 I'm Bob Warnick, I'm Chair. I'm Matt Gardner, Morse. Welcome, Matt. Is there anybody here seeking party status on the Morse application, the subdivision? Well, if not. It's actually the Gardner. That's right, that's right. And they have to sleep properly too. So let me start then by swearing you in and you. And anybody else? Yeah, Jim, please. Anybody who's given testimony before the sport tonight, can you swear to tell the truth? Tell the truth and manage before the sport tonight? Independently of perjury? I do, I do. I don't see the perjury in the death plate, I wonder where that came from. That's an expression. Yeah, I'm sorry. News penalties. There's a couple orders. So, why don't we start by you telling us what you want to accomplish here. We have, let's say, new standards. We're going to probably go through them just to make sure that we haven't missed anything, but if you give us an overview, it'll be very helpful. I'll just give you a little history. My parents back in 1999 looked at subdividing the property and they actually had it surveyed and divided into three lots. And then they found out that they could build a second house without subdividing. So they brought the subdividing application after they already filed the map. So anyways, when they went to build a, they got a building permit for building a second house out on this third lot, and they actually put the septic system in. And it's a, you know, four bedroom house, you know, so it's a pretty big septic system out there. And it seems to the gardener family that it'd be a shame to, you know, somebody who wants the house and need a septic system out on the third field. And my mother actually planted some raspberries and some other things out there. And it seems like it'd be a nice building site for a young family, for, you know, the Hamilton family. So what we'd like to do is we're not dividing into three lots because now there's a septic system of the main house in the second lot and it just seems like we're too crowded and stuff. And so we would like to separate out that existing septic system from the main parcel here. And so that leaves 1.3 acres out there. So that's what we're hoping to accomplish is to subdivide the house and the septic system from the another existing septic system out on that third lot. All right, so the third lot is just the septic system. There's no house. The two houses would be on the other lot. No, they have a building permit and then they, for reasons that they never revealed to any of the children, they never built the house. Oh, okay. So there's only one. My younger brother says, my dad didn't want to give up his shop in the main house, but I don't know. They could have built a garage out of it at a place. So I don't know. I really don't know what, why they'd never, because none of us wanted a smaller house. Obviously Alice gets a new play and so it was a big house. So I fed them. So I was like, but they never, and they actually extended the building permit for a year while they thought about it and they ended up never building a new house after the septic system. So yeah, there is just the one house and barn here and there's a septic system out there and then there's a septic system out there. So that septic system is shown on the drawing by Townsend. That septic system is actually for the main house? This one here? Yeah. Yes. Okay. I was confused because it shows a line between the new property. I wasn't sure what that line was. Which line are you referring to? Oh, that's for the easement because it has to be 100 feet and the property line goes across there. So, you know, whoever gets this, there's going to have to be an easement so they can't do anything in that area because it will be within 100 feet. Oh, I see. 75 feet or whatever it is in that septic system. So that's just a line. You're giving a radius of distance from that septic system where the easement would have to be. No dimension shown or anything like that. I'm pretty sure it's 75 feet. So that's what that line is. There's pretty clear that the septic system that's already been built for this slot is right on the lot. Right. That's based on work by Fred White. That's right. I just saw him last night. For you. Okay. Questions by the members of the board? I'm just outlining the boundary of the new lot. He brought his highlighters so he won't use it. And you have thought about any further subdivision of this property? No. It was just for a two lot subdivision at this time. Where would the utility proposal for an access to Group 12 where that would be? No, that's the Ares Road. Oh, Ares Road. I'm sorry. Yeah. Group 12 actually looks around. Yeah, it's right here. This is where there's had been a fire at this point. That's right. Yeah. It's been a nice job rebuilding. Thank you. Okay. So yes, this is the area. Yeah. So the driveway. The driveway by Fred White actually shows the approximate house location and it sets this other drawing and shows the access. Do you have the access permit from the site board? No. But this is really just a subdivision for the subdivision. Correct. Correct. When you go to put the home in, somebody will have to get it. We actually, under the new subdivision regulations, we actually talked about that. And why don't we do that? I'll just sort of run through them. The front page 363, which is the subdivision standards. And if it's not applicable, let's just say it's not applicable. This is obviously a pretty modest event. The capacity of community facilities and utilities, and this refers to schools, police, fire, water, anything else like that. Tom, you didn't ask this. I did. I asked Chief Wolfe. I asked Tim. Tim had no issue with the Tim Davis road foreman. Chief Wolfe didn't have an issue. And I believe Chief Dufresne sent me a note too that he had no issue with it either. Questions? So I'm going to run through these because there's a bunch of them. Suitability of the land. A couple of sub-criteria here, but one question that is under this criteria, which is land subject to flooding. Now I know lower portions of this property is subject to flooding. But this is well above that. That's correct. How much of the flood is flooded? Just this section right out here isn't very close to the river. That's right. And it's more of this part of this part here that gets flooded across there. I meant to go look and see how much flooding there was. I didn't bother. Actually, I didn't look up into the field at all. Design and configuration of partial boundaries. I don't think there's anything here that's necessarily relevant. Board members, a chance to look through these criteria just to say they're neutral or so, right? Yeah. This refers to access and stuff like that. Right. Values and arterial streets. Yep. Yeah. It's a small subdivision, obviously. Yeah. Yeah. Lot dimensions. This talks about minimizing the number of lots of fringe on more than one road, which is not relevant. Minimum standards and zoning regulations don't meet those standards. For Hamlet. This is the Hamlet District, which we've never had a Hamlet before. Well, right. We've had a Hamlet. We used to sit down at the district. Yeah, I don't see anything there. No. Building in below. And that is shown on the drawing. Yeah. And basically it's using the streams as the boundaries for that. Is that Northbrook, so-called? Is that Run year-round? Yep. It does. So both of them do, right? Yeah. Interesting. I think in the summertime, that one that's further south there is pretty, pretty well. It's always pretty well. And the next criteria is design and layout necessary improvements. This talks about, and it really anticipates, you know, multiple plots and so forth. It's not really relevant. Street lights, street trees. I don't think that's really relevant. Okay. Pedestrian bicycle facilities, sidewalks, walkways. That's sort of, again, multi-lot subdivision type. Water and wastewater. It's going to be on-site water and on-site wastewater. Is it well-built or just no wastewater? I do have a question. I know that, so does that, is there any issue with the system because of how long ago it was designed? Or is that, Grandpa, how does that work? It permits in 1999. I'm guessing it's permitted and stays on. So it's on, because it's already been constructed. It's been constructed, yeah. So I'm just curious if there was like a limit to how long? No. Well, I was going to say the size of it and stuff, I don't think they've changed in the last 20 years. They have, in the last 20 years. And they have changed since 1999. Yeah. Yeah. Not for the change of problem they