuff that you guys have to deal with in terms of permitting properties and there's a lot of expert testimony in that and all that has to happen. As far as like the landfill does, they were in Act 250. It's my understanding that if a property's in Act 250, it's always in Act 250. So if you get an Act 250 permit for a project, it's completed in 10 years or whatever later, you want to make a substantial change to that. You got to go through Act 250 for your amendment or addition, whatever it's called. Am I correct with that? Well, I think there's a case pending right now where that is the very issue. Isn't it? It might be. Either it's minor or major. And the purpose of this discussion has generally been, yeah. So in the case of the landfill, I mean, that's not your, I mean, you guys were doing concurrently, which I found interesting, but you had Act 250 covering it as well. Yeah, you know, yeah, it was more. Personally, I don't necessarily, I mean. Just using the season example. I think it was prudent for the town to be looking closely at the potential expansion of that landfill, given the statewide issue concerning, you know, the limited capacity in landfills. I think it's kind of an unusual example, though. There's only two landfills in the state right now, and so. One. They're. No, one. No, one. There's a little one in Bristol, but yeah. I mean, you're not going to run across one in the landfill. No, but my point basically is that, I mean, for a lot of these projects, they're already in Act 250, so it doesn't matter what happens. And this is my understanding, if I'm wrong and pointed out. The other part of it is, we're only talking about, if it's three or less and JB just writes a permit, I'm a little surprised that he can't, using his discretion, decide, well, this is more involved than I want to be ruling on. He can't bump this up to DRB or whoever, you know, and say, even though it's less than three, there's some mitigating issues here. But if it's three or less, and it's just a sign off by the zoning administrator, and Act 250 comes in at six, we're talking four and five. But, John, I don't think it's those developments and those lost, it's really so much the question now. It's more because of the subdivisions, it kicks the commercial, and that's what we're trying to avoid, because all the, if we don't have anything over 10 acres developed for commercial lots, everything is under 10 acres or less, so it will fall to the DRB. But I don't get why, I don't know, hard time explaining what it is. It's like, if Act 250 will deal with this, what's the other way to deal with it? And these guys need not to follow them. If we have subdivision regulations, and then the responsibility falls on us. Oh, not unless we don't declare that we want to continue to be a ruling for John. See, what I got interested about subdivision regulations as a planning commission member was when we worked closely with J.B., reviewing the zoning regulations, and realized that there were some gaps, and he expressed that he has some difficulty, like he said in the memo that you all received, making good decisions with the current tool that he has. So we felt like the subdivision regulations was giving a tool to a municipal staff member to do his job better. And if it doesn't come at the expense of the DRB or the commercial development side because of this option of the main one acre, I don't really see what the risk is here. I feel like subdivision regulations enable our current staff member to do his job better and also give us this ability to integrate a little more with our road and our zoning and end up with more of a one-stop shopping place in our regulations for subdivision of any size. I mean, and it's only a start, it's kind of a minimal start, but it's the minimum to do his job well as zoning administrator. So I feel like it's, I needed to really listen to that as a planning commission member. I wondered about the policy, so the mechanics aside, the policy decision too is the theory of cluster development which only goes as far as the market demand for such developments, right? So you can put it everywhere in your policy, but if no one wants to buy, if you have 12 acres and all the houses are in the corner, well, that's great policy, but if no one wants to buy those, that means that the person developing them is not gonna be able to, even if we tell them that's what we want you to build and he's gonna say, well, that's fine, I don't know, whoever builds more and build more. No zone. But you know, so, I mean, that old question, is that really what we want for more town because by kind of gerrymandering the lots to be our vision, you drive the price up maybe because if there's more expense for the developer, that developer's gonna wanna get that investment back out of the lots so they're not gonna build smaller affordable homes, they're gonna try and get their money out and we get that investment, they span on lawyers and consultants to do the application. The entire point, to make money, you got to span money, but you're probably not gonna do that to break even. So, you know, that's sort of the policy choice that we have to think about. So the subdivision regulations don't require lustering. What they require is a plan that shows where the lots are gonna be and where the structures are gonna be in relation to all the infrastructure that needs to go and in that point of the development of a subdivision speed day. And so, you know, there's still a lot of leeway for the person who's proposing the project. It doesn't dictate anything really other than the information. This certainly goes to Jonathan's question though. So, and then JD, I don't know if you know, but suppose one of the large timberlands is the proposals to subdivide, say it's 100 acres and they want 425 acre lots, but not to build them, but they just want to subdivide