 Before we get into anything at this point, the very first item on our agenda this evening is the election of officers. We normally do this first meeting of the year. We didn't have the first meeting. There's a storm and everything else. So this is our first meeting of the year, fiscal year. We know that it's July, January. With that, normal process is to pull the commission. We've got six members, not seven. And if we don't have seven, we usually pull the commission and ask if people want to do the election tonight or wait until we have a full group. Is there any thoughts on this from anyone here or online? Given that John Mangan is currently an officer, I kind of think he should be here for all seven. I would second that. I think it's best to have everyone present. Sharon? I would just offer that you re-approved the current slate with an addendum that will take it up again. Another vote when all seven officers are here. Commissioners, we're currently checking out all laws on how this works. And this is just caution, and I think until we get a firm answer that we can state to you, it's fine to just take a motion versus move the current slate. That would be my recommendation, but that's all I have to offer. So technically, on the 1st of July, it's a new fiscal year, it's a new term, and so there aren't really officers. It's the way we're reading statute. So there needs to be some sort of motion of their acting or like Sharon said. Well, with that in mind, I would actually go counter to the delay and I would suggest we've got six members. I would suggest we move forward with the election of officers this night. With a view to doing it again or just a real deal. I'm fine either way. I'm just wondering what you're thinking. I just think we should, and at this point, we're going to draw it out and we can maintain the current slate by motion tonight. And then if we delay it until we have full seven members, then we're, you know, this summer months, we might not have seven members for a period of time. So, thoughts? Fine. Do we know if John was interested in remaining as... I don't. No, is he the... He's the clerk. He's the clerk. I guess I'd like to move forward with this, just doing motions tonight. With that in mind, there's no challenges to that. Daniel, are you okay with six of us moving forward? Or do you... I mean, this is an open discussion right now. Trevor, Daniel? I'm okay. I'm very new and so I'm still trying to just reflect on where my position is in this. But if I were to speak frankly, I think it is challenging to take a vote when one of the officers that may want to be, you know, re-elected is not present. Though I do understand that, you know, by statute, we're supposed to have new officers elected at this time. So it's kind of a... I think that something like an interim, you know, holding space would probably be the direction I would like to go. But that's just my perspective being a new member on the committee, on the commission. Very fair of perspective. Staff has recommended that. Josh, what are your thoughts? We can just do it so like a holding pattern you're saying. Yeah, let's make a motion to have the current slate be in place until we have all the officers and that's the majority. Well, we have a seven member. We're in all seven members. Yeah. The motion could be... I'll make the motion to... I've made the motion that we maintain the current slate of officers until the next meeting that we have a full seven member attendance for all seven members attended. And then we elect the permanent officers for the remainder of the fiscal year. Second. Karen, does that fit what you were aiming for? It does. However, it might be difficult because we have to warn it. So it... Why do we have to warn it? It's operating business. Well, we usually warn something for 24 hours or things that aren't public. So I guess with that case, that would give us time to hold this. Well, I think we would need to have it on the... If it's on the agenda, that agenda goes out Friday before. So we couldn't do it. And we have it as standing item. Standing item before... And that was where I was going with that. That's a... Yeah, that's a... We're going to be... A workflow thing. That's not... We have to make that call here. That's not something... If we're going to set it for... Maintain this late until we... By motion until we have seven members present. It's just make it a standing item on the agenda for the... That works. Fiscal year permanent. Fiscal year full of officer election law. It can be under other business for that matter. It must be organization. Correct. Because you have... In motion, you have your officers. Everything is in place. Again, throughout the year, you can... It can be changes as many times. People might leave. People might not want it after... Effort is our... You're our new clerk for the CBA. You might take a month and say, Okay, I've had it with clerk. So we'll have to back this around too much. We've got a motion. We've got a second. Daniel? Forgive me for misunderstanding. This is an interim... Thing that we're voting on, right? Yes, absolutely. It's until we get a full seven member. Okay, okay. Thank you for the clarification. I don't know if you're taking questions, but with a hand raised. Nope. Nope, this is the staff and commission process. So, Trevor? Any thoughts before we... This is discussion phase. No, I think it's a good idea to proceed in this way. Georgia? Yeah, no, I think it makes sense. Hopefully the next meeting, there'll be seven people. Okay. Motion has been made. Seconded. All those in favor? Second. Two. Thank you. All those in favor? Signified by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries 6-0. Okay. Things change and evolve. So, with that, the next item on our agenda is public comments. If anyone has anything they would like to offer to the public on any items that are not on the agenda or anything to do with the consent agenda that includes commissioners. This is the point at which we would discuss that. So... Oh, yeah. Can you guess anybody who's going to speak this evening? Thank you. We could just please raise your right hand and just swear that any testimony you present this evening will be truthful to the best of your abilities. Thank you. On the line, hopefully the same. Hand to the right. I think that was then blurting out the hand to the right. My hand is right. You said raise your hand. I'm saying my hand is right. Thanks, Ken. Okay. So, again, if there are questions for items for the consent agenda, which I don't have... This is the two items. I'll go through those in a second. Or if there's questions or comments on items that are not on the agenda, the time to raise up commissioners as well. Three items. Three items. ABC. Okay. It gets that story. Kendall, right? Did you call my name? No, not yet. Kendall. Go ahead. Good evening. This is written in comments from Sheila and Kendall Chamberlain, 966 Old Pump Road for the Planning Commission. We would like to offer written comments on the simple parcel subdivision proposed for an adjoining property next to our home at 966 Old Pump Road. Before we do so, we will state for the record, we are not opposed to the project and support our neighbors in the subdivision. We will also not benefit materially should our comments result in the commission allowing a variance or waiver of the two lot driveway standard currently in effect in our zoning district. And lastly, as I am a sitting select board member, any and all comments are not to be construed as representing the board in any way as we are simply exercising our private right to comment on a project that affects us personally. The proposed new driveway on the plans presented in our opinion seems to be rather excessive for the actual need and possibly not in the towns, hours or our neighbor's