 That's good. All right. Let's call to order at 6. 06 o'clock on my computer. So let's call it 6 o'clock up. Just to note for the record that Commissioner Knox is remote. Five other commissioners present in the first item on our agenda. Catherine, can you speak to that for the second time? So although there was an agreement amongst the members to amend the agenda on August 10th, no official vote was taken to approve the agenda as amended as is the practice by the select board. So my recommendation would be that somebody make a motion to ratify the election of office. Second by Daniel, seconded by John. The official discussion. Gosh, all those in favor? Aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries 6-0. Hey, Daniel, would you mind? Oh, I never mind. Looks like someone else needs to be admitted though. So do we, so the next item would be any changes to the agenda? I don't know. I don't see any or are there any that you wish to introduce at this point? I have them. So this point for the agenda we have in front of us, we look to approve the agenda. I would take a motion to approve the agenda as is in front of us. Will we approve the agenda as written for August 24th, 2023? A second. Moved by John, seconded by Georgia. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries 6-0. Next item on the agenda will be public comments before we get in. Actually, we don't have any applications. So I'm not going to need to swear in public members at this stage. So at this point, this is an opportunity for the public to offer comment to us for items that are not on the agenda. If there's anyone, please, if you're online and would like to speak to us, please raise your hand using the online tool. That's under the reactions tab. If you're in the room and you'd like to say something, speak up. Hearing none. Seeing none. We can now move on to the Drafting and Zoning and Subdivision Discussion. Katharine, would you like to lead us into that? Absolutely. So if you remember our process with this, if you're a last meeting, I had mentioned that the select board made some changes at their public hearing to the draft that you submitted to them. They are able to do that as long as they follow a couple steps after that. One is to sort of essentially send them back to you, but it is to amend your report, your planning commission report that is required by state statute. And essentially that report is saying that the changes that they made still conform with state statute. The town plan really, it's both of those things. And so at the last meeting, we discussed a couple of those changes. There really weren't that many changes, but we discussed those. There was concern in particular about one of the changes that they made. And that was about having adequate offsite parking for garage sales and wondering if that is actually enforceable and a good idea to add this at this time. And the request was that I go back and or not go back, but like assemble the comments and we'll send a memo off to the select board if you're all in agreement with that. So what I have done, two things. One is you can see the report that was in the packet. So that's the planning commission report. And it goes through, summarizes all the changes that the planning commission made. And in red, it points out the changes of the select board made. And so we can talk about any of those changes in red if you would wish. And I would say, the other thing that we'll talk about is the draft memo that I prepared for you all and see what you think about it. If you have questions, comments, changes. And then after all that, there should be some sort of decision about proving this, especially the planning commission report. But if you're going to send a memo, there should be a comment. Thank you. So I mean, let's open up the amendments and look at the items in red. I think some of these should be relatively... Yeah. So do you want me to pull up the memo? I think so. That would be good. I had a couple of questions on them, but let's go through them and just look at them all. Because there's not a lot. Sometimes it's hard without which one. This is good. That looks like the letter that you... It is the letter. This is the one I was referring to? Yes. I'm sorry. I have some reason both are called memo on my thing. Okay. So the first part of this is really the planning commission report where we talk about what show red. Really weird. There's some pigment that's missing in the screen. So I'll look over there. So I think table 2.1 is where we start with red. So that is the summary use chart. So actually there's several things in the use chart as well as the zoning district tables that... And somewhat throughout the document. So the first one in this 2.1, there's the estate act 47 also called the home act made some changes to housing. And I think I mentioned... I've mentioned to you before there's a lot of changes that there's... We're still just as planners trying to figure out and differing opinions on what they mean. I thought about like, let's add them all to this draft. And so that was one of my thoughts. I'll suggest that to the Slack board. They can make those changes. But again, there's too much ambiguous. Ambiguity. There you go. Thank you. Wrong emphasis on the syllable there. So what did seem easy was... I was going to get credit for that word. Changing family to unit in places. Also changing family to household. And then going down to also to table 2.1 in the summary use chart. This is the same page but also in some different pages. This that the home act suggests changing duplex or two unit to duplex. And then there's also for the first time a definition statue of what duplex is. So adding that to the regulations. And then down to section 2 zoning district tables. So impacting all the zoning districts that allow residential uses that act 47 says that wherever you have a single family unit allowed, you need to allow a duplex with the same dimensional standards as a single family. So that's, that was all I felt comfortable changing from the most recent updates and state statute. So that was presented to the Slack board. They were fine with that. And... Are we going to try and discuss all of the changes at once? Or can... A good question. No, because I think some of these are pretty easy to mark off. But others may be subject to further discussion. So the ones that are in red are what the Slack board has kicked back to us, right? Right. So I just, I don't know, let's see how they roll out. Each one we can dig into a little bit, I think, as it's there. You want to go back up? No, I just, you know, these first ones seem more changes to be consistent with legal standards. Yes. So I just wanted to make sure, you know, we had an opportunity to look at, you know, various sections that were changed, depending on what is actually being changed. That makes sense. Yeah. So like actually pulling up the zoning regulations. Who's that? Well, no. So, yeah, as long as, you know, as we go through, we can maybe look at specific ones that would be great, you know, that are marked in red. I'm just looking at some of the changes that they're making. Some of them are actual changes to the regulations, and others are just legal language changes, right? So that's all I was asking about. Yeah, I can absolutely pull that up. I think everybody should be comfortable with what we're in front of us. So if it requires us digging in deeper, let's do it. That's, that's, especially with you folks that are seeing these things here for the first time, you know, in this, in this particular environment, let's just dig in as anybody feels they need to. Yeah. So are we good on what we've seen already or do you want? No, I think we're okay. All right. So I think the next one is section 3.43B. And this one challenged me a little bit to understand why, what they were, I mean, this was. Yeah. All right. Well, let me pull this one up. I think that was one that, you know, we were trying to. Clarify. Clarify and be consistent with what's actually been done. And with the. It looks like based on comments here, though, that it's not necessarily a rejection of the change, just a request to restate, you know. I think this is, this was, this was within the RPDI. Yeah. And there's been a lot of discussion about what can go with the buffers. What, how do we use the buffers? What do we, because it's been traditionally the front 50 foot buffer has been, we've allowed waivers for vegetation improvement and or use of 50 foot buffer for stormwater, but we specifically haven't allowed structures, which is why I think what we were trying to capture and what we offered to the select board. Right. I think in this particular one, the discussion was around parking, concerned about allowing parking in the buffer to begin