 2021 planning commission meeting 631 welcome everyone remotely we have Ned Daly Dave Raphael and myself Dustin Bursow present in person and John Mangan and Joshua Knox are present remotely if anyone else comes on board you guys can keep track or if I see him we'll announce it when I get in so let me get here we have changes to the agenda tonight we have some postponed stuff the first item on our agenda or second item was going to been consent agenda that's been postponed so we have no consent agenda items tonight and then we added two things to other business notification of an Airbnb and a PC operating okay thank you so I'm going to issue I'm going to request that anyone who's going to speak on any of the remaining items on the agenda this evening you can swear I'll just ask you either online or here in the room if the police swear that any testimony you present this evening will be truthful to the best of your abilities I know I do so swear thank you I do so onward first item now on the agenda second item on the agenda is the site plan public hearing why not LLC and Essex Rescue Inc. proposal for an emergency services building located at 35 Essex Way did you ask for public comments if there's somebody here oh yeah you're right I didn't thank you sure so actually the first item on the agenda is public comments anyone has any questions or comments they would like to present commission for items that are not on the agenda this is the time to speak up hearing none now we'll move on unless there are any hands raised I'm not good at checking that all the time Dustin this is John I have a question so I just wanted to offer to recuse myself from this next one and I don't necessarily feel I have to be but I wanted to throw it out there because I do live in the neighborhood off that sex Essex Way so I just wanted to throw it out to the Commission if they want me to reduce myself I'm fine with that you're not an adjacent landowner so I personally would not think that you'd need to or should because we're all in the community and you don't have a financial investment in this property correct that is correct fear he can be fair and you do you fear that you can be fair you can be fair no I know I think I can yeah so applicants does anyone have any objections to John remaining on the okay see no no responses in the in the audience tonight and nothing online all right John you're still in thanks Dusty are the site plans shoe has arrived virtually thank you truly okay I certainly have so this is the site currently addressed us 35 Essex Way it is at the corner of Essex Way and the entrance to the links at Lang Farm which is to the south off the screen here for orientation this map is oriented north so 289 is here Essex Way is here Myers Park links at Lang Farm here and the site in question is highlighted in dark gray so moving to the big map here this is oriented so that north is roughly to the left so change your view a little bit and this is for the new headquarters for Essex Rescue and this would be located in a more convenient spot for them to get in and out to the community and serve them well and we have classified this as a personal service and office and there's our there is some office space within the building but the primary use is serving the community by emergency rescue the site plan generally meets all of the requirements of our regulations there are some minor additions and documentation needed for this proposal to be fully ready for a zoning permit we will review those in a little detail in a sec primarily relates to landscaping in stormwater one of the major discussions that we've had with the applicant was about the pedestrian access to the site as you'll see from the plan here the Essex recreation path which is a multi-use path that runs from the village all the way up to the town center and into the price trapper area is along here so it's a major thoroughfare for bikers and pedestrians so one of the concerns was about ambulances coming out of the site and having potential conflicts with pedestrians who may or may not be paying attention we're hopeful that with some additional traffic control on the path itself and warnings to users to be aware of the ambulances and yield to traffic that that will alleviate that concern plus the ambulance it will be running sirens so we hope that will alert everyone in addition we are asking the applicants to we have asked the applicants to create a pedestrian connection into the site for those who do choose to use access the site by bike or foot part of the reason for that is that they are using the links at Lang Farm parking lot as an auxiliary parking for evening training events which are infrequent but regular so we want to make sure that there is a safe way to cross from this road here which will be renamed Stimson Drive tentatively so we'll have a new name in the future it may become a full public road as future development may occur on the rest of the plateau here not part of the golf course but the vacant area we do want to note that the applicants have tentatively planned for geothermal heating for this building and solar panels to the north of the site so that it will hopefully be a net zero building and we strongly support that although we do not regulate it and the sorry to go back to the future public road we are requiring that that be deeded to the town as a future right of way you know and to meet the full public works works specs we are not requiring that to be upgraded at this point only a future development occurs and requires that it have that level of service the last few changes that we are recommending have to do with landscaping generally making sure that street trees aren't blocking visibility as you approach the site and also that they aren't in conflict with buried utilities we're asking for some details on stormwater forebays making an ADA accessible space and accessible concrete ramps on the sidewalks and also requiring that the applicant add a fire hydrant within the site to the west of the building so bottom of the screen here because the fire hydrant that exists at the lower end of Stinson Drive may not be maintained in the winter and we want to make sure that it is fully usable by our fire department that's it for our concerns and perspective on the application but we do fully support approval with those conditions mission there's any question for staff at this time John or Josh or shoe take that as a good to know who's representing the applicant on this one? Doug Hansen from Lamarone Dickinson I've had it good evening as usual Darren did a pretty good job going to hit the high points I have had a couple of discussions today with Aaron Martin regarding traffic control where Stimson will hit Essex Way and also with Chief Cole regarding the hydrant it's is that feedback on my end? Yeah, just a reminder for folks if you're not speaking if you can make sure that you're muted for any folks online I know we've got a couple folks with their mics still open thank you so what Aaron and I talked about as far as the crosswalk across Stimson for the existing bike path he is not in favor of doing any sort of lights whatsoever he is in favor of putting stops well I shouldn't say he's in favor he's acceptable or will accept stop signs on the bike path his concern there and I think we probably have all seen it is those are going to be right next to Essex Way and he said many times he's seen a car come along see the stop sign that's intended for the cyclist and stop so he's a little bit leery about putting stop signs there but definitely definitely does not want any sort of flashing lights or signals or anything else doesn't feel the would meet any warrant but he and I will continue to work our way through those and ask for the commission's latitude to work those things out as far as the hydrant we have a tough time with that it's the issue with it is it adds a couple of thousand dollars to the cost but it also adds two months into the permit process because adding the hydrant would require a water supply permit from the state of Vermont and with the expediency with which they act as I say that that will add two or three months to the permit process before that permit is issued and just not it's it's not very clearly spelled out anywhere that's readily available on the town website that that's required as I said I spoke yesterday this Peter Matolo here from Essex rescue I did have a chance to chat with Karen and yes sir can you hold off for a moment please and let we'll let Doug go through and then we'll entertain additional comments back and forth certainly thank you okay so it's not like I said the requirement for that hydrant is not readily available to anybody it is there on the town website if you have a big enough shovel but you have to dig deeply and it's only it's on the fire department website it's not in the public or expects it's not in the zone and regulations that that there has to be a hydrant within 50 feet of the building and the fire regulations actually state that you should not put a hydrant within 50 feet of the building and so anyway that's that's the biggest issue in my mind that's the biggest issue that we've got going on here so I'm not quite sure how to how to get around that is there anything else Doug in the in the staff report that you wanted to call out call to our attention not really no I mean we're fine with we're fine with moving trees and plants around as as need be to to get them out of the people's way we're so no I'd say mr chairman we're with the exception of that hydrant that's we're fine okay commissioners questions at this point for or either either uh Doug or um staff you didn't have a question or a comment from yeah so that was that was that was mr I forget utolo um quick question before we move that don't we normally do um either stort valves or some sort of valves on buildings instead of hydrants uh you mean fire department connection yep so that's uh that is on the building already but in order to use a fire department connection they need a water source to pump into the building so that's the concern is that the hydrant that is there um on the site or on the spinson drive already which is down near the corner here zoom in so you can see the icon here but that is too far away from the building to be able to run supply lines to the fire department which is located here next to the truck base so the fire chief's concern is just that they won't actually be able to connect into that and need a closer source given how long they'd have to go around the driveway they can't go cross country over the bioretention area because that's the stormwater pond essentially um so that is the request and the requirement from the fire chief based on national fire protection uh association codes um i'm not prepared to speak to the details of fire codes and um exactly why we would need that there as opposed to out on the road but uh we can suggest a change to the condition that requires that hydrant to work that out uh with staff well let's see if if mr mitolo has additional information peter sorry to cut you off thank please jump in no i apologize for the uh for the out-of-order comments um doug and i hadn't had a chance to follow up uh with our uh last sort of discussion prior to the meeting so thank you for entertaining uh an additional uh discussion point here so i'm a member of the sx rescue board of directors and a crew member on fridays just for disclosure as to my association with the project um we were talking with our board of directors and i think doug has laid out the concerns very clearly um from our point of view and i think one of the things that we would ask of the commission is the ability to work out the details to make