 It's like he does. Take this. This is the loudest thing. Not the truth. Come on. Door. Door. There's doors here. All right, Bob. Door. Door. Door. Oh. Sharon, I thought you were going to lock that before you came in. The door. Al, I was beginning to forget what you look like. It does. It does. The therapy has not worked. Electroshock is next. Sharon, you good? I'm good. You good? Okay. I'm going to jump the gun by like 30 seconds. Call me. Call me crazy. March 8th, 2018 planning commission meeting. I'd like to welcome everyone this evening to the planning commission meeting. We have a few items on the agenda. Before we get going, I want to, there's a couple of amendments to the agenda we call out. Number one is the second item under simple under consent agenda. The simple parcel of two lot subdivision has been postponed. So that struck from the, from the agenda this evening's agenda underneath the minutes. There's a typo and we are looking at going to be reviewing the minutes from February 8th, 2018 in February 22nd, 2018, not 2017. And under other business, commissioner Mengan is going to give us a little bit of a presentation this evening on the use of Google docs. So that won't be a drastic thing, but we will be talking about that. So as we get into this, what I'm going to do right off the bat is to have anybody who's going to be talking to us this evening. If you could just stand, I'd like to swear you in and get that taken care of. So do you swear that any testimony you present this evening will be truthful to the best of your abilities? Thank you. Painless this time. Yeah, I know. I'm sort of going slow because I heard that. So before we get going this evening, I'd like to introduce our new town manager who'd like to join us this evening. Evan, if you want to just say wave and say hi to us. You guys, I'm not sure if anybody has ever had a chance to meet yet, but I'm never late. This is John, David, myself, Josh, John, the other John, Ned. So this is a good group. I'm glad you're here. It's nice to see you. I think before we get into the other public comments, I'll go on public comments and say, I think it's kind of nice to have you maybe see the output of what our staff does. I'm a little, I'll be a little, not selfish, but a little bragging a little bit. I think that this group of commissioners and staff is probably the most functional group that I've been associated with since I've been on the planning commission. So I think our bar is set pretty high. So it's kind of nice to have you here at this point. I don't think we've always been there. And I think everybody's firing on all four cylinders. Let's go up to eight cylinders. So I know it's good. We have, I've been here long enough to say that in comparison to years past, we get applications in front of us. And I'm going to say probably 80 to 90% of the issues have been resolved by staff before we ever see them. And in my mind, that makes our evenings a little bit easier and a little more targeted so that we can actually hit the things that either aren't resolved or that we as individuals have a lot of passion about. So. That's better for applicants too. I think it's better. Yeah, I agree. So this has just been, it's what we've been able to do. I think I don't agree with them all the time, but you deliver us a solid package that we can agree with or disagree with. Generally, we're not having to develop it on the floor. So I don't think we see the amount of work that you do, but we see the outcome of it. So that's my political speech. Thank you. I would echo that just to throw my two cents in my role in real estate. I get to go to a lot of other towns and I will say we probably have some of the best staff in Vermont. And I would also say one of the things I love about our staff and our process is it's transparent. A lot of towns in Vermont and Brian Mott has had on this go in a deliberative session and don't and do everything behind closed doors with very little transparency and they're allowed to do that by statute, but it just doesn't feel right. We very rarely use deliberative session unless we've got something really complex and legal. And I think it's better for the applicant. It's more collaborative and to Dustin's point, our staff does all their homework ahead of time. And I think, you know, having gone to a lot of other towns planning commissions and DRB's, we staff does a hell of a job. So I'm anxious for you to see that. Jink. I'd also like to note it's a very family-friendly commission. Cue the kid and the puppy. You're still like your one job. Hey, well. Good day. Well, we want him to see your application now because he's going to see him again later. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I want to see you guys in action face to the name and names and here to serve. And I certainly appreciate the very kind words of staff and I know they're a card and I'm glad because I've also heard that the packet material is very good and the process is top notch. So that warms my heart. Hopefully it'll be. We've had meetings before that have gone extremely late. We've had meetings before that have been extremely contentious. And I think we've done very well about getting through them and managing it. So this has been kind of fun. Sad to say. So let's move on to public comments, which were there were some there in the public comment section is the opportunity for anybody to speak to us on any item that's not on the agenda or on any of the consent agenda items. And we do have one this evening, which is a simple parcel boundary adjustment. James Sandra and Charles Bosley is a proposal to subdivide property at 245 and 257 Las Nation Road. Darren, is there anything that staff would like to say about this? Sharon's actually been working on this application. So no, I guess I would just say hopefully it was clear. I'm certainly can answer questions in case it wasn't. So I think I'll just hold off to see how things fly on your end. Swapping from one end to the other. Well, basically so, so yes, they're going to do eliminate a boundary line and the owner of the lot down low will take the majority of acreage and the owner who had that is going to carve off a little three acre, three point something acre to buildable for him and whatever the family dynamics are to swap. Ownership is basically it. Commissioners, any questions? Outstanding anyone from the audience wish to comment on it? Well, I'm here. I'm Brad Holden. And I would say yes. I would call it flop. So we're doing a flop. No pun intended. No pun intended. And I would just add that there was two great existing lots and we're going to wind up with two great existing lots just in different facets. Hearing no questions. I have one question. The only thing I didn't get out of the off the maps or in the staff report was what are the, is the frontage all good still? I just didn't see any any listing of that. Not too much. Yeah, let's see. Sorry. It may be it was and I missed it. Page three finding four. Yeah, line 100. Of course you got the answer. Actually, no. They better after the lead didn't we just. All right. Yep. Here it is. Okay. I take my question back. Okay. No questions. No comments from Jonathan Lang. Jonathan Lang. From shoot. Sorry. I know. I know John. All right. Then I'm going to move. Then we're going to move on to item three, which is the consent agenda of which we have one item that night. Is anyone prepared to make a motion? Second. Second. Second by Josh, seconded by Ned. All those in favor of the consent agenda as warned. I warned and amended that is. All those opposed. Motion carries. Wow. That's good. That's good. Okay. Consent agenda. We're done. We're approved. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Moving on. Item four, with the final final subdivision amendment, public hearing, Allenbrook development. Who is presenting? Darren. Give us a rundown on it. So we can look at this while we talk. So. This is a subdivision that was done about a year ago. Red Pine circle is a new road that was created out of. Mr. Seneca's. Main. Acreage. This is off of Thompson Drive. There were nine lots total. Six of which are actually on Reddit. And circle. Lots one and seven are off of Thompson Drive. The proposal now is to. It's a two applications, but both sort of tied together in. In tandem. Because. Proposals to shorten red pine circle. By approximately 90 feet. This will change and also change a lot. Configuration slightly. Little, Small changes in AC. The proposal now is to. It's a two applications, but both sort of tied together and in tandem. Small changes in acreage. For each one. As a result of that, the other application that we'll see later is a site plan. Amendments who. Accommodate. Moving everything on lot five. Approximately 35 feet to the Southwest. Nothing else. Really changes there except removing a. Retaining wall in the rear of the property, but. Subdivision application first. Anything outstanding. That's a lot. Three, which is. Zoom in. His voice command. I wish. Lot three would actually have a frontage that is below what is required by the zoning regulations. However, the planning commission has the. Latitude to. Approve a lot with reduced frontage on a cul-de-sac. If it meets all of the. Intent of the zoning regulations that speak to that. And that would mainly involve making sure that. You can fit a curb cut on that lot, which you can. The staff report. Details how there's plenty of space. Setbacks and. Driveway width to accommodate that. So that is something the planning mission will approve. I don't think a waiver specifically is needed. You just approve it. As a reduced frontage. Commissioners, any questions for staff? So. The parking lots that you see here are part of each site plan application. The parking lot that says a result of the subdivision that was approved last year is over here. Parking spaces. That's part of the site plan. We can talk about that later. Just the. Overall subdivision. Anything else at this point for staff. Applicant. Who's chatting for. So. So. Reviewing the staff report. It looked like the only issue was what Darren brought up. Would be. The lot frontage on lot three. Required 200 feet. We do have 200 feet. If you measure by an arc length. If you're measured by the core distance. It's 130 feet. The diameter of the right away. The right away. On the end of red pine circle. Is 130 feet. So we have as much. Of a core distance length. In the cul-de-sac. As we possibly can. The only way to make up the extra 70 feet. Would be. To add. Some of this. Some of the straight away. So we're. We're giving as much frontage as we can. While only staying on. The cul-de-sac. So. We're. We're asking. To. Make the determination that it's. Except. Maybe add a little bit. Name for the. Sorry. Our cycle. The reason that we're pushing it back. We've talked with two tenants so far. For that. For those lots or that lot three. And in both cases. When we did our design. The building. Was forced to go back to the. Buffer line. Too tight. And by reducing the length of the road. And moving the cul-de-sac in. It gave us. A bigger area to put the building. That. These two tenants were looking for the sizes of the building. In that we haven't. We haven't established those times yet. But. It kind of led us to believe that. Those tenants want. They both wanted that extra depth. In this. Particular lots. So. If we don't secure them the next time. We'll probably walk the same thing. So we thought we'd just. Reduce the length of the road. And that's why we're asking for this. Questions. Yeah. Do you look like you got something? No. No. I'm fine. John. Okay. Shoe. Oh. We. Often. Use cord length for frontage or. That's a designing regulations. On a cul-de-sac only. Only on a cul-de-sac. Yeah. Okay. I guess I missed that. Actual length. I forgot to go to engineering school. What's the difference between cord length and arc length? I'm sorry. I'm not that right. What length goes across? So. Going across versus going around. So the arc would be. The major distance. We're here all the way around. So with the arc. We actually do have the 200 feet. We do. We use the arc. For special training. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. We offer special training. Thank you. I'm going to need that. Sure. Do we take a short bus to the training session? It's not appropriate. Okay. Additional thoughts or questions? This is a public hearing. So I would take a motion to open the public hearing. So moved. Second. Moved by Shoe. Seconded by Ned. Sorry, Tony. Just want to quicken up. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Abstentions? One. Motion carries 6-1. Josh is out in the hall, so. I'm going to count him as an abstention for this one. Public hearing is open. Commentary. Questions? I would take a motion to close the public hearing. Move. Close the public hearing. I'll second it. Moved by Ned. Seconded by Shoe. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Abstention one. Motion carries 6-1. 6-0-1. Is anyone prepared to make a motion to this one? Or do you have additional questions? Aye. You have a question? Find it. Yeah. I just, I'm trying to understand on 134. I'm just trying to make sure we have the authority to do what we're being asked to do. You're saying at 75%, we need 150. Yes. So on a, on a cold sack, you're, there's a normal reduction allowed of 75% of the normal frontage for a district. That would be 150 feet in this case because they're asking for less. The planning commission can approve a plan with less as long as the meets the requirements in the zoning ranks, which are detailed in the staff report. So I was just trying to find what allows us to reduce it below the 150. So that would be section 3.1c3. Let me just get the page for you. Page 47. Pardon? 