with, where you've never, in the 50 foot buffer, where you've never, never allowed that. All right, let's take it. Thank you for navigating on our behalf. Yeah. Okay. So, now maybe I should pull up what you, this is sort of supposed to represent this. So, essentially what, what you had done, I think is cross out, now cross out that, that may be allowed within the 50 foot buffer and add the 50. So, what, what's shown in red is what, what you did. Did these reflect all the buffers that are a part of the RPDI 50, 100 and 250? So, why not just state that they cannot be in any buffer zones? So, I think the, the plenty or the select board's concern. So, I think they're, they're concerned because in, in D, we're offering a waiver for, in the 50 foot buffer only, you know, which is what we've done. I mean, it's consistent with what we've, what has been done. It's been offered in that particular area. The 50 foot buffer hasn't had a tremendous amount of natural growth that was healthy growth. That's usually a lot of it's scrub trees and or bushes. So, there's been a consistent approach to allow the 50 foot buffer that's in front. That, that's, that 50 foot buffer is between the road in the, in the, in the lot. 50 foot buffer has been used for primarily stormwater management and the landscaping. So, it's a consistent presentation along corporate drive is the primary space, the corporate drive and the other side, Thompson. We haven't allowed any intrusion into the, into the 200 foot buffer and the 100 foot buffer is in between structures and that hasn't been treated, I think, except for trails. I think that's what we've used that for. Right. I think that, you know, I was trying to at the Slack board meeting explain the reason why that this was a suggestion. And there was concern or it was confusing saying that like that in the 50 foot buffer, you cannot allow access drives and components of stormwater management systems, which you kind of need an access drive somewhere. And I mean, it's true you need one in the 100 foot buffer as well. Not the 200 foot, but the, you know, if you're, if there's more development along Alan Martin, that's where the 100 foot buffer is in the front. So there was that and then they, then looking down at D, it seemed like the, like as a Britain without adding this new language that was adequate. I guess rereading it like that. I'm not going to, I'm not going to argue. It just, not to over complicate, but isn't there an opportunity to just re clarify section D, like rather than, you know, because I think that it does make sense to have a clear distinction of what is and is not allowed in the buffers and what can and cannot be done in the buffer. Right. And so. Yeah. Yeah. I think the only concern that I see in that is that there was a decision early on in your amendment process to not muck around in the RPDI really, because there's potentially some other changes that you're going to be discussing. So whether they be use changes or buffer improvements. Now the idea was to hold off on those changes. So, which is fine. I mean, this obviously has been already been brought up as a potential change. So just clarifying what your intentions are, I think is fine, but I just wanted to throw out that. So maybe, maybe to the, to your point, Daniel, and D, we add in that, that buffers in the 50 foot, I mean, we, waivers in the 50 foot buffer could be granted for stormwater management landscaping. I mean, it's going to say that right now. Access drives. Yeah. Yeah. Under special circumstances or something. Right. You know, that do need to be qualified. It can't just be that a waiver can be offered. Waivers, waivers should never be considered to be automatic. Yeah. Waivers should always be, there should always be a solid reason for a waiver. But that's exactly my point is like, if you qualify what the special circumstances are, then you don't need a waiver, then you make it, then it's part of the regulation. So that's the other side of that, right? If you make it too granular, it becomes the regulation and there's no longer a waiver. Well, how do you manage the permit of waivers then? As limited as possible and consistent. In that area, this is a historical approach, but in that area between corporate drive and Thompson Drive, there's been a defined effort or determined effort to provide consistency along the road frontage because there's not consistent vegetation along either. There's a need for stormwater management and it's been a adequate place to use that for stormwater because most of the time those get grasped over there. They become part of the landscape as much as less of a structure and more of landscape. I don't think you have to get super granular though. You could simply say like, special circumstances may be allowed to create safety standards to maintain safety standards or preserve natural environments or something like that, right? So adding to that first sentence where it says, but may waive buffers in the 50-foot area for special circumstances such as or just more special circumstances, we have to probably get that a little more, a little bit of granularity on that, but not much. If you look at the B, back up there, where parking areas, access drives, and components of stormwater management seem to be the things that are pointed out already. So is that what could be waived in the anything that's been that's prohibited? I mean, waivers are exceptions. So limiting it to those things, although I think you were saying like not parking areas, like that's the one thing. But the others, access drives, stormwater. And from a historical perspective, this is a big step forward from what there used to be, which the Planning Commission used to have 100% say in what was going on. Make a ruling. And it was, I mean, the zone was set up to give the Planning Commission complete flexibility to look at any project coming in. This actually started to narrow it down by saying you can't do this in this zone, this buffer, this buffer, this buffer. That also lends you to the idea that why do we need a 50-foot buffer, which has been brought up before? We can always call it a, always define it as a space that could be used for stormwater management, access drives, and nothing else. I mean, that's what we're starting to get into the next. And so the further revisions that you guys are proposing later, yeah? Well, I mean, just to ensure that we have clarity on maintaining those buffers, and I think that's important tonight. I'm a little miffed that the select board isn't allowing space for that or pushing back in this regard. That's where, so as long as we can find a path forward where there is clarity on how buffers are to be used, then I think that there's a path forward. I think that's the intention, right? You want to take another dive into the, or a deeper dive into the RPDI after the comments that you've heard recently. Because there's been a lot of public comment about, why do we have buffers? If we're using waivers, why do we even have a buffer? What are they for? What are that? Right. And maybe it becomes a design zone, not so much a prohibited buffer, but a design area that's used strictly for access and or stormwater management, with no structures allowed. Whatever. But that's like the next phase of how do we curb that. And there's been folks that have talked about the 200 foot buffer over the years. Do we want it to be a visual buffer? Do we want to be a sound buffer? Do we want it to be a space of no build? What is that 200 foot zone for? And traditionally, it was a no intrusion space, except for utilities. And it was, had to have a force management plan for. Now they've got a lot of separate owners. So that tells that into question as well. But again, we're getting another level of buffer question. Josh has it. Josh. All right. Go ahead, Josh. Thanks, Ken. I think you're right that a lot of it depends on where we land with the current RPDI comment process. But I thought I had about the clarity of number three, as it's currently written, is if you put D where B is and then follow with B and C, it does make a little more logical sense in how the buffers are supposed to operate. So you start with the 200 foot buffer requirement dot, dot, dot, then go to the planning commission may not waive buffers in 100 or 200, but can for 50 foot for the following reasons, as you guys have been discussing. And then you can go to B. If you want to specifically call out, here's the things you definitely can't waive. It wouldn't require a change to anything we've written here. And again, this is dependent on the RPDI comment process. But looking at it as it is right now, I think that would provide more clarity, because you're saying what the buffers are for that you can't waive anything in these. But once you