 the select board meeting to order. This is first up, it's a public comment. Maybe we have one public comment in the room. See if the other's raising hands. So yeah, go ahead, Martin. Okay, so I'm Martha Haffner, I live in Randolph, senior. I'm concerned about parents rights being protected in the schools. I found out that I put my name in for the meeting on the board, but I thought that the timeline would be similar for any kind of petitioning, and found out no, I had two days to get all my signatures in and everything, so I'm wanting to know if there is another avenue in which a parents rights petition could somehow be put to the voters before next March for the town meeting. And Charlie Russell was telling me, you can bring things to the town and they can have a special election. I don't know that that really would apply, that I'm asking. Could, is there something that could be done in a town setting, and it would have to be all three of them, obviously. Yeah, there's two more votes that are statewide issued, right? There's the primary in the actual elections in November. So it could be put on any of those as well, I mean, the school ballot, I'm under the impression there's only once a year, am I right? Yeah, unless there's a need to re-vote something, or vote something differently. So, budget defeat. If there were to be a need to re-vote, then this could get onto a school ballot kind of scenario. If you, by the point of those with the cavity, if you met all the criteria to have the right signatures, it was in the right format, the district clerk, which may or may not be the town clerk, we will talk about that a little bit today. So there's still some hurdles to make sure that it's ready. So with those caveats, which I can't tell you, I don't really know what you're talking about. So that's a piece of my question, too. I'm giving you a sample of what I have put together with the best knowledge of what I had to work with, and if it doesn't meet criteria, I'd like it to be able to meet criteria, so can somebody help me figure out what needs to be re-worded, perhaps, or anything like that, so it could be an order should it need to meet. I'm not convinced this is a town topic. I think it's a school topic, so I think it's a- I have been over to their store on this as well today, so. I think this is their place to help you with it, because I don't know what their pieces are, and then once it was ready, that question would go to the town clerk. That's almost there. We don't have any way of putting it, just saying, oh yeah, just add it in. Okay, it's gotta meet the deadlines and all the different pieces, but I would say the school superintendent is one to help you with the content of it, and then once it's there, bringing it to Emery to look at. Once you have the signatures and whatnot, there are- But I wanna make sure what's out there on top for the signatures to be signed would also be in compliance. I don't wanna get all the signatures and have them tell me, no, what you did at the top wasn't appropriate. And what you put at the top is exactly what's gonna go on for the vote. It won't be this whole thing. All that's gonna go on is the question that you asked the petition folks to sign. I do know that, but that's not- The general framework is what's the, yeah, you gotta ask the question, and have it be able to be a yes, no, fill in the dot kind of a thing. Secretary of State, Office might be another reason. I don't know if you tried- I've attempted to get through to them too. And they're in the midst of a major upheaval at the moment. It's gonna be, yeah. They've got a transition in their elections office. Those are the best reasons, it's probably for you. Okay. All right, thank you for your time. Thank you. Any more public speakers? It's necessarily a comment, it's more of a question, I guess. Kind of curious about the process of putting up the structure, the building, property there for growth. And I'm curious where I play, get permits and so forth. Wow. I mean, I'm so proud of this. I'm boldly. I'm doing it. I'm doing it. I'm doing it. So, okay. All right, super. Pretty easy. Next. Okay. I'm here my day through Friday, so. Okay. Let's do it. All right, no more comments. We move on next is approval of the agenda. We approve the agenda. Got it. Second. All those in favor? All right. All right. What was the stairs going to happen? I think we have a full list. Next up is consent calendar. So just, why don't you have an advocate that just needs a signature for anybody who wants to grab that. And then the very quick seven minutes of your withdrawal with that, it was a fairly spartan set. Tried to capture as much, but it didn't want me to build it out. We used to have very, very quick minutes. And they were great until you get the lawsuit. All right. I just wanted to point out. But we don't have a video anymore. You know, we didn't have a video back then, too. We're not terribly short compared to normal, but they are shorter. All right. Anybody have any other questions, comments, or motions on that one? I'll move that we approve the consent calendar. Second. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Under business, first up is the public hearing on the proposed changes to the land used for regulations. We have a, the email that came in from John Kaplan, basically citing spots in the town plan and asking us to make a change, which was already in the recommendation. But I haven't seen any other written comments. Anybody else? No, I haven't seen any other written comments. What? But the changes in the, there was, I think there's two separate things going on. One is our current town plan, I think has a minimum of 10,000 square feet in that area. And with the new law, T-Work suggests that we bring it down to 8,000. We'd have to bring it down to, according to T-Work to 875 or something like that. So they just said, how about 8,000? But John's proposal is 5,000, which is less than that. And so he was looking at some of the other properties in town and contrasting them to that 5,000. The proposal we got from them was 5,000. From T-Work? And I'm just reading the cliff notes because the 118 page document did not have red lines in it. And I was not gonna sit there and compare two documents of 118 pages, but I, You're so lazy. I, at two in the morning, I thought it was time to go to bed. But item 10 in there does say, minimum lot size in RVHD, which has ran up village high density, changed to 5,000 square feet. So I assume we had that in the plan. Yeah, that was the original recommendation was 5,000. Right. From when we worked with T-Work, as I saw. So the 8,000 is the statute that says that it needs to be five lots per acre. That's where the 8,000 comes from. That's directly from statute, but, Right. T-Work and working with other towns had recommended 5,000 and that's what we initially submitted. Yeah, that's what I have in the changes, but. Yeah, yeah, yeah. But I did not go back to the non-red line version to see a pickup change yet again, but my assumption was that's what it was. That was the recommendation from the committee, but it would be a change from our current town plan. Right, but it's in what we're being asked to approve. It's in going to 5,000. Actually, the red line version went to 8,000 because there was some room for discussion about 5,000, whether that might be a little too small. So when T-Work rewrote the red line version, they put 8,000 in the red line version and I'll verify that right now it's my computer. So this was the, But the initial. It was supposed to be the list of changes, right? That was gonna, it was throughout the document that we got at the last one. And so that's what I was going off of was that, that change was down to five. Yes, yeah. But in the draft that's out there that I didn't take the time to compare to something else, we probably ought to get our act together on what these three documents that they're in, they're consistent before we. I think what happened is there's two, sort of categories of changes. There's the changes that are, well actually there's three categories. There's the statutory changes that we have to make. Based upon last year's legislation. There's changes that will make the town plan and the zoning mesh better. And then there's a very small number of changes that the planning commission decided in addition to those, since we were looking through these anyway and we thought they might be, we thought they were a good idea when included a couple others. And this changing of the minimum lot size to 8,000 was a statutory. But committee, before we even realized that we needed to do that, had looked at it at our citizen's request and thought, yeah, actually that doesn't make sense to bring it down to 5,000. Given the town plan, given our, given the need for increased density and flexibility for building housing in these areas where we want housing. And so that's why we had that total of 5,000. And so then we, in our last conversation here we talked about not making some of the changes, right? To leave the rural residential and rural agriculture separate instead of merging them into one. Did we just say so? Because we talked about some changes in space. Looks like we lost access. Well, that gave me time to go read my hundreds. That's stupid, unless you were already working on it. I'm just, I'm still okay. I'll take the mask. Did you hurry up? No, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm still okay. Is that your choice? Was I sorry? We're just teasing you. Recording in progress. What is that? All right, folks, we're back. I don't know what that was. It was us. Oh, okay. Guarantee news. I did go back and look in that just to see in there. Those two districts have been split back out like we talked about keeping the rural residential and rural ag separate because we wanted to be able to have some, we're going to conserve parts of the land that we don't want it all in five acre lots. That's a win. Right, we had talked about that. I did see the fact that we, but I guess I'm concerned that we're asking the public to give us feedback on this, but we haven't given them what the changes are. Like it's like here, read this 118 page document and go get the regular one and compare them to when I can't even get it open. Yeah, I know. There is a document that he worked for out that does just summarize all of the changes and that is a seven page document, which is much more readable. This one right here, maybe Joe? It's called Randolph Bylaws, Changes, PCH. The actual version that we put out for people to review has this going to 8,000 square feet, but the changes document has it at 5,000. Where are we in our