it. And to access those lots, they want a road. The way I read it, they would need then a plan, a master plan, basically to, you know, draw two lines on a parcel and say here's now, this was one and now it's four. Is that the creation of a new road? And with a road to access the separate parcel, would that then be a subdivision, even though the development is planned, just the act of drawing a line on the map and putting a road in that becomes a lot. Yes, yes. That's your question. You don't have to build a house, you have to. Right, but if the lots are being proposed, but there's no plan to subdivide or to develop, yet, I mean, you assume eventually everything's. Well, yeah. But I mean, you could, I mean, there's a, one of the timber best lots right now has just been sold and the guy's going to subdivide, but there's no, I'm aware of construction planned on any of the newly created, going to be created lots. There may be, there probably will be at some point, but there's three lots being created out of this. And it's not clear to me whether, is that a subdivided off of the from the 776? They were deeded separately. Okay, so it's not a subdivided off. So as I understand this, the original lot is not counted in the lots created. So if you have a parcel that's a hundred acres and you want to subdivide off three 10 acre lots, that's a three lot subdivision, not four. Is that correct or not? Wow. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, it's the warning of the units. Most ordinances would say that's a four, you're creating four lots, it's a four in a lot. Somebody corrected that, was it you? The way this is worded. That is the original lot that the lots are used. He's not counted. Doesn't count. Better to retain it. Either way, just 100 acres, over 100 acres, three lots, if one of them is out of the equation and there's two, but nobody's looking to develop those lots in the near term. Right, they will subdivide them. Here it says subdivision of land, which results in the creation of a total of four or more lots, so that would be a three lot subdivision. If this hundred and nine acres gets covered in the three different portions. Total, no, I think the total is four lots, four more. No, he just changes it. Right, he changes it, he went from three 10 to three. I'm using my 100 acres, so that would be a four lots. Yes, yes. Which brings up a point that whatever, if these are adopted or something like these are adopted, kind of airing on the side of looking for, critically looking for, and duties, and either by defining terms or adding more specific language, it's helpful to us when applications actually come in. And that was one of the things we were hoping here is multi, it is to try to figure that out. What is the language? It seems like the zoning regulations say one thing, the planning commission, we're all saying, we mean the same thing, but we seem to say it in different languages. And Dave was mentioning that at our previous meeting, it's hard for you guys to interpret that again. So what is the best way to get that? Can I ask a quick question? Because we're really talking about does it make sense to have these or not. All right. My sense is, if I read the timeline, there's gonna be a public vote at the November election? No, no, no. Okay. No, we would, if we adopt these, if Slickward goes ahead and says, all right, we want to adopt something, it would be the March town meeting, is when we would have that vote. Okay, but there would be a town vote that would decide. Yes, the town decides. The town decides. Yeah, the town decides. Oh. But we all know that most things that are before the town meeting pass. So, you know, we just want to make sure that we're voting for the best. Yeah, and you know, I made this statement and I think it's probably pretty accurate that I think if it goes to a town vote, there would be general support and concept for our doings, just the way more town tends to vote and things. So, it sounds to me like, if we adopted them, it would make JV's job easier. And if we have the one acre for commercial, that would make the DRV's job easier. So, it's not a win-win. So, the DRV? Yeah. The DRV? The applicant or the... Have three cases this year? That's what you looked at. Three cases and... I know four. I mean, historically, we have had about 10 to 12 applications a year. In the last two years, there's been pretty significant drop-off. Overall. And JV was saying that there was probably one additional case that you would have had to review this year, have these regulations been in place? Actually, we've been on the last three years. That's looking at my most recent spreadsheet that we've done in one subdivision in the last three years. Well, they've just been subdivisions to what about commercial development. Thank you. We'll have a bike shop in this. Yeah, it's like shots. Oh, the foods that the catering place. I mean, you're in for a try, man. But... Opposite of that is, you know, what is the problem that you're trying to address if there's not a problem now? We're trying to be proactive. Some of us are trying to be proactive. Well, I thought one of the arguments just the commercial one acre aside, if we went from active 50 now looking at six, if we have subdivision regulations nine, then that could be maybe more incentive for people to come to more town because in theory, our subdivision regulations are gonna be as arduous and expensive as active 50. So you might be able to get that window now of people coming in and developing that we wouldn't have if we didn't have the subdivision. Just anecdotally, I know people who will not live in Duxbury for the very reason that they don't seem to take their zoning rights and land development concerns. Very seriously. So I know that's one argument. But then that doesn't help with the one acre. But that's why I was saying if we can