say, okay, you can in the 50, then it's perfectly, perfectly fine in the new C, former B to call out. Yeah, but you can't do that even in the 50. If that makes sense, just as a flow of the way the document's written. I think in terms of revisions, that makes a lot of sense. But just to be clear, Josh, are you suggesting that that shift in order also in maintains the omission of that last line that was taken out? But maybe allowed. Yeah. Well, I don't genuinely, I don't genuinely know. But I was just thinking the general like, for establishing the print, because if we come back to this later, after we get more public comment, like I said, I don't want to weigh in necessarily on that sentence. But I think if the select board is having having trouble with it, it may be because we go from buffer requirement to here's what you can't do. And then all the way down at D is you can't do buffer, you can't waive buffer requirements. I just think putting D first, then we could say, we could say, okay, so you can in the 50. And then here's something that you definitely can't in the 50. And I don't, I don't know about the, that the actual like matter itself of these things can be allowed in the 50, the parking access drives and components of stormwater management. I mean, So let's remember too that we're, we're, we're responding to the changes that the select board has made. So they've just said strike the detail that we wanted to add because it was already covered in the way I'm reading it says, they're saying it's already covered in the waiver language that we talked about in D. Because both B and C talk about shall and shall nots. Right. And, and D can override both of those in the 50. Trevor, just a question about the language, the use of the word may as opposed to foul. Yep. Is that done on purpose? Yeah. That's, that's why the waiver is there. I mean that the waiver is the may portion of the, you notice in the, as the way I read this in A, B and, well A and C at least and B is implied, but it's, it shall apply, shall not be, or may not be located and shall be preserved. And then indeed it's, we can waive the requirements in the 50 foot, in the 50 foot zone, buffer zone only. See how detailed this is? But yeah, no, no, but to go back to what you were saying in terms of just trying to respond directly to what the select board has, has commented on, like their comments are specifically about clarity. So I think that Josh's, you know, observations and suggestions stand because what the select board was specifically trying to identify is how to make this more clear, right? So, you know, even though it is going outside of the specific line items in question, that is where clarity is needed, right? So I don't think that that's outside the purview of what we're trying to do here. So what we're doing, yeah, and I'm not arguing that at all. What we're doing is we're going to be sending, potentially providing them additional suggestions to clarify for clarity. So Josh, could you, are you at a point where you could sort of re-state what you were saying? Yes. What I am proposing is the current subhead D, put that right after A, and then you could, I would reinstate the, but maybe allowed within 50 foot buffers, which is the thing that the select board rejected as on the ground, was that it was confusing, unless I'm misunderstanding this. And then I think it would make perfect sense because we'll say, we'll lead by saying the 200 foot buff requirement shall apply, done. And then the new B, we're saying you can't do anything in 100 or 200 foot, but you can do something in the 50, and here's the process for that. We need to explain why the basis mitigation, and then in the B with our language restored, we're saying just to be totally clear, you can't do any of this stuff in the 100 or 200, but it does apply as a thing you can do in the 50, which would follow what we just said in the new B. That makes sense. So it would go A, D, C, B, or A, D, the new order would be A, D, B, C, with our language for B restored, as here is a thing you can do. I mean, you could almost, now I'm not going to say you could almost, because that would confuse the matter. I was saying you could almost remove the reference to 100 and 200 and just say, oh yeah, here's the thing you can do in 50 as such a thing, but I think I'm fine with it still saying you can't in the 100 or 200, just to be totally clear. So if I take it back to the original language, but just reorganized. Our original language, yeah, original language, A, D, B, C, I guess I should have just said it like that. So here's a concern I have with putting C last, is we do allow and have allowed waivers for vegetation. So are we, I mean, That's mostly where they are, aren't they? Yeah, it's that vegetative that it's generally to provide the appropriate vegetation. So I feel like the statement that we can do a waiver should be the final thing. Oh, it's A, D, C, B, maybe. A, D, C, B. Or Dusty, are you saying then if I'm understanding you take D, put a period after 200 foot buffers? Correct. And then as a new, a new one, then say the Planning Commission may waive buffer requirements in 50 foot buffer area and then follow with C and B as currently written? No, I'd actually leave, I'd leave the order the way it is into I think what I'm taking a little bit of what Daniel was mentioning before. Period after 200 foot buffers. New sentence. Indeed. This is indeed new sentence that may waive buffer requirements in the 50 foot buffer area for special circumstances. We don't really, I don't know that we can identify what those are because that's that's the essence of a waiver. Somebody's got to make a pitch for a reason. Well, you have to be able to qualify the waiver like there has to be parameters around. Right. So we make that for special circumstances and then we identify the special circumstances are stormwater management, access or landscaping. Because in C, we're saying all existing trees and vegetation shall be preserved. So we want to be able to, this is my take on it. So we want to be able to waive, we want to have a waiver for vegetation, landscaping. We want to have a waiver for access. We want to waive a potential waiver for stormwater. It's not guaranteed because if it's guaranteed, then it's, then it's, then it's a, then it's a regulation and we're not at the point of making a regulation, which is what we were looking at to do in the, in the more evolved RBDI review. Okay. You're not really making any changes. Again, it's just clarifying. It's just clarifying. And I think giving, providing some clarity that waivers, special circumstances, special circumstances around landscaping, stormwater management or access. Because we may want to, we may want to waiver for fire department access. I don't know why we were going to fire department access in the 50 foot buffer, but I mean, it's, that's to me, it's that access is really what we're looking at. And ultimately, I would think we'd potentially want to get to the point where we don't have that be a waiver and it become a regulation and we actually regulated. This is the landscaping pattern that must be, this is where stormwater must be, this is your access must be like this. Yeah. Well, if it is like very stipulated in that regard, that makes sense. I think where it can be useful as a waiver is that, you know, you're still signaling that this is an exception, not the standard, right? And the standard should be to preserve the buffer, you know, as much as possible. I think that's where the standard lies right now in the RPDDI, right? Well, if you look at D, the second part of that is says, in waive planning commission show, it's a simply state in its approval that a waiver is granted the basis for the waiver and any condition it needs necessary to mitigate the loss of vegetation with additional landscaping. I think it brings it back to you're losing that vegetation. And then it has, there has to be a plan and with the waiver, associate with the waiver to vegetation. It's, it's not going to say it's a slippery slope because it's got to be 15%. But it's a challenge to do this on the fly that, you know, we've already done a round of regulation changes. And when we specifically, we're trying to tweak this to provide some more clarity that we don't want parking areas in there. We don't want anybody to, to try to ask for a parking area. But right now they could. They could come in today and say, I have a special circumstance. I want a parking area. But if we've taken the route that I think you're suggesting and start clarifying that waivers could be evaluated on the basis of stormwater landscaping and access, and we've at least provided some direction, some criteria to, to base a waiver on. Yeah, to limit the request for waivers and also provide