 I'd like to welcome everyone to the meeting this evening. I believe there's one person online that Sharon, you need their name for. M.K., if you could identify yourself and take yourself off mute. We have a Jill Harvey and an M.K. Yeah, hi. This is Mukesh Kumar. Thank you, sir. We just need to get your name down for the record. Yeah, thank you. So, at this point, we have a number of items on the agenda, but let me note a couple amendments. Number one, or first amendment is that the consent agenda item has been removed. We've added a boundary line, a boundary adjustment between Linda LeClerc, Dilton and Sandra Jarvis at 11 LeMore Road with a preliminary, and that's the amendments for this evening. In the audience tonight, make sure you've signed in, please, so we have your name on the record. And also, at this point, I'd like to ask anyone who's going to be offering comment, either online or from the room, from the audience. If you could please stand at home, I'll take your word for it. But if you could, do you swear that any testimony you present this evening will be truthful to the best of your abilities? I do. Thank you. I do. Thank you. So the first item we have on our agenda is public comments. This is an opportunity for anyone in the public to offer commentary to the Planning Commission for items that are not on our agenda. So this is, if anyone has it in the audience, has a question. Oh, we also, before I get going into that, in the audience, we try to keep track of the participants, but if you need to say something during the public comment sections of the applications, please raise your hand using the reaction, the hand reaction underneath, the raise hand option underneath reactions on the bottom of your Zoom screen. If you don't have that, make sure you raise your hand or speak when we ask for folks who want to talk. So once again, does anyone want to offer commentary, comments to the Planning Commission for items that are not on our agenda? The first item that we're hearing this evening is a Site Plan Amendment public hearing. This is Peter Edelman doing business as Essex Resort Holdings. So as we move forward in this, staff, would you like to give us the rundown on the application and on your report? Sure. So as you noted, the center is sort of the frontline between two parcels that are under the same ownership. There was all the footage that was in use so also, you know, like a room that could be rent out. That has actually been rumored from the application. So I think that'll be get off that. Initially, it was a part of it and it actually, it didn't meet the setback. This is on the site work. There's an extension of the pond that is already in the front of the parcel. There are some changes to access and drives and parking. There's actually a very little additional parking that's added and that's addressed in the stock. I think one of the main things with the access and entrance and exit, sort of different access points that is being consolidated more into one stock to sort of actually kind of simplify that. So the background is a parcel over time, a lot of development. And so most recently, in 2018, there was something that was most recent since then. And as far as compliance with the zoning, the dimensional requirements and the use and town plan compliance, all are fine. So, you know, assuming that cottages are removed, there's some requirements to find if there's any development that takes place at the resort that are undertaken. And so that's a condition. Some questions about that. A small addition, maybe this cottage comes back in a different spot. What a whole track it doesn't need to be done for that. Maybe not. So maybe the condition could read a little different ways just to say that it may be required so we can kind of massage that a little bit here. Suppliesing or parking require to get the total number of spaces. However, there's an area that is really underutilized for parking so they don't believe they need the extra parking. There's a section in the zoning regulation that does allow for flexibility for parking. Like to encourage, staff would like to encourage the Planning Commission to not require the additional parking. They're providing seven spots, but not a whole lot more than they could be. So, yeah, 108 spots in excess they think are considering right now. So to me it doesn't make a lot of sense to add that extra spot for providing landscaping and screening and usage calculations, which actually will need to be revised in the staff notes in cottages removed so that the total numbers would be reduced. So we've got the stormwater. Public Works has some comments on that but no real concerns as long as they're also essentially but then there's also a question about a stormwater fire chief on some of his questions and there are a few maybe to be worked at but the fire chief doesn't have any hesitation of going forward with the project as long as he's got the opportunity to continue to work with the applicant and they'll be accountable to his suggestions. So the boundary adjustment is the other thing and it's kind of a different boundary adjustment. We're not really moving along as I guess we are just taking away a line. So there's no issues about conformity with lot size or a potential additional finding by the Planning Commission that's on line 374, I believe that you could add something in there about that there was a cottage proposed but it was removed as a part of this application. And to mention of the cottage in other parts and just not all be a pardoned proposal plans should be amended to remove the cottage if you want in the first condition and then in condition for figure out some other language that's considering if there's a small development that comes forward that maybe wouldn't be attractive I agree to that. However you can leave it as is and can work with public works on that. The traffic study generally is if there's no additional I would almost look at that as if there's no additional parking needs and the traffic would be expected at that time so it almost if the use comes in and drives additional parking that's what came to the screen. Just to have the overview questions for staff. In 327 the recent studies that indicate that the 2017 months a stormwater manual lacks on design guidance for gravel wetlands and something about that the wetland soil composition being approved by the state is shown to be reaching phosphorus in the system. Public Works recommends that the applicants engineer consider these recommendations when selecting a soil material for the gravel wetland. So I don't know is that something that's been addressed I guess. I think we have that as a I'm sorry I'm trying to On page 10, 327. Is it condition? Oh it is oh okay. Other than that. I'm looking for the summary. I'm going to ask Marshall to first. Oh sure. Catherine said a part of it is also closing the exit portion. We also going to extend access loop. So the road is 26 feet wide. We're also going to extend that median to just facilitate two way traffic a little bit better extending the curve was on the site or 24 feet. More space for the building. We have essentially right in front of our canopy existing. We also have a small parking area. Service access road and seven additional parking spaces including one handicap. Stormwater. Sheet flows to catch basins and grass swales. Use native soils instead of the wetland phosphorus. I was also going to be some direct connections to the catch basins from roof drains. I'll go straight to the stormwater system. Part of the proposal also as Catherine mentioned is reshaping the existing human constructed pond and also extending it. So we're going to be impacting the edge retaining it and then extending it essentially along the length of the building. We're also going to provide some landscaping on the other side of the extended pond to kind of screen our stormwater system. Make a discretion based condition there depending on size and impact. There was some new attendees online. So any folks that were online probably started. I'm going to ask, do you swear that any testimony you present this evening will truthful to the best of your abilities? I do. I like it. Thank you. And I do have just a couple names. Can if I could have a last name. It's cast K-I-E-S-T. Thank you. At this stage I would take a motion to open and move real quick. Second. Anybody would like to ask a question of the commission or ask a question of this application? Please raise your hand. Let me see. I'll recognize you. Direct your questions to the board and then we'll pull in staff or applicant as appropriate as needed. Should we? Go ahead. Okay, very well. Thank you. Hi, my name is Chrissy Gilliam. I live at 18 Freeman Woods in Unit 4. A couple of questions I just had or maybe wonders is living on Freeman Woods now that the road is getting really torn up with the amount of traffic that is coming through there, the larger vehicles coming into and out of the inn. I think it's just a road that was never made for that much weight. So there are every year there's quite a few pop-ups especially after the winter. So wondering about any thought around beefing up that road to support all the traffic coming in and out. I know