had, but they have changed since 1999. Anybody think the size of the tank? You know, 1,000 gallons is good. Yeah. You have a primary field, you have a replacement field. Right. The best I can tell, it's still current. Yeah. Did you ask for it when you saw it? I didn't ask him that question. And it's been built. If you didn't, if you got the permit, you wouldn't build it. That's what I'm saying. Yeah. You might have to say that. You might have to update it. Yeah. I'm pretty confident you're in good shape there. Firefighting facilities? Just before we move on. You may just determine, you know, what size bedroom home can go on this septic system. And because that's what really predicates these today, I don't know what they did in 1999, the size of these things. Right. So, when you go to market it, I would, personally, I would have that in hand and say, look, you can build an X amount bedroom home on this property. What's the line for a full bedroom house? I would just get a copy of that permit. It's just, that's what I'm saying. Didn't you include the part of the permit? I think so. I thought I had the copy of the permit. Yeah, there was something in that. Yeah. Somehow I managed to lose it. Yes. There it is. There's no permit. There's only one page. Two pages. Yeah. It was good to know that. I'm not going to take the time to look it out, but I believe it's limited to 600 gallons of sewage per day. I don't know what the current design standards are. That's about two bedrooms. Two people per bedroom at 70 gallons a person. Because, yeah, if the house hasn't been built, would they limit it to the size of the septic now because the house hasn't been built, right? Yeah. Even on the septic is the permit. Correct. The building permit will be issued for house. It's based on design. Yeah. Correct. Yeah. That's why. Yeah. So when it comes back to the zoning administrator for a building permit. That question doesn't need to be answered. Yeah, so. Public and private utilities. Not relevant. No. Landscaping. I'll say it's again not applicable. You've got to figure out my landscaping there now. Right. Yeah. And, uh, rose control and there are provisions in these regulations that will need to be adhered to. It's too many difficult data. This is a relatively level. I'm just saying it's a lot. At least the top of the site where the septic tank is and the outside is level. No, the whole, the, that, this particular subdivision is pretty level. It slopes a little bit down towards the river. Yeah. But it's pretty level. Okay. And it's up a little bit in this corner. And then it's, there's a gradient here. For the septic system that it slopes down a little bit. But it's pretty flat. I keep thinking behind the primary house where it really drops down. Right. Yeah. That's right. That's where we have the walkout basement. The, uh, rose control, stormwater management. Again, it's just for a single, you know, single family. There's obviously requirements for monuments in the corner, lock corner markers. I failed to mention this. We're reviewing this for final plan review tonight. Yeah. We've already had a sketch plan approval under this bylaws with Tom. You have a letter to that effect. What's this next one? Construction. That means the necessary improvements. That's applicable. Yeah. That's right. That's applicable. I carry it to the area and settlement patterns. I don't say it's consistent with rose. And soil preservation. Apricot mustopilin and topsoil removed. And this will pertain to any permit. Yeah. It's part of the ordinance. So, um, there's more. Which is a separate section of procedure. And this talks about final plan review. And we're on four, um, four, 15. And more specifically your right one for 18, because that's the final plan review. And, um, and in here, of course, it says that, um, there's a reference to, uh, figure 405. I'm not finding the time. What's the reference to the 405? I don't see it. I don't see anything there. It's on page four dash 20. Well, I know that's where that 405, that they figure 405 is. Oh, that's where 405 is. Whereas the reference that says it must, must meet all applicable standards of 405. There, I've got it. 44 or over 6D on page 19. The government review word must issue a red decision that includes findings of fact that address each of the applicable criteria and figure 405. And this is something we're wrestling with. And we just went through a whole bunch of criteria and here's more criteria in a different order. But wait, this is for preliminary. And we don't do preliminary if it's a minor or do it. I mean. Yes, uh, 40406. How does that apply? Does it apply? Because this, this is under, um. Yeah, it is under. Well, again, I have, I would have to reread this. On our old subdivision regulations, we had it applied with all the provisions of preliminary, all the preliminary plans, review criteria, just to get to final. So it was presumed to be required. And I reviewed those with the applicants surveyor. These criteria? Yes. We came up with this map based on. Yeah. Well, who thought it was that? I don't think they're right on that. Really? Who would have said on that? Yeah. Oh, wait a minute. You were right there with me. Yeah. I was disagreeing when I was agreeing. You may recall the, um. I don't see anything here that we haven't covered. That's, that's relevant. All right. With anybody disagree? So it says an action from minor subdivision approval may skip the preliminary approval process and submit a final plan for review and approval by the DRB. Of course, the provisions of this chapter. That's what they've done. So, I mean, yes, it's, I think the standards still have to be. But that would, the assumption is that they, that's been done. Again, with a minor, just a lot of them are not applicable. Not applicable, yeah. That's right. That's what I'm asking. Yeah. Okay. That makes sense. Okay. So the only question I really has been answered, which is what is that? Septic tank, septic system on the middle of the field. And that belongs to the original house. Right. And what's the easement? So that's clear. Were there any of these months that we're not aware of like utility easements? No. Across the property? No. I couldn't remember where the power lines were. I don't know. They're actually on the other side of here. I don't know. Yeah. You can see it. It holds there. Yeah. I knew they'd move over somewhere. The road there. Yeah. Okay. It moves highly right away. Right. Yeah. Okay. Have I missed anything? I think you have. Page 2.4. I was hoping you didn't read that. I know. I never did read it. This is the four. We actually have to find on that? Well, I think we need to get some direction to the applicant here and what we would look for in a final plat. I believe what this, how I interpret it, is this plat will have on it two lots and I think each lot will have a notation that it can only be further subdivided by X and Y. And I think we need to determine what X and Y is and I think the simple solution is just take the minimum lot size and afford this district and calculate that out to this. They'll never achieve that amount of density unless there's public sewer coming through there, but who knows. I think it's also on the flood plain and stuff too. Yep. So this is our first trial run here on this one. Did you bring your calculator? Yeah, it's easy enough to do from that standpoint. I thought this was something that didn't get applied now. You look at it when somebody goes back at subsequent time. During the discussions of the planning commission, I clearly remember that any time there was a subdivision there would be a note on the plat referencing that lot one has X amount more capacity and lot two, in this case, has additional capacity. So the 2006C on page in the subparagraph three says it must be shown on subdivision flats widely required by section 4408 and documented zoning permits and development rules. So it's not like there has to be some kind of a calculation. Yeah. Yeah, because we were trying to account for the subdivision and then the subdivision and then the subdivision. Yes. So have you done this with the calculations? No, I think it's 16,000 square feet. It's easy enough to do. So when we just put it in approval of a subdivision, when we just docus it says zoning permit and development approvals. So would we put that in the findings and then the... Yeah, but I just want to make sure we all agree that that's the methodology that we're going to use here is that just take the gross remaining area divide by the minimum lot size and I think it's 16,000 square feet in