36. No, this is general standards. Page 47. Yeah. So frontage requirements may also be waived or modified by the planning commission association with approval of a plan unit development under article. I can do it that way too. To do the comments. The comment I'd like to add is that we're doing the waiver to reduce the impervious and have more, more logical layout. As a justification for reduction of the frontage. And I would mention the arc length because that's weird. Hey, I just wondered about it. I'm not going to judge it. No, it's weird that the regulations would be like that. I'm not sure why. The intent behind that I think is to ensure that there's enough width for a driveway because driveways don't necessarily, if you have a curved driveway that follows the arc, then you're actually restricting it a little more than you would for a straightaway driveway. I believe that's my interpretation. But this would be for any kind of, this would be residential or commercial or industrial. Correct. I will say that I've never heard the term arc length used in any of our sessions before. So this is a new one. You've only heard cord length? I've never heard cord length either. All I've heard is frontage as a linear footage. Should have brought my mandolin and made a song about it. Need a lute. I think it's an interesting rule because if you have a cul-de-sac and somebody owns like three quarters of it, they got a tiny amount of frontage, but they own all that frontage on the arc. So I think it's fine. We just have the waiver and just make a comment of what we're doing. But I don't know that we even have to call it a waiver. That's what I think we're getting. I got something drafted. So the planning commission agreed to the reduction of road frontage to 130 feet due to the revised design shortening the cul-de-sac reduces the impervious area and aesthetically improves the lot layout and maintains adequate separation between curb cuts and lots. So just to confirm, I mean I think to let's nail down your thing, this is we don't need a dute. Dute. Need a waiver. No waiver required. Be dute. Be dute. Be dute. Simply approve it with the understanding that it's less than what's normally allowed. Yeah, I mean you can do it both ways to Darren's point. You can approve it or waive it. I think in this case to be, I'd like to maybe err on the side of caution and waive it. Yeah, I agree. Because the approval is for reduction to 75%, which we can't get to by the regulations. By the regulations. So let's waive it due to the aesthetics and reduce impervious area. So let me so agree to the reduction and waiver of road frontage. Waiver for road frontage to 130 feet. And your motion will include that. Yeah, I just kind of wanted to float the language because it didn't seem like anyone was opposed. So the short and sweet is we don't really have any issues with this. We're in agreement with it as presented. And we're calling it out as a waiver, not just as an interpretation of the regulation. So if you're ready, Mr. Chair, I don't see any other questions in front of us. So fire. So I'll move approval of the final subdivision amendment for Allenbrook development proposal to shorten red pine circle approximately 90 feet. The reconfiguration will affect large two through six in the RPDI tax map 72 parcel 12 lots one through six. Staff report as written with the following language added at line 274. The planning commission agreed to the reduction in waiver for road frontage to 130 feet due to the revised design shortening the cul-de-sac reduces the impervious area and aesthetically improves a lot layout and maintains adequate separation between curb cuts and lots. So before anybody seconds it. Okay. You're going to second it? Yeah. I'm not 100% sure that that's English. And it might be good to let, you know, let Sharon to tweak that and make it be a sentence. I thought you were going to say Everett, but okay. We have a motion and a second by shoe. Second. Any further discussion? All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carries 7-0. Did you get that Sharon? No, I'll get it. And you'll English it? Yes. That like put a spin on it? Yeah. No, no, no, no. Little bit English. Okay. I'm good at throwing in comments and stuff. Next item on our agenda is the site plan amendment public hearing for Allenbrook development. This is a proposal to shift the approved lot five layout approximately 35 feet to the west along red pine circle and reduce and relocate three parking spaces on the property. Darren. Yes. I actually realized that the warning is a little slightly incorrect. They are not moving those three parking spaces under the proposed plan that they've finally submitted. And I will tell you why. Okay. So as you said, the overall proposal is just to shift everything due to the just approved new layout of red pine circle and the lots. This nothing with the site changes except for where things actually lie relative to red pine circle. The other, except also that the retaining wall that was previously approved along the rear will be eliminated because there's no more need for it because the grading is sufficient to not require that. The applicants originally submitted a plan moving these three parking spaces right here over to the side of the building because this technically because of the new layout of red pine circle. It's an interior street that has a 50 foot buffer within the RPDI. So that buffer actually rather the parking spaces encroached on the buffer. And so moving them over would get them out of the buffer. However, then they would be within the required setback distance for side yards for lot six. So going back and forth to the applicant, we said since there's already a waiver for the 50 foot front yard buffer in order to construct the stormwater retention pond and install utilities, it made more sense to keep those parking spaces where they were instead of having an odd three of them over on the side of the building. Staff has no other issues with the application. Brian might be able to speak to that a little more. I think it's here on this. So this dashed line here is the buffer. So the deepest spot. The whole space is 18 feet long. It's really almost a technicality, but I just wanted to bring it up. Questions for staff. How close are we on them? I mean, I apologize for pulling this out right now, but how many, where are we on the number of parking spaces? What's the requirement and how? They are at their minimum required parking, so couldn't necessarily just eliminate them and... I'm not asking anything. I'm getting there. I just wanted to... What they are proposing with those three spots is the minimum. I believe so, yeah. Speak to us. Yeah, so as Darren was saying, originally we did come in with these spaces on the other side of the building because it is the 50-foot front yard