for us we have the 17 units at the end of the road and then between the 55 plus the memory care and the nursing care that's there as well. And then just thinking about the service side of the building for those that are residents there. I know we see the service side if you will of the Essex and you've done some great work there along the fence line and things like that but just wondering about what the service side of the building, and I heard about the screening of plants and things like that but it would be nice to give some thought to what that might look like for the residents in that area. And the other one was, and I talked with the town about this, they said that their hands are tied on it, but a stop sign possibly on the service entrance. There are a lot of people that do use that, whether it's people that work at the inn or guests there and they often don't even stop. There's been several times that many of us at the end of that street have either had to come to a quick stop or been almost tibbled by people coming out of that road. The town had said that it's not their property so they won't put a stop sign there but it might just be a nice gesture to have that there to give people a pause before coming out onto Friedman Woods. Okay. Thank you. Is that road, town road? That's a town road so the condition goes to public works. Any feedback from Erin on the condition or degradation of overtime? It wouldn't come up as a part of this review. And I agree, but I question it is Friedman Woods is the town road but is she talking about coming off your private walk? She originally was talking about Friedman Woods the quality of the road currently and then she had a question about having a stop sign, I believe next to the new building? Where the existing in between the parking lot that is the 55 plus and the residence. Yeah, so it's that access road that's always being used but that again, I don't know if that's the town said it's not their so if it's coming out of that building that's not the town road. So there's a, you're talking about where Catherine's pointing at the crosswalk right now? Yes. She's talking about coming out of there. Okay, so we keep talking about that. You know, looking at the building, I'm not sure what the service side of the building would be considered on this because it looks like it's fit. The service side will be the Friedman Woods facing the side and it'll look just like this I'm sorry. So, Yeah, speed limit I would have to talk to the town about, right? Speed limit? Oh yeah, in the condition of the road actually. Does anyone else have any questions on this application? Thoughts on this? So I guess I do have a question given that that service entrance on this application. I would say no. But it's on private stock size. I thought that I saw you say that it was right. It could be depending on where you put it. Okay, so with the putting it right on Friedman Woods that's a town that's coming off the private condition. And I would say that it could be a condition that you would put because cars will be parking over there possibly walking out of that entrance that's the intent that they would. So would you be adverse to putting a stop sign there similar to what we did over by the bank? I don't know. Maybe just the look of the stop sign might want to adapt something so it's not, if he was out of the town right away, I think he could do something somewhat creative. Still in the right away or it's closer to the condition that the stop sign is acquired and that public works is probably going to say you buy it and put it on your side but if that's not the best place for it I don't know is there an appropriate location compared to a crosswalk should it be on one side of the crosswalk or another? Yeah, we have a sidewalk. What's the typical public works spec when you have a private road intersecting the stop sign or you need one? I believe there is a certain axle of the creativity of how it looks might have to be discussed with public works as well. This has been asked in the past, I don't know if it was from a conversation in the past years with public works and the answer was a stop sign at least at that time it was not, they were not going to put one. So let's just make it a condition of this if you're amenable to that let's just make it a condition of this that you put a stop sign on that service road as an exit on the freeway towards and if you want to have a discussion with public works or to work with public works about feasibility placement. Legitimate it is an exit from the property and it is not just a service exit I can definitely see people just falling out at it and plus a lot of people bike and stuff it's a safety issue it's a safety, a lot of people bike and walk and through there so commissioners what other questions do we have at this point? You're good Dave John you're good Patty I'm good So one more time to the audience does anyone have any questions I'm looking online I don't see any hands raised I don't hear anybody saying anything that I'll take a motion to close the public hearing so moved I'll second moved by John seconded by Patty all those in favor Motion carries 4-0 I'm closed Sorry Vernon I'm trying to I didn't want to disappoint you I'll second you Do you So one question for the commission on kicking off of a study would you be amenable rather than just a flat out could we say something like anything that adds more than vehicle trip ends would trigger a traffic study or pick a number of vehicle trip ends not make it just an open the town could say significant change of use significant change of parking requirements or trip ends just list some of the options may require a traffic study addition in there if we already have something in the regs that says that if 10 VTEs are added it automatically triggers a traffic study Condition if the development takes place they're going to have to come back before you for a site plan and even if it's administrative I'll be checking the public reports on that So if they feel like traffic studies needed they're going to say it's more about giving them a headstock that could be coming your way depending on your food So that could be put in the strike it That's where I'm at I think you're sleeping on that I think I'm ready So I'm going to move we approve the site plan amendment for Peter Edelman doing businesses S6 resort holdings proposing to dissolve the 0.65 acre boundary line with lands owned by your West retail partners and develop a 9,000 square foot resort event center for the property located at 70 S6 way in the mix unit development next subzone tax map 93 parcel one staff report with the following changes So rather than just give you guys carte blanche I'm just going to go through them just so everyone's on the same page So line 28 we're going to strike in small cottage line 33 34 we're going to strike the requirement not met is the front setback strike that for the sentence line 49 50 we're going to strike the sentence that says as part of this proposal one bed cottage is also proposed near the event center lines 162 to 168 all referring to cottage we're going to strike those 162 162 to 168 proposed one bed cottage is located within the required strike for that whole paragraph Can I jump in with just one change too so the table the minimum part setback which should be changed from 38 to 90 I'll take that 9 we're going to strike C one bed cottage at 140 gallons per day change the total to 560 gallons per day for the 296 we're going to strike the sentence that says fees will be calculated separately for the sentence so that is that's enough finding and that's quote I'm sorry I was that's public works those are their comments I think it's okay we don't have to quote them for a beta so we're not changing their words we're just striking what's in here so I think it's okay to take that out so can you tell me what is the answer striking the sentence that starts fees will be calculated separately for the event size so it's 294 to 296 starting at 301 we're going to take out the one bedroom cottage water and sewer fees commission findings we're just going to note this is new language at the start of the presentation the application staff made the commission aware that the applicant has withdrawn the request to construct the cottage as it did not meet the current zoning setback requirements commission has requested that staff review references to the cottage for the staff report condition for we're going to strike we're requesting a stop sign I've got a new condition for that but just a finding because we don't usually have a finding yeah so what do you want that the same just that the PC recognizes the safety concerns and requiring a stop sign and a service road as it exits onto Freeman Woods recognize safety concerns as the service road exits on the Freeman Woods and agrees the stop sign is warranted condition I guess it will be new doesn't matter let your public works determine the best location and placement for the applicant to install a stop sign service entrance on so the stop sign is going to be the end of the service road probably the original so mine will have you'll figure it out mine will have to I always stand there lightly those are always going to