here. That comes up with a value of how many lots can be further made in any one of these particular lots. Go check to also leave some area around the septic system. I think that's that... That would be the maximum. And I don't think we're trying to protect future use or technologies and things like that. Right. And all changes. But it would be on both walls. Correct. Yeah. I think that would be what we would have to do, yes. Based on that sentence right there. What was the purpose of that? Just to give people warning that... Well, because remember we... In the previous subdivision regulations there was no timeframe or no... And no... Doesn't that also have to do with that as far as what further capability there is of subdivision? That's... And if somebody during a... During this hearing said that this one point... Half of this is going to be put into conservation then you make a note on that plat that X amount of acres has been put into conservation so therefore you only have a Y amount of further... The problem I have with all of this is if the bylaws were to change between now and the future day... I get it. Allowing for a much higher density or a much lower density. It would seem to be that this would be a futile exercise which would be superseded by future regulations. Unless you argued that because you had done the calculation and put it on the plat, you was grandfathered in and you were entitled therefore to use that density and the future would have changed. Conversely, if you had public sewer down there in the future day, you could do all of this easily. Yes. Not likely. And for what it's worth this really came from the constituency and not from the planning mission. These were individuals, two in particular, one in particular that was pretty adamant on this provision. Well, I'm sure you don't object because it's going to be a number that you'll never achieve. Right. And what the problem I have with it is it's a number that's not going to be achievable because of other constraints, as you point out, septic system locations, floodplain, there's all kinds of things that really include probably much more than one more law. Well, then in the findings at war, at least we could make a statement that this is seen as maximum based on current regulations. So keep in mind this is only applicable if there's a residential density in the district and not all districts have a residential density. So it's like the Hamlet, it's the town center, it's not in all districts. Okay, thank you. I forgot about that. But it is in Hamlet. Yes. What does that say? It says it right at the top of the, the first part of that. Okay, got it right here. I'm just highlighting stuff that I always got to remember. Because we took out a lot of the residential densities. Yeah, and in fact we could even say that this is not, this is not a statement of approval for that. Right. This is simply a calculation. In accordance with this section we're, we're calculating. And that's it. Not that we're approving the use for it. And I know we're digressing here a little bit, but I think we're going to have a little bit of a discussion at the planning mission. At one time was taking in steep slopes and, and wetlands and all that stuff. And there was going to do a calculation on what's billable, it's not billable. So that's all gone now. So this may be just some of the, the residual from all that conversation as well. Because you, you know, when we do this division, I mean a lot of your, your proposing. There's no way for three, even with public sewer and public water, you couldn't do it. No, no. You don't want us to buffer around the streams and stuff. You could, because it's based on dwelling units. Dwelling units, yes. Ah, yeah, I'm so curious. Okay, okay. Put a free story in there. We're telling them to go lose them up there. Just trying to anticipate growth. I would have to take the time to read this more thoroughly. I don't understand it. I think it tries to get at the issue of density, not necessarily lot size. Sure. Just how dense the foundation will be. That's a particular lot. But I think lot size drives density here. Well, as you pointed out, it could be a multi-family. Yes. Twelve or so. Okay. Yeah, I think like that. So, so we need to sit down and do this math. Yep. You want to do this math now, or you want to do it later? I think we do it before the. Yeah, I do think it needs to be couched on. Referencing these regulations and. Referencing that section. And the other strings. So I can not understand the other strings. Right. Okay. Wonderful. I'd rather not read that. No. No. No stone messenger here, Bob. I know, I know. Well, you warned me about it, but it's already. I did warn you about that. I warned you all about this. Remember, we'll find things that we need to tweak. Yes. Yeah, I. Mark, this is tweakable. Well, I think. Although it sounds like. I think it's. Since there's a big advocate for this particular one. Huge advocate. Who is that, Bob? What's he doing? He's an engineer. What does he know? All right. Okay, so are we anymore? Is there any other comments? Questions for the second. I was actually going to make a motion. Tom, do you have any more surprises? No, I didn't. I would have. Okay. I moved to close the hearing. Second. Motion made. Second. To close this hearing. We're discussing that motion. We'll submit that motion. We'll proceed by saying aye. Aye. Opposed. This hearing is closed. We will issue our findings. With certain math calculations. Thank you very much. Okay. That brings us to Mr. Bond. Judging by your support. You've been having fun for a while. Yes. I'm on a first name basis with the state of mind. Michael, I've faced all your communications and dealing have been with D-tramps. Is that right? Yes. Is that right? Yes. Yeah. Would you say the state of Vermont? Yes. That could be a whole bunch of other things. Yeah, yeah, yeah. That's a general term. Yeah. Yeah. Sure. I don't recognize this gentleman. Are you interested in this application at all? Yes. I live next door. You live next door? Yeah. Are you seeking party status on this application? Party status means you may have something in questions. You may have some comments you might want to enter into the record. Yes. If you want those to have any standing in a possible appeal, you should request party status. And you should be sure to make your issues known here tonight so that if for some reason you disagree with the decision of the board, you could appeal it. Yeah. I'll seek party status. Your name, please. Eric Berkholder. Eric. And you put down your name and address and all that information on the sign-in sheet. I put my name and phone number down. You can give us an address, too. Okay. Can you just clarify that the application is for an amendment so that all we're reviewing... Why? But it's for an amendment. Without the amendment, he hasn't got a permit. Call from the state. Yeah, well, the state, yeah. Okay, because I was just going to say, because we're just reviewing the wall. State never approved. Okay. Never approved, never granted him an access permit based on our previous application. Okay. Am I correct about that, Jim? No, the way I understand it is the town here approved the application and it had to go before the state because it's on the state highway. And so the state reviewed everything that the town did and also what they wanted to deal with issues such as the railroad, such as the actual construction process, so on. So you have a letter of intent, but it's based on conditions which were not previously approved by the board. Yes, the one thing that was not approved by the board is the law. More than that. There's a number of things. I can clarify this. So on his original application for his building, Jim had an LOI and had this entrance constructed. He got that and then about a month or two months later he came back with the original application for putting the office building in here. Good, bad, or indifferent. We assume that that LOI that he got two months ago was still good and valid for this. After we, after we, after the, after you guys issued for this office building, the state had a concern over this, this access. And so Jim was coming back for this retaining wall and he, he was talking to VTrans at that, that point. You remember he pulled this application. He went back to VTrans to get the LOI for this and then to clean that up. That, that's where we're at right now. The, if I might enter this deep, the original approval was for a residential. It was for the mobile home and the 40 foot wide access was granted from