 Aaron has to put it up for me or in that screen is give any way to reduce the when you say reduce dusty. Do you mean zoom out? Zoom out. Yeah. Because you're centered off to the side as well. Keep going. You're not going to be able to read it much further. It's just where you go. I mean, I can see it clearly here, but before you're it's it's way right justified. So all right, this is a remote meeting script. So I, Dustin Brousseau as chair of the S explaining commission find that due to the state of emergency declared by Governor Scott as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic and pursuant to addendum six to executive order 01-20 and act 92. This public body is authorized to meet electronically in accordance with act 92. There is no physical location to observe and listen contemporaneously to this meeting. I really don't like that word. However, in accordance with the temporary amendments to the open meeting law, I confirm that we are a providing public access to the meeting by video conference with additional access offered through telephone. We're using Microsoft teams for this remote meeting. All members of the planning commission have the ability to communicate contemporaneously during this meeting through teams and the public has access to contemporaneously listen and if desired participate in this meeting. Planning staff will provide instructions for the public participation using teams before the hearings are opened. Providing public notice of instructions for accessing the meeting. We previously gave notice to the public of the necessary information for accessing this meeting, including how to access the meeting on teams with a computer, smartphone, or regular telephone in our posted meeting agenda. Students have also been provided on the town website at sxvt.org, agenda center. Click on your government then agendas in minutes and navigate to the desired meeting date. See, providing a mechanism for the public to alert the public body during the meeting if there are problems with access. If anyone has a problem, please use the chat feature within teams, which is Alt H. Email or call oiso at 878 1343 or email at omakukuu at sx.org. D, continuing the meeting if necessary. In the event the public is unable to access this meeting, it will be continued to a time and place certain. Could you scroll down there? That's as far down as I can scroll. I think I'm having some display issues. Yeah, that's okay. Just reduce your display by about 50%. Is that better? Nope. Other direction. How about now? Can you scroll down? I can't scroll down anymore in my window, so let me tell you what, if you could continue where I left off, if you could read that, if you can read it and see it on your screen because it's not displaying for me at this point. Yes. I'm going to try screen sharing this one more time. Is this going to be better? Yes. Okay. So please note that all votes taken during this meeting that are not unanimous will be done by roll call vote in accordance with the law. Now let's start the meeting by taking a roll call attendance of all PC members participating in this meeting. Starting with myself, Dustin Burso, present. Dave Raphael, present. Dave Daly. Tom Ferland. Josh Agnans. Josh Agnans. I heard Josh Agnans. Yep. Okay. And Dusty, if I could jump in, I had somebody join on with the telephone number of 316-1900. Could I have your name? Andrew Hood. I'm sorry. Could you say it again? It's Andrew Hood. I can't seem to get audio on my computer. Okay. Thank you. So before we get going, I will, I'm going to go ahead and provide the oath to everyone that's currently in attendance. Obviously, we're in physical presence, so at this point, if you're on the line after I repeat the oath, I'd like you to just acknowledge it, and that will go from there. Do you swear that any testimony you present this evening will be truthful to the best of your abilities? I do. I do. I do. I do. Thank you. I do. I do. All right. Okay. Is Dina on tonight, or is it just Darren and Sharon? Dina's on. Okay. Dina, if I could ask you to just sort of help keep track of the chat window for me. Yep. I appreciate it. Do my best. Yeah. Thank you. Okay. So let's rock and roll, folks. First item on our agenda this evening is public comments. This is an opportunity for anyone in the public to offer commentary to the Planning Commission for items that are not on our agenda. If anyone has anything, just please use the raise your hand function. We will recognize you and get you online. Everything's quiet. I don't see any hands raised. So let's move on to item number two. This is a site plan amendment. Public hearing. Yes. Patty Davis just raised her hand. Okay. Patty, go ahead. Sorry, Dusty. I just wondered when you guys are going to present your ETC plan in December to the select board. I will defer that to staff at this point. Okay. The ETC next plan is going to be presented on December 21st at the select board meeting and we're going to, in other business, we're going to talk about who from the Planning Commission will present it and be there to answer any questions on behalf of their committee. Great. Okay. Moving on now, unless there's anything else. All right. Item two on our agenda this evening is the Site Plan Amendment. Public hearing. Andrew Hood and Mansfield Industrial Associates. This is a proposal to amend the width of access off from the curb cut located at One Allen Martin Drive in the Resource Preservation District. Darren, who will, if you have something to present this evening, have at it and then we'll turn it over to the applicants. Yes. I will present on this one. Let me get the window up so I can share the plans while I talk. So this is an application that was approved in November of 2019. It since went to Act 250. And at that point, and we'll give a brief description of the project, it's four warehouse units at the end of a private drive off of Allen Martin Drive near the intersection with Sand Hill Road. This was a long planned development from when the original building went in, but it never was fully completed. So this is the completion of that. There was an access easement overlocked what is now a lot to the existing building. And during Act 250, the adjacent landowner or the tenant of the building raised some concerns about the way that the access road had been approved over that lot. The proposal from the applicant had originally been to keep the, or to expand the pavement of this existing drive by four feet and add an overlay of asphalt and not add any stormwater features, but the town approval indicated that maybe they were doing the full private road specification from the public works documents. So that created some confusion at Act 250 and Act 250 asked them to return to the planning commission to either narrow the roadway to fit within the easement, which the full right of way wouldn't, or to modify the design of the road a little bit, or get town approval for something different. So I do want to point out in the staff report, there were a couple of mistakes in the background and I will read those into the record when we get to that point. But I just want to emphasize that this is about just this access road been overlocked to not be any of the features on lot one. The applicants have presented two, also let me back up a little more. The applicants originally wanted to maintain the drive at the existing construction. It's 20 feet wide. There's no stormwater drains on either side. And unfortunately the fire department and public works both said that we really would like to see a little reinforcement of the shoulder because 20 feet is a little narrow for industrial traffic and for our fire trucks to be able to get along that road. So they asked for something a little more substantial. The applicants presented two alternatives as are in response. One is to fully widen the pavement to the standard 24 feet, which includes widening on both sides a little bit within the access easement. And adding a French drain, which is a basically underground drainage system. It's a buried pipe with permeable gravel that runs along the road and discharges into the lot one system that was approved. The other alternative was to add permeable pavers. So these are basically cinder block cutouts that would allow infiltration to happen without but would also allow traffic to move over it. Because these do require some long term maintenance in order to actually stay permeable, the town is recommending that the applicant or that the planning commission approve the full pavement width with the French drain, which allows for stormwater management in the long term a little more effectively than the permeable pavers. Stormwater was a concern from the adjacent landowner of the tenant during Act 250. I will call out some changes to the staff report in the background section. So from lines 16 through 18, it states that the original approval included widening and upgrading the existing access over lot two to the standard for private roads, which was 24 feet wide with five foot grass swales on each side, which would continue through lot one. I'd like to replace that with the proposal included modifying a portion of access over lot two with a four foot expansion of pavement, a 1.25 inch asphalt overlay and no stormwater treatment. The town's approval incorrectly implied that this section would be built to the full private roadway standard. On line 24, I also incorrectly stated that the district for environmental environmental court required the applicant to obtain an amendment from the town that should read district for environmental commission and on line 26, the abutting tenant did not comment during the initial planning commission hearing. It currently says they did comment. So that was the presentation. Again, just really just about the planning commission approving this modification to the access on log one or sorry, a lot two. Desti are you still there? Sorry about that. That was the wonderful mute commissioners. Any questions for Darren at this stage? Hearing none. Who's presenting from the applicant side for this? Brian Currier. Okay, Brian. What do you got for us? Okay, so as Darren said, it's pretty simple. We're limited to, you know, just talking about the access over lot two previously. We came in with a plan to expand