be out so you're going to get just the shoe you get the next one oh next time next time on the agenda boundary adjustment between Linda Leclerc and Dilton and Sandra Jarvis disciplinary and final public so so the applicant is proposing a plan unit development residential on 20 that's 103.5 acres 7 acres that would be covered by this development which needs about 99 acres of open space it was aimed to even give that land to the town we're also proposing a boundary adjustment with the Jarvis parcel which is up in the front over here an additional buffer area in between the Jarvis parcel for some storm water so this is a part of a larger master plan so there's been quite a bit of development over time on this parcel and we're mirroring the end of what can be built and I think the applicant can talk to that a little bit more so you could see this master plan come back at some point with a little bit more development an additional residential into the preservation of natural and scenic features there is a wetland on the parcel and that is back further off of where this plan is showing as part of the open space land that would be preserved which is great so street trees there's another issue not much of an issue but there's a suggestion to make a change in the type of street trees that are being proposed and potentially also moving one of the street trees from within the cul-de-sac just so it is not a way or not on top of the sewer line that's being proposed street that's being proposed would be a new public street named Kodiak Lane potentially and the street itself does meet the requirements public works does have a couple comments related to traffic and the geometry of the road suggestion, reduction in the fee that work it had to be to the bridge that's a good thing that we're working with the town so the open space there's a proposed footpath that's shown on the plans and it actually doesn't show on this one but it goes all the way back I think before my time on the planning commission I think this was here for sketch plan there was discussion about that and was that really feasible would it be used is it safe to be used to understand the plans I think the applicant would like to talk about that a little bit more tonight maybe it doesn't need to be required would it ever really hook up and if it is something the planning commission would like do we there's no real connection for it now so would we actually need the easement could it be something in the future that the town reserves would like to get easement depends on how you feel about this and what you feel like it's best for this area the plan shows a connection along there but I think it's more along the surf as opposed to up on top of the bridge where it is the applicant's proposing private water and wastewater systems and public works has some comments about that and as long as the applicant agrees to these conditions that public works has stated that the system should work and we think it should work with it as excuse me, along with the stormwater management as long as these conditions are boundary adjustment we need solve dimensional requirements so there's nothing to know with the issues there and I think that's it nice explanation it's a unit feed system there's a pre-treatment unit for replacing some the Japanese lilacs I think this is mainly for clearing road easement we just want to point out that there is an existing wastewater easement for the Jarvis parcel excuse me, that right way you're talking about is for the gens for the bridge and the realignment of gentist and limo pedestrian easement we're kind of put to rest and we weren't going to have it and then it talks as if it's never going to be built on so yeah, that's the path can't see them great from there but there's some pink flagging that's the approximate property line so our easement currently on the plan that line is the property so that line and 20 feet to the left as it's pedestrian easement it sounds like it's going to be almost negligible just because we're working with them for the first CEO so we would just like to have that attitude condition 12 they kind of summed it all up it's almost negligible Questions for applicant who strike the wave since this is a PUD I think instead of WAVE I think we should acknowledge the term the punishment accepts as part of the PUD recommendation to enable PUDs that are supposed to be used and I'll see it as a waiver it's basically due to it's a PUD I mean we got I think we have to start recognizing and acknowledging what the PUD is providing not just that we're waiving the requirements because we're not, we're trying to use PUD as it's as it's intended, it's not a waiver and if we can pull it from there just to say that it's an acknowledgement of it's just let's start being doing this waiver trying to use it it might help us when we're trying to evaluate these when they're coming in we have no questions for staff or applicant at this point I would take a motion to open the public hearing that was motion carries 40 public hearing is open so as with the last application if anyone wants to offer commentary or ask questions raise your hands either in the room or virtually on Zoom man in the back, go left yes please I'm Brittany Crescetti my name is Chelsea Crescetti I also reside at 19 Discovery Road we really respect the right of to do what they please with their property we have our property however it's not even listed on the chart here but we do have a number of questions and concerns with the plan you know we're not opposed to change but we have noticed certain degradation of the natural resources as development has accelerated we also have had certain past agreements approved by this body in the past that we feel our understanding is that they're a little bit completely ignored my sister will go through some of our questions excuse our nativity and some of our concerns yeah so I have a few and then some points underneath them one of them being the land in open space so from the May sketch plan that was approved the lines 3 435 to 440 were removed in this final plan which kind of discussed the issue so you know you got the 4.7 acre lot down here and then the open space up there there's just no connectivity between the two so it's confusing to me how one that's being allowed to be used as calculation of the PUD and then what is the actual benefit of having that open space if you would not be able to actually access it and as I mentioned it's a 40 to 70 foot cliff or whatever it might be to get up there which is as it is currently nearly impossible so then one of the questions I also have is there's multiple findings listed out in this plan there are nowhere to be found in any of the documents that are available online plans so some of them list these are the findings that allow for this to happen but they're not available to us to see what those were 10 per single one so finding reference 3B7 for open space 4C3 for the footprint lots 3G, 2G, 3E so those are all references to our zoning and subdivision regs okay so whenever you see a reference like that it's referencing our regulations that are labeling language that basically is what staff and the applicant use to determine what they can on the rental units being versus footprint lots in the May 2020 sketch plan approval we're using saying this is substantially the same as the approved sketch plan I would argue that changing it from rental to footprint lots is not substantially the same in the May 2020 meeting everything was referenced as a rental unit and that was the original sketch approval that is referenced in this final plan in the May 2020 sketch plan approval it still references the rental units and no mention of footprint lots at least five times it mentions the rentals and then in lines 404 to 423 this is other rental units and why does not meet regulations for footprint lots and then on line 418 it goes on to explain that it is impossible to meet these requirements to be able to be sold as footprint lots so we have questions as to why we are now we're not waving it but allowing that to be utilized when over the last ten years it's been as approved as rental units and it just goes on to say how it doesn't meet the setback or multiple other requirements in there and then I have multiple questions on the master plan as well since that's being looked at in conjunction with this as Chelsea mentioned on the table on page 3 that is inaccurate and incomplete there's multiple errors on that so within here on line 91 to 94 I'd like it to be noted that during that 2013 meeting it was approved that the private road of Leclerc Woods would only be allowed to be utilized by three houses as that goes over my property and that is furlily discussed in the August minutes in multiple references there also like it to be stipulated that access to the open space would not be able to utilize Leclerc Woods as obviously that would be more than three houses using that and then there is one reference to the Leclerc Woods private drive being able to be utilized by four houses and I would like that to be corrected to be we also question if this has been reviewed or permitted under Act 250 and if not why that would not fall under that and then on