the state, that one right there. And it was for residential. So once I applied for the building, the 24 by 70 multi-purpose building, we don't know what it's going to be used for at this point. But once I applied for that, it was determined by myself and future buyers that that is going to be a commercial operation. And that's why we were required to remove the mobile home because once you get the commercial operation there can't be residential and commercial on the same parcel the way I understand it. So the state said that we have to change that access to a commercial. So they've reviewed everything in that aspect with this here. And they've, right here on the front page, that's the first thing that they talk about on the state's permit is the fact that they are granting a commercial access. And then in the special conditions, they go over the construction of the retaining wall with the railroad and also the building and that it would be done according to proper procedures, especially with traffic coming in and off the very motorway road. That's the way I understand it. Is that right, John? Yes. Yeah. So this really is an amendment. But the ability for this person to be a party I don't see how that any bearing on it. Well, the reason I'm not saying he can't be a party, I'm asking for clarification on what he's a party to. If he's a party to just the retaining wall and cannot appeal the original permit or if that's, I just think he should have that clarification. I'm not, and now that you've, whatever you just said, I'm confused because I'm not sure what he can appeal. I think he needs this approval from this board to have a commercial building here. He has approval from us for residential based on the original LOI. No. We have the building too though. Originally I had a permit for residential but the permit from here from the town, this from here. For commercial, I would say. Is for commercial. Yeah, correct. So I've got a permit from the town for the commercial. But you don't have it from the state. Yes, now I have it from the state. I have them from both. The only reason I'm coming back is because the state has approved the retaining wall and your original commercial approval on this one right here didn't have the retaining wall on it. That's my take as well. So there's nothing inconsistent in the state's access permit which is conflicts with the permit that we issued to you for the commercial building. No, they make you change this access at all or do they just... No, just the way it was written. Well, yeah, they did. The building has moved. The building has changed its size. Just numerating the changes in this drawing. The building has changed its size. So it's a different building than the one we approved. The stormwater management provisions have been required. Those are new. You enumerate them in your own application here. The number of changes that have been required by the state. Am I correct? Well, I've indicated all the changes on the actual plot plan. The drawing, yes. And all of those aren't necessarily changes. What they're doing is they're just additions. Example, they wanted me to know where the snow storage area was going to be. I realize... Yeah, that wasn't a change. That's just an addition. So you're right. Half of them are probably changes and half of them are additions. But the change in the building size is different. It's less than... That's right. It's different. Okay. And the axis... So it's still like... This individual has requested party status. I'm saying he can have party... I'm just questioning what's appealable. Okay. That's all. I mean, that's the only reason I'm making this point. I'm not questioning that you have the right to have party status. I think I would want to be clear on what I was actually a party to because I'm not sure that it's to the original approval. But I think maybe that's the question for the court. I don't know. You're correct me wrong and maybe we'll take somebody else to do that. But if we don't approve these changes, he doesn't have a LOI. Without an LOI, he hasn't got a project. Well, in fact, the state in... I know, but I'm just saying our approval... I don't know. I think that if we don't approve the retaining wall, he still has a project because he has approval from us for commercial building. The reason he did this retaining wall is to try to get some extra room back here, right? So he could say he doesn't need that extra room and not do the retaining wall. He could pull this application right now and he would have a permit from the town of Berlin. He has a permit from the town of Berlin, but it's inconsistent with the terms of the transportation. The site plan we approved is not the site plan that the V-transit approved. I agree with you, but... This may be immaterial. But the last thing I'll say is, if he pulled this application and he comes back tomorrow and says, Tom, I want to make this building two foot shorter. I can do that as an administrator. I was going to say, making the building smaller doesn't require us. Adding stone water management doesn't require us, I don't think. That's arguable. I'm just part of this is my own thinking this through. What would you actually be able to... It's worth knowing. I don't need to dismiss it. I think, yeah, it's where we're going. I certainly would like to hear what the buddy probably wants to say. No, and he definitely... Party status is not a question. So, does anybody object to receiving party status? And you will provide... I do need an e-mail address for it, yeah. You need a motion to... Party status? Because it meets the criteria of the party status. Okay, so the way we're going to proceed is the board will get to chat with the applicant first, but before I leave the subject, I'll come back to you so we have any issues or questions with regard to what we're talking about. So, Jim, we've sort of half covered it already, but why don't you tell us why we're here? Debating why we're here. Why are we here? Yes. Okay, I'm probably repeating myself, so I'll try to be brief, but originally I had access and a permit for residential, and then we decided to get rid of the residential aspect of it and put up a building that somebody could use commercially. And so, obviously, that status had to be approved by the town, and at that time I came before the town and the town issued the permit for the building. I was all set with this, and I went to the state, and they reviewed it thoroughly, and in fact, they reviewed it four times, and I met with state officials down on the lot. I met with railroad officials down there. The state and the railroad got together, and anyway, they've decided that this is a doable project. They're happy to have it on there. They've approved this. The way Nate Covey put it, he said, we agree with the town, we're approving the building. We have just added some changes to the site plan and maybe added some small minor things. The reason they put it in an LOI is because they don't want to turn around and give me full permission without me coming back to the town and making sure that the town agrees with some of the changes and additions to the site plan and the permit in general. They want to make sure you guys agree, and that makes sense. I mean, all of a sudden I come to you guys and I start construction and you say, well, we didn't even get a chance to review this, so we maybe don't agree with on that. So this is actually, the reason it's a draft is they're waiting for you to approve their permit, and he said, if they change a lot of things, then you're going to have to go back through the process again through the state. If they have, this is the way he worded it to me, he says, if they have some minor changes, like Tom says that he can approve those, it can be personally done by Nate, and he'll just change a couple small things on their permit to agree with the town. But ultimately they want both permits to be coincide and agree, so to answer your question, I'm back here for you to approve this permit, which would also include the site plan. Which has been really for retaining wall and the stormwater structure. Yes. Yeah. So what I did is I took your drawing and this drawing and went through them thoroughly and found every little change on there, and I simply numbered the changes. I started up in the upper left hand corner and I went clockwise the best I could around the drawing, and I made notes of exactly if a person looks at the drawing. They made you put the stationing for the railroad on there. Exactly. Now that's not a... I surprised you. There's no