sure that that hydrant on um forgive me i don't remember the name of the new road the golf course road stinson um is accessible year round because as we understand that that is a municipal hydrant um and the concern from the fire chief was that it is currently not accessible year round because there's no year round tenant on that road um we are going to be changing that when we take occupancy and part of our um agreement with the landowner can certainly involve making sure that that road is cleared to that hydrant access and and with all due respect to the gentleman who was speaking before uh it doesn't have anything to do with the proximity of the hydrant it has to do with the year round access to that hydrant which currently is not maintained and it's not a town road but we would be able to provide a stipulation to the town that that hydrant would be accessible um and then that would keep our infrastructure in place that the town has already made use of to make that a municipal hydrant um and what we'd be looking to do uh with the guidance of the commission is is not put additional unnecessary infrastructure in place and just utilize the stuff that's there uh to a better ability so that that's my comment sounds like we're referring to a third yeah so i'm confused because lines 401 to 404 talk about a new hydrant that is not municipal or musically owned that would be maintained by applicant so that's the one that we're talking correct the fire chief has requested that they put on site right close to the building um i believe uh the applicant is talking about the existing hydrant that is currently on site but not maintained an accessible year round because it's not plowed essentially and where is that one correct plans again you can see it on the site plan yep it's in the corner of the so corner center here so you can see it better this little dot in the middle and that's where it is relative to the building okay and the newer the new hydrant that the fire chief is requesting would be somewhere in this vicinity so that might be something that can be worked out between staff and fire chief staff and if it stands as the fire chief stands on that question yeah we're certainly not the ones to interpret the NFP code in terms of the planning commission and the town's ability to require that you have in your standard use standards adequate fire provision adequate provision for fire protection shall be made in the site layout and so far is it direct made directly interrelated with the above aspects of site plan review so it is not specific but it is essentially saying we need fire protection and to be able to serve the site um so that would be our goal one way or the other i think as long as the fire chief can get access to a hydrant that can serve the building i think we will meet the zoning requirements commissioners questions for applicant or staff john shoe i don't have any questions nope josh i am all set thank you mr mangan the other john yeah a couple things a couple things i just want to know um was there any consideration uh towards solar power for this uh adding solar to the roof um that's one thing and the other thing is what do we expect the noise levels to be from from this as if has anything been done to to look into that as well as have there been complaints from the existing um location for sx rescue from the neighborhood because it's kind of being put into a similar location in the middle of a neighborhood for the beginning of a neighborhood i can speak to both initially um the site plan shows possible future um ground mounted solar panels north of the building so beyond the parking um that is not regulated by the town and it's not necessarily you know firm on the site plans but that's our understanding the applicant is doing that as well as geothermal heating hopefully if that uh the technology works out in terms of noise the town does not regulate noise um in either in zoning or in the general town ordinances it may be regulated by act 250 but we don't really uh look at that from a site plan review perspective okay my my understanding is this wouldn't require an act 250 permit would it because it's a utility building building it's not on large enough acreage to require one is that true it will sorry it will require an amendment to the existing permit any any any development on property that's subject to an existing permit requires an amendment to that permit so yes it will require an active 50 amendment okay so that's where the noise will be handled down under active 50 okay all right that's that's all i have thank you ned no i david then i would entertain a motion to open the public hearing don't move second move by ned seconded by dav um so the public uh all those in favor aye aye opposed motion carries six six zero six yeah um for anyone who wants to offer comment if you're in the room please raise your hand if you're on remote please use the raise your hand function in teams and if that's uh not available to you then um speak up and we'll try to get you in in the order that you at that we see you recognize you so that said mr dodge first up hi thank you very much um so i am uh my name is will dodge i live at two lighted drive in the lang farm neighborhood and i'm the president of the homeowners association i'm not speaking for the homeowners association because we haven't had enough time really to get together to uh to look at this but i have to say i'm concerned about a number of things with this project um one is i'm still unclear as to how this doesn't uh sort of irrevocably interrupt the flow of bicycle and pedestrian traffic that has actually increased uh since since the covid pandemic with more and more people walking and biking taking their dogs jogging back and forth across the circ to the what was the sx outlet center but is now the sx experience which is all about people using that space to go out for dinner to uh you know to do a lot more than retail so as a somebody who e-bikes to work every day i'm worried about this interruption and i i don't quite understand it the second thing that i would point out is that um i understand in a general sense darin's point that the town does not regulate renewable energy requirements or efficiency requirements but it also has a it has an energy plan that was adopted by both the village and the town that sets really specific goals as to what's supposed to happen uh with the towns uh with energy usage throughout the town not just the municipal building so i guess i would say that a prerequisite of any acceptance by me of this proposal would be to see that the geothermal system as well as the solar system are installed as part of this and i would also strongly encourage sx rescue to look into uh electric vehicles i understand that ambulances haven't gotten there yet but they're certainly migrating toward that the third point that i'm very concerned about is the noise and i understand the technical point that this is not regulated by site plan but it won't be long before you guys are at 250 and i've already been hearing from people within the neighborhood about the concern of noise so if you could address how how you propose to ultimately um deal with that as part of act 250 and i guess the last thing that maybe i just didn't hear because i missed it why is why are why is sx rescue moving i'm a great supporter of sx rescue i think i've donated just about every year and i understand the importance of the service but it's not clear to me like why here i know that the llc is why not llc and i'm not trying to be the because llc but i want to understand why it is here and not elsewhere why you're moving i can address a couple comments okay so i do want to caution a little bit though because we're not we can go into that if you got some ready information but frankly i don't believe it's our purview as to why somebody is doing it if it meets the regulations meet requirements and so forth so i wouldn't comment on that um darin what what do you have and then we can yep so um well i'll take your comments in order so the bike path um i do understand the concern about or the town understands the concern about uh bikes full and pedestrian traffic the reality is that the this particular site and a couple of sites next to it have long been planned for development um it's sort of a coincidence that they haven't been developed yet the links at lang farm was originally supposed to be large research and development area and well in addition to some housing it hasn't gone that direction but there is additional space for development on the plateau next to this site so there would have been a major road coming out here regardless of whether sx rescue is coming or someone else's um we are doing as much as we can to mitigate um the potential conflict because ambulances in particular are going on calls and we recognize that they uh are not necessarily able to stop for every single thing that comes into their path and we want to make sure that others are recognizing that they need to stop for ambulances because that is a major public service so that is the intent of having some sort of traffic control on the bike path it will be a very minor um uh slowdown if any for most users of the path it will be a heads up look both ways before you cross a road um which is already an issue at 289 and the um the circ um there are a couple of sections within countryside there there isn't even a full bike path and you're on the road um so we're doing everything we can on that in terms of energy again the town is not regulated but we do you missed it may have missed a comment earlier where i said the town strongly supports it um and income in keeping with our enhanced energy plan uh evs are in fact um generally uh or rather ev charging infrastructure is generally required for most active 50 projects but the town doesn't have any involvement in that but just to point out that that will likely happen um and then yeah we as i mentioned earlier the town does not regulate noise mr dodge any follow-up on that or are you good for now no i my only follow-up is that i really think that we've got to get to a point with this town on the and it's it's obviously a big job for the planning commission and for the energy committee that i'm part of but it's time that we start regulating some of these aspects of energy that we keep talking about and devoting a lot of time to but then when it gets to an important new project one which i think i can probably support we don't have the mechanisms so anyway i appreciate everybody's time uh mr lang your your name is up what lane your hand is up hi thank you very much i just want to let you know that i am not related to lang farm or the lang's in that group at all i do live nearby i live in the condos right next to the church and we were just recently part of an act 250 discussion with them um i have four comments i would like to make and have recorded one is um noise we are very concerned about the noise i think a noise study should have been done you have a lot of older people and freeman woods across the way that are very frail and you're going to be pulling out of there at any time of night with a lot of noise you really should be looking at it and shaman us to hide behind well the town doesn't regulate noise i don't think that's an appropriate excuse for us not to consider and look at noise in this study i think it's very important too that intersection is an issue um people do walk through there all the time i do at least twice a day in that intersection right now is extremely dangerous the people out of freeman woods are coming out of there and they aren't necessarily the most brightest and capable drivers and the people coming on the golf course and i've seen several