the pavement that the plan is not oriented towards the north, so it's on the western side of the existing drive. And the point was to try and keep the expanded pavement away from the existing parking spaces on the eastern side. However, we weren't able to direct stormwater to our stormwater treatment facilities on lot one. So we've modified the plan to add approximately two feet of pavement on each side of the existing 20 foot wide drive in order to fit in a French drain to direct the stormwater to our stormwater treatment practice. We will have to amend our current state stormwater permit in order to move forward with this design. And we're willing to do that to comply with the recommendations of Public Works and the fire department. Desti, if you're trying to speak, you're on mute again. Thank you, Darren. This is this is I've been doing this all day long. Commissioners, we'll go down the line. What are your thoughts on this? Tom. No questions for me. Ned. No questions. The 24 foot road in the drain. I miss that. What was that last part? We're going to use the 24 foot with the underground French drain. Is that my that's my understanding. Right there. Yeah, yeah, OK, that's fine. John Mengan, I don't have any questions. Cool, David, I'm good. Thanks, Josh. I am all good. Thank you. All right. So now when this is a public hearing, so I'd like to have a motion to open the public hearing. Move the public hearing. Yeah, moved by Josh, seconded by John. Ned, seconded by Ned, moved by Josh, seconded by Ned. All those in favor of opening the public hearing. Hi. Opposed. Motion carries six zero. Public hearing is open. Please use the folks. Please use the the hand raising to be seen. And let's move on down the line. So we've got Sharon. I'm going to go to you first, I think, unless you just wanted to remind that if people did speak a few a couple came in late for the oath. OK, if you hadn't been here when we gave the oath, let us know. We'll do it again. Actually, let's just do it again. If any of you are now about to speak, if you weren't here for the oath, do you swear that any testimony you present will be truthful to the best of your abilities? Yes, I do. OK, so who do we have up first? Amanda. Hello, Amanda Rabb from Trinidad Consulting Engineers. How are you? Good night so far. I have some questions and they go in order of appearance on the staff report that looks like it's been amended. So some of my lines won't match up anymore. But I'll just go down with each question and then have the applicant give an answer if that is OK for this format. We will take the questions first through staff and Planning Commission and then we'll decide if we go to the applicant. OK, that sounds good. So my first question is, has anybody from the applicant side confirmed the existing subbase is adequate and meets the standards of the Type A paved railroad that former Line 33 said that this was supposed to meet? Have they looked at the depth, what the material is? Do they know if it meets spec? And that's my first question. So I think generally the questions like that we defer to public works and and Darren, you can step in or Sharon can step in over the overall process. But that's not something we generally we require for detail at the Planning Commission level, if it's a requirement of public works and the applicant to meet that. So Darren or Sharon, at what point is that assessment done? So that would be prior to inspection for a certificate of occupancy. But typically the the contractors contact public works on their own and schedule their own and public works does, depending on the project, does several inspections depending on where they're at with with their construction. And I would probably say that Brian Curry or has more experience because usually the engineers meet when such meetings happen. So let's I think that's that's the answer for this point is it's not necessarily a requirement for this application or for this discussion to know whether or not they've done that work yet. OK, so the proposal is to simply overlay the driveway and then the detail on the plan shows to match the existing subbase. So we're safe to presume that at some point if the existing subbase is found to be not adequate, then they will have to change their plan to add more subbase and go with redoing all the pavement and not simply overlaying it. Basically, I want to be able to ensure that the traffic that's going on lot two, which will be heavier than the pedestrian cars, will not cause excessive wear and tear due to the existing subbase being not. So. That's it. I guess I if I made dusty, I would say that that's probably something you should confirm with with the office with the engineer. We don't have that answer right now. So if unless the applicants engineer can speak to the construction of that staff right now without getting information from public works, can't answer it. All I can say is they're required to meet the public work specifications. I would assume which is a bad thing to do, but I would assume that public works does some sort of spot check but without, you know, being able to confirm that with them on what's existing versus what's going on. That's the best answer I can give you right now. Do you want me to respond? Brian, go ahead. Go ahead, Brian. Thank you. So I think what she's referring to is the existing gravel base under the existing drive. That's an existing drive. The public works specs are specific to new infrastructure, not existing infrastructure. There will be a shared maintenance agreement for this drive. So if the underlying gravel, you know, can't take, as she said, can't take the, you know, additional traffic, there will be, you know, corrective actions in that maintenance agreement that that will solve the issue. So I want to thank you, Brian. I'm going to hold for a second. Amanda, just wait a moment for me. Darren, I want to loop back to what we were talked about before. Our hearing tonight and I want to be specific to make I want to be clear of whether or not what's in our purview tonight. And are we is the design of the road as far as the construction of the road within the purview of this discussion? Or is this the layout? So the issue that actually 50 identified was more in my understanding was more about the width of the road and how it conflicted with the access easement as well as stormwater rather than the construction standards of the road and its ability to handle the traffic. I'm not and I did not follow this very closely in active 50 and I would defer to the applicant and others in the meeting to know exactly what those details are. My understanding was that the applicant had applied to simply why or to either to keep the road the same width in our public works and fire department requested that the shoulders be reinforced so that traffic could travel over them and the applicants are proposing to simply widen the pavement to that 24 foot width in response. OK, OK, Amanda, let's let's continue. But just I think be aware that some of these may have to to come back to staff not necessarily precisely related to this hearing tonight because it was my understanding that we were talking about the design the layout of the road, not the construction of the road. So let's hear let's hear what you've got. Let's let's see where we can go. I must have interpreted the design under the comment saying that this meeting was part of access design. And so I was looking at the design of it as well. So maybe that I interpreted that wrong. The other thing I noted on the design and you can just say it's not part of this is that this road that they're proposing on F FH four for law two doesn't have shoulders. And I was just curious if beyond the pavement, normally the sub base extends enough so that would be on the pavement. There's something to support the the road that that it's next to. So this road doesn't have shoulders. The pavements extend beyond and they're just on native soils. On the one side, there's the French drain. On the other side, there's nothing. So I just wanted to get an understanding of if the public works is OK with the fact that this road has no shoulders. Also, with the site circulation, which I think we can discuss as well, based on understanding of the staff notes, the turning movement show the tires of the WB 40 on the edge of pavement on both sides of the road is a very tight maneuver. So without shoulders, I was just wondering what the applicant had planned for making sure that the road is supported at the edges. That sounds like it's within this discussion. And we're talking about the design. So Brian, I'd like to ask you to if you can respond to that. Yeah. So our design does. We have an extra foot on both sides of where we're proposing the expanded pavement. I will say that Public Works has reviewed the details. They have reviewed the site plan. They didn't offer any comments about expanding shoulders or or anything like that. The the turning movements do show the wheels close to the edge of the to the edge of the pavement. I will say that's before we added the two feet on each side. So those turning movements were done to show that a twenty foot road, what a twenty foot wide road, which is there today, can support traffic from WB 40 an intermediate semi tractor trailer. Thank you. You know, Amanda, do you have more? Yes. So I am looking at the maneuvers and I did see that they were on the existing roadway so you could demonstrate that they could move on that one portion at the existing entrance where lot to both of their driveways merge together. That's the point where you're not planning to add anything, and that's the point where they will be driving on the edge of the pavement. I think I'm not looking at the maneuvers, but if you look at the WB coming from WB 40, going north circling into the property. That's where it hits that edge on the northernmost portion of the entrance drive that's located on lot two. So that's another location where, yes, that one. Thank you. That edge and also the inside edge, those two points right there aren't proposing to be added to. So is there a plan for maneuvers that aren't executed perfectly, what we will do about that? That Darren, I'm going back to you on this one then. So based on what they've come back in, do you have comment on this or do