stationing for the Route 302. Where's the station for Route 302? What station? You missed something. What station? When you allowed to design a road, you would do it in 100 foot increments a second. So basically every station, 2300 plus 15, 2300 plus 25, that's how far you are down the road. 271, 280. Yeah. See, now you approved the plot plan that doesn't have the stationing on it, so you could turn around and say, listen, I don't want stationing on there. I just want to know what you did to get them so angry to make you do this kind of crap. And so what I'm willing to do right now is go, and I don't think it's going to take us very long, just go right down through the numbers so that we're all looking at the same blueprint. And you should have two prints. Yeah, I have one question for you. Side by side. Why are you doing the wall? The wall slopes in. It doesn't have the soil there to give an appropriate distance from the building where it'd be level. I mean, I don't want the property to go out six feet from the building and then slope down to the tracks. Whereas if I put a wall in there and the drain inch and the fabric and everything, and then I can go out to the wall and then it gives a proper, a steady width down the back of the building because that's the proper way to do it. I mean, because you could have just had that slope gradually down. I mean, that's the way it is now. If I had to go back, you know what? I'd probably say, I should have never asked for that wall. No, that would have been my assumption. So I didn't know if I could get myself in trouble. You have something planned for that area. I mean, so you created a level area between the building and the railroad right away, but for what purpose? And now it's taken up by stormwater structure. Well, the stormwater structure is actually at a lower level. Yeah, and it's beyond the end of the building. So you could do this without the wall. Depending on the client in there, if there was like three offices, a person could drive down the back. Clearly it makes it a nicer sight, but it's an expensive addition. Yeah. I thought there was maybe some other subtle reason I didn't appreciate here. Okay, we're starting planning criteria. You've addressed all the criteria, of course. We appreciate that. The, I guess let me stop there first. Does anybody have a question? Well, I feel it's a question of the process. I understand the situation where you are, which is to say you've got a permit from one party, which is the town, and you've got some conditions that your transportation agency says they want to see in order for you to get access to the highway, and now you're trying to reconcile the two together. I think in some ways that that's, it's not our job to try to reconcile the state permit with our permit. It's really your job to say, if you can make these changes on this plan, then it will, I'm comfortable or I feel confident that it will be okay with the town, with the state. So you reconcile those differences by just obviously addressing something. But we can't, you said to us, for us to approve the LOI permit. Well, we can't approve, that's their permit. It's the state permit. I don't think we have to approve that permit. And it's just, it's, I know it's difficult because you've got two different groups, which is, you know, and you're trying to reconcile the two together so you can go forward with the project. In fact, our permit is conditioned upon his getting an LOI. Right. Well, not the LOI, actually getting the permit. That's just a lot of intent to issue a permit. Right. Okay. All of these subject to conditions. Yes. Whatever permit we issue, whether it's the previous one or this one, it's always predicated upon receiving approval from the state for access. Right. Yep. In this case, the state really has two separate entities. It's the state highway and it's the state railroad, which is complicated because it isn't the state railroad anymore. It's sort of the Washington County railroad, which is, you know. And then, and so I think part of it sounds like is that some of these nuances, let's call it, to the plan to satisfy the state, you can sign off on those yourself. We don't need to bother with those. That's just a question of, fine, can you sign off? It's great. Done. So we should focus on those issues that you couldn't sign off on that are non-starters for the state and then we'll try to address those particular ones. And Josh, to me, that's retaining law and the stormwater structure. Yeah. So in that sense, we don't have to go point by point by point by point through all of these. We can just focus on those that need our attention. Which is why I asked the one sort of question I asked, which is why the wall. Yeah. Because, you know, he's got a fair amount of investment in this. He's got a structural engineer. Oh, no. It's expensive. True. And so there's a whole bunch of things. But may I suggest this? No, we've sort of, we're getting not ahead of ourselves. We want to go through the criteria and we want to look at what's germane. I agree with you, Jeff. Josh, we don't want to necessarily review why the stationing for the railroad although I've got to ask why. What does that mean? Stationing. It's just indicating where you are on the railroad track relative to the railroad. Just the numbers. Those numbers. Those station numbers. Oh. I'm sorry. Apologize. And correct me if I'm wrong, railroad stationing is different than highly stationing. Yes, it is. Because the curves are not done on a curvilinear basis. They're done on a tangent basis. So it, it just, Oh, there's a piece of trivia. Yeah, really. So they use the, they use the cord instead of the circles. That's amazing. They do that. Wow. They do. I thought you were quite that excited. Yeah, that's, what is your concern and what is your issue, sir? Just, I don't really like people going in and out at night with a dozen donuts. It's pretty bad right now. And it's, there's more people driving in and out at night. It would be hard for me to sleep and whatnot. So, I'm just concerned about that. So you're concerned about the hours of the day? Yeah. I'm just here to really find out what's happening. I don't want to interfere with this. Where is your residence? Is it residence? It's across the street. Over here? Yeah. Right here? 602. Street. This map doesn't show. It's very, it's right across the street from the new potential development here. Here's Erickson Bertholder. Yeah. And now, yeah. So, is it? Yeah. There's another house that just went out that has, that they're working on. Oh, that's next. Yeah. My property. So you're, are you off Evergreen Drive? No. I'm, I'm on 602. 602. 602. 302. Yeah. 602. 302. Yeah. His house address is 602. Oh, 602. It's on 302. Okay. Okay. So when we get to that, you certainly need to speak up to the issue. We're not particularly approving any particular use here. We're just approving a commercial use. And as, as everybody here is well-defined, I mean, use has already been previously approved. And we're, we're, we're approving changes to a site plan. Yeah. That's, I, you know, I didn't know that. I just got the letter, so I just showed that. Yeah. At some future date, some person will, and it won't probably be Jim, some person will purchase this from Jim, or lease it from Jim, and propose a use at this place. At that point in time is where I think your interest comes really in. Yeah. What is this going to be? This is going to be a 24-7 thing, or is it going to be a, a 9-5. Right. And, and this is going to be a lot of traffic, or it's going to be very little traffic. And he's not applying for any of those things at this point in time. He's applying for a commercial building to be constructed for the site to be, used to be determined at a future date. But it's, it's good to raise your concerns. Yeah. Yeah. So, let's go through the criteria if we can, and determine which are applicable, recognizing that we're only really talking about, and I have one other general question. You, you have someone on there, I think we determined there was no substantial change. We didn't ask you to calculate the amount of, additional impervious area, but I think we recognized you were turning a lot of the impervious area to green area, and that you were not necessarily adding a lot of impervious area. Yeah. The state apparently took the issue with that, decided you need the storm water management, is that correct? Well, I think that's, I think that's a general policy by the state. They, anything on a commercial highway like that, they want to know about the storm water. They