near accidents myself personally so that intersection is a major major concern and i think we need to take a little more care and looking at that intersection and assuring ourselves that we've done everything possible if that intersection is going to be done the way it is okay um thirdly um i don't understand why we don't cluster services i know maybe it's not your group but we've just put and bonded a few years ago a nice new police station why aren't we building next to that in that property i just don't understand why we spread these out i don't see why this location is the appropriate and best one for us for choosing so i'm worried about that and fourthly for the planning commission um i have a concern over the intentions of subdividing this lot i know you said it's planned for this but by subdividing it the way you do are you opening it up for certain things going through the other places or what are we doing with the rest of the land there because once you do one you're sort of by unintended consequences are deciding something else so i'd like to make sure that that's part of the discussion also uh thank you very much for hearing me those are the four points i wanted to make tonight thank you vaults hand can come down commissioners any thoughts comments on anything we've heard so far ned yeah i'm a i'm a little confused about what the people are saying about noise uh it's not like it's a continual noise number one it's on and off some days you never hear and i live within hearing distance of the existing location so i'm gonna say some days nothing other days yeah you know you wonder what the heck's going on in town you think you know whatever but i will say something and we're talking about being elderly people who maybe are going to need care and we've had it we've required the emergency service where we live and i'll tell you one of the most comforting things you hear when you call the rescue service is you're here to decide when when they pull out of the garage so you know that's that's not the argument i and i think given i think it's a central location because they have a very wide service area i think it's probably better than where they are now uh that's all okay thanks Ned um i think it's worth noting too i i don't think it's you we can't disregard the pedestrian impact but i think it's worth noting that in its current location which is 40 plus years it has daily traffic vehicular and pedestrian from the high school um continual and and sporting events and so forth so i i think the traffic situation it it is probably going to be less than it is now because of the the it won't be in proximity direct proximity to the the uses of the school as my my feeling when i'm looking at this um so uh anybody here in the room tonight have any comment that you'd like to offer or ask on this this is the time if you just in your name my name is Colleen nesto i'm the executive director for sx rescue just speaking on some of the comments uh this evening about pedestrian traffic and um our move and location reasonings um so pedestrian traffic as was already stated just a couple minutes ago we have been at our current location for 40 plus years never once have we had a pedestrian incident we are very aware um probably more than more so than your average driver of where people are in proximity to our ambulance to our station um our current location has presented issues with um stalling our response to calls because of the traffic coming in and out of there um we don't get complaints about noise um we do our best to be conscious of where we are when we're responding the time that we're responding and using our lights and sirens appropriately but also within the limits of the law um i will say as far as the reason for our moving um we have outgrown the facility that we are currently in we currently sit within a flood plain um which is another uh infrastructure issue had we ever had a large scale incident actually this uh a year ago the water that we had um around halloween nearly flooded our driveway um which is problematic our fleet is expanding they no longer make the size ambulances that we've previously purchased the next ambulance that is due to be replaced um is coming up in a year and a half and we will not be able to put a second one in our garage right now which presents a issue with providing the residents of sx and sx junction with proper vehicles for response um this came with a lot of uh analysis and forethought um and we just asked for the support of the residents to make this move so we can better serve you thank you thank you um mr dodge your hand is is up again you have more comments i don't believe about that way if that's true it's not intentional and i certainly appreciate very much the explanation okay anyone else present that would like to offer comment commissioners and staff mr chairman i'm not oh go ahead sorry mr chairman i'm not present but i'm uh online just peter mutolo from sx rescue again to piggy back on some of the comments that my executive director made uh the gentleman before asked a few questions about the um the overall geothermal and the environmental impact of the building as we move forward with this we would welcome any input and um discussion with the town because and any of the members of the town because we are taking a very aggressive approach at how we are looking at this building and working with all of the facilities at our disposal to not only make it net zero but also a nice tight energy efficient building and we're really excited about the opportunities that we have in front of us and we would love to share those with you so if you're interested in hearing more please contact us over at the station we have a building committee member who would love to sit down and chat with you so that he can he or she could answer all of your questions so thank you for bringing those to our attention tonight and we look forward to talking to you sounds like an opportunity for to invite somebody to the energy commission meeting mr dodge hint hint yes that was my thought but i think i think it'd be helpful for darin to come to that one too because we gotta start making this more of a requirement that's my that's my comment but i appreciate what sq what sx rescue is trying to do okay uh has his hand up again mr lang just a question um yeah i'm a big supporter of asset crush you by the way um who is the building and committee members so what would i be talking to what was that question sir i missed it i'm sorry i would like to know who the building committee member is at the sx rescue that we've been invited to talk to i'd like to know who that is so i can talk okay so i think mr metolo said call the station and yep you can reach out to colleen so colleen is the right person to talk to about the building plans okay thank you i'll direct you where you need to go let's okay i'm not sure that that was what the but the question with the original offer was but no that wasn't but i understand in other words peter's not going to give me a name and i need to call colleen and i'll be directed to the right person if you want to talk about the they were talking about the energy planning and so forth for this so correct and you can also sir call reach out to the staff here in the community development office and they can help put you in touch that might be the easiest way the cleanest way at least to uh to keep things moving forward happy to help i think this the staff here is has got a lot of good contacts and they can they can help understand your interpret your question and maybe get the right person for you we had another hand raised in the audience and i just wanted to offer my name anybody who does have any questions or they want to follow up on anything okay there you go mr lang okay i'm sorry i didn't quite get the name but i'd be happy to get it darin danna her thank you all right we're going to bring it back to the table for a moment commissioners questions on this staff any additional thoughts or concerns on this at this point or tweaks that we want to talk about we can offer a modification to the condition about the um uh fire hydrant and we also do want to offer something a quick change to condition 19 about the superbox okay i didn't mention earlier but it's a minor change okay so on the hydrant but what would we be looking to do uh so we would basically want to say thunder the big oh what are you doing what are you doing i already rewrote it but go ahead let's see no you first no go ahead see if it matters mine i just pulled it out and put it put it to staff so it's good thing to fight about i like it i said prior to the issues of zoning permit the applicant should work with staff to determine if the new landowner owned fire hydrant is required to be located along the driveway to allow for a fire engine to connect within 20 feet of the hydrant and within 50 feet of the fire department connection in the building because this term and one will be required the plan shall be revised to reflect the change yes i'm different what do you got come on spit it out no no now you can't hide come on no that's better than what i had i'm not writing love letters over here when i'm typing i think you are good to know let the record show all right the other condition we want to offer a change to is number 19 lines 474 to 476 um after the words super keybox strike located adjacent to the door closest to the fire enunciate for panel and replace with audio location approved by the fire department it does not need to be in a specific location it can be worked out with the applicant and staff okay so john mangan i'm missing the order of yes thoughts questions concerns with this with the no i don't i don't have any additional anything additional to add in okay yeah i'm good uh shoe yeah did you're um you're finding that address the delay that would they would get in uh getting their permit or getting started on the project i mean that was that was part of the question no and i mean while dug's right it would it's it's um it can i mean not to shoot holes in your theory dive but i mean it can happen in tandem two months they get a wastewater for if you will do need to fire hydrant permit isn't gonna isn't gonna hurt anything shouldn't shouldn't hold up the the town permit right it's just something that you you have to sort of close out before you're you're a certain distance along with the project we don't if we don't add to the zoning permit it won't um it won't delay things correct that's that would my only comment that's okay well we could tie it to a co so we know that what the end result is that would work so you might want to take that out of condition 3a i was pulling the whole section of that fire i was taking 3a i was gonna strike 3a out and put a new condition that was the one that i read so now co instead of zoning permit okay uh josh um i really like gave's amendment and would like to read his love letters now we'll take that as a yes ned how do you feel about this at this oh good okay so at this point i'm going to take one last pass through public for public comment question uh doug henson i see you go ahead duck how are you with your gun mute there i'm not anymore i i did want to point out there's a gentleman who i believe is in the audience named john lang who could clarify how the new road will be spelled it's spelled three different ways in the in the staff report i don't see him here tonight oh i thought that's how i'm in the back yes i'm just the other one sorry i'm totally with you s we don't even have an agreement between youtube s p i n s o n yeah spinson okay my grandmother's maiden name so and as opposed to an happen okay okay apologies all right dug you good thank you all right that's it