we do we go to Brian and look for it? Sounds like it's so part of the discussion that's in front of us as far as the the turning process and so forth. We haven't really had any discussion on that. Correct. And I would say this is within the purview of the review tonight. So as Brian mentioned a minute ago, one of the plans did show adding permeable pavers at the curb cut near the entrance. The plan that showed widening the pavement did not. But Brian, I'm unclear as to whether you're saying you would include the curb cut initial access in the pavement or whether you would add pavement to that as well if that option was chosen. No, we would not. And again, public works has reviewed these turning movements. They reviewed our design and they didn't offer any comments that this would be an issue. And I will point out that the the curb cut in the mouth of that was never under or was approved as is at the last review. So in one sense, that is settled from the last review. And the Act 250 request was seemed to be more pertaining to the access anything that would go beyond the access easement rather than the actual turning movement issue. All right. Let's let's I don't know if that if we have a clarity for you that on that, Amanda, but let's move on. OK, with the French drain, is that a town or state separate issues? I guess approved method for conveying storm water? Like, is there a detail in the public works or maybe just the public works has approved it? So that's OK. So I just wanted to know if the state would also buy into that as well instead of doing the swales. The bottom of the French drain appears to be free draining. So it seems as though even though there is a pipe inside that's probably pervious and can take it can take fluid in, not all of the fluid will go into that pipe because the bottom of the French drain, if I'm understanding the detail correctly, is free draining. Therefore, the impervious will be infiltrating into the site in addition to some of it discharging onto the next site. So I was wanting to know is the has the town received a revised stormwater narrative discussing the French drain because in previous long one one seven, there was a narrative created. I was curious if that was updated and what that French drain was sized for and what the plans are for any impervious discharges onto our site via infiltration. That's a mouthful. I can speak a little bit to that, Dusty. Please do. So there are specifications in the public works documents that do allow for under drains in roadways. It's not typically associated with the type a private or type a rural road. Actually, sorry, it is with that. It's the type B rural road that actually both of them are can use under drains. And there are details for that. I will also say that public the town engineer has the discretion to modify standard details when the situation warrants. That's in the public works specifications and that is what is happening in the situation. The public works, the town engineer reviewed these plans and approved the modified design. So I'm I'm all in for under drains for roads so that we can keep them free of water. But the French drain is more of a not a subsurface water carrier away, although it will take some of that as well. It's intended to take the surface water away. So the other part of that question is the town may have approved it and the state or the town public works and engineer may have approved it. But what about the state permitting implications for adding impervious to lot two, which is not owned by the applicant or the lot one owner and discharging that impervious onto our site with infiltration? I can respond to that, Dusty. Please do. State stormwater permits are beyond the purview of the town and the town, I believe, coordinates to some extent on design with the state, but that's also up to the applicants to amend their state stormwater permit, which it sounds like they're willing to do and deferred to the applicants to talk more about that. Brian, do you have anything you want to add to that or can add to that? Well, when we move to the state process, if they feel that we're infiltrating on lot two, I mean, we can line the swale. We can put the pipe at the bottom of the stone, so it's not. There's no gap between the conveyance and the bottom of the practice. There's a various ways we can deal with these issues if they arise at the state. OK, thank you. So with those changes, would you have to get your local approval amended? Because right now the design as is, is the one that they're looking to approve. So if it's not constructed like this was a free draining bottom would that mean that this approval would have to change? Let me jump in just for a second because that sounded like it went to Brian and maybe maybe it went to Darren and maybe it went to the commission. But we look to public works to give us guidance on drainage. And as Darren said, what happens at the state level at that point, it's not that's not our purview tonight. So if we're talking a process, that would be something potentially to follow up with the town and staff later to find out what the next steps would be. But if it's not, I want to be sensitive to the time. Everyone's time tonight and I'd rather not go down a chase down a what if if it's not directly related to our application that's in front of us. So what I've heard from Darren and I think Brian echoed it is that if it goes state requires changes, then they would have to put changes in simple, simple statement. Darren. Yes. And I just want to point out that one of the conditions of approval for the original application and for the proposal tonight is that the applicant must obtain any state permits, including stormwater before the town will issue a zoning permit for construction. My last question that I'm all done is with the state stormwater permit, which was issued for this project, which included impervious on law to is without the owner of law to signing that permit, is the state still considering that a valid permit and they will allow you to construct impervious on lands that weren't signed off by the law to landowner? I think that's a question for the state. That doesn't sound like it's outside of our. Our review. OK, that's all I have. Thanks. Onward to, I believe it's AJ. Is your hand raised? AJ, you're muted. Hey, hi. Good evening. Agila Rosa, MSK attorneys. Attorney for one AMD, one Alan Martin drive LLC, the owner of what we've been talking about as law to couple of quick points. Trying to keep it in line with what you guys have outlined is sort of your limited purview tonight. So just trying to clean up a few things so that we don't have an issue later. The plan submitted show, and I can give you the specific number, it is SH4, which is the plans showing the roadway detail. And it shows 20 foot for 20 foot wide pavement existing drive. And there's a note match existing gravel with dense graded crushed stone spec 704.06 a. You know, I think it's in your purview on these to attach conditions. Typically, conditions are that it must be constructed in accordance with the plan submitted. There are two sets of plans submitted. I don't want any lack of clarity. So I think we'd ask for a condition that matches that specification. We just want to make sure the installed gravel and the match gravel are sufficient. Second is we understand from the applicant tonight that obviously there'll have to be some sort of, you know, this is a shared driveway and it is a shared use driveway, both one AMD and the owner of lot two and the owner of lot one use it. It is not an exclusive easement driveway, which we often see, but it is shared. And so we'd ask for a condition that the permit can't be released until there's a shared agreement recorded. We think that's in accordance with the zoning regulations that require such things for parking and easements, and it doesn't speak specifically about shared driveway agreements, but anytime there is other property involved, the specs require appropriate documentation be submitted into the record. In this case, we'd ask that a maintenance agreement be recorded. And the reason I bring that up is there's a bit of a strange issue here. And I would sort of encourage the town attorney to weigh in on it. Sharon's now banging her head against the table and I apologize because every time I say that, it's a mess, but I'm not trying to make one here. So this is a question. You know, this is a permit that gets issued that contains a certain set of specifications, including a stormwater specifications for property that is owned by lot two and used by lot one. And the application materials and the rules say that the owner must sign the permit application in addition to the applicant. And while there is an easement and all reasonable use is entitled to the holder of an easement, one AMD as the owner of lot two and lot two in itself will be burdened by this permit, right? So the and the state in the stormwater permit, I know that's outside, but just let me explain. We'll also say, hey, you both have some obligations as to this expanded impervious surface. So I'm trying to understand where the towns permit, you know, like burdens and approve, you know, owner approval for permitting falls in this sort of situation because it is a bit unique. And I don't raise that as an issue. I'm just trying to understand like, okay, let's say, for example, the roadway doesn't get built to spec and there's a notice of violation. Who's responsible for it? Let's say the French drain fails. And I know it's shared, but who's responsible under the public works guidance in this sort of situation? And the reason I'd ask the town attorney to weigh in before you issue a decision is because, you know, it creates the weird sort of situation where, yes, you have an easement, yes, you have an easement for ingress and egress. So what happens if the two parties disagree on what the appropriate width is or what the appropriate stormwater maintenance should, what the appropriate stormwater design should be? I'm not saying they are here. It's just kind of a strange situation. And the design of the road kind of triggers that. If it stayed in its existing format, obviously that's not an issue. And now there's new impervious that's fee simple owned by lot two, but used by lot one, and they have