want to know where it's going, where it's coming from, and where it's going, and that's the way I understand it. They said, we got to have those answers. Well, it's because you're actually discharging to the railroad problem. That's right. That's the issue. That could be. That's what it is. Okay. So, of course, just parenthetically, when you approved this permit before, it was under an old subdivision and regulations. Okay. So, parking and loading areas. I'm on page 320. There's a set of standards, and that's what we're doing, set by review, not conditionals. And, and you're, you're right. We're looking at this under a new set of regulations, but he's not, we're putting a new set of regulations. We're putting a new set of regulations. We're putting a new set of regulations. We're putting a new set of regulations. We're putting a new set of regulations, but he's not proposing, he's not proposing a change. I suggest that really, it's only the changes that would be some new regulations. Right. Was that fair? Yeah. Okay. So, any change in parking and loading? No. Any change in the amount of parking? No, I don't believe so. No, I think, I mean, we've got both drawings. So, we can certainly confirm that, but, by knowledge, no. Yeah. I would, I'd give a written testimony to a lot of this, Jim. Yeah. We've got a lot of it, but a lot of it says, it would go with the respect that I've read it, it says approved or see above, you know. It doesn't really answer, it doesn't really answer the issues. We've done a good job, but I just, you know, there's a few of these I would go through here. Besides, there's a learning experience. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And the learning experience, we have to prove very quickly. We, again, we're talking about loading areas, shared, off-site parking. And again, there's no changes from what you proposed previously. Access is changed, but is there actually a conventional change? I don't believe so. Are there conventional changes in the access? No, it's the same. Okay. So it's just that, it's the use that's changed. Yes. In their mind. Setback, does he mean all setback requirements? Yes. Do you need to move the ordinance? It does, yeah. We even talked about the new ordinance, unlike the old ordinance, allows DRV consideration of waivers on commercial properties. So we even talked about moving this thing back 12 and a half feet and, you know, getting him more space. But Jim Watt did not to do that. But in the end, I would like to discuss that. Not necessary now. And I don't want to change it at this point. But I would like to be able to say to a client that, because like Tom says, you have the 25 foot setback in the back. And if a buyer doesn't need that 25 feet and he only needs 20, then instead of a 24 by 70 building, he could move the building back towards the railroad tracks another four feet. And he would end up with a 28 by 70 and he'd still fall within that 12 and a half feet. And also... Well, you still have to meet the waiver standard. So requirements. It's not a gimmie. Yeah, yeah. No, no. I realized you'd have to go through the process and it may not be approved. Oh, yeah. I understand that totally. The... I'm sort of going through page 22 right now. She was applicable. And you've regressed them like the parking aisle. And so none of that has changed. And again, all of that is the same. The... The main standards, layout. What was the drainage? I am confused about drainage. Where is the drainage on this... Only because I can't remember. Where's the drainage on this cycle? You have this new retention facility. Yeah, it drains north to south. So that would be from the lump payer end towards the berry end. And from the middle of the building, it would drain east towards 302, go towards Duncan Donuts, and then end up in the detention pond. And then from there, it would go down to the ditch along the railroad tracks and through the pipe. Anything from like the middle of the building and on the backside of the building would simply drain towards the tracks. So about half the light block will go through this retention facility, is there? Well, it's actually... See, the state has such a large right-of-way. So if you don't include the state property, then you're right. It would be half of what I own. But then the state owns about the same width between me and the 302. So if you add that on, then all of a sudden it's three-quarters of it on the front side. It goes towards the detention pond. And the calculation of the previous area, do you include the state-owned property? Yes. Oh, yeah, that had to be... Rob's got those calculations on the back. And I say that... I mean, I could be wrong, but to my knowledge, that had to be included. So if you look at that section, it says, the amount of wind strongly encourages the applicant to use green stormwater infrastructure practices to filter and infiltrate stormwater. And then if you go to page 3349, you know, I'm treating this with respect to the previous application too. There's all this language about stormwater management plan. So if there's a total amount of impervious service on the lot, it exceeds 50% of the lot area. And it must exceed 50% in this parcel, right? Most of it is impervious. It must have been a stormwater management plan prepared by licensed professional engineer demonstrating the green stormwater infrastructure practices designed in accordance with the current Vermont stormwater manual will be used to manage at least one inch of rainfall for the new impervious subjects. Services on the lots of the post-development rate of runoff flowing off the site does not exceed the pre-development rate. Is that complied with all? Well, without seeing the actual calculation, some reason here, I mean, he's converting an awful lot of paved area, what is currently paved area, impervious area, to grass. And so... That's already been done. There's no paved area down there. No, it's all... But what was there before your last application didn't include premise area, did not? There was no pavement, even on the initial one with the residential, there was no paved area. Because you took it out and... No, there was never any there. Never any there? No. But when they put the sewer, that's what that pavement got taken out, no? That lots never had pavement. Okay, plugged in. No, if it did, it was before my talk. Never. So... So if the applicant must obtain a state stormwater discharge permit, Towne Brown will consider obtaining that permit to be evidence that the applicant was also not the standard permit for this section. You're not applying for a stormwater discharge permit from the state of Vermont. So then it says this applies to any increase in the previous service, this section. What you might recall is the pad and under the mobile home was a concrete pad, and that was taken out. Yeah. That's the only hard surface that was there. Okay. I seem to recall that there was a fair amount of hard surface between the edge of the pavement and the property itself. And I say hard surface, it was... I mean pavement, I mean gravel. Yeah. It wasn't grass. Right. Yeah. Yeah, that's what I'm recalling. Yeah. The state has asked you to provide the stormwater retention. Right, they wanted calculations so that they could go over it themselves, and they've been over those calculations. He has provided us with stormwater management. Right, right, right. Yeah, it's a stormwater management that was suggested to him by three plans. I mean, yeah, so... I'm just trying to figure out what the ability to do. Part of their, the state's permit here, the whole permit, they've stamped each page on the bottom, and this is stormwater here. And so their stormwater people have gone over that. So it's based on the impermeable area increase. They use the Q10, the 10-year storm, about. Which would increase at 1,614 cubic feet of water. And then they calculate the volume necessary for the basin. Ah, okay. So there's actually a 10-year border. Again, is this germane? Because we're only talking about impervious surface now of that retaining wall. I think that's the new... That's the point, Kevin. Yeah, it's... Yeah. Yeah, I don't think we can probably do that. I'm comfortable with that. So going through all these questions, I think we're going from the perspective of those two items. Really, well, except for the stormwater retention structure, it is a part of the change. And so the question is, why and what is it accomplishing? And if the calculation suggests what it's time to accomplish is exactly what the manual requires, which is the first