buffer. Going back and forth with staff, we both kind of thought it was easier or more aesthetically pleasing that they be located where they were originally approved. Obviously it's a little bit of a special circumstance considering the 50-foot buffer is extended in that area because it's the start of the cul-de-sac. Originally we weren't going up to the cul-de-sac now that the cul-de-sac is a little shorter, the 50-foot does extend into our spaces. So we are asking for a waiver for those. It's just the end of those three spaces. Any questions? So, I've got one. I would actually entertain a waiver of the three parking spaces and not encroach upon the 50-foot buffer. I think we keep sliding the purpose and the function of that. I would actually propose that we waive the three parking spaces and not encroach upon that buffer for anything other than the stone water. I agree with you. Right, and as soon as we get into the discussion period we might go with them, but I think we've hammered the heck out of that 50-foot buffer and I think we've been pretty consistent about using it for stormwater retention, and that's it, and not long-term purposes. And that's what I see parking spots as for, and that makes, you know, as soon as we start using it for something like that, waive and have it period. And I don't think we're ready for that. It's on our list for future amendments. I understand, but it's not, but it's a point there. Just wanted to remind you, though, that... So, I think this discussion we can have with them, I'd actually support waiving. And again, it gets down to reduces and pervious services and it maintains the 50-foot buffer for, you know, for stormwater retention purposes only. So, what do you guys... What would you guys think about that? So, originally when we submitted the three spaces over here, Darren came back to us and said, you had to have 15 feet, I believe, from the property line. So, this road is 24 feet wide. The property line splits in half, so that's 12 feet. If we add an extra three feet and then go 18 feet for normal 90-degree parking spaces, the back of the curb to the building is still seven and a half feet. So, we could potentially still move them over here. Could we just put them parallel? I think we could go parallel, too. We just have to offset them three feet off of this driveway. So, they are, in fact, 15 feet from the property line. If you can do that easy enough, then that would be... That would be the easiest way. If that's three parallel parking spaces along the driveway, that covers everybody with the regulations. I've got no concern about that. I just don't want to... I don't want to use the buffer. I don't have a problem eliminating it, but to meet the requirements, we'll just throw three extra ones on the side. Commissioner? Anybody have thoughts, concerns? Thank you. I was more concerned about using the buffer for parking, but if you guys are fine moving the parking spot back over there, that's fine. We can charge it to motor cycles. Three of you charging spots? Good point, Dusty. We do have a public hearing, so we'll take a motion. Move the open to public hearing. Second. Moved by Josh, seconded by Tom. Those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carries 7-0. Public hearing is open. Thoughts, questions, comments? I'll take a motion to close the public hearing. Move the public hearing. Second. Moved by Josh, seconded by Shu. Just in case there was a question on the first one. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carries 7-0. Public hearing is closed. Do we have additional questions? Thoughts? The 40-foot shared access that goes along that... so that the property line goes right down the middle of that driveway there, and so that right-of-way just goes to the end, just because why not? There's no particular reason for it, right? Yeah, I suppose there isn't a reason for it to go all the way, but it does include a trail easement. Yeah, on the other side. On both sides. Oh, there is a trail easement. Correct. Was it just the north side? Sorry. South side. There's another lot to the right-hand side, lot 6, so that could actually access parts of lot 6 as well. So they might want to build that driveway. They might want to go around the back of the building. A lot actually moves to the south, and then also opens up in the back a little bit because the buffer changes, and it gains a little bit of... Yeah, that lot's pretty east-west, and this lot is pretty... The bigger site, right? Yeah. There it is. So depending upon what comes in for lot 6, that will really determine how that access road gets either extended or access stop over. Okay, the buffer doesn't change there. Yeah, we see the potential to change that other southern lot line between 6 and 7, depending on, again, the next 10 spaces. Okay, and the trail easement is on the other side of lot 6. Yeah. What's this? Dashed line. I wonder if at some point we wouldn't want to sign there. It's a trail. So people know where to go, and there's probably no trail there right now, so it doesn't make sense to put the sign now, but in the future... Would that be us, or would that be Trails Committee? Would that be tied to this development? The easement? If we have the right of way, I think that might be recreation. What would recreation do once it's established? So that they'd be able to sign there. If it's in our right of way. Question on road frontage. So is Lot 4's road frontage that shared driveway between 4 and 5? Lot 4 actually has frontage on Sand Hill Road, or sorry, Saxon Hill Road. That's how it meets its frontage requirement. That's where it's getting its frontage, okay. Yeah. And does it have it? It's got the easement on this property line. That's the driveway that's shared, so... Okay, that's what... Yeah, thoughts, questions? Just me and good. Josh? David? I'm good. Shu? I'm in favor of just getting rid of those three spots. I'm not forcing them to put them along the building, but I don't really care all that much. It seems like they're volunteering it, and it doesn't require any other compromises. Sorry. Tom? Okay. Are you prepared to make a motion on this? Don't rush. There's no changes, right? Except the parking. Okay, so I move we approve this, like, plan amendment for 31 Commerce Avenue, changing the three parking spots that are in the... I think the site addresses 131 Red Pine Circle, not 31 Commerce Drive. So the actual warning is right, Skeltry? Yes, the warning is right. Relocate me? No, we said. So, Tom, you're fine with just putting a sentence in under our findings that we don't want the encroachment? Right. Don't want the encroachment into the buffer, and we support the relocation of the parking spaces? Yeah. Is this a final? Yes. Line done. The condition would be they just review the parking with staff. Does he have a second? Second. Moved by Tom, seconded by John Mangan. Any further discussion? John took a breath. It means you've got something to say. No, it's just like enjoying the air. All those in favor of the motion? Aye. Opposed? Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries 7-0. Thank you. No, for the record, we had a bunch of 7-0s tonight. Would you call me? Zero. Seven, seven, seven, you're 70. You get closer, and you're not a 10. From talking with the potential tenants up here, we may be in a few more times with some minor adjustments like this to help, you know, fit certain billing types in, moving lot lines and things like that. So even they get to see my family face more often. Correct. I mean, I think hopefully you're taking away the importance of, you know, as you've said before, trying to make the buffer that more park-like, consistent, we're going to be looking for that, and less permanent intrusion into it, and more replanting. Yeah, no, we're not going to touch that. Yeah. The buffers at all. Yeah. And I think by moving this building down, instead of putting the property block wall, you know, slope of the bags and making some landscape. Yeah, that's right, sir. Makes it a little nicer. Yeah. Yeah. Correct. It's nice to be able to do this from the beginning of the process, beginning of this particular process, instead of doing it piecemeal after something's already in. So I appreciate the, you know, making this work at the beginning, instead of moving on to the next item is minutes from February 8th and the second, can I have a motion for the minutes of February 8th? Seconded. By Tom, seconded by Shu. Are there any adjustments to the minutes? And all those in favor of the minutes as written? Aye. Opposed? Amen. Let's carry 7-0. Minutes of February 22nd. Can I have a motion? Move approval. That should be. Can we change that to 2018? I did in the beginning. Okay, I missed it. Yeah. Okay. Do you have a second? Shu? Sure. So I just have to call out that I did make a change on the draft form and I'm not sure if they got, the change got on the FTP, but I showed them all to you. Why don't you read those into the record, Miss Kelly? So line 90, I've deleted the first sentence and replaced it with Chairman Brousseau stated that there would be crossover discussion with both applications. However, the commission would act on each application independently. I'm good with that. Good with that. Are there any other adjustments or corrections to the minutes? And all those are in favor of the minutes as presented with the clerk's other modification this evening. Aye. Aye. Opposed? Minutes carry 7-0. File folders? Nothing. Okay. So we'll pass that around to start with. Yes. So Ned followed up after our meeting on the ATC NEXT project when our consulting team came in and we wanted to know when another meeting would be. And they are just finishing up the last chapter right now. So the draft will be complete. We're hoping as of March 15. And then we will come to you. Cool. And so it's never out of our minds. So I want to take a few minutes tonight. A number of years ago we made a change to go electronic. We started using the FTP site and I think it's been pretty successful. We've got a good working process. But like any workflow in any process there's always room to improve. Given that the Select Board has gone to using Google Docs I really asked John who has a fair amount of expertise or at least exposure in work with this to look at it and see if maybe present this to us in a little bit and give us an overview. This might be a way for us to actually be able to become maybe more effective by moving to a different platform. Some of the limitations of FTP is that in some cases you can't always get to it from every company. So it's not necessarily available as easily or as consistently as Google Docs. And as soon as you bring it down you have an individual copy instead of having a copy that is the same one viewed by everybody. So we've got some time tonight. This will be quick. No more than two hours. Darren, is it possible for me to project it all? Yeah, we can hook you up. We can start talking to it. I don't know if I reach this over here if I go over there. The problem is you have to be tottered here. Okay, that's fine. And the objective of this is not to create different work, more work for staff but really is to see if we can come up with an even more effective way of distributing documentation. My big question is going to be right now they're using words. They have to use the... I'll cover that. You finished the sentence. Didn't get any of your seconds tonight. So as Darren looks for the cable the issues is the past two companies before I've used Google Docs and email and calendar and everything very extensively at work in computer software and developer and systems engineer and manager and whatnot. So I have a lot of experiences in different platforms. I use SharePoint as well now. So I've had a lot of exposure to what's out there in terms of document collaboration systems and whatnot. Coming here and I see using the FTP and I see some of the challenges we're running to and I just mentioned to Dustin is this something that we might want to consider that might enable, as he mentioned, additional better collaboration and whatnot or maybe with some features that may be useful to the group between staff and commissioners. And also some of the things I personally run into with the FTP is only one person can access the files at a time by access. I mean if somebody accidentally goes out there and actually opens a file from out there it puts a lock on a file and nobody else can touch that file until that file is closed. What's that? I did not know that. Yeah, that's probably one of the biggest limitations but if somebody leaves a file open by accident like the agenda or whatever they'll put it until it's closed. It's also a relatively static point in time copy like from the time you send out a notification that the files are available to the time we meet unless you send out another notification if something changes nobody would know. So once you send out a notification it's kind of like a really good example tonight where if you made a change unless you send out another email nobody would know that change is made. And then there's the issue of kind of disconnecting between documents and email. So if there's questions that come up about a particular document sometimes we have a lot of documents in those folders and then you've got to kind of describe which document you're talking about and that happens separately in email versus from the FTP and you've got to refer back and forth. So those are three of the things that I've noticed that have come up. So why Google Docs? Well I know Essex is using Google Docs already so I actually reached out to December just to get his kind of permission to propose this as an option for the commissioners and to staff so it's just to even