a right to work on it, but there's sort of an odd permit hole, at least when I tried to work through that question myself. So I'd appreciate Bill Ellis at least weighing in before you issue a decision. And in that vein, if there was a condition that sort of, that said, you know, that clarified, you know, who would be responsible for a permit violation? Say that I'm not saying there will be one, but Sharon knows that has happened in Essex. So it's just a thought. And then lastly, we had asked for this in Act 250. And since Act 250 never actually got around to issuing the permit because it kicked it back to you guys. The WB 60 trucks are too big to go through the driveway in its proposed with. And we just asked for a condition that says, you know, the driveway shall not be used by WB 60, which is a technical term trucks. We just want to make that clear. So those are my comments. And I don't think I have anything else. Thank you. Let's see. Darren, I'm going to ask you to weigh in and Brian, I'd like to have you be prepared to follow up on Darren. Just sort of knock this about a little bit. And I think that I may have lost some of what you said, AJ, but I think the biggest thing that I picked out of that was that we really need to have the maintenance. Agreement formalized and in place as part of this. I mean, that would also address. I would think who's responsible in case of infractions and so forth. I mean, I think that's I think that's I think that's a more articulate way of saying that chairman. Okay. Darren. So I will refer back to the original subdivision of this property, which all used to be one. This was approved by the planning commission in. Let me just check the date. September of 2013 was a simple parcel subdivision. So it went through the consent agenda. One of the conditions of approval was number three prior to the sale of either lot. All easement deeds as noted in the above findings shall be reviewed and approved by the town attorney and talks more about the mylar. So this already went through the town attorney's approval when the lots were originally subdivided and the access even was part of that presumably if there was an issue with how that was executed. I would think that would become an issue between the two landowners rather than an issue for the commission to decide upon. The question now is whether the amendment proposed amendment by the applicant warrants further action by the town attorney to review those easement deeds and make sure that there's sufficient access. State stormwater permits outside of our review. I don't know that that's something that we would necessarily need to examine at this point. And in terms of the easement deeds I understand the concern that that could become an issue down the road but I don't know that that's a local purview issue and would tend to think without consultation with our attorney that that's something that active 50 would have to impose. We have we have again I'm going to keep going back to the design. I think you had a point about the vehicle size and we can potentially discuss that to some degree. The easement has been there. It was there staring said back in 2013 the use of the easement and the use of lot one was dealt with the last application and we're really right now focusing on the layout the not even the layout the the width of the access road in the in the drainage as proposed that has been reviewed and approved by a public works at this stage. Is that a correct statement Darren hit that. That is correct dusty. Okay. I think it does seem like the you know having a solid maintenance agreement in place. I see you Sharon is is. A worthy target. I'm going to go to Paul since he's had his hand raised up and then I'll go back to you Sharon and then AJ back to you. Just a comment on the maintenance agreement. We're certainly willing to enter into an agreement. I would just ask that if you added a condition in there you have it that the maintenance agreement be approved by the town attorney. There's nothing that would that we can do to force the property owner of lot to to sign a maintenance agreement and have it recorded. All right. So we could come up with a maintenance agreement and he could say well I'm just not going to sign it and condition says that both parties have to sign that it has to be filed. So that's that's all we we'd ask we will do the maintenance agreement. Let the town attorney review it. Deam it fair and then let us go forward to all ahead. Sharon did you want to add something at this. No. Okay. AJ back to you. You know I don't have anything to comment on that. Okay. Your hand is still raised. That's one. Oh well I don't know how to put it down. So I'll jump in. I'm sorry I'm talking away. Seems to be the flavor of the night. I would just say that as far as AJ's comments about a plan you know and if it changes and gets amended behind the scenes do they have or maybe it was Amanda do do they have to come back to the planning commission. We should massage something for the plans that that maybe allows some public works if they need to change anything or if they agree to things off you know off outside of this meeting they just have that little bit of flexibility. So maybe the plans as approved by or amended by public works is something along those lines just a thought. Thank you. Thanks Sharon. So essentially we just bring it back to public works review. If there's a mandated changes Brian mentioned earlier that it would just bring it back and let public works sign off. That's what we've done in the past. Brian did you want to add. You mean by yourself again. Yeah having that flexibility would would be great. And just just to add to what AJ said he mentioned the WB 60. We expect active 50 to condition their permit on anything larger than a WB 40. If you intend to do the same. I have to play for I have to to demonstrate my ignorance and I'm not sure I understood what that would you just said. Just the truck size the largest turning movement we show is a WB 40. Okay and that's we we expect active 50 to condition their permit. The same way. Okay. Not not greater than a WB 40 but require everything to be WB 40 or less. Yeah that's correct. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. All right. Do we share in your hands still up. Are you recycling or are you. No, I'm not. I'm not. I'm not. I'm not. I'm not. She just ran away. Okay. So I want to bring it back to the commission for a few moments. We're not going to close a public hearing just yet. But I would bring it back and. Anybody want to go first or you only pick. I'll go first. We often do have a condition for shared driveway maintenance agreements. You've been allowed to be quiet too long. Well, yeah, I don't profess to be an expert on underground grain age and swales and and everything else. And I'm not sure that's in our purview tonight. If I think they've made a point about getting a good agreement here. But but really, you know, having getting this done right. Where's the pro approving the increase in width and. The engineers are the ones who can put their profession on the line to make sure it's right. I'm okay with that. Okay. Mr. Mangan. I was basically going to say the same thing that was saying is I'm relying on the town engineers and if they don't have an issue. I don't see where I don't see anything that I have an issue with. David, I bet you muted. All right, sorry. No issues on my end public works is going to cover any of the concerns a lot of the concerns that were raised and the rest of them are really at the act to 50 level. So I'm good. Josh. Just basically a big ditto with respect to all of this like very little seems to be our purview at the table tonight and that which is under our purview I am fine with. Okay. And I would I would basically agree. I think what I've I've distilled out of this is that we we can we can ensure to require a maintenance agreement be part of this for that section of the roadway that shared. That's the easement covers. And that. And I'm I personally am okay with with having that be approved by the town attorney. Oh, crap. What is the other one? Now that was I figured that was part of the race flexibility for the plan. And that if there's if there are changes main mandated by the state review that they would come back and be reviewed by public works and public works approve them. Then I don't think we need to see them. But if there's contention, it could always come back to the planning commission. Other than that, I don't think, you know, I think the the the use of the the fact that there's an easement is not in question and not not in challenge the fact that there's not one is not in question tonight. It really is to me it's just the the width of the road and the drainage and the public works has blessed it. Then I I agree with what's basically been said down the line and I don't have a contention with that. So I'm going to go back. The public hearing is still open. So take a last pass through anybody in the audience that would like to offer comment. Paul leary's hand is up. I think that's a leftover. Hello, I don't have my hand up. I'm on phone. Looks like she was here too. Sorry. Okay, go ahead, sir. I'm the owner of a lot too. And I'm not a jet to and who building over there. I just want him to build a good easement a good strong easement and just putting a little bit of pavement on each side. I think it's just bound to fail. And I'd also like to see him come with a plan that he could drive the biggest truck as he wants into his lot, expand the easement and make it so that it's clear passage for the trucks to come back and forth. But he doesn't seem to want to put forth the effort to make an easement that's going to make a real quality project for both of us. He wants to be limited in his truck size, which I don't think is going to work and it's going to wreck the sides of the roads. And I just think he should come up with a plan that increases the easement makes a wider road take the old road completely up and put in a good strong road. So I'm not object to his construction. I just want it to be a better construction then scabbing a little pieces on each side of the road. Thank you. Thank you. We've run into situations like this before and what we have to deal with is what's been brought into us. And it meets