best interests. Please consider the comments below when rendering your decision. Number one, the town has set a previous precedent to allow more than two lots to be served by an existing driveway way before the state recently changed the overarching rules regarding locks and dwellings. Specifically, the bushy development on River Road was granted a waiver to allow the existing driveway to be used for additional lots. We suggest this subdivision before you might best be served by following that precedent as well. Number two, the property being subdivided is very large and landlocked for road frontage. It is also enrolled in current use and may have a tax liabilization agreement with the town to remain conserved and open and rural in character. Current use requires forest harvesting. We watched 18 wheelers remove substantial volumes of products and equipment in a recent harvest over the existing drive with no upgrades or modifications. We have also watched any and all emergency vehicles access the existing drive in all seasons without impediment. The existing drive is very well made with no 90-degree turns, meticulously maintained with pull-offs, proven drainage and ditches for stormwater, and handles substantial traffic volume from the home business. In our opinion, the new drive proposed on the plans is unlikely to serve this purpose as well, even with the substantial earthwork required. Number three, in reference to the easement proposed to be used for the new drive, it is a simple 30-foot easement. The proposed design has work required outside of that easement to construct and use it. As the town has to remain inside any easement to complete or install new infrastructure and can't do permanent work outside in the easement, we suggest the town should not require work outside a private easement to use or maintain it. Removing trees and construction outside of the easement to use it seems excessive when the existing drive is more than adequate. We are also concerned a significant flood event as we recently witnessed will overwhelm the proposed drive and flood our property at the 90-degree turn. There are several examples of this flooding that is almost impossible to prevent in surrounding communities. This is noted not as a concern against our neighbors, rather a concern for them as expensive mitigation is likely to be required in the future when flooding occurs. Expensive to build often translates into expensive to maintain. Number four, regardless of number three above, using the easement across our property to construct a new drive is the best option for our neighbors to meet the two-lot access rule in order to avoid excessive slopes and exorbitant construction costs. This new driveway would be unusual as all surrounding driveways are on the owner's own property. This was initially the consideration when both our parents negotiated to consider using the easement for the original drive. All parties, including the town at that time determined a new drive in a better location was warranted. This was the 1950s when zoning rules were, shall we say, less stringent. If the existing drive during a time with no or few restrictions was determined to be the best decision for access to their property, we suggest the best long-term option continues to be allowing a variance or waiver to keep using the existing drive. This may also avoid possible conflicts between future owners who do not share the cooperative spirits of the current owners for easement use or maintenance. The town has encountered similar situations before regarding easement. Number five, the current driveway handles substantially more normal traffic than a standard two-lot driveway per the home business. Please give some consideration when moving this volume closer to our home on a new drive. We would also note the plans require them to build this new drive almost twice as long as the drive that requires substantial construction seems to counter the town's position to conserve as much of the natural environment as possible in our zoning district. In regards to comment number five, it is truly, is it truly in the town's best interest to require construction of hundreds of feet of new driveway, cut trees, ditched, trucking material to a long undisturbed land, and such in exchange for restoring a minimal amount of the pre-existing driveway. This does not seem like an equitable trade for the town. Please note the scenic resource overlay district specifically allows up to four lots per driveway to preserve the rural character. We offer our location in the conservation district in rural Essex is arguably scenic and popular with all who enjoy the road. Number seven, we understand the existing town specifications requires a substantial upgrade of an existing drive including paving when going to three lots. In light of the new state rules regarding single family homes, these homes can now effectively double the existing driveway used up to four lots per drawings. If the town is using the single family home standard, we understand this correctly and we may not, shouldn't this allow our neighbors subdivision to use the existing drive as they would still only have three lots? Turning a single family home into a duplex or multi-family home as the state now requires Essex to do effectively double an existing driveway is used. Please consider this. We would suggest the town requirement for a new driveway when exceeding two lots or dwelling should be amended to address this conflict in the zoning regulations and public work specifications. The justification for the two lotter dwelling limit is tied to the town's desire to limit impacts on the public road. The driveway requirement itself is obsolete due to the new state rules as impacts will now be doubled regardless of the two lotter dwelling driveway restriction. Number eight, per the town zoning rules, page 50, section G number three requests the number of curb cuts is minimized. Curb cuts on rural roads tend to increase flood damage when additional culverts plug and or drainage from the drive itself channels water into the road. Using the existing driveway would eliminate this concern. Number nine, per the town zoning rules, page 51, section G number five states concisely our question we ask in number seven about the existing two lot driveway rule. There are more than two dwellings or lots. This directly contradicts the new state rules that allow for drawings. Please consider this and allow our neighbors to use the existing drive that would continue to service only three dwellings after the subdivision. Number 10, per the town zoning rules under section 5.6 site plan review B number one page 111. The project should be designed to encourage a logical relationship with the natural topography and surrounding landscape. Please consider logic may be best served by allowing the use of the existing driveway in the subdivision versus require an extensive construction for a new drive under a current town rule that will likely need to be amended per new state regulation. Number 11, per the town zoning rules under section 5.6 site plan review C number five page 112. It states shared access to multiple buildings or lots is strongly encouraged and may be shared by the planning commission as noted above. The scenic resource overlay district already allows four lots or dwellings per driveway which is now effectively doubled to eight under the state rules. Your planned unit developments allow three. We would submit this project is a perfect candidate for the planning commission to consider this per our comments. Number 12, our final comment is in regard to the subdivision regulations section 2.1 waivers a page where it states where the planning commission finds that due to special circumstances of a particular subdivision, the provision of certain required improvements