direction for when waivers may be appropriate. Right. Whereas, you know, leaving that type of information out, the waiver can then be applied at any point for the commissions, you know. For the makeup of the, you know, it's, it would be on the, the, how bold is the developer? Yeah. And what's the makeup of the commission? Right. And that, I think is too politically driven. Right. And, and, and then this is preferred. And this was a, this was a phase approach. Again, remember that the, or you weren't here obviously, but the, you know, initially it was, it was all the purview of the, of this, of the planning commission to decide what was appropriate for any application that came in. There was no really, there was no need for a waiver because planning commission could make that decision. Made a decision. And that's the, the RPDI has been evolving over the last couple of decades. And this is a point. I think it's got to keep going. I mean, there's been a lot of questions about the, I think more questions about the 200 foot buffer. You know, what it's there for, how it's supposed to be used, what's, what's it supposed to do? Yeah. You know, that's a, a bigger. It is, that's, that's definitely a much larger conversation that will take more time. But yeah, I think for Claire to say, either what Josh was saying, or this, the special circumstances, perhaps even a combination of the two where you just create the right flow and then have that special circumstances to define so that we have that clarity moving forward when we make those further revisions. So Catherine, you know, Kent, from your perspective, what, what makes sense. Again, we're responding to the selects board's first review of, of what we sent up to them. Um. My, my thought is maybe Josh is just for simplicity sake. I feel like doing a little more editing on the fly. I maybe want to think about additional language before making a decision tonight. So, so how about, how about we ask, how about we ask Josh to send his, his version to you and then you guys can, can hash that out and then kick it back out. Is that reasonable? Yeah, I think the, the only issue is with timing. The select board is seeing these amendments again on September 18th and the way statute reads is that you have to have given your response back 10 days or. So we're pretty much, we're pretty much on the short. I think, yeah. Unless you have an extra meeting, I think your next meeting is the 14th, September. So that's too, it's too close. So we really decision tonight. Well, we got, we've got six members. They haven't heard from everybody. John, Georgia. Well, I'm, I'm, I'm unsure why. So what Josh had made sense to me, switching it around for the, for clarity. We can't just propose that and say, we need to have it written up to get back. I'm a little unsure about the process. Yeah. Yeah. So I think, I think if you, if you say nothing about it, it'll go forward as they removed this language. Right. Which I think that was. Right. Or added it back. And removed as a combination of them. If, if you include like in the memo that we have, that I drafted up, you know, language about, here's where we think this might get at what we were going for. Here's our suggestion of why to make this change. Then they can consider that change. But there, if we had another meeting to talk about this, it would be easier because then like, I could go back and talk with Josh and work on it. And, but in this case, you have to decide unless, unless you do hold an extra meeting and you could, you could just hold it for this small topic. Or maybe there's some other things that are to come up as we're discussing. So. So let's, let's, let's hold on that. Let's not, let's hold the decision because maybe as we get into this, there'll be, it'll be clear that we have to go one route or another. But let's, let's, we won't, we won't walk away from that tonight. Okay. All right. So then getting back to the other changes. So I realized after I sent this out, if you're looking on your version, not sure the fences and walls change showed up, which is like the big one that we talked about. Oh, for feces. Where feces are on the moon. Oh, right. That's not, not a. So the select board offered that. They did not. That would be typo from me. Well, we gotta have a little fun. So, so anyway, so this is. Yeah. So you had made the change just saying, and maybe I should pull up the original zoning again. So it's this electric and barbed wire fences. So that's the, so what you had initially done is just to try to clarify this. So you were essentially saying, or the way the language was written, it's electric fences are prohibited in these particular districts. And so you would made the change to say, it's the same way prohibited. So here's where they are permitted. And the suck word was like, well, why, why even say districts? Isn't it more for use? So the use is agricultural use that generally you're going to one barbed wire or electric, just like kind of just make it clear. But that makes sense. Except that agricultural uses aren't limited to an AR. Correct. And I think that was their, their thought. Actually, it's okay. So it's okay to have an agricultural use in another zone. It's okay. Barbed wire and or electric fences. And I guess from a residential perspective, I would, I would argue against that. But I mean, it's, we're already limited in what we can do with agricultural uses as a town. Yeah. It was sort of in that vein. Can I ask a question about that? Because would agricultural uses include, like if you have chickens in your yard or other livestock and you're trying to protect them from adverse, is that included with what would be allowed? Is that or is that not considered an agricultural use on a residential property? So there are, there are two different sorts of agricultural uses. And it's, they're both in our regulations. One is where the agriculture uses that the town cannot regulate. And that would be if you have like 100 chickens or if you have like, there's specific numbers that then we don't have any say in at the town. Or a sugar bush. Right. Yeah. And forestry, right? Yeah. So, but then when you get down to the having four chickens, we are allowed to regulate that, but that is also considered an agricultural use. Okay. I was just wondering if that would allow, because it was a thing I heard on how do you not attract bears to your property? And one, one thing that was mentioned was you can have electric fences around chickens in that house. So I was just wondering if that would be included. And it sounds like it would be included. You could ask for having an electric fence around or a barbed wire around something like that, even on a residential property. So the state exemption for agricultural use, does that also include structures and fences and so forth? Definitely structures. You know, you still need to meet set X, that sort of thing. But I just wondered if that exemption also would include the fence. I mean, because if it is, then it's like we're talking about with the other thing. If we can't regulate it anyways, what are we including it for? Well, when you are talking about four chickens, that's different than a hundred chickens. Yeah. So we can regulate that four chickens, which, and we do, actually, we have a chicken ordinance. But that seems like this language doesn't accommodate that either. But if you've got four chickens based on this change, you can put up our barbed wire fence and electric fence. And that seems like that. Do you want your neighbors' kids to grow up and touch the electric fence? Not to the first one. It's the last one in the line that gets it. I'm not aware of what the public comment was that they're referencing. You know, so Select Board added language about tall fences, as was requested by the public in a prior public comment, PC draft. So what were the public comments? That is a different one. Isn't that 3.4 E? Is that where we're looking at? We're still in B, C, and D. I didn't realize that. Oh, yeah, I see what you're saying. In the C1 AR, okay, forgive me. We were talking about fences and I got my wires crossed. They're basically proposing to remove the restriction of zoning. Oh, just for agriculture. I mean, it was agriculture before, now it's just agriculture uses. You know, I think they're... I would ask them to restore the language that we put back in because if it's exempted by the state, this covers it. Otherwise, if it's for chickens, it's zonable, and it's not really an agricultural use. I mean, this is talking about agricultural purposes, which is a pretty broad stroke. And I think that's a miss, potentially. It's an opening. I think there's risk involved if we don't... To the point that we just hammered on a little bit ago, I don't think that provides enough specificity. If