specs and it meets public works review and approval. I'm going to look to commissioners and staff to correct me, but I don't feel we have the purview to go back and say submit a different thing at this, especially at this stage. I mean, we maybe could have in the first round, but we've gotten approval. And now we're looking at just this expand road expansion. So I'm I'm a little challenged myself to be able to see if we even have the option to push back and ask for a bigger road. We don't. This is David. This is I mean, you know, the easement, the applicant has an easement over a lot. And we can't we have no authority to go back and ask that applicant to go back and even if it's being offered change the the conditions or terms of that easement to get something more. The applicant wanted to withdraw or put this on hold to go back and try to redo this. That would be one thing. But for us to take a look at this and say, well, we want to plan for bigger trucks down the road. So you should go back and try to increase your easement by 10 feet. I mean, that's just that's not within our purview. So they purchased the land with a specific easement in place. They're allowed to file an application that fits infrastructure within the easement that they have a legal right to. You said it better than me. Thank you. This is Don again. I'm not sure the infrastructure that he's proposing fits inside the easement. He has a lot of loading docks and a lot of warehouses which require a big truck. But I don't think the easement fits his development. But well, I'm going to take exception of that. Sorry, but our job is to, you know, public work is to review this act to 50 will review this staff has reviewed this. If it meets the intent of our regulation and can fit within the easement that they have over a lot to to get to it, then that's what we're evaluating this application on. Is there could there be a better way? Could it be done differently? Yes and yes. But it's not our job to design it problem solve it. It's up to the engineers to propose it. It's up to public works and staff to say whether it meets our regulations and it's up to us to vote on it, whether it works for us or not. If there's a condition that comes down from Act 250 that stops the WB 60 from going in there, then that's a condition that'll fly with the application and with the land. That is our permit. So I'm I'm good dusting it. You know, if this is what the applicants asking for and it meets our regs, then that's what we got to vote up or down. Okay. So can I ask the police to go out and regulate the WB 60s that they start coming in or how do I issue a fine on that when they start coming in because they have to. And be a notice of violation. So enforcement is not is not what we do here. Obviously, I mean, this is this would be under a private primarily under Sharon. Or another town action. Staff action. So there's no there's no enforcement for the WB 60. It's not what you said, Dustin. That's not what I said. Say what I said. We're not in charge of enforcement as a planning commission. So that's we can't even answer that question. Sharon has her hand up. Yeah, Sharon. Thank you. So so AJ is correct. If if you start seeing something that wasn't approved by the planning commission or or this state, you would call the state if they're if they're violating a state approval. And if they're violating the town approval, you would call the zoning administrator, which is me. And then I would. I would then proceed with the notice of violations. Of course, after giving them one chance to cure. So that's your resolve. It would be to call the zoning administrator and file a complaint. It doesn't make sense when we can make a project that will accept those type of trucks and they will never be an issue going forward. That that really sir is a conversation that you should have should have and or have had with the applicant. But as as David correctly stated, we have to rule on what's presented to us. And it does meet the specifications as reviewed by the public works. And the discussion about the use of the law is isn't isn't at the table tonight that was already dealt with at the last application. Darren, you have a question or comment. Yes, two comments. One is that the issue of regulating truck size and the design of the project also was reviewed last year by the planning commission and the butters had a chance to weigh in at that point. And it really, as you said, the review tonight is limited to the proposal to amend this, which was requested by active 50 because of the issue with the width of the road and the issues that were identified at that level. I don't believe this should be a chance to relitigate something that was approved by the planning commission originally. The other point I will make is that if maintenance of the roadway is a concern for parties involved that could be resolved through the maintenance agreement. And if the impact is perceived to be by one user of that, there could be some provisions that that user is responsible for maintaining it and good repair. But because this is an easement and not something that the town should be involved with at that level, I would defer to that to be drafted up by those who would put that maintenance easement together. I don't think that that because there's shared use that needs to come through that easement documents that can be reviewed by the town attorney. We can't mandate it be one applicant or another necessarily. Sharon, one more. Just following up on that maintenance agreement. I think it was either Paul or Brian who said, if the two parties aren't in agreement on the agreement, then again, the condition should be drafted that the town attorney, you know, I think it was AJ actually. No, not me. It wasn't you. Okay. So whoever, whoever that the town attorney, if he feels it's a fair agreement, somebody's got to resolve this. And at what point does it leave our arena and become a civil matter? But I guess the question is, is there not a maintenance agreement? If I may ask, they're in place already. There is not. I can tell you there's not. And that's probably because it was a vacant lot for all this time. Correct. So I just, I'm a little wary of what if we can't get two parties to sign off on on an agreement? Sharon, there's state statute that covers shared driveways and accesses that do not have maintenance agreements in place. So there is some protection. So it's not like it's not going to go anywhere. Statute says that the parties share equally in their, their portion of the benefit. So I mean, there is, there is some, some protection there. Thank you. Okay. Is it a very good conversation on this? Do we have any final comments or questions from the public? Hearing none. Seeing none. I actually haven't been even checking the chat windows. People have been asking there. Okay. Thank you. Hearing none, I would ask, oh, actually, shoe, I'm not sure when you joined us, but I like to, do you have any commentary that you would like to add to this? No, I just snuck in like I usually do. I'm fully in agreement with David on the maintenance agreement. You know, it's just seems kind of crazy that we even are getting involved in that discussion. I agree with Tom. It needs to happen. We've asked for it before. But, you know, I think there's, there's already rules in place to take care of that issue that we don't really have to deal with. But it would be nice if everybody would just shake hands and agree and make it happen. I don't know why everyone's assuming we won't. I don't know why either. I agree. I mean. So I think it's going to happen. I'm very hopeful that it's just going to, it's going to happen and we're not all just naysayers here. So it's, it's all good. We'll move forward. And as far as the truck side and everything, there's, I agree. We, it's the only way that that's going to change is if we put a halt on this thing and go through this process again at this point. So I don't think we can do that. So that's, that's just my, my little bit of comment. Ditto to everybody else. They did a good job. Um, last chance for public comment. All right, then I would ask for a motion from the commission to close the public hearing. I move we close the public hearing. Second. Moved by Josh second. Dusty. Did I lose? Yeah, you're back, Dusty. Go start. You moved by Josh and seconded by Tom. I had a, I had a network access issue here. So you hear me okay at this point. You're back. Okay. All those in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries seven zero doesn't really feel like we have a lot on this that needs to be modified beyond what you know, the actual criteria that Darren or the corrections that Darren introduced. What did the commission feel about, you know, number one, having any, any changes to the, you know, any statement data changes or active 50 if that's it has to go back there any changes approved re approved by public works as a condition. Sounds good. There sounds like there's a little bit of discussion on the maintenance agreement. I mean, it sounds like that, you know, from one side, David offered some commentary that it might not actually be required because it's covered under state guidelines. No, I'm just saying that the protection is there in the absence of an agreement state statute covers it. I don't think they should work together to put one in one together. So putting an agreement it were putting a requirement to have an agreement as we as a reviewed by the town attorney. That now Darren is that what you were referring to as we maybe shouldn't be getting involved with it or having something that that is blessed by the town attorney is that acceptable. Yes, what I meant to say and I hope that was clear is that the town should not necessarily dictate who is responsible for maintaining what that's up to the applicant or the landowners involved. But we can require that they have a shared maintenance agreement and that it be reviewed by the town attorney to make sure that it meets the intent and provisions of the zoning regulations for providing safe access. Are there any other points that anybody felt were were needing to be reviewed based on the on the discussions. And I do appreciate everybody sticking with us on this because this was a little challenging because it was we were