is not requisite in the interest of public health safety or general welfare or that connecting facilities are not adjacent or in proximity to the proposed subdivision. It may waive such requirements subject to appropriate conditions. We suggest allowing this applicant to use the preexisting driveway and not requiring them to build a new driveway with sharp turns and extensive drainage mitigation best serves the interest of public health safety and general welfare in our rural scenic section of town. Please consider allowing our neighbors old and new to use the preexisting driveway for access to the new lot. Thank you for your consideration. Thank you. We had some other issues. This is open public. This is not even an application. So if you want to speak about something, please raise your hand. I've got other people too. It would be the same issue but I'm the applicant. It's an open opportunity right now. This is a consent agenda item so it's open for discussion. Right. I'm Hans Hussie. I'm the person who's looking to subdivide the property. This is a family property that's been in the family for 60 years. We received the DPW memo which suggested the Department of Public Works was open to the driveway being used by more than two lots. However, we would propose that the driveway in its current form is more than adequate to serve the three lots. The DPW suggested that it needed to be improved to standard what was it, dash 11, which would require the road to be significantly widened. The road is currently halfway between the standard driveway width and the larger standard. The larger standard is 20. The smaller driveway width is 10. The road measures between 14 and 15 feet throughout its length and width and it's 21 feet wide where it meets old pump road and at the curb cut. So we think the fact that one, the road is wider than most existing driveways to the fact that the existing driveway has been in use for over 60 years without incident and as Kendall noted, we've had emergency vehicles in and out. We've had logging trucks in and out. We've had all types of vehicle use the road without any incidents at all. It survived all the storms without any significant damage and it is more than adequate to the purpose. Furthermore, the lot that's being subdivided is at the very front of the property. The driveway would only serve three houses for the first 250 or 300 feet of a 2,500 foot driveway. The DPW memo suggests that the entire 2,500 foot driveway would have to be expanded to the higher standard. To do that would be just one maybe physically impossible and two, certainly economically completely infeasible. You'd be well into the six figures to improve the driveway the entire length and one would ask to what end. If we did have to widen the driveway, that requirement should only go so far as the section of the driveway that actually serves three lots. The balance of the driveway, the remaining 2,200 feet, will then serve the two lots that it has served for the last 60 years without incident. So our first intention is we think the road is adequate as it currently exists. It's wider than the standard driveway width. It has the 21 foot width at the point where it meets old pump road. It's a straight shot to the point where the new driveway will come off. There will be no turns at all in that first section. It's only 250 feet and the road is more than adequate for its existing purpose and could easily serve this additional lot. To the extent the board disagrees and believes the road should be widened, we would see clarity that the need to widen the road would stop at the point where the driveway to the new subdivision departs from the existing driveway as that's where the use by three lots will come to an end. Did you have anything? Let me go to Stafford. We're looking at a boundary adjustment and a simple parcel tonight. Correct? Two separate items. Help me understand where the complexity and the requirement. I understand there's options that were included in it, but simple parceling to me doesn't seem normally to rise to the level of road engineering. Help me understand where we're requiring anything with this. This went through a few different iterations and what we have right now under the impression is what was being proposed. If there's an interest to have a different plan we could entertain a different plan. First I'm hearing that there's a concern with it. Is the simple parceling do we need to have the road specs and the driveway and all that with the simple parceling at this stage? Is that it feels like that might be more information than is normally required in a simple parceling? I feel like I'm missing something that I'm not quite catching yet. They needed to have the right frontage and they needed to have the right driveway arrangements to meet the specifications. So I think that through the combination of adjustments to the driveway and adjustments to the boundary line so those two work together so that they can achieve the subdivision that they're looking. Yes. I'm Scott Baker. First I'd like to say thank you to Sharon and Kent and Catherine for their assistance and guidance through here. This is for a simple parcel subdivision. A little bit of a winding road we've had different options. But you're right. The proposal that you see in front of us is actually listed as option B. It was never our first choice. It involves 600 feet approximately of U-12 foot drive and Hans and Kimberly said the existing road is in shape. We had originally proposed option A which was to utilize a single shared drive for all three lots. This communication would have you whatever it was I don't think we need to go back into any old emails but the request as we're doing now but there was I think some confusion about where a drive had to come in how much frontage we need could we have just a lot of history there. So just to summarize what Hans and Kendall have said our preference option one is to do what we feel is the best solution for the neighbors, town, people and the environment. What we call option A is to leave the existing drive as its onset. 15 foot wide road for the first 250 feet and we acknowledge that that is less than the 20 foot requirement for public works detail A-11 typically used now for three homes or more. What we're asking is for that waiver for 250 feet to keep the existing drive as is to serve the homes. And a number of those reasons were about right now particularly by Kendall. As a fall back to that he would as Hans had clarified he would prefer to again keep the single existing access to serve all three homes but proceed with improving that first 250 feet that serves three homes to comply with the driveway detail A-11 up to 20 feet wide. Again from a practical standpoint we don't think it's necessary in terms of access to safety. We do think it will add more impervious service and more impact to the environment. So a practical standpoint we feel that it is not necessary but we understand that from a procedural regulatory standpoint there may be no way found it. The third option that we would like to proceed with would be the one that's actually on the plans but our first option would be the waiver to keep as is for people like that. And the plans were submitted with the waiver included that said our preferred option is this but that option requires a waiver. The last option does not require a waiver. So let's hold on that for a second. Go back to staff. I want to roll back. Ken or Patty your hands are up. Do you have comments on this application or do you want to wait? We want to talk about not as long as Kendall. Did I miss the public to be heard? No this is the public to be heard Ken. Are you talking about items that are on the agenda? We're talking about consent agenda items which the discussion on consent agenda items is done