something's exempted by the state, certainly it's exempted by the state, and we don't have any say in it one way or the other. But otherwise, kind of thinking that we don't necessarily want barbed wire fences and... Any districts. In pretty... The more, yeah. C and AR, sure. Well, and before, it looks like it was just the C1 AR and R1 that allowed it. Or, you know, they weren't named out or what was for him. Yeah. Right. And they didn't say anything in that case about why your change was saying it's for agriculture. So, I think that the concern was, you know, maybe it's a bigger issue of, can you have agricultural and agriculture and in the other zoning district? And what kind of agriculture, that's a good question, too. What are we talking about? But this doesn't specify that you can have it for certain purposes. It says agricultural purposes. Their change was to strike it and be agriculture uses, not even purpose, but agriculture use. And that's a pretty broad stroke. Yeah, that could be just a garden, right? That's defined. That's the agriculture. It's actually 4.2 defines agriculture. That's what it does. Yeah, if you can jump to 4.2. Oh, yeah. That's the reference. And Josh has a... Josh, go ahead. We're not seeing... I would cancel in when it sees you. So just speak up if you... I was just going to ditto what Dusty said about going back to our original version over the select board version, because unless specifically they told otherwise here, I'm reading it as your four chickens can have an electric fence for the neighborhood kids to play on, and that doesn't sound like a good idea. If four chickens does count as agricultural use, since it does say agricultural uses, including the keeping of poultry, and it doesn't say the number of poultry, four chickens is the keeping of poultry in a plain reading. And so you could have R2 and R3 electric fences unless I'm missing something. That's what it sounds like to me. So ditto to Dusty, I guess. Well, hang on. I may have to retract. Thanks to what John just found. Uses is... Uses has a much more defined... It's much better defined. Yeah. Yeah. Oh, I didn't see... Except for backyard chickens. Okay, that changes it a great deal. Except for backyard chickens. That does change a lot. So uses means feedlots, fenced runs, pens, so fenced is there. Yeah. It's a really intensively used facility is for animal raising in particular. And it does say that shall not be located within 300 feet. So I mean, I think we're not... We're getting out of the... Small lot. Small lot. In the middle of a neighborhood. I think it's a good catch, John, that that... By that, the use of the word uses, it pulls in a specific set of criteria. And it does identify the same districts. Terms like you need to have a definition of cultural use. Well, that's what we're looking at. It's what we're looking at. You could do... If it's well defined. Yeah. I think that's what we're leading to at this point is the select board's suggestion of striking the individual zones and using the term agricultural uses directly relates back to... 4.2. Yeah. So there is specificity in that already. And I didn't realize that the Section E did say backyard chickens and called them out as something exempt. So that answers my initial concern. Good catch by John. So I think it's a no... Okay. I think it looks good. It just adds a little bit of simplicity and clarity and... Get rid of some words. Okay. Okay. 3.4e. Okay. So fences, again, more fences. So back in maybe an initial round of zoning reg updates. And I think even through March, there was some language in the draft that discussed that fences cannot exceed eight feet in height, essentially. And there's also some language about... They had to be pretty short, much like short fences in the front yard. And so the select board said no to that. But let's bring back the language that was proposed before about having fences not exceeding eight feet on the property lines and fences not placed on top of one another. So I expressed why the planning commission took that out before. And they were persuaded to add this. I know if they heard it chose not to, then they heard and chose not to. I mean, you are definitely welcome, though, to reiterate your concerns to them in writing. We're working on a memo. We could add something in there if you're all so inclined. We've got some different members here. Yeah. So, as I said, I'm not privy to the public comments that were made as was requested by the public. So they changed this back based on... We did a member of the public who had... I think it was a single member of the public who had asked for limitation based on construction near them. They wanted to have a minimum, a maximum height. And there was also a situation where a neighbor had believed to have pained the height that bothered them. They had stacked fences on top of each other. So this is one of those that... Blaine, I'm sorry. No, please continue. This is one of those that I think there is state statute talking about loss of light and air. Yeah, it's actually in the regulations already. That it just seems like that's... So we're talking about a border dispute between two landowners. Is this residential or...? It was residential. Does that text mean that if you had a five foot high fence, you could not add another three foot high fence onto it to make it eight feet? You'd have to have one... You couldn't have like a solid five foot fence and then put like a lattice, the refeed on the top. I think that if anything, that one sentence is overkill. You don't have something in... If you're saying you can't do it, if you can only do eight feet, then it starts getting into the personal preference. And maybe my design point is I want to have solid for the first four feet and pick it or lattice for the next four feet. And that's where we start getting into... We're not in design control. So it's... I thought of that initially too when I summarized it nicely, because I was wondering like what defines a fence, right? Do we need to define a fence if we're going to say you can't put one on top of the other? Because of that thought. I think that's one of the... A lattice or something on top of it. Reframe it like fences, no matter how constructed, cannot exceed eight feet. And I'd like... I mean, personally, I'd like not to even have that limitation because I think it's getting into a personal preference. If it's on someone's personal property, they should be able to put a high fence if they want privacy. I mean, it's a structure... Yeah, it's a structural... There might be structural limitations, but if we're not intruding upon the state, description of nuisance, and we're not depriving light and air, I'm not really sure where or why we're... And it's not in a design control district. Why are we getting into it? So Sharon is chiming in from afar, saying that that letter C, where we're talking about that the light and air was not enforceable in this particular situation that we're talking about. She's saying it already states that the structure put up for the purpose of annoying the owners or adjoining property by obstructing their view or depriving them from light or air. She's saying that's not sufficient. Yeah. In this particular case, so it might be in some other case. It's design. Basically, it's design control is by saying you can't have it in a certain way. I mean, if anything, I mean, fences should not be placed on top of another, they should be struck. If you've got a wire fence and you've got wire fences generally four feet high, and you want it to go eight feet because you've got an animal that jumps or you've got your four chickens. You don't want to pay for the cost of removing the old fence and putting in entirely new fence. Well, I mean. A salon would be. I mean, a roll of four-foot chicken wire versus a roll of eight-foot chicken wire is pretty significant. And yeah. So, I mean, again, this is a design. It's it's it's a design control in areas where we're not, we don't have design control. I'm curious why it's not enforceable if it states statute. They call out the statute right there. That says it. Civil. Okay. Oh, yeah, I think that person could still see off of their property. And again, that if it's Yes, Paul. What determines where? Districts. Districts. Districts. We have a design control district. It's not everywhere isn't design control. And what would how is that determination made again? On what basis? For a design control district to be established. Is that what you're asking? What what determines a design control district? Yeah. We have an existing design control district. It's it's primarily the route 15 quarter between between 128 and and Essex Way. It's not even go that doesn't go that far. No, I think it goes all the way to 289. Okay. But