parse that potentially, that maybe that could be something that could be advantageous to the town. Some of us is already living in the ag-regs just one of the ag-regs and just to explore it. And you want to do cyber woodshop. When I built it, I had to get a conditional use permit to do it. There was no subdivision wasn't part of this but it was commercial and ag-regs. That's still as part of the equation whether we had zoning regs or not. So bringing in zoning regs, my thing was so minor I don't think Act 250 would have had an interest in it. But at the same time, don't we already have- We're already on it on more than one acre. Sorry? Yeah. It was on more than one acre. If you had asked for a project for Hushi, they might have told you. Well, it was before the DRB. It was what the zoning board of adjustment was. I think you started out there before. I think you did. Let's say you're there. You're not going there. This was a long time ago. I think you're safe now. Some future title search will turn you down. It just seems like we already have our review process in place for a lot of this stuff. If it's a big thing, Act 250 is going to kick in anyway. Just because of that. That's part of the philosophical. Because when you look at developments and what people have to get for permits, I mean, the largest, because there's no municipal water or sewer except near Waterbury Village, there's water, largely the development of land is a function of setback distances for wastewater systems and where you put wells and those permitting requirements. And if storm water is triggered, in my experience in this day and age seems to largely stop reckless development that might have happened 40 years ago. So do we really need this? I don't know. I think it's fair that the town, there seems to be interested in it. And that the voters vote on it. And if it's adopted, the DRB will do what we're asked to do. And on that level, I think, I don't know if we want in this meeting to talk about how these standards work and can they be strengthened or improved or made clearer so that when applications come in, assuming they're adopted. I think that would be a good idea if you guys would take home and take a look at that and then submit maybe some comments back to Cheryl or to JB, Jonathan, whoever, Karen. And then let's take a look at those guys. Take a look at that. Maybe we can tweak what we have and accomplish what we all want. I mean, we're all looking for the best interest in the town for employees, for our boards. And I think with your insight from your boards input, everyone, I think we should hopefully put something together or at least make a decision on what this is really not right for us. Or do I like to do that if we could take, I don't know, a couple of weeks that we need time to learn this and stuff. So if you guys could take the next couple of weeks to make comments and get them to the, let's say, Cheryl. That way they all come back to one central place and then she can dispose them. And that should bring this off from mid-October. We can maybe get together. We don't have to get together as a group again. Or we can, depending on what your feedback is, and I'll talk to everyone what they thought or depending on what the comments are. I thought we can make that decision later. But I think this is a good start and we'll work from there. I want to set a date. Do you want a month from now? Well, a couple of weeks from now. I guess I could. I mean, I just think if we, I mean, I was just going to make a few general comments that this would seem as good an opportunity as any with a lot of folks present. Sure. No, if you're prepared to do it now, I think you should. Just kind of general things. I know, I mean, it's title article six. This would be a standalone ordinance? No. So, I mean, we had an article six now. And so article six would become article seven. OK, or article eight would be better than point seven. OK. So the year 2014 is always the last year. And so they would tie into all the same definitions that are in the ordinance. That would be the plan. OK. Because I noticed there weren't any definitions of things like the subdivision. We talked about what constitutes the year. Well, more like, you've got three new lots. And you've got one parcel. And you create the three 10 acre parcels from 100. Is that four lots? Or is that three lots? Which is a pretty important question. Well, I think there's a definition of sub-division. It's only an ordinance. But I know there's definitions in the rest. But is that one of the definitions that's the plan? Division of any parcel of land for the purposes of conveyance, transfer of ownership, lease, improvement, building, development, or sale, whereby two or more lots, blocks, or parcels, are created. The term sub-division includes resubdivision. And I think does land development include sub-division? Yes. And then I think the language of the proposed sub-division regulations, section 6.1c1a, which results in the creation of a total of three or fewer versus the language that I wrote and read off before on the very top line of the second page of this thing. I think that's pretty clear on that. I don't think that somebody who I respect, and I can't remember who it was. I mean, there's somebody who knows about this stuff. And I said, no, no, no, well, the primary lot is not count as. Well, yeah, we can do this one. But that's not what this is. No, you don't know. I think you'll just correct this. That's how large this paper is. It would be better to spell it out yet more literally, but I don't think it's that. One line is split into three. Have two been created, or have three been created? I think that's not clear. Whatever you want to. Well, I'm not advocating for one. I'm just going to spell it out. Clarity, sure. Clarity, yeah. Now, just along those lines, there are developers