during the public comment section. That's allowed because consent agenda items are generally of a lesser degree of review required. Okay. I'll wait for you to go ahead. I have the floor. Okay. Thank you. I'm a little bit concerned about the consent agenda items. I'm a little bit concerned about the consent agenda items. I'm a little bit concerned about the consent agenda items. I'm a little bit concerned about the way you handled your initial organizational meetings. Let's hold on that Ken. We're talking about the consent agenda items. This is rather important because we're continuing this meeting. I think you should hear what I have to say. We're continuing this discussion for a moment. If you want to talk about something just two seconds. We can go to that. That's an existing slate of officers. We can use an adversary to any decisions you make tonight. They could call them into legal question. We're not going to have a discussion. I will ask you to be muted if you continue this. I have to say I'm done. Thank you. Okay. Are you ready for me? On this. I won't be as long, I promise. I'll be longer than Ken but it is about the consent agenda. Thank you for your time. I just want to suggest when recording the minutes Sharon is very well-hurst in this. It's just a little added feature that I would like to see. Specifically, not just on the June 8th minutes that you're going to approve later on. What I would like to suggest is I would like to see more descriptive words by individual residents especially when they're speaking about my area of town which is off Allen Martin and Sandhill Road that describes how the diesel truck traffic impacts us, individual residents reporting it. The smell, the noise, what we see for example, I'm just going to read this one thing because Kendall read something. I want to have this particular statement please go into the minutes as written when diesel combusts because we're runners. We run along Allen Martin and Sandhill to Jericho and then 15 and that's why we moved here and it'll be 2027 before battery trucks are even going to be on the market so I don't want to see any diesel trucks on this road. Here we go the bus from these 18 wheelers we run alongside of it produces a toxic plume that includes nitric nitrous oxide as well as greater than 40 cancer causing compounds. Diesel exhaust is one of the worst actors out there as far as what it can do for your health says well Barrett director of clean air advocacy for the American Long Association in the atmosphere nitrous oxide reacts with volatile organic compounds to form fine particulate matter capable of penetrating deep into our lungs as well as ozone the main ingredient and smog. Ozone is corrosive gas that can actually burn the tissue in your airways like a sunburn in your lungs please put that in writing in the next minutes that would make my day my other good thing I want to say is from the June 8th minutes Josh Joshua Knox you are a savior. You did such a fabulous job describing how the RPDI and the verbiage in the settlement versus what people think is happening the process by which we need to change the town plan first vote on it get everybody involved and my request is please Josh if you need help I'm retired I can run around and put posters up to get people charrette or whatever you do to get more people to participate please don't be shy I will help but if you have a moment at the end of this meeting or when there's time you can put it in a nutshell in a little more elaborate way than Sharon recorded in the minutes just give bullets on what that process is again because many people in town I wrote it I typed it all out it's very long but many people in town don't understand that process and I think if they did they would all be screaming let's do the town plan let's get going let's do it now we want to help I for one will help you so please reach out thanks thank you for saying so back to our consent agenda items which I did have a thought about so the thing that I was mulling over is in the simple parcel as written it does say the applicant has chosen excuse me that all choked up from Patty complimenting me the applicant has chosen to propose option B in their plan so that is not your that's technically what's written but you're offering something different we correct we only chose option B because it was we were having difficulty finding a way to get the option A drawn and presented in a way that it be except we're getting hung up on the waiver the idea what would be required is this an allowable access and so we in conversations we okay the safest thing was to go with just two separate accesses and then get before the board and then look to see if a single access or even a waiver would be even a possibility but our approach was to go with the safest two separate driveways and get it professionally engineered literally every I dotted T crossed and then before you say we have a situation that works but we'd like to do something better and in the original application we did include the request for the waiver and the original drawing shows both options as viable options it was only when we were told that our application was incomplete and we got picked off the February meeting that we then got revised and said all right we're just going to put the simplest thing before the commission so that we can get in front of you get a baseline approval and then seek a waiver based on what you have in front of you that would allow us to use the existing driveway as opposed to create a new curb cut a new clear all do all the necessary clearing and demolition and land destruction in the conservation zone when the current is more than adequate to serve the purpose right so my point in asking that was that means I feel like under consent agenda A and B are still consent agenda but talk of waivers and changing what was written in the plan and I understand your reasoning means C does not feel like a consent agenda item for me anymore I would concur I'm willing to approve A and B under consent I feel like C we need to do something else with consent I don't know this is still the public discussion right here we're not actually right so I'm just saying that's my thought there A and B I can sign off on but C sounds like it's something different now so I don't want to lose sight Daniel you have any thoughts or questions on this point let me get some more yeah no Joshua well I was going to ask Joshua if you can clarify or at least provide more explanation for why C is no longer considered a consent agenda item so typically consent agendas are things that we can just do very simply without making modifications or big modifications to the plan as written as it says you see on the B boundary line adjustment C is called simple parcel these usually don't have any bells and whistles and there's not a whole lot of back and forth between the applicant and the public usually and so that's sort of what a consent agenda what makes it suitable as a consent agenda and since the agenda as written said option B and we have the applicant and a butter saying we really wouldn't like option B that means we can't just sign off on a plan as written we would have to go in and investigate perhaps why A would be better and why we'd need a waiver to make it better and the point is to be a little more involved than just a consent agenda item there would have been a vision did address both issues I mean you have the memo from dpw which which addresses what standard it would want if the waiver was approved so there was notice of some so did W judge look to jump on this we're now coming up on 45 minutes no 40 40 minutes well we got a late start didn't well we did so say 10 after so we're coming up on a 35 minutes of discussion on a consent agenda item that all by itself generally drives this out of consent I