bring it up because I didn't want to encroach on any areas. We shouldn't be going on especially when it comes to like computer security and whatnot. My personal opinion is this is actually more secure than the FTP we're using but we won't get into those details. So he's all good with it. He said, you know, go free to propose it if you guys want to do. If we decide to move forward what he would do is he would actually set up accounts for all of us to use and you guys may already have them, I'm sure you probably do so it would be very easy transition for you depending on how much you actually use Docs versus just using email. Some of the things this gives us as Dustin mentioned works on pretty much every platform so whether I be on my phone, my tablet, PC, Mac, Linux, whatever, I can get to Docs so in Tompton the file formats don't need to change. You can have Docs, Word Docs, you can have Excel, you can have PDFs and Google can read them all. So you can there's also additional add-ins you can add in for special Docs if we ever needed to for example, you can do flow charts for no additional costs. It's all free and built in. But some of the nice features that I want to just put up on the screen to show you that I think would be helpful. I'm sorry John, I thought we had an adapter but we have HDMI though I think unless sorry never mind. Sorry, we just have let me double check. I can also pull up a Google Doc because John, can I interrupt just to make sure that you cover this? Obviously with public meeting laws and so forth we can't do ex parte discussions so we would still need to be able to be observant and not be a platform that we as commissioners could share back and forth between ourselves outside of a meeting but we certainly could share back and forth with staff as we should be doing anyways when we have questions and need clarity. So I mean that's a great point and I don't know how it's not extremely critical that I'm able to present but are you guys very familiar with using Docs now because I don't want to over detail it. I'm familiar and I actually the IT department just set up a Google Drive and Google account for the Conservation and Trails Committee because I had asked them to do an FTP and they said we actually don't want to go that route anymore we're going to just do a Google Drive for you so I'm showing you the drive for their next meeting this is all publicly available so the other benefit of that is you could share that link with the public they can access all of the packet materials without having to request it from staff so I just have one here for their next meeting all of the agenda items are here someone could go in and say edit this now do we still have do you mind if I jump in quickly because these things fade quickly do we still have the ability when we have something when we have hosting our documentation on Google Docs do we still have the ability to restrict some because we do have legal opinions that are not public knowledge or public available do a document by document and by folder too say for example I'm sure there's how Essex is a whole advantage a lot of documents that are going to be out there that have nothing to do with us we can have access only to specific areas within Google Drive it doesn't give you blanket access to everything and currently we post on the web for our packets on the FTP for for the public for the public yes yes and you know I think longer term you may even want to look to posting that directly from Google Docs or Google Drive you can actually post those docs embedded in a web page but that's a whole another discussion Google Docs or Google Drive it's well Google Drive is what houses all the docs and then Google Docs meaning the board editor the Google streets is their version of Excel so there's each one of those apps so are you proposing we use Google Docs with Google Drive or Google Drive with other formats Google Drive with the docs we're using today what the town is using or what we're using we basically take the docs we're using today and put them in Google Drive now is there anything saying we can't use a Google Doc absolutely not and you can actually save a Google Doc as a DocX file and it works very well are you coming in for training I could it's pretty intuitive I've used it extensively too on the Echo board and it's intuitive I just would want to make sure we want to set the security for the commission that we can download and figure out the static versus not say like for me as an individual commissioner I highlight a ton of stuff in there to pay attention like when the application is up I highlight sections that I want I don't want you guys necessarily to have to deal with my highlights because you don't want to be looking at that but we can't because that's Sharon commentary that's expert take communication if you have a question that everybody if I have a question that's for Sharon or whatever everybody should be hearing that question not for open meeting law don't reply all we shouldn't really be doing in my opinion I know we're getting in the process here but we really shouldn't be looking at applications and having questions before our process should stay staff does a report we hold a public meeting questions get answered there if we have an issue where there's questions coming up during an app then we've got a process question more than we do an application question so we today as individual commissioners have the right in my mind the expectation to go back and forth with staff on questions for clarity of our own positions and that documentation we need to be able to have our versions of the documents with our own edits and thoughts and so forth if there's something that the staff in those discussions feels needs to be communicated out to the group as a whole that comes from staff to everybody equally that gets posted on the more open platform yes and we often talk to Dusty before the meeting the day of the meeting to figure out what any technical issues there are so he knows what to expect and I think that feels perfectly fine yeah I think that's normal what I wouldn't want to get is what I've seen in some other governing bodies which is not that this would happen with our group but we wouldn't want one member starting to pepper staff with to-dos and questions outside of the application process that application you guys haven't crossed that threshold we haven't but we want to make sure I could start so on the security piece I also mentioned so Sharon could post a folder the same way you do now with the date and make it just read only right so the only thing you can even make it so that we can't share it with anybody if you wanted but if you post it as read only we can easily you just say file save as a copy and then you can do all your own highlighting editing in the doc yourself and you can even then share it back with if you