process, in terms of hearings and such, is this supposed to be? We're upside down. This was intended to be the final hearing, I thought, but that sounds like it may not be. Yeah, and it's not a terribly large deal if it's not, if we need to get ourselves. So did they change it on that? It was item 10. I want to do a little screenshot for everyone. So see, that's now nine, and it says 5,000, but the draft document has 8,000 in it. If anybody wants to change page 16, you don't have to read the whole thing. Do you have the handout? The chance? No, there was a... There we go. This is a red line document. Each document, so it's out there on a link to read. And then this wasn't out there. I think we got to continue this and get our stuff together. So we're going to have another public hearing at least so it'll be okay in terms of the other. It sounds like we had certain constraints on ours. Well, there were some grant considerations because this came out of that bylaw modernization grant work, but if we sort of set it all on, they're not ready, make sure that the right is more important than those deadlines. So if it takes a little bit longer to get it right, good setup for a March hearing, we'll give us plenty of time, fit it in to the 14th. Okay, and maybe we'll come back up the notice provision and get more of this stuff out here. We have extra help in-house to help. That sounds great. I'm so glad the word. Put this on the website and then I put a link, maybe put it on, put a link to this on our website. Yeah, and there are some updates and some other things that at least provide different visual presentations that might be a little easier to digest in terms of this. Can we go through these and make sure they're in sync? Because this one says 5,015 feet. The document says 8,020 feet for nine and 10s. Hi, this is Sydney from Two Rivers real quick. I did not send out an updated changes made document. I wasn't asked to and it just slipped my mind what that would be a good thing to do after our select board discussion, which made those changes and changed the residential, rural residential and rural item culture, being split back apart. So prior to the next hearing, well in advance of it, I will make an updated select board hearing changes document and send that out for distribution. Have to make everything that was changed at the select board level pre-hearing very clear if that's okay with you. Yeah, and the document of the changes shows 5,000 on it and this actual draft that came back out changed that back to 8,000 for some reason. That's correct. Yeah, because this hasn't been updated post select board discussion when I attended your select board meeting last. This document did not get updated. But Tom Harris here, did the change to 8,000 result from our last meeting or from some other? What led to that change from 5,000 to 8,000? I'm not clear on that. I don't think we changed anything Tom. I don't think we did either. How did it happen is what I'm asking. Yeah, so there was discussion at the select board level during that meeting that decided to not go with 5,000 and to revert to either 10,000, which was the original or whatever was mandated by S100, which is five acre or five units per acre, which is about 8,000. Something along that time went with 8,000. I think maybe there was some miscommunication. I think what we really intended to do at our select board meeting when we first discussed this was basically to say we're not gonna make a decision on these changes right now. We wanna have some more time to learn about them, get them out for public discussion and then decide. So I think we should, the 5,000 was the recommendation from the planning commission. So I think that's the number we should be using as our basis for discussion, because that's what we voted out. And if we decide that that's not what we want, we can always change that and give them a public input. I mean, I'm in complete agreement with you, Larry, if that's what our planning commission is recommended. And when I read the Kaplan, John Kaplan submission in terms of email testimony or whatever for this hearing, I'm wholly in concurrence with it. So I would work with this. It didn't look to me like there was many places it was gonna be able to be used anyway. Great. Some of the lots have drop-off typography issues. Yeah, yeah. We're not talking about a lot, but those that it can be done, it made sense. I think it is worth checking it. If anybody's here to provide some feedback on it, maybe we can capture that tonight so that the draft we come back out with is a little bit more realistic. Was there anybody here to talk about the, before we even go down that route? Anybody come to talk about the land use draft regulations? We'll start with you and work our way. Can we get it named too, just to make sure? John Dawes, Randolph Center. Heard about this happening. Just trying to figure out what the whole process is, where it came from. What's gonna be happening? Never heard of these documents until five minutes ago. Can I come to the town office and get a copy? How do we learn about this? Where has it been published? It's on the website. It's on the website, both where you can get it, but you can come to the town offices too and corner up Jeff for a copy of it. Okay. In the planning committee, did it include all the various