the business design control district, but that's where we have the ability to talk about colors, business colors, materials and so forth. Okay. So, well, what about impacts and if you're talking about fence height and things like that, one of the other thing that I've heard mentioned in terms of I had it mentioned in terms of electric fences. You know, what if you have a vegetable patch and you want to keep kind of smaller neighbors out of it? Are you not, you know, I mean, in a in a in a residential area. So, I think what we're I mean the the focus right here is the height. And so that's that's what we're chewing on right now. You know, the state the line that says fences should not be placed on top of everyone that it's odd because that's very unique circumstance or specific, but it's also a limiter. Like to understand better before we just accept that and put it as a regulation, either strike it completely off, you know, suggest it to be struck completely or let's let's let's get a little more clarity on what it is. I mean, are they saying stock aid fences should not be stacked on top of each other. They didn't get into any discussion. Right. So this again, this is this is in my mind, I would think the suggestion to them is that this is not enough. This is too open ended. A big example of you have a six foot fence and you just want to put a two foot fence on top of it. Or what if you have a two foot session at the bottom that's, you know, or mental and you or whatever. I mean, that language says that you can't maybe ugly to some, but not all. But even even the point of chicken wire, like if you've got a wire fence, not even the the chain link, but just just a wire fence and you want to put that up, even if you want to put it up to six feet, you can't stack two, three foot sections based on that. So I think that that's that's a it has unintended consequences as worded the way that that has been put by the select board is what you're suggesting. I am. And if that is designed to to resolve a very unique and individual situation, it will create more conflict. You know, it's that's like spot zoning almost. It's it's we're putting something townwide to address an individual an individual situation. And that's that can have very long in a wide ranging effect. And and to anybody's point about the farmer, this this basically says a farmer can't put in a high fence for anything. Really? Well, this says this says eight foot. Period. And you know, you can't stack fences on top of each other. Yeah, at the property line. So if you've got a problem with deer, eight feet might work. See, you know, deer can jump. But I mean, don't we want you here to be able to get through? Oh, well, and on what you're what you got on the other side of the fence. I had a young goat, not my my neighbors who cleared a five foot fence. No problem. Well, in this language, they couldn't even put another foot on. Couldn't put another foot on there. Can't you add to the question? Are tennis courts regulated differently in other things that have fences? Or if you want to have a tennis court in your backyard, quite. So we're talking about property only on the property. Only on the property line. OK, in this case. So as long as your tennis court isn't on your property. Oh, OK. So as long as it's not on the property line. Internal. It's OK. So if you were a foot away from your property line, you could put a 12 foot fence. Five inches. You don't have to go full foot. Not on the property. No point. Yeah, that seems like it's a moot point. You know, that seems like it just, you know, putting standards on the on the fun thought, isn't it on the putting standards or stipulations on the property line like this is that can be that can be overridden. Well, it just it just creates duplication of efforts. Right. Then you've got, you know, neighborhoods with two fences along property lines. I have seen that neighborhood. So just like, do we really want that kind of aesthetic? You know, I think this is a good or interesting twist of thinking. You know, it's like that. It's talking about the property line. Well, what if you're off the property line? You could do something smaller. Like that's what they mean. I don't think that's what they mean. But it is a consequence. And again, an unintended. And maybe it is going. I mean, if it can't be on the property line, then you would want at least walking space between between the property line and the fence. So, but again, we're going down this slope of is the purpose was per public comment. The fence was too high and they put two two fences sections together. So we're trying to address an individual, you know, issue complaint on the property line. And as you asked, they came in five inches. This doesn't prevent them from doing that. So I mean, this is again, this is this is a this is a change that the select board is put in that will have unintended consequences and can be easily bypassed. Absolutely. With with very little, you know, with with no no hesitation, no issues. So it doesn't it's not going to do. It won't solve the potential conflict between, you know, tenants of different, you know, properties. This is really it's a design issue. And it's a it's a I think you hit it earlier. It's a boundary dispute. Though it's it seems it seems like a personal personal instead of a townwide issue to address. If I may propose like perhaps an alternative approach from like stipulating like how the fence can be distracted as a design control, like you're saying, you're saying if no fences are on the property line and one wishes to be constructed, an agreement must be made between the property owners, you know, and leave it at that, like let the property owners come to some resolution. I don't know that way that that way it's not controlling or dictating the design, but it overcomes, you know, potential disputes. We start getting into to civil civil matters at that point, too, that are outside of our purview because it's its property use and so forth. So sounds to me like there's a leaning towards request of this look forward, not add this language. I would I think it's I mean, look at the discussion that we've had and Trevor's been quiet. It's that's not allowed, by the way. Okay. Well, no, I mean, it seems like eight feet as a one size fits all this. It's probably not right to do it that way, you know, because there's always different circumstances, topography, things like that, where the ball might need to be higher. So it's again, it seems to be, you know, John, Josh, what do you guys want to weigh in on this? I'm just striking. That's my sentiment. I'm saying it up. So I think the recommendation, in this case, we've had the, we could add the recommendation to our memo that that be struck because of, we don't like it. So really because of unintended consequences. I think unintended consequences, it's in its it's it's a reaction and it's designed to to address a very specific event between two neighbors that could have negative consequences to to other areas of the town. Is there any way to say not going to strike at all? Can you strike strike the last sentence, perhaps the last sentence does seem oddly specific, does not seem like it belongs. It will even go with choice A. Here's choice B, please. But even even even A, I mean, it's it's just not A, but I don't disagree with the Georgia that, I mean, that would be, you know, potentially, but the whole thing is a slippery slope. And if if you want to ornamental fence, let's say you want to put up a brick fence and you want ornamental, you know, corner pieces or something like that, you can't, they can't be up at all. And if you want barbed wire fence and on top of that brick wall, you can't because it's two fences stacked on top of each other. That's a being facetious, by the way, it's an attempt at the job. Yeah, I think just say, you know, we strongly suggest this not be, you know, the change not be made. And if they push back, then we then we see what else we have that that would be, that's my sentiment as well. Maybe maybe we don't understand their real purpose for putting them in there for us for clarity. If after hearing their feedback, yeah. We also have to remember, though, that this this document was delivered to the select board. So at this point, it's still theirs. Mm hmm. We've signed we signed off and delivered it to them. So they're showing us, they don't have to listen to us at this stage, which is a reality that we have to understand. A little bit of a limiter, but okay, I only see one more written. So this, the one that the actual memo was written for is missing. And that this is what I was this 5 4.15 temporary uses and structures. So the select board added the following auctions or garage sales are permitted for any residents provided that