have questions for her on something this is the other piece I was going to get into you can highlight sections of a doc and tag somebody and the nice thing is like if you know there's a question specifically about a technical detail I literally highlight it and click the comment button and tag Sharon's email address and then just say Sharon is this correct or whatever my question is it'll send her an email with that section I highlighted already in the email so she clicks the link and it brings it right to it and the other thing we can start doing during meetings is we can actually start writing in the proposed planning commission findings and we would if I did it and I was logged in you would literally be seeing it up on the screen if Darren had to talk up so no more emailing sharing afterwards and everybody would be sending me reading it back or whoever wrote it reading it back would actually be seeing it real time because it's a collaboration tool only if you have edit authority but we would make the staff reports editable by so tonight tonight this is a concept and I don't want to try to resolve all the issues or even identify all the issues tonight really when John and I had spoken about this before I really just wanted to put it in front of everybody to see if there was a support for moving to this you know an enhanced platform because I think there are going to have to be details but ideally if this works well then I'd like to say let's let John work with the town IT staff and come up with a plan and then come in and then start looking at it what do we need, what's missing do we need something else do we need different security and you know come up with the draft idea first get staffs input I mean maybe staffs already has this maybe John doesn't have to do it but I think this is a strength then the rest of us I mean you guys have all done this before so we bring something in, there's no rush to do this but if we put it in and do it and accommodate a lot of these things and it doesn't have to be complete we can phase this, everything could go up as read only to begin with no collaboration, no nothing just read only and then we could start figuring out what to do what are two things depending on the application or whatever is going on, sure it's just like the commission and not the public too because if they start asking us questions that I feel is a little bit inappropriate maybe there's a fine line there so I like the idea that's essential we don't get public access to the FTP site so all we can do we can do this in a simple process of replace the FTP with similar functionality but understanding that it's infinitely scalable IT IT projects I'm not sure the policies that Rick has in place today but he can prevent us from sharing anything externally by accident I know at the administration level if I'm assuming he has sx.org or their own google domain so at that level there's all kinds of controls say for example Dustin gets kicked off the planning commission and I don't mean to imply I did not have the public ask us questions I just meant if we have something going back privately but with anything like this we can start very restrictive and we can start very limited and then figure out what's comfortable so I just want to mention a couple other things hang on go ahead I just want to mention a couple other highlights as takeaways one thing they're on the comments too so we mentioned being able to comment and reply in a doc it's helpful but maybe not nothing really to do with the read-only docs but you can suggest edits which actually could be really helpful if you have one person that's kind of taking drafting up those the wording for different things they could be the only one that had the ability to actually commit the edit and everybody else could highlight and say I suggest we change it to this and if he agrees he could say accept and we'll just instantly change it so there's that kind of features that you can switch out with people may or may not but even to follow up your document if Dave edited his copy and then tagged Sharon she'd have the edit so he just did just like you do now so there's no emailing things back and forth just there let's see we could keep a shared background of items for future discussion we always talk about that that everybody can see at all times in Google Calendar where you could have these meetings set up in Google Calendar instead of sending the in-out messages every week just have people accept the meeting as I mentioned I'm also a developer so I go even further into the Google Docs but you could have it automatically send out messages to everybody like X days before a meeting takes place as a reminder saying make sure you accept your meeting or let me know if you're going to be in or out so that's done through some programming behind it for me yeah John I'm just saying oh and also sending notifications when new or updated files become available so you could have one folder that's used just like we do now in FTP and everybody here could set up to say I want to be notified when anything new gets out of this folder or updated in this folder so you won't have to send out and say the files are available we would automatically get a message the other thing is you wouldn't have to manage yet another Gmail account or email account where I've used this in some other places is you just set it up and we forward everything that comes into this mailbox to our preferred email account and we never even go into the Gmail account so if somebody tags you in a doc it's going to get forwarded to wherever you prefer to get your messages from you still have to log in once you get to the Google Docs so there should be a fear that oh jeez another account I have to worry about you don't have to do that that's about it staff this hits you guys I'm assuming this is a tool that you guys are going to be using routinely in the town practices and so forth going forward and this seems like it's a good extension of that I think it brings enough options to us to make it better as we said it's scalable it's not real small, limited access read only mimicking the FTP functions but we wouldn't be limited to them and I know from my situation I can't get to FTP sites FTP is locked in my environment it just is not an option in the hospital world the Google Docs is available so anyways you were about to say something Dana about next steps I just want to make sure that we're clear on coming out of this meeting what our next steps are great info, thank you John and I'm glad you've talked to Rick and that he thinks this is great and Google Docs is using other parts of this organization so after tonight I think we should get together with Rob and Shannon in our IT department and talk to them about what we learned tonight and see how we maneuver this forward let me know if you'd like me to come in and meet with