parts of the town? Randolph Center, Fire District, East, West, North, South in between? Yep. The planning commission is appointed by the board. It's folks from anywhere in town that express an interest and wanna get on and partake in it. We try to get a balance. Fire district never heard that you were looking for people. It's been out everywhere. It's been in the, I don't know if we make it into the paper this time. It's been on front page forum. It's been on the town website. You didn't send us a letter. It's been all the time. It's come. Directly to the fire district. It's out there for everybody who's an eligible participant within the boundaries of Randolph. So the Prudential Committee doesn't get a letter that this is happening? You got, well, this was all notified to the public in the same manner. Everybody got notified the same way. There's no special statutory provision for a Prudential Committee to be noticed separately from everybody else. This is how zoning changes are advertised, hearings held, statutory process. Hey, I'm gonna have to find copies of this. Yep, okay. I think it would be helpful to have a second, oh, excuse me, Nancy Rice from Randolph Center. It would be helpful to have some kind of overview of this from you folks. And I was hoping there would be some handouts or in a mat so that we could better understand what these changes, our proposed changes are. And I was wondering how much it was as a result of the at 250 work by the legislature last session and the session. So, I mean, it's kind of hard to understand. And if people could speak up a little louder, that would be helpful too. Larry's probably our resident expert on the legislature changes, but I believe the majority of this is based off of mandates from the legislature. And when, wasn't it about a month ago, Cindy came and kind of talked high level over some of the differences between trying the intention of matching a town plan to the. We've had standing at least three times. So we would have a, I'm just saying there might be a recording of that too, or I don't know if there's Sydney, I don't know if you have any other materials that might be easy to make sure people see if they missed your presentation. I don't know that I have any other materials, but I can speak to that question of like the origins of the changes. So Randolph participated in a bylaw modernization grant, the purpose of which is to look in the town's land use regulations and improve it to allow for more housing. That's the primary goal of that grant. Along with that, whenever you're in the bylaws, if something has changed in the town plan, you need to bring those two into conformance. So while we're in there, we've made some changes or proposed some changes as the document hasn't been adopted yet. I worked with the planning commission to work through changes to the plan use regulations to bring it into compliance with the town plan. Some of those changes were optional and the select board has opted to maybe move back on those, such as the change with the rural residential and rural agriculture, the town plan recommended looking at combining those into the rural district. That's optional, so we didn't do it at the select board level. And then the third influence was the passage of S 100, which I don't remember the name of that bill I'm sorry, but it's all online, so you can Google it. And that kind of like the bylaw modernization grant changed some rules around how bylaws need to treat housing. So an example that's already been brought up here is that a discussion of 10,000, or 10,000 square foot minimum lot size versus 8,000 versus 5,000. So that's kind of the quick version, the fast version of where, what's influencing this document right now. Thank you. So a topic like these, I think this will go to the planning commission. Those are all advertised also. The agendas come out on what they're working on and what they have going on. Those are all public, so you're welcome to attend those. That's where you would have them put into kind of the creation of what that looks like. And once they're done their work, they bring it up to the select board. We then get a look at it. The planning commission you're talking about? The planning commission does all the hard work. Then we look at it and get a chance at it and put a different set of eyes and a different view on it. What we're doing right now are the hearings that are required in statute for adoption of the changes. There will be because we feel like the documents that are out there need to be a little better in sync. So what we're trying to do tonight is give an opportunity for folks to have some input into it, into what's there, but there'll be another chance to do that also. I think as Tom errors again, I think to Ms. Rice's concern, I think a summary may not be ideal, but at least a red line version of the document so that the public doesn't have to go through, as you cited earlier, training 128 pages of pretty dense information. The red line information clearly spells out what the differences are between the previous version and the current version before us. So I think it'd be really helpful to make sure we get that out there with the current information, such as 5,000 versus 8,000 feet included. Well, at least make sure the documents are in sync. Yeah, yeah, at least that. I think