really focused on a small direct or small portion of this of this project tonight, which is always challenging to pull out small sections. If I'm not hearing any additional discussion. And I get somebody to offer a motion. And you might want to massage the plans again. As we spoke earlier, adding some wording there for public works to make modifications if needed. Okay. But that's up to you to just throw it out there. I think the the I would I would ask whoever makes the motion that we just, you know, basically plans, whether it be for drainage roads or whatever that everything be approved by public works. And any changes mandated by by state level reviews also be approved be reviewed by public works. The condition, the condition reads all construction shall be in performance with the plans listed above except as maybe amended here in. So I think if we just add somehow massage public works to be involved in that. I think that would capture it. If if we if you feel it's necessary. I think that something as basic as upon review and review review and approval by public works, comma, whatever the language needs to be is is how I've seen it in the past. Ned, you're chomping at the bit. I think you could add in number two of the general conditions where it says all construction shall be in conformance with the plans listed above, except this may be amended here in and approved and also be approved by a public works and all other appropriate governing bodies. Sounds like you're ready to make a motion. I'm pretty sure that's what I heard you start to do. Keep it going. I make a motion that we approve the site plan amendment as presented subject to the proposed conditions as presented by the planning staff as as I just noted. And I think we want to add something in there and subject to, you know, final approval. We should be subject to a mutually agreeable shared maintenance agreement. We want to say mutually agreeable. We want to say approved by mutual agreement approved by town attorney approved by town attorney and in conformance with with the stuff that that. That Dave was referencing. And also to include the release from the copy that I had the amendments that Darren introduced at the beginning of the of the discussion. For what it's worth dusty the background information typically doesn't make it into the approval, but I just wanted to clarify that. That's fine. Do we have a second for Ned all second it. Okay, seconded move by Ned seconded by shoe and that was any further discussion on this. And I think just to clarify where you're talking about as Sharon mentioned massaging the condition. To reflect that basically public works approves everything. Yeah, or reviews everything and then there needs to be an agreement in place that has been reviewed by the town attorney. Correct. Can I express a little bit of worry. Yes. I mean historically number two. And you know staff jump in here if I'm wrong but number two was to basically say that when the applicant submits a set of plans that you know all construction and conformance is subject to those plans. Unless something got amended during the process. I'm worried about having a tangent process that allows it to get away from those plans away from the approval. Even if we're a good intended, we could start getting into this situation where you know something comes up and oh we just go to public works and oh yeah public works says that's fine. You know we've always we've always kept it to the submitted plans for that reason at any time there were changes in those plans we make the applicant resubmit. Am I off. That's a good point. We could. We could just add a new something item for her to a whatever to deal with the loop. Public works back into the process as needed. So I think that's a good point. I think we know the effect of if any changes come out of the act to 50 process. That public work shall have review and approval. You an oversight or something of that effect. To be. Okay. So I captured if changes result from act to 50 process public works shall review and approve. So I if I captured that right and then I'll just delete what you had from condition to in condition to stays as is. So so just to nail this down because we're not in a room together it's hard to there's some wiggle room here. We're talking about a a condition, a new condition three condition, a new condition three. That using Dave's language that any any changes as a resultant of. Is active 50 the only review that needs to be done on this or is there also. Is there have to be any other review that happens. I you could keep it more generic to say if any changes are resulting from disapproval. Then public works shall review and approve. Well, then you've just circumvented your whole planning commission process with one line. Well, we can be more specific to the to the construction of the expanded drive, you know. Could this be something as simple as any changes to the plan submitted or shall be resubmitted back for planning commission review and it can be it. You know it might be a submitted as a as a as an amendment or as a anyways. I don't think we're trying to complicate this I think to Ned's point we're trying to cover the the parallel loop that could happen which is something outside of our purview like an active 50 review could tweak one of the plans and we would just want public works to lay eyes on it. We don't want to force the applicant to come back. I don't I don't think we want to want to be the ones who they make an engineering change major or minor that have to really approve it. I think that's what we have public works for. I don't know. We're not qualified to do that. That's really not our job. The other was that we run the risk of having stuff happen without ever knowing about it. So I mean it's something like that could come back and if it's a minor enough change it could be approved by public works and then submitted to the planning commission through consent agenda. I'm trying to be sensitive to what I heard about about circumventing circumventing the review. Because we either we either comes back for review by public works and gets blessed or or it comes back and gets submitted to the planning commission which would also include a public works review and then it would just a further step for the planning commission to bless it. Can I make a suggestion just yes please. So typically when amendments are proposed to an approved plan for a site plan there are minor amendments and major amendments minor amendments include anything that doesn't involve changes to curb cut circulation patterns pedestrian circulation screening general location of structures and parking required setbacks or other changes that subject to review as specified in the conditions of approval. It sounds like the goal here is to say the planning commission does not need to review any further changes to the access road and stormwater design. Am I correct in that. I don't think so. I think it's because if the stormwater design is required to change we'd want to know. I mean it may be something as simple as minor amendments need to be reviewed and approved by public works and major amendments need to be reviewed and submitted back through planning commission. If you've got a delineation in the in the in the regulations then that's maybe that's as simple as the simplest approach. What are the thoughts on that Dave. I think that covers it. That covers doesn't matter what it is. It's just if any of these plans change considered minor public works and staff. Major planning commission. And to be clear the minor amendments are the ones that go on consent agenda. How does that. How would that be as a friendly amendment from the commission. I think I think it's fine. We're putting probably putting Darren and Sharon then in the ones to evaluate changes major or minor but that's fine. If I can jump in for a minute. If if we're going that route we can't approve minor amendments. Either way it's coming back to the planning commission so we don't need anything. It's just other than how it reads except as you know except as the way condition to read right now. But because we no longer have the authority to sign off on minor amendments. It still lands at your table. So we're chasing our tail. So I think I think it should be just what it is if they've got their approval for this. They have to come back to you because there's another hip up at act 250 that maybe hasn't even been discussed. Then that's the way it rolls they come back and if we can put them on consent we will do that to make it you know easier. We might not do that as just as this being the test we were actually talking about putting this application on consent. So but that's behind the scenes staff can deal with that when it comes up. So I think at this point because we can't keep it out of your planning commission arena for even a minor amendment. Then let's just leave it alone and and that's part of development. If they get they get this approval they go to act 250 and it's all good and swimmingly then it's a done deal. If act 250 wants something more and that means they have to come back to your table then that's what it means and I'll end it there. From your perspective then it doesn't sound like we need that condition at all. What's already existing already written for two three or four. Yes. So forth. Yes. So how does the commission feel do you feel that we can strike that that proposed language Ned. Yeah. I don't have a problem with that if the act 250 changes it and we'll take a look at it. So that would mean that the only condition that we have to add is the requirement to have a maintenance agreement and blessed by the town attorney. Yes. So final I have the condition is final approval is subject to a master plan agreement. I'm sorry. A road maintenance agreement approved by the town attorney. So Ned and that Tom shoe shoe. Do you guys accept that as a mean to the amendment to the to the motion. I think so. I guess I want to refer a little bit. I just want to defer to David Raphael for a minute. He made some pretty good points. Does that seem good to you David. Yeah. I'm good. I think the argument and points Sharon made cover it. So I think I think we're good. All right. I'm on board then. OK. So we have a motion that's been batted around and it's been