that, this is the c1a, the five-year period. And they hold the land, and then every five years, they carve off two lots, maybe lots and two lots. So that's, there's no avoiding that. It's self-development, because you can do it without having to trigger the five years. In conditional use review, what's been somewhat onerous and problematic for some applicants is making sure that all budding property owners get noticed. That's a requirement, conditional use for the applicant. Is that going to be a requirement for a subdivision proposal that every abutter would get notice of the application? Thanks, Ralph. For the developer, would be for it. Yes. Yeah. So that's embedded in the ordinance and would be triggered? Yes. Okay. If it goes through May, if it's a two or three lots on the vision, there is no requirement in there that abutters be done. So they have to put up a post? Exactly. The permit itself, which would put them on notice. Okay. So the permit set before the permit is issued, do they have a comment period or an applicant? After the permit is issued and posted, there is a 15-day basically waiting period for people to... To, okay. So there is no differentiation? Not only if you see it. Okay, you drive by, exactly. Unless it goes to the DRB, in which case butters would all be noted. I thought I heard you say that you would notify them? No. There is no, if it's reviewed administratively, then it's just like any other application, the butters don't get notified, absent the permit being posted and that's their notice. It goes to the board, it will then part of the application. That's after it's been granted that it gets, and then there's a 15-day window. So if you don't live next door, you may never know until you see, until it's happened. If the guy next door, he finds out at what point... He's got 15 days to appeal to the DRB. If he's not notified, it assumes that he's going to notice somehow at some point before the 15-days appeal period. Well, that's really for the planning commission to think about in thinking about how these rules should work. And crafting how it fits into the zoning ordinance. And then maybe if it's merely a subdivision without any land development or site work, maybe it's a prerogative of the honor to be able to do that without notifying all the neighbors. But at some point, at a point if it's going to involve immediate construction of a road to serve both lots, that might justify wanting to let neighbors know or be more active in notifying them, not just the permit. A road would be development. There would be no houses, just the road. I have a question. Once you split it up, say you split one into four, but you don't plan to do anything with it, so you don't have to go through the subdivision regulations. But then in five years you do, but aren't they separate lots at that point? So there is no subdivision regulations? Because they're separate lots? At the time you split them up, you go through this process. Well, that's what I'm saying. You don't build the road. You still have to go through the process even if you're just drawing lines on a map. That's right. We have 180 days. You could say I'm not building any houses. And in year six you have four lots and you just go apply for a single-over resident. That's what I'm saying. What if they all butt the town highway? Yeah, in six years all four of them go to build houses. But then there's separate lots, even though it's technically started as a subdivision. It's amazed me, since being on the board, at least in two instances, people did four or five lot subdivisions like 20, 25 years ago, and they just drew lines on the map. And when the engineer went to try to build one of the houses, they were like, you know, these lots make no sense based on typography and the way. And so they had to come into the board to get an amendment to the original permit. Because they were so paranoid that the rules would change the lot, minimum lot sizes would be increased. So they grandfathered themselves at significant expense. So why did the DCS? Because they had to amend the prior permit. Okay. We had some questions earlier about getting kicked into a major subdivision with the creation of a road and exactly what that meant. Can you talk about that a little bit? You know, Sheryl had brought something up, but see, the road starts for us at the creation of three? Well, no, because it was in C2A. You talked about it. In C2A, it's sort of the elegantly word is it says, and or involves construction of a new road. And because of the or, it basically, if you build a road, it gets it into major. And that was my point. So that clause involves the construction. Is that the subdivision of land involves the construction of a new road? Yes. Or the creation of four lots that involves the construction of the road? It's meant to be the subdivision itself. Which is usually triggered by, you know, having three lots. Sure, but the ambiguity that that creates to me is much more significant than whether or not the original lot is included in the calculation. I think if you were getting that last time, Dan. Yes. This says now, if you want to put in a road, it's a major subdivision. Without any splitter involved. Well, it could be argued differently. Keep it clarified. You know, and road is probably not a good term. It would normally be just a common driveway of some type. I mean, I think you would need to try to define it better. You do. Road serves two lots. I mean, a few lots of water, and a driveway can serve up to two lots. Yes. So a road is defined as serving three or more lots. In half. You're only creating two lots. Even if you put in a road, it's not a road. It's a shared driveway. Yeah. So Dan, I think we also heard that by taking the time to do a better job with your subdivision plan, you end up with a more saleable down the road for the developer. They have