the master plan as well recently there was approval to add an antenna or something tower up there it's not listed on the master plan sketch drawing at all and I believe there is a requirement for step back and I think it's least land so I feel like that should be also we can start with those what else we got do you have more to go let's put it all out it doesn't work well to do no I think that is do you have any other ones those are our questions thank you that obviously is the question that we are still working on this extensive discussion in the May remember also or realize that sketch plan that was done is a sketch plan that is one phase and things can change between sketch and preliminary they can be dropped they can be added so even if something was approved and I've been here for most of the plans submissions and none of them to date have met requirements so even at sketch plan there was serious concern either from public works or from the planning commission and I think the applicant is well aware and what they brought forward today or for this meeting is a significant change in what they have before whether it's rental or footprint lot that's not so relevant the layout of the public works has been a key a key component of the drive and the access which has been the primary limiter up to this point to I think the initial the initial request had a hammerhead terminus and a hammerhead turner this is a reduced unit where the public works is behind it so recognize that a lot of the concerns are based on this lot Catherine do you have anything come to mind for responses at this stage so Mr. Reminder to that it's a master plan for the whole parcel not just this portion here at the PD so the open space is accessible to turn that over to the town for more conservation purposes not necessarily for public access or for recreation it's not really well suited for that but I think there's some trees there that are worth considering I'm just looking at where we're submitted for review or from the master plan as it exists there are no changes to the master plan as proposed in this application so that more or less takes the master plan off on the table tonight amendments specifically put towards it so just for clarity that's helpful zoning exemption that because I think I know that you have to have 10 units active 50 requirement is 10 units or not units or division of actual land units so it's either units or lots but it's not a combination of the two so you don't add units and lots it's not 10 foot per month and 8 units of 16 they're counted separately so it's 8 units and 9 lots because there's the remaining lands so either way around or 10 remaining lands I'm curious about the shed that's on there is that staying in the remaining lands not it's separate every part of the actual association land you just missed that but they were more fine tuning I think details matter so I just wanted to make sure that there's certain things can we just go back to active 50 sorry I'm just confused this is why this is antidote we've never run out of water once and we have a well people and we never have we now have to count how many times we've done laundry run the dishwasher taking a shower we run out of water every summer multiple times and I can't imagine that's not due to development I think it's mostly ridgeline from new construction so that is what makes me more curious about active 50 you know we have to now get quotes to dig a new well or frack our well and it's just the two of us living there and it's very very very frustrating we have a list of when we have to go out and drop an ice cube into the well to see if we can do another load of laundry we can't water the lawn we can't hose down the house we will run out of water we ran out of water for four days this summer and it's frustrating and it's sad to us so if there is any way that we could get an active 50 study we would be really appreciative of it so we don't have any control it has to do with your water the hydrology is the engineers and the state it's not anything the town can do about it as long as you're being anecdotal it's a climate thing as well it's my guess not our new neighbor as well it's not dry you never know who knows so your best bet would be if you have concerns like that is to turn to the state are they going to be the ones who can help you am I right about that yes and that's separate from that so we're going to get it done waste water okay I appreciate you listening to that even though there's nothing you can do about it yeah it's really out of our hands okay what else just to add as a condition of the waste water permit we actually have an active 50 exemption letter from the state saying we are not going to make you go through active 50 for these units and we already have our waste water they've already reviewed it the requirements they're all on site so you referred to the natural resources what are you referring to with that what is your observation the water table that's really what you're talking about as a natural okay it's not anything more than that I think that you're all of your concerns have you touched on the major ones at this stage I think so so where you say the master plan is not going to be finally approved tonight I think that's our major question yeah it is what it is at this point it's not changing okay I think it would be helpful for me to have at least a clarified in there that access by three houses it states in there as four you're talking about the beginning section where it goes through the historical applications yeah and then it also does so as part of the conditions of not having to do the screening was I moved it off to the screening trees so that is that is an issue separate from this and as such we're not going to be addressing the specifics of that because I do believe that I do believe you came back in there was an application I don't remember if it was Paul or you Brian to make adjustments and that was probably a reference in this was referenced in the report talks about the site specifically 6.8 times that basically says if you're going to create a footprint on that six it's got to be for multi-family for single families as part of the PUD it's part of the flexibility requirement of footprint lots for a single family we did it for Chase Gardens, Streamside Pinewood so there's numerous examples of the board using that flexibility for footprint lots on single families I think I'm in agreement with you that the flexibility is there because in F you know of 6.8 F allows you to it's a planning commission may authorize a reduction in the minimum lot size, minimum area per dwell only discussion of footprint lots within the PUDs is for that multi-family town you know we've had all these things footprint lots I'm not sure we have the ability to maybe I've said this before in the past I don't believe we have the authority anything other than a multi-family dwell Does it have to do with frontage in part flexibility on density and lot size because specifically these other regulations section 6.8G5 only allows for the creation of footprint lots without frontage or for multi-unit townhouse dwellings which must contain at least two dwelling units arranged to include rooms on two or more contiguous floors as defined in zoning regulations section 81 Streams that are in Washington Circle, the loop, those are all I would just say that I think you would want to call them footprint lots rather than just lots they've always been kind of interpreted in every town as a different way that they use them some zoning regs don't address them at all because they understand they're basically just for financing purposes the banks want to see that you own the property underneath your house but when you call them lots you get into setbacks, coverage frontage, all those other things that go with it but it's kind of this weird financing things that attorneys came up with during the housing crisis that helped with financing so that's why we typically denoted footprint lots rather than lots that would save boundary line adjustments say in the future or just kind of denoting them in their own box rather than calling them maybe official lines So we added a definition of footprint five years ago as a result of definition of parcel of language which consists solely of the era more complicated so one way besides what she rocks it up you can get the line up perfect some PUDs like Sharon was saying that they have small homes built that people pay home owners you know like a regular condo place but the houses are separate so the owners just own the home that the land the piece of land that that house is built on a few feet from back and then the rest is common correct and that's exactly what sometimes like a carriage home they call it in this case I think if we exercise the flexibility that F gives us we can specifically say reduce the reduction of the minimum font size to a footprint plot it's not a waiver it's leveraging PUD option and we're reducing what F wants us to do which is to reduce the minimum font size and we just specifically call out that we are reducing the minimum font size to BA for print locked another thing that PUD offered two houses on one so no subdivision no subdivision