yep sorry mr. lang i was looking at a generation after you um any other questions or comments then i would entertain a motion to close the public hearing i move we close the public hearing a second moved by josh seconded by john all those in favor all right all right all right opposed motion carries six zero public hearing is closed can i ask one more i was just looking at one of my highlights um is this one of the conditions and that's probably here and you guys are gonna tell me i have the requirement for the road maintenance agreement that was just um that was condition six yeah is it okay sorry i'm just trying to take nine four thirty nine okay thank you i was trying to take intact okay thank you thanks so with that uh interim looking at interim maintenance okay good um anyone if there's no further discussions anyone ready to offer a motion uh i am so i will move approval of the site plan for why not llc and sx rescue for the proposal for an emergency services building located at 35 sx way and the mixed use plan unit development on next dpud zone retail business b1 subzone tax map 91 parcel 10 staff report as written with the following changes uh strike lines 401 through 404 a new condition to be wherever sharing or daring c fit and i can send this but um that'll read prior to the issue issuance of a co uh the applicant shall work with staff to determine if a new land owner owned fire hydrant is required to be located along the driveway to allow a fire engine to connect within 20 feet of the hydrant and within 50 feet of the fire department connection on the building if it is determined one will be required the plan shall be revised revised to reflect that change and then um on condition number 19 striking the words located adjacent to the door closest to the fire enunciate or panel in place with added location approved by the fire department we need anything to put in here if you strike line 395 yeah let's get a second and then i'll let you guys friendly amendment any finding so that didn't happen i'll second it pass that back that was shoe that was me okay moved by david seconded by shoes anyone want to offer there you guys friendly amendment on on this i would just i i think i would offer so we don't strike it from the thing we would just enter on 395 say just no additional findings that was what i would offer that sounds good accepted and accepted yep okay any further discussion all those in favor dignified by saying aye aye aye opposed motion carries six zero good thanks mr chairman and commissioners have a good evening thank you moving on all right moving on thank you folks thank you so we have a continued sketch plan public hearing continued from 625 this uh 2020 that fire okay this is rena and bradla found this is a proposal for a three lot eudr located at 109 brigham hill road in the ar zone darin you want to bring us up to speed yes uh let me get a second plan to share and so folks can take a look at that while i talk about the history of this project uh so this is a uh parcel that has seen quite a lot of attention over the years it is currently a vacant lot that runs um pretty much in an almost a straight rectangle from brigham hill road between numbers 105 and 113 so there's a spot in between where there's vacant land what's shown on the plans here is actually the current of the proposed conditions but the current condition is that this line runs straight back the applicants are proposing a boundary adjustment and subdivision um the lot was created from a subdivision of the larger parcels seen here so there's um the existing house at 105 brigham hill road was originally included all of these lands and was subdivided in 2007 and 2008 into lots one two which is under review now and three which has been reviewed previously um and at the time it was determined that was the extent of subdivision that would happen under the regulations that were in place there was also a litigation associated with that subdivision that placed some restrictions on both lot two and three in terms of where buildings could be located and any future development since that time the town has allowed for two lot PUDs or two unit PUDs specifically um the applicants have presented several versions of what that would look like on these lots um and we have this latest plan is the closest that we have seen that um reflects the goals and standards of planned unit development however it still misses some of the major points the biggest issue yeah so well let me start with what they've got they do have an open space lot a 3.23 acre section in the back that includes some wetlands and existing vegetation um that is part of the proposal now that has not been previously um and they have attempted to preserve some or to minimize impacts to wetlands however there is still a long driveway that runs through a wetland that has been delineated um and in addition these houses are not particularly clustered that is the major concern from staff is that if this were approved as a PUD it would set a bad precedent for clustering we're looking for things that are close to each other close to the setback standards within the PUD um regulations these far exceed that and it is still essentially a conventional subdivision that doesn't meet frontage standards that's the point of issue here where normally it would require 200 feet of frontage per lot and per unit we're seeing 100 feet if there is flexibility for PUDs so staff recognizes that there are some restrictions on the parcel um but those are legal restrictions that are outside the town's regulation and review um in addition we do feel that the applicant could propose development that is within those restrictions and could potentially involve subdivision and a planned unit development but that is not um so uh that wouldn't create so many impacts on the wetlands uh wouldn't create such a long driveway and wouldn't impact the scenic views which was ultimately the point of the um restrictions on the property was to preserve scenic views from the road and from adjacent properties the staff would suggest a revision to this that um involves both dwellings being located west of this wetland um on a shared driveway the lots could be truncated to avoid um to basically be along the wetland boundary or the buffer boundary and both lots or both dwellings could be located within the restriction areas um and that would preserve far more open space that includes far more of the resources now natural resources on the parcel um so we would suggest or recommend the planning commission denial without prejudice saying that the plant that is presented cannot be approved but we would entertain a revised one commissioners questions at this stage for for staff mr stewart presenting on this we'll be presenting for the applicant believe mr stewart yeah don it looks like you might be muted um although no you're not muted but we're not hearing what you're saying try again we can see your mouth moving but no sound is coming out it's something my wife hopes for every day okay don if you can't uh if you're having trouble with the computer i might suggest calling in with a phone um let me give you the information for that that number is 802 377 3784 and the conference id you will need is five nine zero eight seven nine six five four and a pound after that is also at the top of the agenda if you they're assuming that the staff report that you give us to they just given us the two different options yep for motion so to clarify the um two recommended motions in the staff report one is denial without prejudice the other if the commission feels that more discretion is needed uh you could continue the application and uh review a different plan something's ringing what just vibrated this is Dustin certainly do have a good evening somebody was looking for mark at least it wasn't for my uh the extended warranty on my card that was a breakfast okay there you go yes it's like we can hear you now good okay uh so i'll be presenting for the uh the fountains um we all set yes we are okay okay so there's a little additional information i want to pass on uh in addition to what uh darin has outlined uh this uh parcel has like he indicates a long history it started out as being uh created as a 4.3 a comparison and then two acres were added to it uh it's part of uh adubian guiney subdivisions the significance of that of course is that uh more than six acres were available for a two unit of pud if the land owners decided to go that route they have at this point so let me give you a little description of what this parcel looks like it's primarily open meadows can you put that plan back up darin let me know if i need to navigate okay so as you stand out on brigham hill road you're looking at a tree line that goes down the north side uh it is uh as i said before uh primarily meadows which also have two wetland areas that are indicated by the uh red cross hatching there are three mound systems that are located well or will be at some point in theory in the uh the right hand side of the property one is to service lot what what is known as lot 1a that's a replacement system for the existing mound system and then there is a mound system for lot 2a which is the proposed house site closest to brigham hill and then lot 2b which is on lands that would be added from um 113 brigham hill which is the la fountain property so we have the meadows and class two wetlands along the east side of the property there's a mature tree line or that's probably 30 to 40 feet high so what the uh the most striking feature of this property is uh the scenic views to the far east mount man's field camels hoppin and the hills in between these are or i should say this is a feature that is significant and something that this plan is primarily intended to preserve so i'll get into those details later but right to the uh you see the green arrow which is connected with the lot 2 designation this is an existing trail or farm uh road uh that uh i believe it probably connected with brigham hill road at one time but it crosses this property uh and it um it is a farm road it has a culvert in place uh it is a resource that we would use for the construction of a driveway now you see how the the wetland it really pinches down where that crossing occurs the the wetland has been delineated and agreed to by the wetlands office so this is very precise representation of that resource so we're not creating any infringement on the wetland that already doesn't exist we're just utilizing that um existing farm road you see this feature on google earth the a and r resource map and even the survey from 2018 so this is something that that exists and we plan to make use of it primarily to not impact the wetland anymore than necessary so we have the two wetlands together they are approximately two and a half acres in size we we only have 6.3 acres uh 3.8 acres to start with so to offset the loss of the acreage to the wetlands we are proposing to add from 113 brigham hill road a like amount uh so that we end up with uh six plus acres of usable land um for the two lots the um uh we we are obviously showing three lots here uh that uh third lot identified as lot to see is uh for open space uh it it presently is uh fairly well treed on the north half of it uh there are a number of trails out there that are in use by uh the landowner and perhaps the neighbors as well for walking atvs or or whatever it's a um they're established trails and and the idea of the open space is to continue uh those um uh the use of those trails which also by the way extend across uh lot to be so the placement of the houses uh is a point of interest because um obviously lot two way over on the west side this is close to the property line as we