something better to work with. So, you know, there's also that value to consider that. And that's a community service in promoting it. So we're still going to answer if someone divides into four and says we're not going to build, and then one of those, you know, and then all four of us. That by itself requires subdivision approval. Okay. But all you're approving. Okay, so these subdivision regulations, if they were passed, it was six or less, correct? So if you're dividing ones that have to go through these subdivision regulations, and they say we're not going to build right now, and you approve their subdivision regulations, or you approve them for subdivision, because all they have is divide, nobody's going to build, there's no storm water, there's no activity. And then in five years, all the ones that subdivide it all come in, there'll be individual lots putting in building permits, correct? Mm-hmm. So they're still... They'll have regulations, man. They're constantly building. But one law has a regulation for all six of us together to have a regulation. If they're sold individually, somebody subdivides the lots and then sells them to individual owners, I think that when that... when those individuals come in for a permit to build, they're going to get one permit for their one house. But you already had the lines drawn on the map when you went for the initial subdivision. Like not the building envelope, but the lot lines. Mm-hmm. So the subdivision only has to do with the lines of length? No. It depends what you're doing at the time that you apply for the subdivision. Okay. You might not even build the road right then, but you would have to at least show where the road would go. Thank you. That's not the answer to my question. Would you ask where's... assuming that this becomes developed, where's your road going to go? It would have to be included on the cycle. Sure. Mm-hmm. But if they're all letting the tunnel road go... Then they don't need it or what? Yeah. Then it's sort of false. I mean if the concern is that that's not very kind of thoughtfully or well planned to do that with the idea that when they build their houses, they're all just going to have, you know, I mean, that sort of falls through the cracks of this kind of regulation. You know, can't... Can't have everything, right? So let's just make sure I understand the concern on A on the top of page two. The major is the subdivision of four or more and what you're concerned about is like if you constructed a road for a three person subdivision, that could trigger the major. What if you just made a road for your sugar bush? Well, I'd say it wasn't an axe. Because it says or construction of a road. To me, that or makes that stand alone. Right, so we took the or out thing that would be clear, at least in this case. Or if you separated those two items. Yeah. So if you own a property and you just want to create a road to access your sugar bush or whatever. That's agriculture. No, it's not a road. There's a definition in the ordinance that JB referred to. And it has to be for traffic that's going to serve three or more lines. So that's the... So you get this one situation of being safe. You've got a 20 acre vacant lot. And you decided, I'm going to create two more parcels. So there's your three lot subdivision. Maybe still accesses off the mountain road or a town road. But in going from one to three, you now have three lots and you're going to have to put a road through. That would kick it to the deer. Otherwise JB could approve three. But in that instance, the three lot subdivision would go to deer B. Because there's a road, so... But if there's road in front, it's the first lot can have a curb cut. And second, the road could service the other two. And then you... Then it's the zone in the next trail. Seems like there's a way around a lot of this just by... Well, so much of it is a function of somebody looking at land and house sites and where the soils perk and where you can drill a well and meet the setbacks. I mean, that's how the process works. You know, this process of, you know, taking a piece of paper and cutting up lots, it just doesn't seem to happen. I think there are always people... You can't. I mean, you just can't have regs that... There are always going to be ways that certain people are going to find a way around. I mean, it used to be to build a road 799 feet and you're not in active 50. If it's 800 feet or longer, you are in active 50. Now, that's not the case. And then there are the people who, you know, develop a network of forest roads that are built like amazing. And we're just logging here until the time comes that they... So the trees are gone now. We're putting in an hour. Yeah. Look at this. Open lots. To get to your example, I mean, one of the things that Karen's brought this up before, when you're doing, like, a subdivision and it happens piecemeal, some of the problems down the road, for example, you may create four lots. Maybe you put in a load, maybe you dump, doesn't matter, but first God, after how many years, decides I'll build that house. Here's my septic. Here's my well. Here's my driveway. The next guy comes in. He bought the lot next door. All of a sudden, your well and your septic is compromising the only place where he can put his well. That's not a challenge. That's an or in the wastewater. But if it's three or less, it doesn't come in until this guy's got a problem, because you could. I mean, you're not equipped to know where it perks, where it's a well as possible, those kinds of things. But the state handles all those permanent apartments. Right. But the subdivision happens five, seven years prior. So if you're a developer or a subdivider and you actually want to sell building lots, that will have places for a septic system and a replacement area and meet the isolation distance for a drilled well. You