I feel we've got the language to allow us to reduce the font size to BA for print locked we have this on the parking lot for the zoning rights to change yes so I mean it's I feel it's there so let's roll are you good for a day or are you good for a month no I think that was let's talk about the easement in the open space we did walk up there we took a site visit and we hiked up there when there was I know when they were doing a lot of work if they removed Phil I'm guessing you were on 289 so I've done some surveying up there and you gotta go steep sections and then we use the road you better wrap it next to we get the easement but make it a conditional that it can be moved when another an alternative access to the area is provided just to note that there's an easement because otherwise it's going to be landlocked it needs to be made unless you've got an alternate place that you want to get an easement into the property into the open space I think that has to be at least a future access to it even if it's not buildable yet they still have to do it just not constructive I mean for the sidewalk and we got the easement but there was no way to build it like to still get the language and I don't know what that would be but there could be notation that it could be moved so the covert situation that was for the rec path I think it's more of a recreational I mean I know it's for a trail but it's recreational not on the side of the 15 is there a way it could be either conditioned or part of the easement that it would be not accepted or not used by the town until our ways to access the easement that are not through trespassing through Patrick's property because that's what we're worried about we're going to give an easement that's landlocked maybe it shows up on a town plan and we already have issues with trespassing campfires and so find another option find another access point into that land well so I guess what we're saying is well again I'm going back to too many years ago still during COVID when we had all agreed that that probably was not a great place to trail I know Mr. Schumacher brought up that and I paid the lawyer afterwards to come up with the conservation easement because we always figured that lost nations swamp area that area is going to be conserved for wildlife and we didn't want people recreating in there to begin with but do we need access into it for conservation not even for recreation I'd be happy to take recreation off the table if you want to have an access easement for conservation I'm for that too we can come right up the power lines that would be the easiest place to do it problem solved because I still have an easement on that road and I still own a hunk of land all the way on the power lines and we're not dealing with that giant cliff and now you're actually getting straight shot direct access off a discovery road right into that actual conserved area and you're not dealing with terrain and roads you're not dealing with this I think the point is to have access we're not looking at this as a recreation parcel game it meant that it was conservation but we still need to have access to it and if that's a better way to do that conservation easement wouldn't show up on a counter I think we do we did have the discussion it wasn't meant to be an active trail but it was still town access as needed yeah it was on the map so I think you had that discussion yeah so I mean it's not going to be there basically whatever conservation access sounds much better to me than a recreation access that's if there's no difference between those two I don't know if they're just a word I don't know I'm not an attorney so I have no idea but I guess the point is is that yeah we're just never going to be a path you still need to have the connection between the two and it would be nice like you said to keep that access somehow as an easement so if the town is given to the town or we need to go up in their conservation area then we should be able to get as long as you're not building anything there you can build all the roads you want you can build all the trails you just can't put a structure underneath Velco because we still own the land they have an easement the other question I had was that easement if we were to do it where it was proposed the gas company now has their transmission line they have an easement there and I don't know how that would be if I could give them an easement over give you guys an easement over their easement that would be my question there along the circuit now but I do know that you can as long as you're not building anything because we already do we already have easements we've built a road now and everything through and a lot of people have all the neighbors that Skipplemore is one he built his driveway it's all mowed, it's beautiful as long as you're not putting a structure because I think you can't just obviously for obvious reasons can't build a building under the transmission lines if that can be legally acceptable that would fit I have an issue with I'm confused because if they're set up in the 99 acres open space that's part of your area that's not town land yet is it? it's not town land people that are moving into these into this nice development are going to walk their dogs these could be people so there has to be some kind of association by law if you have this they're not going to walk their dogs there no unless they have a cliff climbing dog that's the point of this they're not getting up there there's a significant topographic separation 289 property so it's a conservation easement over easement for a dog as associated with the development HOA dogs will be part of that okay but I guess what I'm confused about is where's the walkable area for your association for your bylaws so condition of the approval will include draft HOA dogs that typically get approved and reviewed by the town of Essex so that would mean that only the people in your association can use that area nope the conservation easement is exclusive into the town of Essex not specific to that HOA okay that's where I was confused yes the hikers have mentioned there's quite a cliff to get up there right but that's where I was confused yeah so to be clear the 99 acres is the conservation easement it's not the space around the circle there is some room there on the north side of the road to potentially add a couple more units the septic soils will support a couple more units and spend design for a little bit more impervious so the area just north of the loop road is not part of that conservation so that's where people in your HOA can walk gotcha I get it pronounce your last name but Ravi yep hi it's Ravi Bidichandani I live on high view drive across from the proposed development just a few questions for clarification the kind of going back to this eight unit development originally like I'm just wondering if the master plan was actually approved I mean I look at line 79 through 84 and there talks about there's talk about like continued meeting and then it was never held and then maybe the application expired so that was just one of my initial questions is that master plan approved do I have a few more questions yeah go ahead I was wondering about infrastructure I heard some comments about Vermont yes and I just was wondering if that would serve these units and if that would be extended into the neighborhood it's interesting the mailboxes for high view driver currently right where the the proposed road would come off Lamor Road and I just was wondering if there was some thought about the mailboxes our mailboxes and then I guess the future ones if things move forward but as a snowmobile I know and appreciate that there's a snowmobile trail currently through the property and I was wondering if there had been thoughts about that hopefully that can continue and then yeah just I guess a comment do the approach to the bridge and I think that if things do happen whatever that's a pretty weird intersection I think it should be looked at you know this is the second discussion about the master plan master plan is a separate document that in my recollection you get maybe off but the master plan is a guideline on a parcel it's not a map it's not a hard map but the locations aren't necessarily limited by it and it's used for nurse phases it's usually a longer term road map that's established and then one of the one of the elements of this original master plan if I remember correctly had like 30 or 40 units 65 I remember it's still on there but it's not ever going to be realized so I think the question about the master plan we can bypass since it's as we mentioned to the folks earlier the master plan is not on the table tonight that's an interesting question but that's usually up to from our gas you're not you're not looking to bring from our gas end on this are you no that's a transmission mains essentially like a belt go line you can't just tap it it's thousands of miles it's a road in you got to accommodate the mailbox system post office likes I would expect that but that's their problem as far as the snowmobile trail that's a landowner especially for talking I forget the snowmobile association vast if it's a vast thing that's a private organization that works with