you when you do that I'd be more than happy to that's already in writing here so before we and I would like to urge us to before we caution to actually develop a plan and let us pick it apart before we put something in let's let's talk it through because I think once we have an idea in front of us then we start putting in the questions Tom that you had Dave that you had and find out whether or not this is a clear this is a phase 1, phase 2, phase 3 and we're not then sort of struggling once we start trying to use it and we still have to maintain if Ned wants to maintain a paper copy we still need to maintain that process and not exclude that from this I disagree Ned is doing it for exercise he walks over and picks it up and walks back we can give him a virtual drive when he comes over we could probably run a wire from here to my house now the other thing we get going with this if people start talking about the I don't know security or legality around the council we might actually look to the select board to put us supply us with tablets or something that are linked to the system and furthermore greater security because they wouldn't be outside use type tools we're not there yet we'll let our town manager worry about the fact that he has to maintain open meeting law and records, retention Google Docs will have all that up online and it'll be the town manager's problem to make sure that I see Dana's budget going up next I got your back I've got your back so in general this seems like it's a good direction to explore Dana, you guys can talk with your folks if that's what you want I know John has gotten had some communication already and could continue this as well so it's kind of I think this is probably initially a significant work but it's a staff impact well it's great that Darren already has knowledge with it so that's kind of an ace in the hole too and John's willing has already offered himself up so my suggestion would be for you guys to talk internally who you want to and then bring John in and develop and let John develop the plan if you want because we've got a lot of work going on on the ETC and so forth let John do some heavy lifting on coming up with a potential rollout a phased rollout of Google Docs for the planning commission let's start a Google Doc about that there we go that way it takes it off then it takes it off your plate once you've got concurrence from the other staff about support for this direction then bring it in and we start picking it apart and also I think Greg Evan and the select board need to be apprised at some point what's going on here just by the by PC's doing it right Rob our IT director Rick is now the chief of police full time he still has his hand in IT I like the collaboration and where you're going we have to make sure that open meetings do not get violated absolutely and the comments can be kept but separately to the person and you can bring them back to you like how they do it I've seen it and it's great not shared you are allowed to share your comments and questions with staff individually if you have a question the buffer zone you go to staff and say what did we do with this they can answer you back if they think it rises to a level of clarity for everybody a question has been asked this is the code not telling you how to vote but this is the code that's communication and help speed up any of that stuff what will also then pop in what's on ITs to do docket too and then some training maybe disinformed or the that's how if we if we can map this out but I've seen it I did see a demonstration I think it's awesome and I wasn't aware that FTP was so limited and I guess the good news is this is very little lift for ITs especially since they are already using it so it's really writing a procedure or a policy on how we want to use it it's already there he doesn't really have to do a whole lot other than set up the accounts it's probably why it would be good there you go and Rob was involved actually and Rick did when I originally asked him he got Rob involved so Rob is aware of the request as well it's a good direction I think we map it out to let the different departments make sure that it can fit within their workload and everything else and then we just see if it is able to support our need so that was the last thing it's kind of a just a new and as we've said and as I've said and as Dana doesn't want me to say all the time I know because it's more work sometimes but if commissioners have things they want to present and they want to talk about let's do it um I think it's a big thing for getting even some of the village guys in because the movie the Town Center presentation we've been getting we've been getting crossover and I think that's been phenomenal to get you know other folks in and just come in and talking with us and sharing you know the discussions that aren't necessarily related to our regulations because if they're used to discussing topics with us that are on the regulations they might actually come in when we are talking about regulations so and Dana supports this I know Dana supports it I thought you were Julie Gampoli and Movie Night and Popcorn Dana supports this I like the Popcorn that was great and um I totally get where you're coming from we just need to fit in so we're not dumping on I mean we're not trying to dump on staff and we're not trying to make extra work and I know sometimes when we have initiatives it sometimes it can feel like that we're not so I think we just want to keep everybody involved and provide opportunities for other people that don't normally come to our stuff to come to our stuff get them interested if you could keep us in the loop on that like if you're going to have a presentation just let us know beforehand wouldn't be great we want to schedule that we want to find it we want to do it on the right nights we don't want to do it on a heavy load we don't want to do these outside of you guys it isn't going to be that we may want to do something you know in a time frame based on who we want to bring in or something like that but we're not going to hey surprise, guess what other than John he was already here just loop us in to this because we have a better understanding of the flow of work in the office and how long things are going to take and where we are in our work plan etc so just keep the lines of communication open and we don't mind work, we just like communication ideally we do these sorts of presentations on nights when we have like a consent agenda item only or something like that where we can fit it in without without dumping on us and this was pretty good meaning to do that okay motion, move to adjourn second, all those in favor aye, opposed, 7-0 7-36 adjourned I know this Dustin got the chance for that, that's for his so you could actually have a folder with all the regulations in there you saved the whole thing