think that just that because it's to give you to do diligence and give the really the review that you're asking for tension and the attention I mean you've done a lot of detail that's not reflected in the staff report that we were asked to approve though I think just that would be driving it out of consent and that's not a rejection it's just a transition from sent to we do this as as as Josh was suggesting Mr. Knox I'm not sure I don't overly overly or underly formal approve A and B and we reserve or approve the the subdivision and the boundary line adjustment as proposed but reserve the right to to take up the waiver at a future meeting so let's let's go to staff on that's it that's a reasonable question because there is a plan before us it does meet the requirements that staff staff that it was solid enough to propose as as a consent so that that seems to imply that it was a relatively low lift in the configuration that was presented what we're being what's being presented tonight is other options if we approve the consent as item C as presented and written that's not the option they want to go with that's not the option that that the butters is suggesting better what would giving them the approval for that plan do if they still got to have to come back for something for modifications the boundary line adjustment wouldn't be required to do what they initially want to do it wouldn't have to I'm sorry it may still need for the front the frontage I mean I think if they're to this this this level of question that we're driving back and forth and to Josh's original point I think drives it out of consent very easy yeah and that's yeah yeah I think staff needs to draw up more of a staff report with you know different and it doesn't dial I'm not saying that's not I would ask that I would propose that you pull it off the agenda do the public hearing next available revised staff report now would that would not to go back on would you want the boundary adjustment anyways that would be consistent one question could it be possible to approve that the boundary adjustment and the simple parcel as is presented right now the subdivision is approved and then we can come back and apply apply for an amendment to revise the driveway after but that would at least close out the subdivision and as Kent had said the driveways as John as they're presented we did it this way to get the subdivision approved so I didn't know if there's any value and getting it approved as we requested and then coming back and applying separately so so we had a very eloquent presentation by Kendall about why we shouldn't do that we've already come out now the genies out of the bottle the reasons why that should be approved as is are there and I think there's there's good solid foundations for those for discussion and review by staff so this would be a continuation it may be that that continuation in the staff report comes back the same but there's been enough points raised tonight that drives us out of consent I think that's your simple parceling it's as simple as that I mean we're not questions have been valid once good points brought up and if we're going to give you the proper tension with what you're looking for I think it's it needs without casting any aspersions at all my only hesitation is we were on the agenda in February literally days before the meeting we were told we needed to redo things and it took this long for us to get back so I don't want another six months to go by before I'm here again that's that's my panic when I hear about continuance yeah in my other question would be just I'd like to request direction from the from the commission as to what additional information would be necessary I think it's got to go to staff because we had it we had a report that was written to approve the option that you've you've told us you don't want Kendall told us is not good so everybody that's on board and it's here saying that's not the right option that should be looked at yeah I was confused because I saw the DPW memo which addressed both option DPW memo says if you do driveway a it needs to be this standard if you use the existing driveway we want you to use this standard that we were under the impression that both were before the commission right so I can read that part on page three dusty so on page three this is specifically what I'm referring to which drives the whole consent or not consent it says from the options presented below that is option A and option B from the November 2022 review the applicant has chosen to propose option B in their plan whoever stated that is that it implies something as it implies that we chose it as as a preferred solution that's not true we chose it as the only option to get here before the board we tried we tried to propose and you've explained that very well I'm just saying that is what was written in ours so if we were to approve it as a consent agenda item up or down no amendments we would therefore be ratifying that and you've all made it very clear that is not what you want right and you can't precisely making the change given that it's formatted to this point I wouldn't think that it would take a lot of effort staff and you come together one more time and confirm the choices that you'd prefer to have and write the staff report up for that and it may be that you come down on that one option but that's this report should be written for that there's no ambiguity in it will continue it so it's not going to be you know full full six months and it I would even think that you're ready we can put this on one planning nights not just application review night to get on the accelerator I would have a motion to add the next available right so we haven't moved on any of this it's still all discussion today could I ask two requests for clarification that before everyone on for the record one would be I'd like to clarify what's required for engineering we did a complete professionally engineered driveway drainage creating everything temporary construction measures I heard you say earlier that that seemed a little excessive for a simple parcel subdivision so my request would be if we're going to present a plan another revised plan no longer has that 600 foot new drive that just has the existing access that we'd like to keep and continue to use two questions one if it's do we need to submit a waiver in official waiver request in writing to request that it remain at that existing with without being improved to 20 feet wide do we need to submit a waiver request for that and also along that line for engineering it'd be nice to have some direction if we need to have this first 250 feet if that's the way we're going needs to be engineered it'd be really nice to know preferably now if we should engineer that at 20 feet wide or if we can keep it at the existing with for drainage I think this is all what's gotta be done because this is we don't even actually have any of that level of review in this in front of us so this is where again this this all this lens support for this not being a consent agenda your questions you know what you want what you what you what you bring into the table are beyond what we have in front of us tonight it's not fair to you it's not it's not appropriate for us understood to work on this so I think you know as Josh brought up we've got to close out the public hearing unless there are other comments that folks want to offer and move on to the consent agenda item and then modify that motion right so public comments I'm we're gonna is there any other questions or comments that anyone wants to offer to the commission many of you on any of the items that are not on the agenda or any of the consent agenda Lorraine I see your hand raised I'm sorry chair I was I was late I missed were we holding elections today or were they already held that