landowners for permission we don't accord them really a status at the table nor are they on established but it's really up to it's up to landowners to negotiate vast crossings has the applicant thought about thought about it can I give anybody who want to quick an office there on this back before the Sirke Highway was there we used to own the property on the other side of the Sirke behind Stevens Gas there was a level crossing that pretty much used to cross over to the old Parazzo barn they were of course eliminated and through eminent domain took 60 acres from my father they eliminated level crossing but we still have the right to maintain the level crossing to have another one so they moved it to just on our side of the Sirke where the off-ramp is office 289 down on the Route 2 way and that was our level crossing because the snowmobile trail never came where it is now it used to cross at this level crossing to Susie Wilson roadside on the railroad company said well since this has been moved in order for the snowmobiles to use that level crossing and travel along the right way of the Sirke Highway they would have to put actual crossing gates the gates everything apparently and this was in 1991 apparently it was going to cost I think $30,000 at the time and the vast approach my father said you know we don't have the money for that and we continue going along the railroad tracks along your property where the trail never was cross over the bridge and my father said okay and Dennis at the time said I'm going to allow you going over the bridge but as soon as somebody has an accident there it's ends thank god there's never been an accident because I know a couple of times I'll come over that bridge a little narrow with snowmobiles but anyways we go through this every year at Dana Raleigh you guys have had basically 30 years now to build that level crossing over there and gates at some point this is going to end because I stopped them from traveling over the septic system or to our septic system that's why they come down where they are now but now the units are going to be there and I can't move them up again because they'll be driving over the leach fields and they're not shut but they have permission this year again conservation easements access to the owners let's make sure we get all the items something to drill and discuss I think we have findings that currently says waves I have a different sentence that's what I was going to say I think we need to I change it to employment flexibility granted under 6.8f of the zoning regulations the planning commission favors the creation of footprint and lots of other units what was that condition changing the second finding around 658 but the second planning commission finding was striking that second one and replacing it with that sentence so let's talk about the conservation easement and one thing I'm a little confused of Catherine you have mentioned a couple times I'm not sure we're on the same page is it the 99 acres being transferred to the town you mentioned a couple different times that something being given over to the town and I didn't hear that from Patrick so if we're talking about a conservation you know a conservation easement a declaration of conservation for that 99 acres sheet 7 easement plan is that is that one that we should be looking at I can pull that up so I know that the development is happening on 4 roughly 4 acres so that part is considered open space but that is not the same as an open space I think that sheet 7 shows I think it's right on sheet 2 the development is approximately taking place on 5 acres and it says the remaining land is open which is true of a PUD it's also the 99 acres it's the conservation easement over the remaining lands it's an easement it's not a lot so for that conservation land conservation it's an easement for conservation purposes to that remaining lands if you're proposing that it follow the power lines then that to me would be a suitable area can you bring up sheet 7 so there should be an access on to the 99 remaining approximate 99 sheet 7 the power line it shows the open space it shows for me can you give it up can you share the space area that he would still own that has frontage on Discovery Road nothing like it's actually hikeable it's not to introduce let's not backtrack never mind so I guess what I'm aiming for and this is what I want board members to chime in and staff is acknowledgement of the conservation access easement access easement into the conservation overlay section whatever phrasing needs to be to capture that as long as it's for more maintenance of the conservation land that would be fine and that's fine what are we calling this the acreage that's being turned what are we calling this space that you're turning over to the town they're not turning over to the town conservation easement you're not turning not necessarily turning over to anybody you're just giving an easement over that acreage press the ninth is the remaining so you have eight units eight dwelling units eight footprint lines and the ninth is the remaining land and of that remaining land a portion of it is covered by a conservation easement so we want an access easement under the power lines for maintenance and conservation purposes to that conservation easement land I say this gets punted to this is sketch we're like beating a horse here this gets punted to sketch this is preliminary we can continue this this is final and you can choose to just approve it as preliminary and come back or continue it would be easier to just tune up all the language so what is shown on the plan is the original access easement along the Serk Highway what you were saying was if we can't find another spot to access then that's acceptable because it's the only way to go so if maybe the condition can be worded if say conservation yeah the conservation easement should be dedicated as shown on flat sheet 2 unless an alternative location located under the Velco power lines can be coordinated with planning and zoning staff so you know at least if there turns out to be a problem going the other way you're at least getting what's shown on the plan now that is on the plan turns out we can't go the other way that's the only way bottom line is we need an easement into the conservation parcel to conservation lands and if there already is an easement on the plan I'm leaning towards we accept that easement that's already there I mean if we step away from the language you know easements and all this crap what we're essentially talking about is that this PUD has 99.1 acres of open space now on the plans the access to that is along a cliff along 289 and to consider in exchange for eliminating that access easement along 289 along the cliff to give us some other access for conservation purposes into the property over his lands access through discovery that's essentially what we're talking about right we're just going to figure out a way to work that you just stated the finding that goes into the planning commission well I can't remember that so you asking for that easement to come from just every road no I was just trying to summarize what I think it is we're trying to so that we're all in agreement that we're getting you know 99.1 acres of open space and that we want some way to get in there that makes sense let's even rephrase that we're not getting he's designating 99 acres of open space and we want to maintain we want to establish access to it so that it can be accessed if needed and there's no confusion about that so what's the condition John you had it called out that the existing condition it was 60 you want to modify it and say something like an access easement we need an access easement provide access to conservation so we can strike the word pedestrian recreation easement and add draft easement D for proposed 20 foot wide conservation easement along the southern boundary is far not too benign unless the applicant can provide an alternate location conservation easement the thing I would say is 99 acres are open space as part of the development but not all 99 acres are for the conservation if you look there the conservation easement is within that 99 acres if you look at the master plan there's a few extra lots to go that's all I'm trying to focus on access to the conservation I think we can strike the term 99 but it is part of that ninth lot but we're focusing on establishing an easement to access that conservation area can't the connection come from one of those proposed future laws if they come to be it is on Patrick's land but it may not be I think if we leave it if we leave it what's already been proposed which is the 20 foot you know at that's the safeguard yeah that's there we have it it's not necessarily functional but it's there and just put in this that an alternate alternate conservation easement would be could be submitted to staff for review and approval how's that Catherine you want to take the suit and the responsibility for that well if it's a finding that would be a condition it should be submitted why excuse me that was combative if the first thing is that we've got one there if an alternate easement could be submitted we already have the 20 foot easement as part of the condition