inch of runoff in a 10-year event. Okay. Okay. And that would be a green structure, right? Well, I have a little problem with that. Some people have an idea that green structures is non-structural. This is a basin. It's got an outflow. But it's also... Just an overflow. There's no pipe, right? Right, just an overflow. Just an overflow. So it just holds water and allows it to percolate into the ground and... It's pervious. So that's, I think, a definition of a green structure. I think it is. It is. I have a problem with some of that because... No, I get it. Because I get to a point where it's pervious until it becomes impervious. I'll silver it, yeah. So I've lost where I was. 322 loading access. We'll pass this here. We're asking a road user to drain this. And I just want to be certain, because you don't show the drain's pattern on the drawing. So what's missing from this application is where is all the water going? You've correctly identified. Yeah. Certainly all the half of it. That's going... The whole parking lot is where is that going? I would say 80, 90% of the parking lot is going on the front side of the building between the building and 302 into the basin. And then, like I say, the other 10% would go on the backside of the building. Next criteria, snow storage. And you've identified where snow storage is going to be. That's one of the changes. But it's not a change. It's just... An additional note. It just... Which is next section. Access and circulation. Previously developed sites. Access and circulation. Yeah. Yeah, okay. It's all about circulation. Access and circulation. There's 204 landscaping on the street. Screening. There's no change to that. 205 outdoor lighting. I'm trying to figure out what it would be to wall under. Well, landscaping is a former. It's a former landscaping. You're using engineered stones? No. Blocks? Blocks. Keyed into each other? Yeah. The 10-foot height, that's just the maximum height. Is it considerably less than that? No, I mean... I could... I mean, I can go higher, but that's all I need is 10 feet. Yeah. Well, I'm pleased to see you had it analyzed because you see it around 10 feet and I start thinking to myself, let's know what they're doing before you build a 10-foot-high wall and expect it to stay there. Yeah. Hell, I get queasy around 5-foot walls. Yeah. Retaining walls, sir. How many times do you see private residences that they put in retaining walls in there? They're leaving. Yeah. 3205 is all the landscaping, is it not? You're not changing your lighting? No. No. There's a whole page, page 348, full page of erosion control practices. That's part of the instruction, like, you know, so... Oh, wait, are you putting in there a wall or not? Isn't there a section on walls? 3-0-0-1. On walls? On walls. Shouldn't we be living with that? That sounds smart. Retaining walls. There's a section on retaining walls? Yeah. I know we had something specific to retaining walls. It takes very long. 3-1? 3-0-1. Okay. Some defenses. It says, African must design retaining walls as follows. All retaining walls over 6 feet in height must be designed by a registered professional engineer or a licensed architect. Yeah. All retaining walls more than 6 feet in height will require conditional use approval. Somebody missed that. Dance. Sony Administrator? They would require what now? Conditional use approval. This was born for site plan approval, not conditional use approval. There are a few additional criteria, few more criteria under conditional use approval than there are under site plan approval. The height of retaining wall must be nothing about the aesthetics of it though. No. Not to retain walls. Just just as they would rather see you step them in. It's certainly true if you're getting 12 foot or more, you really need to be thinking of stepping them. So under retaining, under criteria 3-0-0-1-E, he would appear to be meeting all the criteria. But we'll have to have to schedule it again for conditional use. I guess the reason for that is if you're building a retaining wall and you have an immediate neighbor here and you have a railroad, the railroad is not going to play it if I don't retain a wall. In fact, they wanted it. They approved it. They approved it. The state is the one that wants it. I don't think that anybody else is going to be concerned about you. It has been designed. So going back to site plan review criteria then, a lot of these are not applicable way. Roads, pedestrian bike facilities, water and wastewater. Again, no changes. There's really no change in anything except for the additional wall and the stormwater and the reduction in the size of the building. Yeah. Under 3-0-10 stormwater management we have to do that. Conditional use don't apply either. What? I was going to go find them. Where are they? Are there additional standards? 3-51. Character of the area. Character of the area. Now the additional permit did not contemplate going back to the party. The original permit did not include any time invitation to do it. We have a two-year permit and with a one-year extension. No, but I meant time at operating hours. Operating hours. I'd have to have the original permit. Yeah, I'd go over here. Didn't that relate to the use? Thanks, sir. Yeah. There are very few restrictions on time of day on 3-0-2 in this zone. The lighting, was this lighting approved for any time of day either? Again, you're not proposing changes to lighting, you're not proposing changes to the days of operation, because I don't think you would even consider it. I think the issue that you might have, sir, would be when a different use is proposed for the site. The problem with that is that if it's a permitted use that's your notification. Dunkin' Donuts 24 hours today? They're told at 10 p.m. and then they have deliveries around midnight. Someone shows up around midnight and drops off donuts. It was suggested in the original permit at 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. Oh. That's the original permit? What's your other question, lighting? Lighting. We're trying to reduce lights being on all night. It's somewhat hard to do because security is important. So the original permit completed 7 a.m. 7 a.m. 7 a.m. 7 a.m. 7 a.m. 7 a.m. 7 a.m. It's not like a drive through. Yeah, definitely. It's a lot more traffic. Or a bank. A bank. You know, a drive through bank. And he drives through. That would be regular hours. Yeah. Well, unless you guys came in at one time. I see no changes over the wall and everything here I don't think so, I thought the two things, and again, my mind's eye, reducing the size of the building is something that can be done administratively as well. He is proposing a safe defense on top of the wall, is that correct? Yeah, but like I mentioned earlier, in the very end, I would like to just throw this out at a couple of questions that I had, so you let me know when you're ready. Ready. Ready. I'd like to just hand these out, and of course now, I'm not going to be able to find them. That's all your stuff, right? Did you, you had, you brought a, something my office left with there. Oh. No. This one? Oh yeah, okay, there it is. Thank you for taking care of me talking here. Now, this is pretty basic, but because I'll let you hand those out if you want, you can just rip them right off. Oh, and I just want to top each other? Yeah. You'll notice the original, if you look at the plot plan, the original building is up at that point, the 50 photo. This drawing is simply, I've darkened in the building and I've actually moved it back away, or towards the railroad tracks, and you look at the note over at the right, it says seven feet, which, and originally the setback on the back side is 25. So, if that building moves back seven feet, now the setback is only 18. Now, I realize this is all, it's a variance. I don't know if this is the type of place. If you're speculating on whether or not we would approve something else that's inappropriate because we really had to be warned. Yeah, yeah, no, okay, no, that's fine. Plus, I'm going to look at the waiver criteria because there has to be... Yeah. No, that's fine. We can talk about it. Yeah, we can talk about it. Did you have a question? No. Can you ask us about what if, you know... I'm just indicating that because these are all new, that it looks like, see, originally, I needed the 25 feet, but now it's possible that I could come in and request a waiver. We need to sit down and talk about it. Yeah, I'll sit down with Tom. I'm fine with that. Carl was right. You need to look at the actual criteria themselves. The criteria presumes that you can't build a structure otherwise. There has to be some limitation on the site. That would require the variance. It's not a waiver. So, look at that. If you want to do that, we'll want it and we'll hear it. Okay, but we don't want to speculate now. It won't be myself that's doing that. I'll probably have a purchase and sales agreement and it'll be subject to, they're going to maybe want to go back and move it back or something like that. So, we'll work it out. Yeah. We'll work it out. Do you have any other questions on this on the board? Is there a minister? Not on this, but I do want to talk before you go and deliver a session about the whole thing that I need some introduction on. Okay. I want to ask the... Oh, yeah. Did you have anything for the comments you wanted to make? No, sir. I appreciate you being here. Tom, I'll move to close the meeting. Second. Motion to be made. And second to close the hearing. Discussion there, motion. All those in favor of that motion, please say goodbye by saying aye. Aye. The hearing is closed. The testimony is closed. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Yes, guys. We have one more item of business tonight. That's the second item I want to talk to you about. Okay. And that is the minutes of our last meeting. So, I had one thing. I didn't sign the vote. So, the minutes say, the planning commission and the plan is to get a town vote on the ballot for their own regulations when the town vote is on the school budget in April. At that time, it was an upcoming vote. We were going to miss the April one. So, I just proposed that you say in an upcoming school budget vote. Thank you. Did we say April then? No, we didn't. Because we didn't, we know it wouldn't make the April. April. This is another business, right? Yeah. They may miss you. Carla, there's some stuff I brought there that pertains to horses over behind you. Oh, oh. Thank you. You have to go see her sometimes. Yeah, yeah. I definitely want to look it over and throw it in the circular file. Okay. Thank you very much, Jim. If you don't mind. But some of it's interesting. I'm sure it is. I'm reading a lot. So, were you proposing for change? Just at the end of the sentence, it says, when the town votes on an upcoming school budget vote. I changed it to the plan to get a town vote on the ballot and some regulations in and of the school budget vote. Yeah. Excellent. Any other comments on that? I can't remember what I am. I can't recall either. What? I can't recall either. I think I made one. But I just, you know, go back to that. What I do is share my comments. I just don't share them with everybody because it's being inappropriate. And with changes to all those moves. Thank you. We have a public meeting. All right. But you can send out the changes as long as we don't discuss them. Great. Yeah. Just don't copy all. No. You can send it to all of us as long as we don't have a conversation. That way we're aware of what you're going to propose. Don't you think? I think it's just if there's that in court. I was advised you couldn't make changes to minutes. Unless it was a public meeting. Well, it's not making changes. It's proposing. Proposing. Changes that you. Yeah. But what's Bob saying is if you're doing that, don't copy everybody. Just send it to him. But what I'm saying is, I don't think there's any reason. I mean, Josh can correct me if I'm wrong. I don't think there's any reason we can't see it as long as we're not going back and forth and going, no, don't do that. Yes, I agree with that. As long as we're not conversing about it, we can't all read it. I don't think that way when we're here, we've seen what you're proposing. And then we discuss it if you see an issue with it. But that would be my take. I'm pretty sure I got this from Paul Gillies. I know you're not supposed to have email conversations. Right. Which is very different from sharing a version of something and reading it on our own and then coming together to discuss it. But however you want to do it, it's fine. You're talking about the March 5th meeting, right? March 19th. March 19th. Okay. That's why I'm going to talk about these. We approve the March 5th meeting. Yeah. Yeah, you're right. The only change that there was a spelling. Okay, then. No, I had no comments. All right? You're okay on top of that. So do I have a motion to approve the minutes as amended? I agree with that. We've heard the minutes as amended. Then I'll second that. And discussion? All those who take that motion please stand by by saying aye. Aye. And we approve the minutes. So I had a call from a concerned constituent. You may recall that in our prior zoning regulations, there was no residential lighting standards. But now in these regulations, there are residential lighting standards. The main thing is that residential lights should be fully down shield. So the neighbor, an individual called me and says that they had a neighbor that has a spotlight pointing on their property. And I said, well, how long has the light been there? It's been over 15 years as something that's grandfather. He couldn't speculate on that, but he speculated that the light was turned from a 45 to a 90 at his house. His house is like 300 feet away. And believes that that would be a violation of this ordinance. And my take is that if it's not a brand new light, that they just changed the angle of the light, it's not. But I said, I don't know. I'll talk to this board and get some guidance from you folks on this and see what's the best way to proceed. I said, I'll gladly call the neighbor and see if they all, you know. Has the neighbor ever talked to his neighbor? I think there's a little bit of bad. Yes. There's a little bit of bad blood, I believe. I think we've heard about this before. It was a street lamp before, but now it's a floodlight. I don't think that this applies, but that's my take. Maybe if you guys could read it over the next couple of days and just get back to me, I'll just... Okay. Again, it looks pretty existing light. I don't see how. And very frankly, I'll be honest, even if it wasn't a pretty existing light, it's just going to be one of those night mirrors for his running administrator after a vision of violence. I sympathize. I do, too. There are more people that have spotlights shining in the wrong place. Well, if it's being done purposely, then it could be constituted a nuisance. That's a different thing. And I think that's what he's contending. Yeah. But then there's a civil remedy for that. Again, I think it's out of the purview of the zoning industry. Yeah. They're up with the police department. Yeah. I'll get back to them, but just take a week or so. Does our zoning by-law caught on plate that a individual wants to install light at their residence? Do they have to come and get a permit? There are exempt permits if it's under a certain amount of lumens, but it still has to be a fully-downshift. That's a requirement. How do you know that the requirement's being met or not being met if there's no application process? If I can play it? Yeah. But again, what I will do as conditions of any new residential permits, all constructions, I will put this as a condition. So it's, you know... Yeah, I mean, I think that's pretty why we added this, because we've heard about this at least in plan. Yeah. The worst one, I'm going to go out of my head, is you drive down and cross down road toward my place, just as you join Route 12. There's a house on the right that's got two spotlights. It's shining right. So it looks like a fire coming at you. Well, if you're coming down, it looks like a car, but if you're driving there, you're literally blind. It's right at the road. Wow. It's their safety hazard. Yeah. So the other thing I want to mention is that the Planning Commission had a public hearing on some changes to these zoning regulations. They have, the Planning Commission has agreed to do forward them to the Select Board. The Select Board has advertised the public hearing. So since it's advertised, now we're operating under two sets of regulations. They're minor changes. Don't talk to us about that. They're minor changes. All they are is just some frontage issues. I doubt if they're going to come into play here, but I'll send you those changes so you can sort out that. Too bad you couldn't have board heard us. We have three regulations. Then we could have had a majority of priority reports. That's all I have, Mr. Chairman. Oh, God. I was coming before this board before we go into a little recession. All right. We're done for the night. Thank you very much.