was the very first item on the agenda and because there wasn't there wasn't a full commission the commission decided to formally point as an interim the current slate of officers until the next meeting that there are all seven members are present is that legal oh don't do this yes please don't talk to me like that it's just a question from the public it's okay I would appreciate it and you and Ken that's enough it's not it's just a question because we checked with legal with the state and I don't understand how without a parliamentary let's move on how we run a public hearing one more time and I'm mutual let's move on next item on the agenda is the consent agenda items we are done with public comment for this the consent agenda there are three items on it Joshua do you want to take care of that motion so I move we approve consent agenda item 3a only 3a which is the boundary lines boundary line adjustment 226 adjust that one because my understanding from everything we said is that boundary adjustment is somewhat implicated in this 3a 3a it's not you we're approving the not you so we can move the not you to something else there's a different boundary adjustment could I get a copy of the agenda right here thank you yeah so what I'm saying is I'm moving the approval of 3a consent agenda item untouched by this discussion and then once that's approved I'll make a separate motion with respect to 3b and 3c so we can let's straight back with you I don't know that I got all the right paperwork this might be my fault okay I'm sorry my fault this is the first meeting we're all here together so this is this consent agenda process is different than the other review okay so are you moving 3a okay we have a motion to approve consent agenda item a and it's been seconded moved by gosh seconded by Georgia any further discussion all those in favor of consent agenda item approving consent agenda item a say aye aye aye opposed consent agenda item a passes 6 0 point of order no this is now consent agenda items b and c we need to move so do we need a motion to move them off from out of consent into a full application to continue the public hearing if you have no issues with the boundary adjustment to what you did see would then move to remove it make a motion to remove it from the consent agenda and continue the next available meeting as regular my question about b and y held off was because is the boundary line adjustment implicated in which driveway choice they choose in which case if it's not okay it can be approved and then we covered that with Sharon if the subdivision were to fall apart we just wouldn't record the mylar the BLA the B as well I would also move just a quick question so I'm a little bit confused there and I apologize are you saying that boundary adjustment is affected by the simple parcel but if we approve it now it just won't record the mylar correct earlier this we presented as a one-step process when it was split into two I'd ask that question what would happen if the BLA were approved and then the subdivision were not and the response was that no problem you'll just let the BLA approval expire without recording the mylar and it fizzles out in a way we've got one of those coming up so it can be done in which case I move we approve consent agenda item 3B seconded the boundary adjustment the aforesaid property additional discussion Daniel forgive me I thought we were deciding we had during the general discussion the public discussion it seemed that we were moving this item into the approval process now we're separating the boundary adjustment and the simple parcel those are two different consent agenda items so right now we're looking to approve the boundary line adjustment because that was not a debatable there's no really debate on the boundary adjustment on creating a third block is that what you're saying yeah and the simple that was where the discussion came into play about the driveway the potential waivers and so forth so that was the piece that we're proposing to pull off and move from the consent agenda process into a standard application process okay thank you for the clarification I appreciate that this is not the norm so we moved B so B has been moved all those in favor I consent agenda item B boundary line adjustment approved 6-0 approval passes 6-0 okay C I move that we take consent agenda item off consent agenda 3-C off the consent agenda I second that I'm not done but thanks and put it on the regular agenda next next available meeting for a subdivision review owing to any number of reasons that we've heard tonight that have been recorded okay Daniel do you still want to second that I second that okay I'll be hearing open move to normal application process next available meeting all those in favor aye motion carries 6-0 consent agenda item 3 has been shifted into additional review public hearing is still open on that thank you all thank you all so much and Hans and Sharon we will contact with you and find out what information for engineering and what have you is required for the next meeting can you get copies of your notes to Sharon okay thanks well um I've done that I just got all confused I don't know I looked at the wrong thing so we're going to be getting ready to go into the update on the planning project but I am going to take a moment for the folks that are online who feel like they need to disrupt things tonight enough um we have procedures we have policies we have are following them it is not required of you to try to do legal updates on the fly um if you have concerns you can submit them to staff and beyond that let's try to be a little more constructive update on planning yes all right so a couple things first one is kind of I think a quick one that municipal planning grant application process has done um so they submitted or uh have given us information about that process applications are not being submitted if you're ever allowed to um we had talked about previously doing hopefully doing a municipal planning grant starting in December helpful to get designations um our state designations so our town center mostly or so that's that's one of the next plan um to allow us to really at that center but there's a lot of steps that need to go into process that process that would more quickly more smoothly and that would be my recommendation for a municipal to make a decision about that at this moment that just wanted to throw that out there and I can provide some more information what that um what we'd be asking and I think some of you are probably somewhat from the process so it's a state plan the grant gives you the money to yes do the plan for the town center right exactly yes that's a great way to go much better deal than the town having to put all the money to get a consultant I think there's a lot of real technical work that we've been consulted so a certain percentage that we would have to do the grant would cover the majority of the project that helped us get that the state designations so a new town center designations or for the part of the ET less to so then the other thing I think would be doing a little dive into the town and I think our meetings ago actually there was a discussion around the RP and the work session and discussion before that and Josh has come up with a summary I think you called it before what we heard what we heard at that last minute yeah and so I was thinking it would be good just to take a look at that discuss that and my thought with that is that the next step would figuring out how to put that into the discussion would there be further discussion before the town plan process ends which we need to end that discussion soon so we can actually get the town plan approved so that is another scheduling not issue scheduling constraints well just so we're aware of what schedule is but I can pull