the option maybe we put it that way then the applicant has the option of submitting an alternate conservation easement location to staff for staff approval that makes that puts it I don't think it needs to come back because we're really looking for an alternate location and then it's already on David is that sound reasonable approach do we have anybody so the public hearing is still open any additional comments or questions that folks want to offer I've seen it online I've seen it in the room and I would take a motion to close the public hearing so moved second second we have options in front of us right now I'm confident in this that we can move it if anybody has any concerns or questions that I would suggest that we look at continuing it because there are only four of us tonight so it must be a unanimous vote tonight one way or the other because it's still active on the table so straw poll time this is just a question do you have any concerns that would prevent you from moving this tonight then unless there's additional points to discuss let's go for a motion John would I say it like that I move we approve Woods and Dildon and Sandra Jarvis level More Road and preliminary and final public hearing eight locked planned unit development plans known as one with that Woods to the AR zone tax map 73 parcel 1 with language as we discussed changing the second bullet in the findings as well as adding a finding which I can't remember the language up but captured it we were changing the and then acknowledging that we wanted an easement conservation easement access easement into the conservation so that we can change 6 e we all discussed about getting the access easement to provide access to that to say that the fees will be paid after the first CO any further discussion welcome back everyone we've got one final plan on our agenda to see your application this is continued sketch plan public hearing from 825 final and holdings Brian Martha post 34 units development and I'm not going to read your words Catherine you want to catch us up? Yeah I feel like this was a very small bit of the application that was the reason why it was continued so I don't think we need to belabor this you did hear this application and during that sketch plan hearing there was concern about the GEM staff because it didn't comply with their regulations and also the staff was saying that it didn't necessarily comply but it's a PUD so there's some flexibility and staff was directed to talk the staff was directed to talk to public work staff potentially the town attorney to figure out allow this sort of thing so it's there's an illustration that allows for so they would say that they would accept this sort of development development staff agrees with that and we're fine with that before and my suggestion that it's in the staff report is to be very specific about why you would be allowing that it's a good thing or public works that says it so but because the PUD regulations allow for that flexibility that it's laid out in your staff counts commissioners any questions for Bethan? Yeah on the revisions to the design of private roadways that meet the requirements that you just discussed do they have to be specific to the standard specifications for construction according to their public works standard specific specifications for construction Yeah so that the A11 detail is taken from that the public works specifications so it's it's a description or a detail of how you can do a private drive so there's two different ones there's one that shows two and there's one that shows four so we can use this for one more question this one I studied the most this plan the because the private drive number one that leads to that has one two three and four I know that special permit I guess I don't know if it's an environmental permit or some kind of permit conservation or environmental permit or something I read but I guess my question is who's going to plow if that's not really a town road is private who's going to maintain that road it would not be the town I mean we would want to make that clear in any sort of conditions that the town does not intend to take that over it's not built to a public road same with the private road number two that needs to rate five six seven eight nine okay so if it's if it's a non-town road there's state statute that requires that well they'll have to have a room sharing agreement in place but if there wasn't a state statute covers the absence of one it requires that the participants in a shared driveway or shared roadway share equally in their portion of the maintenance and upkeep of the roadway so there's a statute that protects them oh great revised layout extensive steps to minimize impact of steep slope a lot of our conversation was around that seemingly the planning commission was okay with the new layout our sort of things but in my opinion to take a continuance over an approval in order to gain more clarity on this driveway standard so since then we've had very great constructive conversation with the planning and public works and town staff does agree that the PD standards do allow the four units off a private drive in certain instances not everywhere in town but in certain instances obviously standard too so in this case we're asking the planning commission as part of a PD approval for four units off of two private driveways we will likely eliminate a lot five in order to complete the eastern private drive right now we're showing five so we have to get rid of one of them I think that probably makes the most sense so we're asking the planning commission for finding a sketch so we can move into a set of preliminary fully designed plans to okay that using four units off a private drive in the R2 district within the sewer core promoting conservation of natural features and steep slopes that four units off a private drive is appropriate not unless you want to commissioners questions not about those drives no well asking questions this is okay I have an issue so if you get rid of five I didn't know that so because five, ten, twelve and thirteen are on steep slopes so you're gonna get rid of five that's what you're saying so if we were to meet the four units off the private drive standing we're currently showing five so we could get rid of five is the one with the steep slope but I think five makes the most of it cause that's on a steep slope so I was just gonna say that's a good choice but my other question is what about ten, twelve, thirteen on a steep slope and the cul-de-sac I know that there is well it's kind of vague about wet land to wet land to on the biofinder map but the water coming into that cul-de-sac that little thing at the end where the triplexes are is that gonna be an issue with you know erosion and everything water sure so I'll take the cul-de-sac first so diverting water will be certain engineering decisions off the make as we move into design plans we're not showing anything now of how that would be accomplished until we move into the design phase of the project right now we're just looking for more conceptual larger themes but that is definitely something that we'll have to consider as we move forward and you know we can look at closer at the next step as far as unit I think you said a lot of ten thirteen some of the ones that are shown in blue shading for ten twelve and thirteen yep for what Essex defines as a steep slope when we heard last time you know we talked about how steep slopes should be avoided but that doesn't mean that you cannot impact them at all and we are doing in my opinion a very good job at avoiding steep slopes and we've agreed to show grading for some of the more steep single family lots and that we typically wouldn't do typically we just show a single family lot and as long as you build it in the envelope and meet public work standards you'll get a building permit so we've agreed to show more detail on say those three lots to show that we can not impact an amount of steep slopes I think if you look at you know not just the one sheet three but if you look at and three it's a hundred acre parcel we're zooming in on three lots to say we're not avoiding steep slopes I think even with those two three lots it is a I think a significant understatement you said that oh yeah I was laying out the maps while you were talking I'm listening John I don't want to say waiver and also capture that public works is in support of this revised system we accept something under PD we state it we accept it as a B I would look to you to insert the language you basically had it outlined in the staff report so you've got it laid out here as to why we should do that but it's also indicated in this that staff recommends so this is where in the planning commission findings I would just say the planning commission accepts the staff recommendation as stated in on three seven four how are we going to do that but there's also language I thought I saw language of this and that I think is important to capture as well yes I think they're line three six four public works because it shows that we're not just at this point the public hearing is still open so I would entertain questions for the participants is anybody online I live right next to the proposed