can get uh utilizing zoning and the uh legal agreement uh the reason for that being so close to that line is to preserve that corridor that looks out towards the the the far views uh the second house site is actually in a a treed area uh it is um not readily visible or wouldn't be readily visible from brigham hill wrote so what we're doing is primarily keeping that view shed uh intact to the extent possible uh and like i said it's it is one of the key resources of the area outside of uh wetlands of course but um that is uh the reason for this layout and it is um how we come to offer a PUD with two high house sites that are that are separated i guess it would be a stretch to call this arrangement clustered but i don't think there's any um uh strict guidelines as to what clustering entails so um we're saying natural resources uh are perhaps a bigger concern here than the the one offered by uh clustering so that is um just the background that gets to our let's say our concerns with the uh staff nodes and the first one is um both dwellings located on the west side of the wetland in the middle of the property or the let's call it the wetland on the west side of the property uh effectively uh you you would be interrupting that view shed that is uh i consider very critical uh and part of what is uh the uh PUD consideration the citing parts of the PUD regulation clustering of the development well that's uh for uh that is something we can debate but uh then we can get into uh agricultural soil there are primary agricultural soils on the property however the the best soils are in the area where the mound systems have been approved uh either in past subdivisions or current ones so the actual area uh where primary soils exist has been fragmented to the point where an agricultural operation is not viable and it's uh something that uh um i don't believe is it should be a uh a factor in uh in the negative here so we talk about natural features uh in our application we've shown wetlands which are the uh the real natural features that we should be talking about here and our efforts to minimize any impacts to them that plan does give us that um uh it shows that we've respected the the natural resources that are our uh on the site and then of course we have the recreational value we've preserved the the trail system and created the open space area uh so this is um uh this is what we are calling a um creative inefficient use of this property considering uh what is available out there for development so uh those are those two items and then we can move on to uh the potential impact of a driveway as far as its visibility and it's obviously the driveway would be at ground level uh the views are at a different plane i mean you're looking at the mountains not a gravel driveway that meanders down through the uh the meadows so it's um that's that's something that we'd get lost in the landscape very easily uh once it's in place uh there's no visual impact from the driveway in other words that's our uh belief anyway so uh when we get to we've covered agricultural open space conservation and outdoor recreation that all of those are part of this plan and uh point five uh that uh we've talked about the uh commercial agricultural potential of the property that's uh that's really not uh possible for uh to undertake here there's just not enough area i along that line let me uh refer to something here i was looking at um the vermont current current use program now obviously this project is not uh looking for some current use designation but uh when current use is considered uh 25 continue contiguous acres is the usual criterion or smaller parcels which generate at least 2000 annually from the sale of crops um etc or at least to a farmer neither of those two criteria could apply to this land so the agricultural potential it's uh really doesn't exist anymore particularly since that farm was divided into probably seven or eight lots uh prior to uh 2007 and 2008 so the any agricultural value has uh has been diminished to the point where it's uh no longer viable just because of subdivision and other things that are going on um so finally there's a mention of legal restrictions when this project started uh as i said at the outset it was a 4.3 acre parcel and it didn't involve 113 Brigham hill so it is uh any of that uh would have would apply to primarily the area where lot 2a is and not um where lot 2b is so i i don't think that's a a valid issue to be taking here so anyway that's uh my recap of um uh our position and commentary on the staff notes i turn it over to the commission for any questions thank you uh commissioners any questions right now for applicant or staff staff is responses at this point i believe the staff report uh well i do want to point out we have not taken any issue with our social soil potential on this staff report okay so this is the public hearing is still open on this because we continued it correct so i would look to see if there's anyone who would like to ask a question um look at that perfect mr. Burke um i just wanted to reveal that uh i am you're also on behalf of the fountains they asked if if we could look at this and and attend and assist and i think john did a good job of the overview um i was new to this as of a couple days ago uh but i did spend uh several hours uh looking at town regulations after reading the staff notes and i do believe um that it meets in my opinion meets the regulations uh the clustering uh where you can look at it one way which i think darin is doing that that means the houses have to be together another way of looking at it is that you have open space requirements which in this case are one acre and they're proposing 3.22 acres so i do think that they meet a definition of clustering and i do think they've done efficient use of the land due to the restrictions one thing that i'm not sure of but i believe is on map 21 significant significant uh the scenic this isn't a scenic corridor that they show that area that john's talking about and it's clear in your regulations that you're not supposed to impact that the view is as you're traveling towards old stage road when you get past that tree line you've got a fantastic view southeast where they're proposing the house next adjacent to the garage and house in the back what's not what's not innovative about adding land to this parcel to get that second house in the back um that uh it it will preserve that view if you try to put another house up front one it'll be out of character with the area which is what the staff report says it's a rural area your town plan says rural housing um so i i've got all kinds of line item things here but i don't know that i necessarily need to delve into that i think i'd probably be better served to the fountains if i'm able to comment after after the boards had had their comments but uh let me hit on a couple more the um um so we talked about the the past um this was part of a former three lot so obviously informed the regulations at that time i just hit on clustering um the the uh i think john hit on a lot of the things that uh that i agree with i would say that while it doesn't have commercial ag potential that this proposal doesn't preclude the individual owners from doing private gardens and and keeping some ag potential on this land um the uh going trying to go very quickly here um line 49 i i disagree um apart it says a parcel land which consists solely of area directly under the structure it's not in this current proposal but i do believe your regulations are clear by definition that you can't have a single unit with a footprint lot where it where the staff reports states that it's only for attached townhouses or duplexes um line 97 says lot lot sizes should be encouraged um so so i think that's one that hasn't been touched on uh that if the board were willing to consider approval of this which should be the third option on the staff report uh one of the things that john didn't touch on was lot 2a uh is apparently greater than 500 feet is greater than the five to one ratio i'm not entirely clear that that doesn't fall by the wayside or can't fall by the wayside up to the commission as part of a pud modifications can be made with a pud so i'm not entirely sure but it's as simple as conditioning that lot to be no deeper than 500 feet it would meet the five to one ratio the other lot ratio would go up so that's an easy condition that shouldn't require continuation or a resubmission on the uh lot with the debt um on line 106 107 john and i talked about clustering on line 115 to 118 the applicant um through john stated the rationale for the proposal i think very good and scenic is one of your highest thing in your regulations in your town plan i'm not sure why that's being overlooked by staff but that should trump card everything that's been said about pushing these houses up front and not making a the uh rural development um line 125 acknowledges that most structures in this area are 300 feet from the road um the ag agricultural purpose in your regulations includes economic capability for agriculture so john hit on that that it's not economically um not economically capable um line 155 6.8 j one acre is the requirement for uh common space uh with nothing stated about the removal of wetlands so staff starts to talk about well it is 3.22 but well the intent the intent of open space is to get things like wetlands in them so uh so it shouldn't be it's a 3.22 acre open space it shouldn't be downgraded because it includes it includes some wetlands line 186 gets into legals and i don't really know that that's as darin stated i don't know that's really part of the purview of the board or subject to it but the staff report went there um i know when this was done at the main intent of that agreement was for one home so darin gets into uh language you know the definitions and comes to the conclusion that you can have more than one well the express intent when that was done was that it was for for one home um upfront uh and that it be at least 200 feet back which they've which they've met and again by tucking it on that north side they preserve the um the view for the traveling public um i think that other than than what i said oh i would like to go over a couple a couple things in town plan so the town plan some of the maps that i would think you'd be looking at uh foot pass none on this parcel shown uh map 11 flood hazard none shown map 12 fluvial hazard none shown map 17 watersheds none shown including wetlands where this wetland crossing is this is just a it's it's a meadow um that gets wet enough in the spring to meet the definition of a wetland it's one of the many non-wet wetlands that we have uh so when you're talking about uh impacts on flood storage john already hit it because there's already a crossing at this location on map 19 of the town plan significant features there are none on map 20 scenic there is and that's what they're and that's what they're preserving so um uh the lowlands uh in the town plan allow for rural housing the uh the zoning um single family housings of permitted use not a conditional use uh so i do suggest the the proposal achieves a purpose of the district and i do suggest that it achieves the uh town plan's goals and i also suggest that the suggestion to move the houses up front would not meet those goals uh yes i do i there's a lot of um somewhat conflicting arguments coming around here but the one thing i wanted to point out that i didn't uh in my narrative in my spoken narrative of this in the staff report is that a lot of these problems would be solved both in terms of the clustering wetland impacts the need for flexibility from the zoning regulations if the applicant proposed a plex on lot 2a