up Josh's summary sounds like a good idea yeah I think that's a great idea share my everyone good to go I think it's also in this week's packet isn't it? yeah it is if you want to look at it there labeled executive summary RPDI I mean it needs to be I can read it aloud as well you know so that the public can hear what was said Josh would you want to would have written it shorter if I needed to read the whole thing if you want to summarize the summary so in summary of the summary what we have before us is an executive summary of the public comment session we had I guess it was a month ago because we didn't have a meeting at the beginning of July about the RPDI and as Patty Davis noted at the beginning you have to change the town plan to create enabling language that then is ratified by the town as a whole which then allows planning commission to change regulations to put into action the goals and objectives as stated by public hearing such as this so what's the issue here is how the RPDI changes would fit into the overall town plan changes my summary as you see here sort of posits that there are a lot of connections between what the town has said as a whole at those sessions held in January and February and then meeting from last month so I'll just I'll read I guess the first paragraph and then little bits like the summary sentences from the other paragraphs give you an idea so in early 2023 Essex residences and business people came together to offer their thoughts on what the town of Essex can be and how to continue building a community that is connected, diverse, sustainable and a joy to live in spring and summer of 2023 this discussion continued by focusing more narrowly on the unique opportunities in the RPDI district in Saxon Hill many of the desires expressed for the town as a whole held true for this particular area so in particular and now I'm sort of summarizing the summary residents emphasize the need for conservation recreation opportunities pedestrian cyclists connectivity a diverse set of local businesses for the I part and then several residents wanted to mitigate the impact of the larger scale businesses that currently exist and so in summary of the summary residents by and large requested zoning prioritized conservation and recreation over economic development about which residents mentioned various downsides that said it should not be viewed as overall hostility to economic developments smaller scale businesses that are complimentary with the above uses were viewed favorably and the opposition to larger scale businesses could in the view of many residents be lessened by taking into account the overall impact and mitigating it this again is just the summary of public comment session we had last time we would also be hearing from for example the town's economic development committee and have their take on such things so this is a summary of a public comment section which gives us what the townspeople who were there what they wanted which again was consistent with what townspeople who were there for the town plan process said but it again is the beginning of getting comments and then filtering them through things like the other with the other town boards think what's legally possible and so I hope that clarifies that for you Daniel still there I think you're muted yes sorry took a second on that clarifies wonderfully thank you for taking a bit to resummarize that and share with the public no problem so I do know that Gino Sullivan spoke at an economic development coordinator about the industrial town and its place in the something that she was waiting I think on that mission yeah and I had spoken to her that night and asked her informally at that point but as a staffer to a more in-depth presentation she did a very short very succinct discussion in a lot of the topic we've all been bouncing at the time would be good to get what does this mean economically if I may if I may sorry if I'm jumping in here Dusty if there's any opportunity to provide a comparative analysis between what is possible for industrial economic capacity versus recreational economic capacity I think that would serve not just the planning commission but the economic development board in terms of you know how we can move forward economically as well as within the purview of the public that has spoken already that makes a lot of sense for being able to look at this what was the capabilities of now we need to you reference the timetable and so forth this isn't open in in order to get the plant town plan moving forward we have to decide what needs to go in and you know frankly are we in my mind this is enabling this all by itself enabling text could go in because it is capturing you know public public input and then I think from this there could action first factor right here's here the things that we've heard here's how so they weren't they weren't ready for it was going to be too short of notice but I've written executive summary items for all the other chapters in the town plan and my point there is this document doesn't say anything that isn't already contained at various points in various summaries I am confident that this language as you said could be plugged in various points like under an action plan vis-a-vis under an action plan vis-a-vis industrial development we could say and per the RPDI discussion this is what the town is asking for as a whole and so it's not for into the document and we'll put the other four chapters up in the packet for next time and I think that language allows for discussion about that to make a decision discussion then allows the actual granular discussions on the regulations to occur because the enabling discussion is included in the town plan which is what we've been trying to do right anyways so it seems very positive it's nice to have a I know a few you also talked to schedule and stuff like that yeah so I was looking at that recently and I was thinking trying to have our public hearing available for the town so November is I know that's supposed to be an application night but that would work but then maybe shift planning planning night to the second October meeting or you could add an extra meeting on November 16th so just remember in November and December you only have planning commission meeting because of Thanksgiving and the Christmas holiday we also don't traditionally have lots of applications so it might be a mood point could be yeah and then so then backing backing up a little bit so you would need to warn for that hearing by October 10th which of course is in the middle of weeks so it doesn't really work so you would it have a meeting on October 5th which would be a new extra meeting to warn or November 20th is October 5th a ZBA night I think it is that's not ideal Trevor will be there so why don't we have a shared meeting oh yes that's right yeah so just some dates to think about there you know so if we're looking at September 20th with this plan needing to be done we're definitely not looking for meetings to flush out we have to flush out our action points but I think our text is coming together for the town plan but say at your next planning meeting which is whatever the date is August 24th sounds good that would be draft chapters for the town plan to look at and which you could also look at I would say somewhat at the next first meeting September the second meeting we play it by ear about adding a date you have to play it by no by October we're going to do something extra in November take your calendar so I think it makes sense to me in a way to add that extra meeting in November just that would give you a little bit of time on the front end too so those dates that I was giving were based on November 9th and since you are only having one meeting that month it's an off week sometimes they're planning emergencies or