house a few years ago that's where I live one item I don't know whether it was discussed in the last meeting I wanted to hear I don't think some of the neighbors over here talked about was connecting this public roadway that's proposed here all the way up to the Timberlane Drive do three things it will distribute the traffic put onto both sides instead of funneling all the traffic onto the corner of Stonebrook and Evergreen Drive second item it will do the safety in case the main road gets blocked by a tree or something power line then the emergency access available and I would say if that public roadway is extended all the way to Timberlane Drive some of these these steep slopes large could potentially be moved right next to that extended road where the slopes are not as steep so that's my recommendation I don't know what you guys think 100% clear on what you're suggesting or something the public road that's a known program I'm confused maybe you need to go to a different schedule instead of ending this on the corner side to continue on and meet Timberlane Drive he's talking about it coming this way he's talking about Timberlane one of them is existing it's part of Felix's right hand it seems like this has come up for discussion our original plans when we submitted preliminary plans from the previous version of this development application but feedback we were getting from the room was that it was impacting too many steep slopes so the application was withdrawn to impact less steep slopes and outflowed severely impactful this was an attempt to part of the attempt to minimize and mitigate further to private the built to these four-way four-unit driveways a number of steps have been taken to reduce the impact I mean this eliminated a huge amount of impact satisfied building the road you have to put lots along them Herman, two years ago I'm here is that your question sir one versus the other my suggestion was was maybe moving this steep slope lots on the side of that road and when I look at the topography myself the existing roadway goes through much steeper slope than the extension would be if you look at right next to the Condesag there are much steeper grades right next to that compared to if you just keep on extending that's what I see but your point sir I think that was out to some degree in a previous submission so review so far I think one of the main concerns was the lots that were built on both sides of the extended road were on the steeper grade my point for the new revised plan is is extending the road which will not have much impact the steep slope unless you start building lots on both sides and when you have the extended road you will have opportunity to bring to move some of these steep slope lots into the flat road because they reach that line on the side and they don't extend the road if you choose to do that the land is flatter after you go to the yes sir can you state your name please thank you it's okay to bring this up but I think we do have a plan in front of us this evening a sketch and I know this has been before many of the kind of phases have been before why we chose to go this I know there was an impact what was some of the discussion over the degree of impact by extending this road down beyond I'm pretty sure there was also commentary by most some of the neighbors on this end of Timbalane about the impact of having the road come down past our houses I think it was more general discussion that public works and previous zoning about minimizing impact to the extent that we could there's a good cut to make that turn pulling the sides of the road for the same amount of units that would make the project unfeasible and I think that's what this gentleman was suggesting looking at this there's a 3 there and a 400 here and a 360 right it looks like it's a it would be steep just to put a road in so sir I think with regards to this thank you very much for bringing this forward I think we've heard from the applicant the applicant heard from previous planning commissions that that's not a direction that we would be entertaining at this point neither is that a direction that you're offering might not be the answer you're looking for sir but anyone else thank you for sticking around with us alright I see no more questions no more hands raised online and so Mike MK still has his hand up sir in the room did you want to offer any additional commentary here's 40 public hearing is closed we've looked at this at fair amount the language and the findings which gave us the concern at this point that we want to bring up for hash out remembering again that this is sketch so we'll come back again so for cul-de-sac 18 to 22 I guess you said you were going to look into that class who wetland and I I didn't know if those would be impacted because that wetland is just above if you look at the map this way it's just north of the cul-de-sac and it would flow right in between all those guys so the way the state takes jurisdiction over wetlands they have class 2's and class 3's functions and values is an argument for class 2 versus 3 sizes is also a big indicator hydraulic conductivities and other ones there's a bunch of stuff that goes into it so the wetland that's shown basically underneath the cul-de-sac is what the state defined as a class 3 wetland meaning non-jurisdictional you don't need a permit to impact it the function and values don't warrant the wetland is the one behind unit 19 and those have a 50 foot buffer associated with them those are protected by the state and we are not showing the impact of the 50 foot buffer around the class 2 wetland east of the triplex and we have a classification report from our original submission two years ago with the state verifying those classifications so we hired an ecologist to go out and delineate the wetlands and the state verifies the location and the classes of those wetlands so you hired some geotechnical engineer to do it well ecologist cool alright I didn't know that I didn't know you did that that's cool the language that you're proposing for the additional findings so under additional findings based on the recommendations of staff and public works and the flexibility granted under 6.8f of the zoning regulations and the public work specifications the planning commission supports up to four dwelling units on the private drive on the two private drives okay so that's part of our discussion anybody have any issues I'm going to say up to four dwelling units each on the two private drives those two things are perfect the sketch plan puts 2027 2022 we'll put the next changes corrections to the minutes as presented with this with the staff the current staff conditions and so forth to suggest that we sort of initiatives and at least for the time being focused be just the town plan efforts that doesn't mean anybody has to stop doing things that are going on that everybody is welcome to continue but I think we're running into conditions or situations we have issues with getting commitment from the PC, from the staff and from other boards and committees as we stated when we started the process we might have to flex a little bit and I think these aren't yet I think we need to at this point in order to keep anything moving forward I think we need to narrow our focus down and that means maybe first of the year we kick things back into gear we see what blue people are in what we think we can get our feet under and maybe we aim to have a set of zoning regulation updates ready for March small bites right now but I don't think we're the rest of the year but I think we should keep the town plan process going because that's been a one group that's been meeting regularly we only have two more meetings what's the date of December we have one meeting we have one meeting in November and we have one meeting in December I'll get together with Josh and come up with language to share with the rest of the commissions I don't think there's any fault in anybody's part there's no we've been trying to get this going but there's been a lot of outside influences I think it's just in order to provide focus and allow staff to get their feet under especially if you've got a new planner coming on board I think it's a little much to try to distribute the process moving forward I would say though that the Act 178 group that you all are joining it's 171 it's got it it's alright I was going ahead a few more acts by the time we're done 171 171 is I think in support of the town planner next steps to me and he was going to do some introduction last time but I read to the group what the notes were I read that in minutes I said I was speaking because you weren't here so I didn't go to the thing yesterday 171 I missed it oh gosh I missed that there's another one December 7th well anyway I'm supposed to be facilitating that so that can dare explain like I said if anything is in motion that's great focus to get work groups going I think it would be best right now just to reconvene the first of the year for those groups that haven't gotten traction and that lets everybody sort of take a breath in one setting our own targets so the only outside target we have to hit is the town plan update for 2024 so I think there's value in keeping that alive