where the current house proposed that is a simple solution to this entire uh issue and would conform with all the zoning i believe would conform with any legal restrictions but again as ed mr burks said that's not necessarily the town's purview um so that's something else i want to offer as an alternative to subdivision of these parcels of this parcel um that would certainly hit all of the goals that we've talked about scenic views wetlands fostering a development and rural character one question i had wrote out there for anybody at this point applicant or staff is a thousand-foot driveway um we continue to hear concerns from public works and fire about driveways that are that long um so i'm surprised that i didn't see specific comments regarding that link that that prepped me as some of the other ones we've seen off from other places where there hasn't been like pull-offs enabled and and so forth it doesn't doesn't fit with previous long driveway submissions yep the reason that you may not have heard those concerns specifically is that uh longer drivers are allowed for other units you didn't get to the point of looking at pull-offs because there were more fundamental issues from staff perspective with the application but uh technically it meets standards of driveways it does not necessarily that's depending on the PUD standards so that was our main point our main focus okay commissioners we go around the table ned catch them before you leave no i'm just i'm some still kind of digesting some of the and i'm just yeah probably that just because it doesn't really fit probably what all of us think a plant unit development is so i mean i'm trying to to work it through okay okay shoo uh i have no comments right now john no i don't have any comments josh following up on something ned said and this is my whole thing with PUD as you know we have to sort of figure out for ourselves and vis-a-vis the regulation itself whether PUD is sort of a negative tool meaning this is the thing we use to get to a place we can't otherwise get in which case i think the arguments make a lot of sense that we want to protect scenic viewshed and so on or is it a positive tool in that it gets us a particular kind of development and that development has to look a certain way and if it's the former then i think everything darin said is is very solid about precedence and such i mean i'm leaning i'm leaning a little more in that direction but i absolutely see the points about this is the way to get the other good that we all agree are good and i think that seems to be the struggle every time a PUD comes up that isn't clearly a PUD i'm looking at we so you seem to get something just good i'm struggling a bit yeah i'm good tell you what let's go around and see if folks in the audience want to offer comment i see uh Blair Haxel yeah hi um i'm one of the the neighbors i guess and my my question is this i know in the legal agreement that i know it's outside of your purview there were some vegetative screens kind of required along the driveway to block headlights and stuff like that is that something that would need to be part of the plan at that stage or is that left for another time i think that we don't normally nail it in at sketch and we would normally we would keep those comments you know we'd be aware of them and it certainly invites you back for the next rounds to go there uh those would be definitely could something that we could include would be included over the course of the application yeah i don't want to put words in your mouth but you're there's two different you're mixing up two different things if it's the requirement of the legal agreement that wouldn't be it necessarily be a condition of a planning commission approval that would be a condition of a an agreement that was reached outside of the body so that wouldn't necessarily make its way into a condition of this approval gotcha i guess that's what i'm asking yeah so said differently i mean if there were requirements for that and those requirements were met that's a civil matter not a regulatory board matter gosh mr egan you are muted sir i am unmuted you were stressing the importance of the scenic view and it is a wonderful view as you look towards the mountains there it's one of the pleasures of driving on bring them hill road now there is also there at 113 bring them hill road that line of trees and i don't know of course it probably doesn't come into your your area on this or i don't know because one two three maybe is part of this subdivision but can anything be done about having those trees that block the the view to have that somewhat lessened you know that some trees might be removed maybe there's some trees there to block the the house but maybe some could remove to enable the the view thank you typically i can speak to that doesn't work typically the town does not recommend removal of trees to create scenic views we're looking to preserve the ones that already exist the views that already exist and generally the trees that already exist so if it was a fundamental issue to the application and that was a major benefit that it was providing perhaps but that's not necessarily part of this proposal okay all right anyone else mr egan your hand is still up did you have anything else you wanted to add no that answers my question all right okay i'm not sure how to move forward on this i mean we have recommendations from staff to deny or to continue if we were to continue i think the the question is is there do we feel that there's room for continued discussion on on this and would we be continuing for the applicant to try to i'm this is a general question to commissioners would we be continuing for the staff to try to work with the applicant to come up with a new designer would we be continuing so that we can we can understand more what is in front of us because i i would agree with i think josh had said that there was elements of both arguments now that are you know very compelling jaren i just wanted to clarify that the recommendation from staff to continue would be to allow for a revised plan that meets the recommendations in the staff report you may choose to continue for another reason commissioners i need some feedback i agree with staff's recommendation for them to work with staff to the club of the plan that works we struggle with this question of puds you know it's uh it's it's it's just like josh was saying i mean what is it they were always trying to get out of these things it always seems like the the puds get used to squeak through as opposed to really going with the spirit of what the pud is supposed to do you know and and giving giving that you use a pud there is no waiver here but you know you'd hope that you're you're trying to achieve something by by making use of the land this way i'm not not sure what we've achieved here other than making it so you could subdivide it and put a couple houses on it so i'm just i'm struggling with a little bit that's just my just my thoughts off the top of my head let me ask this differently commissioners you know i'm going to do a straw poll on this can you stand behind the application as presented by the applicant without question ned not no don mangan no oh shoo no i think yeah no uh josh no david can i give a qualifying yeah you can get anything you want this is completely straw poll so it's so i would say right now no but mr burk raised some interesting points that have me and i know this parcel i remember when we dealt with it with doobie but i think this is one that could benefit from a site visit okay for a couple of reasons that that tucking i'd like to put eyes on where the tucking would be and really look at it from a scenic view i remember we floated the balloon there when doobie subdivided and that was helpful it was a very windy day a very windy day um but it gave you a sense of because the topography of this does drop as it goes down so i mean david raises some good points of you know if if our if our thank you if our our goal is really to to preserve the brigham hill views then i think we got to walk the parcel and and get collaborative but the short answer is no the way it's written right now and with staff subjections no i can't so i i think and thank you i i where i was going with that is that if we can't absolutely accept it then then approving it's off the table i think that's that's a short and simple version of that which brings us back to the options to continue which david just brought up a compelling you know reason to continue for a site visit failing that is to deny and i'm i'm trying to narrow down what we what we actually are in room of position to do this evening so yeah i you know i i hate to see drag on but i think you know i think i really think we have to i think we need to figure out a way the best way to you know develop this parcel because you know it is uh a good a good parcel and uh you know we need to we have to look at it uh so be it would there be any hang on there would there be any any any issue i'll get you to any issue whatsoever if this was it being proposed a single unit no so as uh the parcel stands today it could be developed with a single unit home with a zoning permit no planning commission to be required in fact both could accommodate two single unit homes not on separate lots without any planning commission review both under zoning permit okay so the fundamental issue here is subdivision of those parcels so they can be sold separately okay and and that's where we're getting into all the other items yeah the interpretation of the view David you want to offer well i think the one thing that there well first i guess i i wanted to heard of john first to make sure he didn't have anything he wanted to say because i don't want to step on toes no i think i'm i'm fine but what we presented yeah okay a couple things uh well first i think the two the two things in the staff report the two options are the same ones deny without prejudice the other is change it the way i want it well not necessarily let's hold on that for a second i i think from what i just said the option is to deny or continue yeah so let's let's just leave it at that okay well when you asked darin for p he clarified what it meant yeah so um hopefully the board looks at it independently the uh the pud the reason you know i agree with josh and john i've been doing this 36 years now i was next uh zoning board chair pud's i think by design are intended to be kind of loose and open to interpretation so it's not it's not cut and dry and that's why there's a disagreement right now um and i could see disagreements go in the other way it's it i don't think that you can write a regulation on a pud for flexibility and innovative and have it be easy to follow so it should be subjective to each individual board member as to whether the merits are met the again the merits here are that the scenic door corridor is kept as darin mentioned your regulations would allow two homes here which would quite possibly block you wouldn't have any say on it just be a building permit and two homes would be on this parcel the other thing that i believe could happen when they say that is this a way to get around two lots i don't believe it is your regulations allow access by 25 foot right of way cut off the front and make it 200 feet wide no are you speaking to the section 3.1 where it talks about access to pre-existing lots nope um talks about access by a 25 foot right of way when you don't have frontage when you don't have frontage so you would not have frontage so you're saying that that does not include when you create correct that that lot there's a specific statement that no new lots may be created without frontage okay so the the you can't do the