restated. Does anybody need to have it clarified again. I'm not at this. Believe me. I'm this is a confusing night to me. So I'm all right. So the motion as presented as as moved by Ned seconded by shoe amended by the commission they accepted and so forth. And that's called the question on this. All those in favor of that motion signified by saying hi. Hi. Hi. Opposed. Motion carries seven zero. OK. Thanks for everyone's patience. Thanks for everyone's input. These are these are sometimes a little more challenging especially when we're separated out like this. And we didn't even wake up the Beagle. All right. Let's get back on to the next item on our agenda. Do I have an agenda open? Do I have an agenda? I'm going to step away for 15 seconds. All right. Pause while we're putting things back together here. I'm sharing my screen but I'm not sure if it's doing the weird justified issue. It looks good. Great. Thank you. Hi. This is Sally. Hang on. Hang on Sally. We're not to you yet. OK. Thanks for being here. No. I just want to make sure it works. Thank you. OK. OK. We're going to assume that David's going to jump back on real quick. And see. Told you. The next item on our agenda is. A two bullet item. During the flurry lands on center road and towers road. One is a sketch boundary line adjustment. And bullet two is a sketch minor subdivision. Darren, I'm going to ask you to. Start us off. Gladly. Thank you, Dusty. So I will preface this by saying the reason that we grouped those items on the agenda, the way we did is because a lot of these. Proposal is tied together, but there need to be separate. Actions at the end. I'll also preface this by saying that we are requesting a. Continuance of this application because there's an unresolved issue with. The public right away and I'll get into that in a minute. So let me share the plan. Just so folks can get oriented. I'm actually going to change the orientation of this plan. So that North shows up. This is 108 center road, which is a large piece of land that fronts on both center road and towers road. It includes. The auto body shop. The sub place next to the old TD bank. It includes a rental property. A single unit dwelling a ranch. It includes a lot of land between there and. Part of towers road. And also includes a barn. Fronting on towers road near flurry road and clover drive. 18 towers road is the lot highlighted in blue here. In the center of that 108 center road, and I will also point out 110 center road, which is between hoagies and the ranch dwelling I just mentioned. So now that we're oriented. The proposal from the applicant was to do several boundary adjustments. One is with that 110 center road and 108 center road, the large property. That is a separate application that can be dealt with on its own and was a one step application, but the applicant wanted to do all of these together. So we did not warn that for tonight. We were going to warn that for the final subdivision hearing for this other part of the proposal. The rest of it concerns some lands around flurry road. So 18 towers road would do a boundary adjustment with 108 center road, the large property. And there is the existing line is shown in blue and sorry, let me zoom in. That line would be dissolved. It would jump over as shown in orange to leave 18 towers road as I'm highlighting with my mouse here for those who can see that. It's a very small change of I think 0.13 acres, which happens to be the amount that the 110 center road boundary adjustment would be. It's 0.12 acres. After all of that is done, the applicant would like to subdivide pardon my blue highlighting here would like to subdivide two new lots out of 108 center road. Proposed lot one, which is where that existing barn is and proposed lot two, which would be vacant on which a new single unit dwelling would be built. Both those new lots would have frontage sufficient frontage on towers road. Proposed lot two would have a small amount of frontage on flurry road and therein lies the question that still needs to be resolved. Flurry road is considered a town right of way. The town has been maintaining it since at least 1943. However, no actual survey or layout has ever been recorded or documented. And this has been an issue for many years. It's considered a three rod or 49.5 foot wide right of way that loops from towers road over through towards 18 towers road the property in question here and then back around the old railroad station, which is currently a single unit dwelling. And because of the proposal the supposed with that actually could have some issues with imposing on the dwelling there in the middle there the old railroad station and simply just unclear exactly where those boundaries live, which makes it hard to review these projects in terms of frontage in terms of access in terms of simply you know where these lines will end up. The public works department is currently working to address this issue, but needs a little more time to sort everything out with all of the properties that are involved. So we're requesting that this proposal for a minor subdivision and boundary adjustment between 18 towers road and 108 center road be continued to the next available meeting after this is resolved. We hope that will be in January. Okay. Thanks Darren. So who was going to be speaking on this from the Sally was it just you. I know Paula. Okay, so I mean, do you guys want to I mean, if we're going to continue I'm not sure it would not sure we should get into too much detail yet, so that we're not deciding if we have to do anything. But do you want to present anything this evening or do you want to wait? What's your what's your thought? Well, we don't have much to add over Darren staff report which we found to be accurate and relatively thorough. I guess the only comments we'd like to see from the commission tonight seeing how we are going to be continued is is whether anybody has any objection with the proposed lots that we have as shown on the plan in front of you. Okay. We hate to resolve the right away issue and then come back and have to say wow, you know those lots are horrendous we're never going to prove those so if we have any issues let's hear it tonight. Okay, I mean this is both this is these are sketch so this is obviously it's a little more free form than than a regular application commissioners anybody have any thoughts on this at this point. I have a question what's the red line with the arrows. The curvy line that runs through it that might be the wetland boundary. Okay. Okay, so the wetland is on what side of that line. It looks like a line not on the other side. It's on that person. Okay. Top of the page would be the wetland. Okay. So that new lot is mostly wetland. Yeah, probably half of it anyways is wetland. Okay. I think we can jump in Tom I believe this black line here shows what could be a building on below but it's not marked as such but it shows basically the buildable area minus setbacks and what the buffers. And is there any chance that the access to that could be a flurry road. That is the intent as I understand it Paul. Yes, that's correct. Okay. It seems drastic. As far as the subdivisions, not creating a lot of access points off our main road. If, if the road is usable, that's what I understand the issue is thoughts anybody else. I see you Sally will get you in a moment commissioners, anybody, Ned, nothing. John, mangan. No, I don't have anything. David. No, no issues with the with the new lots. I mean, obviously this is the remaining lands should peak our interest just because these were part of what was discussed during our RETC next discussions. Josh. No hardburn about the lots as proposed now. Okay. Sally, you had a question or I want to offer a comment to us. Yeah, I want to let Tom know, we're very sensitive about the building envelopes. And the wetlands. So, Okay, good. Just great to hear. There's another thing I want to address and I'm not sure if this is the right place but it's about shared maintenance agreements. You had an hour and 20 minute conversation with someone and because they didn't agree. And I think the, the public works could come up with a template for shared maintenance agreements because I'm in that situation now with my neighbor in town sewer. There's three of us hooking on to an eight inch pipe. And Aaron wanted to shared maintenance agreement. I think if there was a template, it would solve a lot of our are haggling. Anyway, so anyway, I just wanted to put my two cents and about the wetland, because we do. We do know what's there and we're going to respect it. Okay, thank you. It sounds like there's, there's no real heartburn at this stage on the commission from, from with this proposed layout. I mean, at this point, would you, unless you've got more that you want to bring in, it sounds like it's appropriate to put an emotion to continue. Yes, I would agree. So, I would take this is a public hearing. So we need to open the public hearing first. I'll take a motion for that. So moved by shoe. Second. Ned, all those in favor. I posed motion carry seven zero public hearing is open. Now take a motion to continue. Sally, your hand is still up. Did you have a question, additional question? Okay. I take a motion to continue to the next available meeting. So moved, Josh. Tom. Move by Josh second by Tom. All those in favor. I posed motion carry seven zero. So we're continued until the next meeting. You folks work it out with with staff and we'll see you when you come back. Okay. Thank you. Thanks everybody. Last, not last. Next on our agenda. We have a motion for the minutes from September 10. You have a motion for the minutes of September 10. November 12. I have the wrong open. Okay. September 10th written on this thing. What's where am I? I think you're back. Hang on. No, I'm in the wrong packet. Sorry, wrong, wrong folder, 11, 11, 12. There we go. Thanks. You have a motion for the minutes of 1112. So moved. Move by Nick. Second by shoe. Does anyone want to offer any direct comments? On any item, any line item. I have one thing. It's toward the very end of the ETC part. I recall making a motion. About. Moving it onto the select board. I remember we've got, I think I recall this correctly. We batted it back and forth. Yes. Whether they should approve it, like what, what the, what the wording should be, whether it was approving or forwarding for them to look at or what have you. And I don't, I don't see a mention of the motion. Am I misremembered? Nope. You're right after line. 116. 