know, you've got a plan. Can you subdivide your property and not sell it? I mean, you could. Yes. Right. So you could in theory subdivide it and this doesn't come up until parts of it have been developed. In which case, I mean, obviously part of it is probably where. But a lot of it is, you know, what are you preventing from happening in terms of probably a two point fire we were at some point. So I'm still kind of interesting in something that somebody wrote up which was so you have one piece of property. You can put in not a road but a driveway because it doesn't go to multiple houses and it can go all over the place. Then you could subdivide and you have effectively a road going to every property but it's already done. Yeah. Yeah. You're right. I've never done anything that's coming up. Yes. Yeah. You're absolutely right. Like, I mean, one of the issues that makes it difficult to subdivide land is when the subdivision regulations require mapping of wetlands. I don't see any requirement in the application that an applicant would be required to do that. Even though there's... Well, the state has independent regulations but if there are... I mean, if somebody submits an application there's no requirement that they delay them. Not enough. It's like just three things from page six. Just the three requirements. Critical wildlife, water quality, things. I guess water quality, how would we know if they did that? And how would we know if they didn't put out hiring an engineer of our own? What's the requiring that they have it? You know, it would be embedded in the regulation that they would have it reviewed by an ecologist or qualified professional. And that's what happens, like, thinking at 250s, they get the lineage. And then in terms of approving roads, are there... Do we have standards? I mean, with or travel play? Not in the definition today. Not in here. In town. This is mainly discussing drivers. But you get a road permit from the select board. Exactly. And then leave the road permit with a curb access. You know, look at the road or even access. That's all of you. What I have to work with. Yeah. I mean, I think just as a, you know, a board member that might look at applications, if we have to evaluate players... That's the same rank. My wife says, you've got to change that rank. It's so trial. Go ahead, John. No, I mean, I just... You know, if we're supposed to evaluate these things, we need... It's helpful to have some standards to say, okay, your road is, you know, if there's three houses that are going to access this road, the traveled way has to be so wide, the sub base needs to be so deep, you know, I mean... Actually, we review applications for people off town roads, off crossroad roads. You know, and all we say is you've got to keep it open so a fire can... People say, well, we don't care about that, but they may not want it forever. They don't care until they leave the area. And also that would help us because what happens is coming back to us and, hey, can you put, you know, loads of this down or, you know, we need gravel, we need a new culvert, and it eventually falls back on us. And we... So, those are the type of things that we always have said in the past. We should make John put restriction on this if they're going to build a house. They need to maintain, you know... We do that in class four. I mean, we have... Yeah, we don't... Like, you've got to maintain it. And the town's not accepting responsibility. Everly? I mean, I think we made general statements that you have to build a road that a fire truck or emergency vehicle can access all seats. But these guys put standards on what that size really needs to be and such it would be a lot easier. If there's going to be seven houses a little wider than if there's two, or things like that would be helpful. Right, that's one of the reasons that we've learned that subdivision regulations can really integrate. They can take that road reg, reinforce it in one place where it comes up, in a context. So, it seems like a good tool to reinforce from a couple different directions in one place. Quite enough for two UPS traveling in opposite directions 50 miles away. Yeah. Yeah, we first see that once you're very specific there's more and more failure modes you can find. Perfection is the enemy of the good. So, Jimby, when the regulation is put down, like if someone wants to develop on a glass of a road, does anybody go and check it out after it's all done and it's actually done? Is there an enforcement part of this or we just make rules and hope that everybody's going to comply? Well, I have also drafted a certificate of occupancy so the short answer is no. Without this town issuing certificates of occupancy there is no follow-up mechanism unless I took it upon myself to go out there and make sure it was done according to plan. Or somebody complains. Or somebody complains, but with a CO you have somebody attest to the fact that it was built according to plans and usually before I would issue a CO I'd go out to visit a property unless it's a dead person. Don't go out and just check to be sure that they're moving to the snow. No, no, no. They'll go out and it hasn't happened in more town but it's been my experience elsewhere the listeners are usually on it and would tell me if something's not in the midst but again, that's the advantage of having a certificate of occupancy is you have that follow-up enforcement mechanism. Anywhere that's a certificate of occupancy after a year or two if they don't maintain the road then it's back to the way it was and I just think that we have a lot of regulations that nobody enforces so we can make all the regulations we want but nobody enforces life, I got it. John? I'm just agreeing. Alright, so I think we've had John, do you have any more? So I think we've had a good discussion here. I would still like to see you guys