it'd be really helpful for everyone involved if the red line version was out there so the difference between A and B is clear. Agreed. Okay, does anybody have any comments that it has read the document or we'll get it back out and so folks can use it? Yes? I have a comment that I did go through the summary document and there were just a few minor discrepancies. I mean, mostly like 99% of what's in that seven page document was in the document that was posted, but I do agree that it's a good idea to put that summary posted so people can see what the changes are in a summary that's much easier to go through along with the red line version and we can include the maps in there. Also the few changes made to the maps and the usage tables are the other places. A few usage categories added. So probably a good idea to post all of that and I put a package together with the planning commission to have that information there. So. Can we get a copy down to the office of this information? There's a copy posted there. The hearing notices are posted there. Can I get a paper copy? Yes. Thank you. Any other comments, John Kaplan's got his hand raised. Yeah, I just, thank you. So for the record, John Kaplan and yeah, I just wanted to, I know I sent you my written comments and I just wanted to express during this meeting my support for that 5,000 square feet in the rural high density district. So I appreciate it. It sounds like you guys are in support of that. So. It's not the rural, right? It's the Randolph Village High Density District. Randolph Village, sorry. Correct. I don't think we want the rural all to go down to 5,000. Yeah. I'll turn it in. No, no, no, no, no, no. It looks like New Jersey then. Anyway, I'm happy to hear that you're heading in that direction. Okay, all right. Thank you. We're going to move off this then. We'll get some more documents out and take it up next month. Sound good? There's only a couple minor changes. It shouldn't be too long getting that, right? Okay. I think Sydney would help. Once she makes the final markup version, then we'll get that posted and a list of changes, so. Does that work for you, Sydney? Yes. Okay. March. Temple Library grant application request. Amy's out of town, but there's two of them. One for a smaller dollar, one for the continued activity toward the Kupala Project. Anybody have any questions on those? I'm not seeing any. Anybody have a motion? Make a motion to approve the grant application request. Looks like they're looking for a letter of support. I'll second that. A motion and a second. All those in favor? Aye. Any? Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Appointments to boards, committees and commissions. So you got in your packets, the Conservation Commission, I think has multiple slots, if I'm remembering or understanding what was sent last night correctly. I think I forwarded on to you from the chair and vice chair about Stu Poole in being the designee for the opening that we're considering tonight. And then they have four or five other candidates that they're putting in the pool, I guess to consider for another opening that either has happened or will happen. And then you got Pat Moroski's letter of interest on the Planning Commission. We alluded to that before, but we didn't get that until today, so it's not until Tuesday. So is the Conservation Commission up, they have something they gotta do before the March organization meeting? Is it, it's a one month, this, it expires, wouldn't it? March. Right, this would be now. We'll be appointing somebody for two weeks to then have to re-appoint. All that commission depends on one year. Well then you'd re-appoint for the remain or return, I think would be the idea. I don't remember that one, if it's multi-color, whatever, but. Let's see if I can find one too. I'm not sure if that was on the cover. I'm happy to be coming for one month and then re-appoint next month. Well, we're here. Why not? She gets, and she can get started. But is that emotion? So how many, how many openings are there? Sounds like there's one, and they're likely to be a second, if possible. On conservation, on conservation. Right, so just one tonight would be. There's two applicants, right? Right, I appreciate the fact we have two applicants, but, and it's only for one month, but Bob Raskovitz's application is a good deal more. I don't know, Susan, so I don't know when she refers to her life experiences and the work background. I'll take her word for it that she's qualified and, but if we're only appointing one tonight, I feel like Bob Raskovitz is the more substantive application at least at this point. I actually know Bob and he would be great. I don't know, Susan. Well, I do. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I saw both of those and I agree. I just, I hesitate to not go along with the conservation commission's recommendations unless we have some, like, if they really did something wrong. Do we have somebody over from that part of town on the committee? Do we wait until March to do this? So we have a better picture of what the balance on the committee is. That's a rather option. I don't know. I'm looking at a list. I don't know anybody. I don't know. So I was looking like I didn't want to. I'm like, they all live in Randolph. Pretty sure. We're doing all right then. Yeah. Like, 70% of this.