not emergencies that's a better way November 9th hold the 16th hold the 16th we make that a formal declaration like October cancel it in but let's make the call to see where we're at everything is all really moving smoothly then we save time tonight while she's walking up there's an act 171 there's a working group and that again is the state requirement to have forest block protections in our town plans we're pretty much close to finalizing that there's a plan to have a public meeting at the conservation and trails meeting coming up that's their next meeting the idea would be to invite the public to comment and provide input so we can finalize that I haven't heard any discussion about format regarding the town plan and so I hope it is the goal of the commission to maintain the same format as the last one because for a lot of people it was easy to find things easy to read just agreed yes that is the goal or the plan I've been taking a lot of time reviewing the 2016 one as I type up the summaries for chapters and the idea is exactly that very readable once you get to see the summaries at the next meeting or the 24th and the idea is the lay readers should be able to read this and that's their idea of what it's about what the technical language and the appropriate place but you should be able to read things coming off the street and say I know what this town plan is about that is that the goal thank you what did you say thank you very much anything additional Catherine do you want to touch on so do you do you need any action from us on the grant piece sounds like that's just something that should go forward with if you're all good with that concept I think I can start working on that application I believe it's due in October so it'll come back to you for your blessing essentially it's okay as well and that sounds to ever put it it's money for working on stuff so I don't think that needs a formal month just go for it so next item on the agenda is minutes approval of minutes Sharon so I would ask that we pull the June 8th minutes for today and I bump into the next meeting if I did have a request to massage some language from who spoke at the meeting and I just not holding up any approval letters we have to remove from the agenda yeah seconded that's just to remove the minutes from this agenda all those in favor aye proposed motion carries 6-0 minutes for June 8th removed before we go to the minutes of the 22nd even Georgia to some degree just a touch base on the minutes commission at some point in the past procedurally decided that the minutes until there in front of us for approval belong to the clerk so if you know we've in the past had folks that have tried to they've offered comment in meetings about the minutes and it was not as productive as it maybe could have been the decision the commission had made always procedurally could be re-up and re-visited but the decision was that we look to what the clerk puts in front of us those are what we what we approve or not and if she feels she or he in future maybe there should be changes it's up to them to tell us like Sharon did tonight she needed to pull it to make an adjustment so we can make changes to the minutes during the meeting if we think something needs to be corrected but please try to have any comments to her before the meeting if you can so that they can be possibly incorporated in the minute in the version that's put to us so just a point because we have new people and that's most appreciated that you said that I would often see and that's grammatical you can give them to her with that I take a motion for the minutes of June 22 move we approve the minutes from June 22 2023 a second Matt so I got a question on this one and I'm actually realizing what this is I don't think we can have the minutes on this official minutes we don't have it we didn't have a quorum this was not a meeting this was a workshop I'm not sure that we can even approve minutes on it because we weren't here as we weren't a commission so I think we should I actually like to withdraw my motion to approve the motion I would draw my motion and I'd like to maybe offer a motion that the minutes of the 22nd be struck from the agenda tonight as well no minutes we can call them notes but I don't think we can call the minutes because we didn't have a meeting we had a workshop we've got Josh's notes we've got so forth I don't know that we can have official minutes for that I'm finally made a motion and I had to just struck me down that's okay so go ahead and move to remove them I already did it I move we remove the minutes from the agenda you and 22nd 22nd all those in favor aye closed motion carries 6-0 so we do have the do of operating okay let's do that first I thought about doing this under Republic comments because it wasn't on the agenda we know the consent agenda went a little longer but about a month ago I prepared the following comments I'd just like to read into the record the planning commission the members of the Essex planning commission would like to recognize David Raphael's nearly two decades of exemplary service on the commission Dave brought to the table a keen understanding of regulations and a strong desire to make Essex a better place through sensible planning he also never failed to point out missing commas and apostrophes in meeting minutes we will miss his wit and dedication and wish him the best in his future endeavors thank you I would ask that we give that and we would rebate him I believe I emailed that to you okay review of operating procedures so we have two brand new one basically new and question is have folks had a chance to look at the operating procedures and any questions or thoughts that either we can clarify or things that we might want to change because we can update our procedures as needed I thought they were pretty clear this is just a good opportunity to weigh in and help us improve as we go through Daniel did you have a chance to review them and any thoughts or questions to be frank I have not had a chance to review this document I know that we spoke briefly about operating procedures when we met but unfortunately my work got very busy recently and so I was not able to look at this well even though this isn't something that we necessarily amend on the fly it is I think it would be good if you ever have a question about a procedure or have a thought on how to improve something we can bring it to the full commission and have it reviewed and potentially update it needed and as appropriate so when you have a chance Daniel go please just review and ask questions yeah I will definitely be reviewing this soon and I might suggest perhaps we could have another discussion about this when we have a full quorum of seven and are moving to vote on new officers that would be fine so and that just for anybody still online that's not to vote on officers that's to vote on the permanent officers we did vote on officers today and we did have an organizational meeting at the beginning of this and there was a decision to maintain the slate of officers until the next meeting when all seven commissioners are present which final vote would be taken for permanent the yearly fiscal year so with that does anyone have any other business they want to present or any questions Trevor Daniel Georgia any thoughts, questions that you want to bring up I see what I did I somehow I was stuck on reading the package for the July 13th meeting that's all I missed that's okay I'm embarrassed well if you were an expert at this we'd be we're hoping people learn as we go through and it's like it's nice to see them still no hope for me well it's okay you said it with that take a motion to adjourn I move we adjourn all those in favor aye opposed Daniel I didn't hear you did you say aye I did say aye we are adjourned motion passes 6-0