adequate off-street parking exists on the premises. I'm sorry, I left this virtually off the memo. So that's the one that you had provided some draft language. Right. I'm sorry, I was in the Oh, do you want me to go back? Yeah, just for a second, so I can just read it. Sorry. And so that's like are permitted at any time. Oh, maybe I didn't put that language in. I think that the the line that we were challenging was provided that adequate off-street parking exists on the premises. Yes, yes. There was some other language, I think about frequency over the course of the year or whatever, but Oh, so this is specific to one section of the I think so. That's why we can go to the because I was like, you're just going to let people run There are places there are other I know I've seen it in my grandma on my dad's side used to run garage sales all the time. Yeah. There's limitations on frequency and durations. But I think the challenge we had was that provided off-street parking is right. This is the section where we'd go. Well, most neighborhoods don't have off-street parking. Right. Most neighborhoods is street parking. Right. If there is a potential concern about parking along the state highway, but we don't have regulations on the state highways. So it's like again, you know, we're trying to put a regulation in place. And in addition, we don't have staff on hand to do zoning enforcement on the weekend. And by the time they got there, say it would be done. And that's what I tried to communicate in this draft memo. And they wanted that to be removed? No, this was something they added. This this language specific is what they have. Yes. So what they're trying to do is just sure that residents can have garaging aren't there. If they have adequate parking, I think that's the issue. That's the qualifier is the adequate parking. Right. Right. So trying to limit where there have been, I mean, bad idea is that there are some problematic spots where there is not adequate parking and it causes issues on roadways. So this was an attempt to That's also an equity issue though, right? Like, you know, folks who don't have adequate parking are likely going to be more inclined to want to have yard sales. That's an assumption, a big one. I will, you know, acknowledge that, but I'm just trying to think about, like, who are we now limiting? Everybody. Not everybody. Particularly small driveway people. Well, or no driveway people. Anybody in the Lamelle development, anybody in, you know, the Puerto Rican lot developments that don't have anything developments, not necessarily the Route 15 parcels. Yeah. Anybody that doesn't have a big yard, a big space, a big field to park in, you're not going to be able to have a garage sale for that change. Again, unintended consequences and unintended limitations. And how would you know ahead of time how many people are going to come to your yard sale? Well, I mean, often they're going to be there. Like, if you have one parking space, but a couple of people come, like, how would you know? But that's the thing. I mean, but that's, but there are places that that you don't have the garage sales. I mean, look at what they have. And they put the garage sales in the driveway. I mean, that's where they have the table set up. So it doesn't matter how many people come in. It there is no offsite parking for it. So, I mean, if we're doing this, we're basically saying to a good chunk of this community that you can't have a garage sale because you don't have offsite parking. Would it be better just to be silent? Don't add that. That's what we were talking about. And that's what Catherine put in the memo. Oh, I should read the memo. Good, Catherine. Can you go to the whatever we've got for proposed language on that, I think? Well, the number one here is what they were proposing. So you didn't have anything in your right group regulations, your draft regulations related to this at all. So we just, I mean, basically we just think that should be there. I mean, it's, you want to limit the times or the frequency, how many you can have for a year or whatever. But I think it's, I'm concerned about only leaving this to a very select few. Sorry, I just, I would feel similarly, I think it's inequitable to put those types of limitations and provides privileges to property owners that have additional parking. That would otherwise, it should otherwise be a right and a privilege by the entire town unless everyone is restricted from doing so. I think that yard sales are often done as a means to make ends meet, right? And I would not want to be in a position where we event someone from doing that simply because of where they live. As you said, having limitations on how many yard sales you don't want someone to have just like a running yard sale in there, putting yard, obstructing, you know, property. But if it only is happening once or twice a year, how obstructive to traffic is that really? Well, if it's on, if it's not major highway, I could see how it would be. If it's on route 15, I can see how it could be. It could be a safety issue. I mean, I agree. I don't think it probably belongs to me, but I do see how there could be. It is though, couldn't the police enforce that with the existing regulations because they're creating a safety hazard? And I feel like we're being redundant to a certain degree. I think that's ultimately the issue. It creates a safety concern that probably residents or any members have been expressed. And we could ask the state to enforce it as well. And the thing is there, you know, we call the state police or the sheriff, they're probably not going to cut rates. Hey, we get a garage sale. Can you send a cruiser? Yeah. I mean, I think what can happen, similar to like, if you have a neighborhood that has a problem of a lot of people speeding, right? They're not there looking for that. But if you report it enough times and they will do something about it and they will make an effort to go there on an off hours time, you know, to check it out to see if it really is an issue. Similar with that. Yeah, I think this whole thing came about because of an issue on route 15. That's a major highway. That's a different metal of fish. So to speak. I used to live on route 15 in Jericho. And I thought I had a house on route 15. So yeah, parking was hard. And I think Catherine, you'd found us, you know, quite a few examples of a variety of approaches from neighboring communities from absolutely nothing to very restrictive. Yeah. And then not necessarily in the zoning. There could be some sort of ordinance that would be... So I mean overhead, we've got to have enforcement. And is it, I like your term, you use the inequity. And it's just, again, we're providing privilege or endorsing a privileged approach. And that just seems wrong. So I think adding that language to what's here, if that's to add another important concept. Yeah, I think so. We're really trying to be equitable in our town. We got to be thinking of those things. I think there was one other thing that that was just in the subdivision regulations. Where again, it's that one of the Act 47 changes. Just to be in compliance with Act 47. Yeah. So let's circle back to the RPDI question. So the select board removed our suggested language for clarity. And quite frankly, I don't disagree with that because what's there sort of covers it. But Josh has come up with another, a different proposal to re-arrange them to provide tension more clarity. And how does this group feel about I think that be part of that memo as well? Daniel. I think that following Josh's suggestions to reorder with maintaining the language as it was makes sense. Perseuance, a follow-up, larger discussion for other revisions being made to the RPDI. Isn't that the idea? Yeah. Yeah. That would be my thoughts. John. Yeah, I would agree. And I think it certainly was confusing trying to rehash that. But I think Josh's proposal and his ordering makes a much more sense. Trevor. I agree with that. I think the reordering makes it better. Georgie. It was, A, remind me of the order. My recommendation was A, D, B, C. And then if it's still confusing to them, we can probably rehash it again. But for now, A, D, B, C. And then restore our original language. Yeah. For D to be second, that makes sense. Yeah. I think that makes sense to suggest that. Josh, do you agree with yourself? This time I do, yes. So I think, Katherine, if we could add that to the memo as well. And here's the select board decides to push back on any of these things. Then again, it's their choice to push back. And just to go down through, we talked about they're not going to allow feces and anything other than the air zones, agriculture uses. But that one did. That one was fine. That one was fine because the uses are defined. The