116, 117. So this is Sharon. Yes, there, there was, and I believe that I just, I discussed that with the chair. You, it technically didn't need a motion because you're not approving it. You're just sending it up. And we had a vote of eight to zero. So I think Sharon, part of this is I'm going to interrupt, jump in real quick. I think we probably should indicate that the motion was made and approved seven zero. And also there was an indication that the alternate PC member president, John Alden was also in support of the action. That satisfy? Well, I can, yes, I can, I can capture it that way. Yes. Yeah. My concern wasn't that it needed a motion of approval or such because I know it didn't, but just sort of a something in the minutes that says, yes, this was something we all approved of. And the alternate was on board just as Dusty was saying, other than right now it just says we instructed staff, which I think is less forceful than, than we actually were. As you know, I'm quite in favor of this whole thing. Yes. No, I, yeah, there was a little, I hear you and I can make that change. All right. Thank you. Okay. Anything else that people want to address? All right. Then all those in favor of the minutes as amended in this discussion? I think we have by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries seven zero. That is it for minutes. Other business. Okay. Hi, this is a we said we have a couple of things in other business and they're, they're, but they're not super meaty or they don't have to be tonight. So the first was an update on ETC next, as you know, it's going to the select board on December 21st. And we wanted to know whether there was anyone from the planning commission who wanted to give a statement on behalf of the planning commission as part of that. And you can think about it, get back to Dusty, get back to us. If you let us know beforehand, we'll just make sure that you have the agenda and the link to the meeting. So is this something that you want to decide now or that you want to think about? And more than one person is free to attend if that's actually even the biggest benefit to electronic meetings. I'm going to try to be present there. Josh, if you're able, I'd really like you to be able to be there. Yeah, I was just going to say, I feel like in that, that motion with respect to the minutes, I kind of volunteered for this. Yeah. I would like to invite John Alden to, to be there as well because it's done significant contribution. Everybody has. And I don't want to have anybody, nobody should be discouraged from going at all. So we'll just send the link to all of you for the meeting. Yep. I think that would be appropriate. Super. Okay. The next item is the fiscal year 2022 work plan, which of course you do not have to decide on tonight because this is the fiscal year that is starting on July 1 in 2021. We can discuss it at the next meeting, but if you can, you can send us emails or call to talk about any, call any of us to talk about what you might like to see, we can put together a list for review at the next meeting of items for review and discussion. I mean, just, just roughly, I mean, assuming some of this, we've got, we've got, we should be on track for doing zoning subdivision. I mean, there should be some things that we need to work in. Anyways, right? Okay. And zoning is the next, the creation of a zoning subcommittee is going to be the next thing that I'm going to ask you about. Go for it. So we have a lot of zoning that's coming up now that the EGC next, well, with the EGC next plan being accepted by the select board on likely on December 21. And so I guess we'd need to talk about what the, what your thoughts are on the creation of a zoning subcommittee and that can be handled in different ways. It'll be a lot of work. So I don't know whether there's a general zoning subcommittee or there might be smaller, different smaller committees based on areas of interest and time. So I'm going to apologize to the commission. I, I basically volunteered us to do work groups, you know, study, you know, smaller subgroups, which we've been successful with in the past. You know, folks have had some passion about getting into some of the different details. So I suggested to we so that we, that we go that route right from the beginning with this round. I'm hoping that you guys are still liking that sort of, that sort of concept. And it's something that, that we can talk about a little bit more at the next meeting. We as staff are going through the, going through the list of items that need to be addressed that are from the historic list, the running list of items from the past, I don't know, seven years. And we were going to do some prioritization, which again you can review for, for concurrence on whether those are the priorities that you see, but sort of based on that sort of prioritization, then we can think about creating the subcommittees, because then at least you have an idea of, of what the timing might be on different items or, and so figure out what your, your personal time commitment might be. And again, your area of interest and or expertise, which of course would facilitate conversation. In certain areas. So it's just a conversation that needs to start. But we don't have to decide anything tonight. It's literally just to, to get you all thinking about these things. Is that list available now that we can look at it? Yes. Well, we have the list. It isn't, it isn't prioritized by us. Maybe you can send it to all of us. And we could all kind of put some personal priorities on it or some general things that we can think about. Okay. We just thought that it, that, that if we as staff looked at it first and sort of set a direction, then it would, it would be something that you could plug into more easily. Get it, get it in something. I would say we should get it into a digestible format. Yeah. I wouldn't worry too much about prioritizing yet. Yeah. Well, that, that's sort of the best word for it because as we're, as we're prioritizing, we're like classifying by low hanging fruit. Right. You know, things that are like easy fixes, things that are a little bit more difficult. And so, I mean, so there's some of that that's happening as well. And digestible is completely the right adjective for. Once we get into understanding the, you know, the complexity, something that's going to take some heavy lifting, traditionally those have been some of the ones that have been really ripe for a subgroup to go off and work on. And I think when we've done that, you know, David, John, you guys have done things like this and it been very successful. Yes. And we're also well aware that we owe you PUD. So I just wanted to put that out there that this is that. In some ways that's going to be our start because we've already started on this and we need to finish with it. Sounds like we got a. Work plan is going to be actual work plan. Can you hear the whip? Okay. I want you to work. You're setting, you're setting a rest for the wicked. Setting really. Making everybody really appreciate the joy of going to planning commission meetings. Oh, it's going to be great fun. Yeah. The best thing is, is the, I mean, you completely leave a mark on the community and. Take into so many different aspects of the community that. I think zoning is actually really interesting and really fun. So be in my group, you guys, whichever one you choose, definitely choose my group. Let's just make sure the marks aren't stains. Who gets to pick teams? That's my question. I want to point out Patty Davis has been raising her hand on and off during other business. Okay. Patty. I just want to throw in that. I'm really excited about December 21st because, you know, the first two years of following you guys, I, I find it a joyous experience. I know it's weird, but I do. I like it. Coming to your meetings. I wondered if you're going to invite. Sharon and Mark from KSV. To come and speak. I just want to present the ED, the ETC next. Besides Joshua, who's who's awesome. All of you are, but Joshua and John Alden, you two definitely have to be the, the motivational speakers of this plan. When you're presenting it to the select board, but I just wondered about Sharon and Mark. Are they going to be there? I'm sorry, Patty. I should have explained that before. I just wanted to do the presentation to the select board. Oh, great. And we so I never met you, but I like, I want to, oh, can Paula Duke and I come to this meeting? Oh, it's the open select board meeting. We hope that you'll, we hope that a lot of members of the community will be there. Oh, great. I'm so excited because I know everybody's getting a copy of the whole thing. And I mean, I don't know if public is allowed to ask for a copy, but I would be very interested. I would be more than having one. We will have electronic copies available. Once it's approved by the planning, once it's approved by the select board, and we will be printing up a limited number of. Oh, okay. Well, I would, for Christmas, I would love one. You guys did such an awesome job. And I'm so excited that I'm, I'm rooting for our Essex select board to stay intact and everything. And I'm just a little skittish about having anything presented on the select board right now. And all their mind is on is this merger. So I just want you to know I'm rooting for you and I want to be there and good luck. Thank you. Hopefully this is a bright light on their agenda. This commission worked hard on it. I know. I know. Right. Which of course you just expressed. Very exciting. Right. And we said, do we have anything else to cover this evening? No. Sharon, you haven't said anything for a little bit. That's not like you. Thank you. I appreciate that. Yeah, always contributor. No, I am good. Thank you. Aaron. Nope. And I want to point out Sharon LL in the chat. So she wasn't completely silent. Thanks for that, Aaron. You're welcome. Love you, Sharon. I would take a motion to close this out. I move we adjourn. Second. Seconded by moved by shoe. Second by Josh. All those in favor. Opposed we are adjourned at whatever time this is. 822.