two lots but you could do the two homes correct and while they can't be footprint lots because footprint lots they can be footprint lots in my opinion by your regulations by the definitions a single unit can be a footprint lot i'm guessing you've already had that happen carriage units are done all the time in all chip and county towns and most franklin county towns i believe an attorney could do a condo plan for those two houses i could buy one and you could buy one and that would be on the same piece so we're not preserving we're not getting away from two houses out here and i think they've done the best job they can on where those two houses should go and the innovative part really comes into play because the fountains have the opportunity of being the abutter to the north and taking land away from that and making it part of this project you end up with over nine acres instead of six acres 3.22 acres are protected the open the scenic corridor is protected i don't know how that's not innovative or creative and my clustering argument is related to the open space being 3.22 acres versus the one acre requirement so i think we've heard tonight from the commissioners that there's not enough support for the application as presented by the applicant past tonight and we did a straw poll not an official vote so forth but we don't have a commissioner who says they want to stand behind that plan tonight so i with all respect to everybody's i think that an approval is off the table now david brought up a really good point and i think it's directly related to some of the points that you and john have made which is is this the better impact or better better mechanism that we want to hit and i think that that's those are valid questions i'm not i'm not at all willing to disconnect or walk away from the staff's recommendation and and and say oh no we're not going to pay all that at all it's there it's solid so also is your presentation you what you and john presented john presented brought up some really solid points i don't think we should you know with respect everybody involved i don't think we should just disregard it commissioners what would how would you feel about following david's suggestion and continuing this for a site visit with further discussion on how our pud regulations come into play versus the scenic view and i think maybe there's an opportunity for staff as well to interact with us more maybe not as part of the staff report but even just as a as an informational session prior to coming back on this is to so we can start seeing what is our priority you know and i i think this is this would be a helpful understanding but maybe maybe again outside of this application we can see which because you had some really good viewpoints on a previous situation on how we can let leverage or how we should be leveraging and i'm seeking you we saw how we should be leveraging a town plan this and that and i'm just wondering if there's different approaches that can help us look at this different and i actually elaborate a little bit on that point i think one of the fundamental questions that staff has been wrestling with similar to the planning commission is you know what level of you know public benefit is entitled to pud to the flexibility from normal regulations and is the proposal that is presented by the applicant substantially achieving those goals in a way that is the minimum possible deviation from those regulations here the fundamental issue is frontage and subdivision so does the scenic view shed and the preservation of some open space that's fundamentally already preserved because it's wetland justify or all other projects similar to this the you know deviation from normal frontage requirements is this something that the planning commission wants to hold up as an example of saying this is the type of development that we want to see in Essex and we're willing to give some flexibility from our normal rigs because it says something about our rigs that it doesn't fit every situation or perhaps you know should be going in that direction of allowing this in more places than just here that's i think where personally i see the pud criteria as being useful is seeing that innovation and seeing that this is something we can learn from for future projects so with all due respect to the applicants i don't see the fundamental you know benefit of allowing the subdivision here where it could be replicated elsewhere without a whole lot of additional benefit to the town that's not already inherent in the site and that could be achieved through other means that are less there are more in conformance with the regulations so that's something that staff would like clarity from the commission on potentially after a site visit to see the land land but i think that's the fundamental issue and i think that we'd like to have the discussion of where you stand on that i think one thing to when we when we use terms like you know it's neph and elsewhere in the town and you know another simple situation i think it would be worth it to actually see if there's another situation another area that this could actually be looked at or is this a unique setting if we're talking about precedent setting i mean the PUD itself is a tool that is not precedent i mean it's it's we said we're not asking for a waiver but in a sense the PUD is a waiver it's a really big waiver yeah and it's essentially a variance with specific guardrails well i mean i don't know if i agree that it's a waiver it's a it's a tool in the regulations that is a is a give and take right you are trading yeah you know open space for a different design i mean i'm having flashbacks to brad morse's application on across the street from me on old stage road we went through that exercise and made brad do all these other designs and we ended up looking at him and saying nope what the hell is this back towards the sugar bush and you know that's out of character with the neighborhood it doesn't work which is why i'm suggesting this is like you know it's a tool in the toolbox we should go and see what's in the best character there and whether you know not seeing them tucked around the corner makes more sense than trying to drag them up like where's the do we get what we want out of it especially for character the neighborhood and you know i don't think from a state regulatory point of view PUDs are allowed and they're not away around things they're just another tool in the toolbox to give you us flexibility yeah it's essentially the difference between a variance which is very strict and PUDs that inherit or it's inherent that there's waivers you know that that's what the you know the PUD process is but it's it's not it's not a variance variance is as I said I used to be a zoning board chair that's entirely different and the reason I bring that in is if you know someone made a reference to the unique circumstance of this parcel if it is so unique that the zoning regulations as they stand simply don't apply because of some circumstance of the site then maybe that's the appropriate avenue is a variance and that would allow the applicant to say look I've got some unique circumstances this is what I need in order to achieve normal reasonable use of the property whereas PUD as you said is more of a give and take and there's a you know question about you know what can the town achieve that simply isn't you know possible under the normal regulations so yeah that's the only reason I bring that out yeah for me as a commissioner like for me unique circumstances don't include that legal agreement or any of that stuff that's not unique those are restrictions on the parcel that were known to the applicant when they bought for me unique circumstances are that view corridor the topography the wetlands like what is it that's important to the town and our town planning regulations that would allow us to slightly bend the way we look at things in order to say let's let's do it this way because we're getting this this is yeah you're achieving specific goals it's also not a given that because PUD is asked for that we have to agree that a PUD is appropriate that sounds more like the sort of the basic question we've got in front of us because you're interpreting the PUD staff is interpreting the PUD one-way applicants interpreting and now they're putting different elements at a higher value than and so forth I would like to suggest I mean I don't think this is going to I don't want to defer this but I don't see that being a quick answer so I'd like to take the step I'd like to ask the commission if they could take the step as Dave requested and do a site visit while we still have you know weather that you know it might be good now because some of the leaves are gone and we might actually see more a more you know if they're through without without this video but I don't find that today just wear wear orange it's not time to see the whole thing today don't wear your moose hat don't be excited don't don't worry we can if we can do that and I'm not sure exactly what that had moved this forward I don't want to shut it off but I don't know I mean it might be cleaner to do a denial and come back you know but I think everything's in front of us at this point so I would suggest you continue it and the site plan the site visit yes right um tiered you know and then make your decision after you come back continue continue for a site visit yeah and then come back to the table so if you bumped it to the next available this would be probably the next meeting over 28 um and then just pick up with this conversation right where you're at right now after you've seen the site commissioners thoughts on that approach cute desperately trying to get to the unmute um yeah it seems good to me I I hope that what comes out of it is we we find a way you know either forward or to put a complete end to it I don't I want some we gotta give them an answer here when we get to the end that gosh yes I like the the site visit idea that would just require um if we're doing the recommended actions stopping the as we quote the second recommended action stopping after next available date I would note we wouldn't be asking for a complete revised sketch plan application but the second option the continuance followed by the site visit is what I'm I'm advocating with Dave John ditto yeah I think uh we keep it open and keep moving and David you you made it so okay I would I would agree with that myself but I'd also like I think we may need a a an appendix or an appendix addendum addendum there everybody indeed nobody needs an appendix an addendum to this just to maybe have a little a different narrative on on what we can wiggle on and what we can't and I because I don't want to have I don't want to to I want to be sure we're clear on what you as staff feel is an absolute versus something we really can't wiggle because we've heard two different interpretations of these PUDs um and and you know frankly it's it's it's the challenge we have every time is knowing which one is is is solid or which one we can we can accept which one we we can't so I I'd like to know different you know the different narrative what's what we can wiggle on and is that I mean is that you feel that's doable I think and one thing I could suggest as a a way to clarify this issue is looking at the various processes you have to uh modify the regulations you've got variants you've got waiver you've got PUD um and it might be useful to sort of put those three on the table and say here's what the purpose and intent of each is here's how it should be used and that might clarify some of the what you can wave in one or what you can have wiggle room on one context versus another and you know what the bar is for