take a look through what's being proposed. I know the zoning has but do you have any more instances where you see where language could be improved or there's a little ploughiness in the explanations if you could get that back to Oh, thank you. And we've got 15 people in this room right now who are probably looked at this more than anybody else in town and when this thing goes to a vote in March or whenever now you're expecting well let the voters decide the voters are not deciding so yes. Not one of them can answer any of the questions that were posed and we can't even answer after questions that were posed tonight. So I just find this whole thing is kind of we're doing this as a field. This is an excellent discussion. We're starting someplace the DRB is going to have an experience with this, you're going to have an experience with this and it will be changed and it will be tweaked. It'll get better. You're going to have the DRB look at it, provide comments to the Planning Commission and the sweat board of what suggested either revisions to this or their position on whether it's even needed or awarded. If they want their opinion on whether they can send that as well I'd just like to see more of what they feel of the document itself and how that could be improved or not. I have a pretty good idea of what people are feeling. I think people want to do the best of the town they don't want to impose unnecessary requirements or costs but we need to balance that with how the environment is going forward and so with what you guys put together and you've done a great job and you put a ton of work into it but if you can add what they come up with then we as a board I think can make a decision present this to the town or not and I think I'm sorry to interrupt I just I think it's not really the development review board's place to or at least the way I view it for myself to say whether or not this is something that should be put in place that's what the planning commission does right that's why I said on a second note you could give us an opinion on that or not you don't have to whatever comments you want to provide but more looking at the substance of the document what works what doesn't work and then we can make that decision but I really appreciate getting your input and your expertise on it I think your point of view on this is part of this because like a lot of the laws that we get created by people with no clue what the hell they're making laws about they're just making laws that's what we do and you guys know what works and what doesn't work at least for you and your experience and I'm very interested to hear about that because to me it's like I don't know what this is and I feel very uncomfortable saying alright we're going to have this board of this and then we'll see what happens let me put it another way whatever input you want to provide you will look at thinking about this is hard to do on what we said but something that lays out specific standards and just doesn't talk about generalities to give us both the applicants and then the reviewing board guidance as to what they have to do to get approval what's fair and reasonable that's really helpful as opposed to just generalities that you should consider landscaping and screening and one other thing that I was thinking about is we've been talking about roads in terms of stormwater management and roads become very very important so we should pay attention to that we just got a grant to work on Lynch Hill and the main reason that we chose that for the grant is because stormwater was affecting a class 3 road so we were able to get money to work on a class 4 road because it helped the class 3 road so keep that in mind to them related to that, what about clearing on slopes so anything we need to do to address that you mean develop a model over 30% grade like that I don't know what the appropriate grade would be but anywhere that would cause erosion yes we have so for my memo one of the more important things I find in these subdivision regulations is the reference in the regulations to section 4.15 which was recently adopted a few years ago and slipped into the regulations and that addresses stormwater management and development on steep slopes as far as clearing on slopes clearing in and of itself is not development but very heavy yes so that is my reference in there and right now running the zoning permit I can't use section 4.15 I mean I can provide you know comments to say that but it's not necessarily binding whereas section 4.15 is applicable for conditional use review and if these were to be adopted it would be included in part of the subdivision what about clearing without subdividing there's no yeah just checking with the force there's a lot of accounts asking that question especially as we've been studying stormwater and we've been studying just well also land cover like you know that change over time because there's been a lot of incremental clearing you know that you do add that there's Darren and I both sit on the desk with friends of the man river and it's amazing how much deforestation has occurred over the last 10-15 years alright well thank you again so if you guys, John, Eric, your board Dave everyone can get their comments in the next couple weeks are changes that can help them would it be helpful to have a I know for me dead legs it would be easier to give me the task yeah why don't we do first for us to get for the comments to get to you guys yeah they came in today's mail yeah that gives them a couple of weeks I'm sure those are oh yeah does that work for everyone in general what was that October 1 the first that would tie it in all those comments you mentioned incorporating the zoning regulation I would also be interested in that alright if there aren't any other questions or concerns thank you very much we appreciate everyone thank you