each of those in terms of how much does the applicant need to you know provide and what do they need to achieve in order to demonstrate that that is justified does that would that be helpful I think so anything we can do right now to clarify this because it's it's tough that every time we do a PUD we we have the similar sort of thing so it's hard for us to be consistent understanding that the the very nature of a PUD is to allow just a comedy inconsistency but we still have to have a consistent approach yes or we're or it's just completely random and that that doesn't work because we end up with a similar you know circle the drain discussion yep um and I don't know we haven't gotten to a motion yet so hang on a second I don't know if uh David and John if you guys is part of like a continuation would want to show what a non PUD like a rough sketch of what a non PUD might look like well the non PUD would just be the two homes on the one lot I understand that I'm not asking you to find it and I'm not even asking you to do it I'm just if I mean again we're looking for clarity on sure what's and I think any site visit you know but who um but who the applicant and we can check whether John can do it or whether our office you know basically similar to what you're asking I think there needs to be two stakes if there was two units to the west of the you know west of the wetland and then where's the stake and the stake where they're showing the houses so that when we're out there you know if you're standing up at the road it's like okay yeah it's not going to show it 30 feet high but at least you have context instead of you know a site visit that's not as productive I mean this application shows a lot of work on on everybody's side so I mean I'm hesitant to just you know try to shut it down I think this shows a lot of effort staff and a lot of effort on the applicant so let's see what we can do to move David so I was answering a question I did have a couple quick comments to make sure they're on the record as I as I said my belief um having done this for 36 years in PUDs during those 36 years town to town is that well one the level from variance to waiver to PUD is a steep decline you know as far as what the merits are with the PUD it's you shouldn't be worried about precedence it is case by case it's your opinion individually of whether you think it's better than the alternative the alternative here is two homes on one lot and or just one just one home but when you say you can't do two you can do two as as staff recommended a duplex which was suggested would not be in keeping with the rural character of this area would not be in keeping with the regulation the town plan is what it's talking about the most including in the staff report so when you say do we have any definitive I think you got two definitive one is the one I mentioned if if you believe the five to one ratio needs to be met in a PUD that lot needs to be shortened to 500 feet that's one definitive if you believe that that that five to one carries to a PUD your other definitive is town plan and the town plan the only thing that shows up is the scenic corridor and they've done the best they can do to limit the impact on the scenic corridor so you know I'm I wouldn't be here if I didn't think that it you know that they have done a good job okay so it's it's it's up to us to decide whether or not which route we need to go so at this point it feels like the the next step is to continue for site visit the next uh prior to the next planning commission that night out or as soon as possible striking that last part and just say following a scheduled site is that your motion it was mumbled yeah so I I moved that the planning commission continued the public hearing for the application by Brad and Rene LaFountain for boundary adjustment and two lot residential plan unit development at 109 Brigham Hill Road tax map 14 parcel 15 lot 602 and 113 Brigham Hill Road tax map 14 parcel 18 to the next available date following a scheduled site visit there's a second for that I will second two you guys are slow be quicker on your mute button unmute buttons David seconded by Ned all those in favor I I I opposed motion carries six zero okay we'll continue discussion about this thank you thank you David thank you okay next item on agenda is minutes from September 23rd do we have a motion on the minutes September 23rd okay nobody jump I'll move we approve the motion September 23rd moved by John Mangan second seconded by Dave Raphael then we want to offer or request changes to any item within the minutes hearing none all those in favor of the minutes as presented I think they'll hide by saying hi hi pose minutes carry six zero other business uh just to inform you of an air bmb going before the zoning board um at 17 Alderbrook Road this um is an after-the-fact air bmb a neighbor complained um I've since been to do a site visit and they have a lot of company so they have used it as an air bmb for a little bit but they they also are from out of state and have a lot of company and currently as I was there the the mother-in-law was was there for three months they're charging their mother-in-law that's horrible yeah it'll stay as long not not so so the point was that it's it's not always going to be proposed as a constant air bmb so anyhow um I will report that I reported to you no I just just had a question on you know air bmbs and I wasn't I have talked or touched on a little bit about you know putting getting something upgraded into some of our our regulations there's zoning and all and I don't know did Burlington ever pass their their changes they they had long list of changes regarding the regulation of air bmbs but I think we really don't have anything well and we're we're coming back with some proposed changes is that in the changes you're coming well yes but they're not going to be the Burlington's long one they're basically going to be the requirements of what the PD and the fire they're they're typical things that they're looking for as a quick fix um because we're trying to do this next round of zoning regs very quickly um I'll talk to what we saw about it in the office and if we want to bump it to when we do some meteor stuff we can do that too one one of the state legislative committees and I don't know which one is is also dealing with it and I'll I'll follow up with John Kalaki because he and I've been talking about it and we get we just get started and not a wine yeah and we should be careful not it's not just air bmbs it's it's basically short-term rentals I mean that could be VRBO it could be the CASA it could be air bmb anytime you're taking a residential or a dwelling and turning it into a short-term rent you know I deal with you know whether they're handicap accessible as well as a whole host of fire regulations and I'm sure in egress regulations and I'm sure they're man a little well those are the ones that worry me is the fire and the egress because yeah you know when we do when I do a multifamily sale or a condominium we're required to do a division of fire safety time of sale inspection and that's a that's a title issue single family homes don't have that's if you take a single family home and turn into a short-term rental you could have three bedrooms with no egress windows and someone dies in that and the homeowner unbeknownst to them thinks they're oh cool I'm renting out my place and all of a sudden they get a lawsuit because a family died or there was no co-detector in the home I mean it's just you can claim a window it's gotta be a certain size yeah so you know it'd be good to land on it yeah game so the state fire codes come into play for rental properties um however the state fire marshal has been so busy that they can't get rid of yeah well and they definitely don't track short term in single families they can promise you that we barely can get them to respond to a time of sale inspection they're so understaffed and they do a great job but they just there's only a few of them and there's maybe some movement gonna happen on that with the rental registry bill it was like this close to getting passed last uh first round of the session and it may come back in this second half of the biennium and that may or may not include anything on short-term rentals and um fire codes for single family homes nice and then the next thing is pc operate we took a um a whack at putting some language in it should be on your so those weren't in I downloaded uh so I don't know when those went up but they weren't in there the only thing I had was sb neighbor town packages yeah they weren't in there okay we will bump that to the next meeting okay would you have it can you bring it up uh I can sure we did put together a a bit of a flowchart but um yeah yeah let me show you just just to see if it can be it's a drag how's that yes Dustin by all means let's talk about that now you guys wanted it I didn't ask for it quite the opposite so essentially this is looking at how you get into deliberative session um I apologize for the it's not very uh presentable but we do hope to clean it up a little bit um basically the idea is you've got an application open you determine you want to go into deliberative session now what um you've decided you want to do that after your other agenda items are done for logistical purposes so now you've got uh to inform the public of what's going to happen these two things you go into deliberative you deliberate you come out you have a couple options from there depending on whether you need additional testimony if no you've finished deliberating you know what you're going to do great you close the public hearing and make a motion if you do need more testimony do you have it available that night or has everyone gone home if you can't get it that night you continue the hearing you may ask staff to issue a recess model with details of what you want for the continued hearing sort of similar to what we just had tonight um if you do have more testimony available let's say someone stuck around you can take that you may go back into a deliberative session or you may go straight to a motion so it's a little convoluted but just trying to get some structure to you as to what your options are when you have a deliberative session and this is incorporated into the uh we had um Sharon had drafted this up in text format in your operating procedures but you had asked for a flow chart so here you have it I would offer that the the triangle box in the center goes away and if you need additional testimony we continue because we don't we set the expectation because if somebody leaves not every we can't know coming in that everybody should stay or not I think it's unfair for people who may choose to leave if we take the additional testimony and not everybody has the opportunity to be there so I would just suggest that if if we choose if we come out of deliberative session with two choices we either close the hearing and issue a finding or we continue we continue the hearing to the next date so that would hold on more like this clean up that yeah we'll get rid of that you guys can that suit your flow chart request can you uh email yes noodle on it like I'd like to be more a linear yeah okay you know that it's like turn off perpendicular and somehow we couldn't find it and so we can only get these things yeah I don't want to go up and down I want to go so ridiculous so share that out when you when you get it to a format we can noodle on it and be ready for the next meeting you're doing I hope we drop it in is this what I'm used to anything else a move we adjourned 8 30 second moved by david seconded by myself all those in favor hi hi yeah at least you don't have to identify we are adjourned