fences, does this group agree or let's go around the, let's go around the room. Josh, what are your thoughts on the fences, both the height and the placing atop one another sentence? I would scrap their entire recommended E. So from fences to another, the whole thing. Grabber. Yeah, I agree with that. Georgia. The only reason I concede a limit fence height would be if you're blocking use of traffic, which is the front of the house, which is a different thing altogether. Or if you are to, like we said, the state, they're probably having somebody have laid an air. So yeah, it doesn't. Yes, I agree. I specifically think the last line, the last sentence especially. Removing it seems like too much of a civil issue. Likewise, I'm in agreement with just removing the suggested changes in this. I think that as stated, it makes too many unintended consequences and doesn't really solve the issue at hand. That sounds like that should be thrown back in and then we have no, you know, didn't hear any concerns with the legislative mandated changes or influence changes. So with that, it will go through the, let's just open it up. See if anybody else has any questions on the discussion. So anybody who's online or in the audience would like to offer any questions. Yeah, are you okay? Okay. If anybody's online with anybody online would like to ask a question or offer comment on the items that we've discussed this evening? Patty Davis. Patty, go ahead please. Oh yeah, on the 50 foot buffer. I'm just curious if over time, like since 2006, and I was going back a ways to ask for a zoning amendment. Do you guys have, are you allowed to still have discretionary authority to approve just about anything when it comes to a buffer, like 50 feet? Because even though you were talking about Alan Martin and what was the other one? Maybe. Alcorbitrary, that's it. Well, obviously you don't have the discretionary authority for residential, but if residential is across the street basically, do you take into consideration the old, the present zoning regulations that state that it has to be nice looking for the people across the street that are residential? Let's see, it's eight over here. So any development in this district shall not have an undue adverse effect on the scenic or natural beauty of the area, aesthetics or rare and irreplaceable natural areas. So I'm just throwing out on that 50 foot buffer. My question is how much discretionary authority do you really have or is it up to this left board to take it or leave it or how does that work? Yes, I'm not 100% sure your question. The 50 foot buffer is only along Uber Drive and I keep linking on Thompson Drive. And Red Pine. And Red Pines. I mean, those are the internal, those are the internal, the buffers along the internal roads. The buffer with the residential is the 200 foot buffer. That's against all residential areas. And that part of that discussion is that we want to get into a more in-depth review is what does that buffer mean? What can be done with it? What is it? At this point, it's been a hand off. There's been- I say, I'm just curious because I don't run Sex and Hill anymore. I used to and I know that the people that live there, I don't know if there's- if they obviously must have a 200 foot buffer then. Yeah. There's been a lot of questions on the 200 foot buffer. Should it be a visual buffer? Is it a buffer for sound? Is it a buffer that we should be planting trees in? Is it a buffer that- Sure. I guess my two cents is I'd like number eight to stay in there where it says any development in this district shall not have undue adverse effect because that is not in the new proposed August 2023 zoning rig. Draft, but it is in the present one, and I don't see it in the new one. And that's just something I noticed. No, Biggie. I just, you know, I'm kind of anal about this documentation. Thanks. Thanks, Patty. Anyone else like to offer a comment or question on the items that we were reviewing this evening, which for clarity are the changes that the Select Board has made to the zoning revisions that we submitted to them a couple months ago? Yeah, back in June, May, June, July. Something earlier this year. I think it was June. Okay. No, May. So hearing none on that, I guess I'm going to ask for clarity on this. I'm going to ask for a motion from the commission to authorize Catherine to send this memo to the Select Board in our, in our name with the edits that we've asked tonight, the edits that we've asked for or added tonight. And her memo was specifically what we had asked her to do the last time, which was get rid of the parking requirement, the offsite parking for garage sales. We've added a few things to that. And we don't have a lot of time that it needs, you know, to get to the Select Board. So if the commission will authorize her to do that, then we can just move forward with it. Make a motion or authorize Catherine to add those changes to the memo. I sent it to the Select Board. I'll second the motion. To motion it. And it's been seconded. All those in favor. I opposed. Motion carries 6-0. Catherine, please go for that. All right. Thank you very much. 730. Hound plan discussion. We want to touch on that. Is that a lengthy discussion? Well, it can be as lengthy as you want. We will be talking about this much more at your next upcoming meetings. But I think the first thing that we want to make sure, this is what I think has been on the agenda for a couple of meetings, but Josh worked on some language that was from the public outreach meetings that there is an introduction to each of the chapters. So I wanted to kind of run through that just so you could see what it is, get an idea of the flavor of it. And I think this is where you're going to see the town plan be most different from the 2016 town plan. Because the previous one, 2016, was based on the heart and soul process. And it was a lot of the bringing the city, well, village at the time and the town together. This is just us, just the town. You want to make Josh dance on this one? Yeah, if he's up for that. I can dance a little bit. Let me put the tap shoes on. Sort of following up with something I believe, I want to say Patty had asked a couple of meetings ago, the point in these introductions for you have in front of you, both the introduction overall to the overall town plan and the chapter introductions, was to be more lay person and user friendly and showcase the themes that we've gotten from our public outreach forums in January and February and tie those two things together. So it would be very clear to any lay person. They heard us and they're telling us how that can fit into the town plan. Because the town plan, of course, has any number of statutory requirements. But this, as Catherine said, gives you the flavor of how we're meeting both those goals. Saying in this chapter, you will read this. And here's how it ties into what we mentioned in the introduction. It's very tell them what you're going to tell them, tell them what you told them. I think I hope when you read it, it was pretty self-explanatory because that if it wasn't, then I didn't do a good job. But that was the idea. I was comfortable with what was there. And then what's being done then is innerer finding this language in the rest of the town plan where the heart and soul was scattered throughout. So this is putting this language in. There were some word clouds that we came up with in doing some sorting through the data. And Cigarillo actually back there was a big part in helping with that. So my thought was to put that in there. That is not our hard data, but it's a good representation of some of the things we heard. So making sure it's clear that these terms are not our go-to terms, but they're themes. How plain is vision? Right. I was going to say the focus of tonight, I think more than anything in looking at it, since as Catherine said, we'll have time to go over the whole document in summary. Tonight is just do you like the sort of the rhetorical direction we went with the overall introduction and the introduction of the town chapters? And are you comfortable with that sort of language as Catherine said being dispersed throughout? Because it is a change from what 2016 looked like in terms of the rhetorical approach. I think I said it before. I didn't like that from a lay reader's perspective at all. It was looking back at it. Even putting aside the heart and soul and which jurisdictions were being emphasized, I didn't like how it read to someone off the street. So that's the big change. And I just wanted to make sure everyone was okay with that. I don't want to say a chattier style, but a more personable style than an official style, if that makes sense. Just wanted to make sure everyone, tonight my goal was, are you okay with that? So in terms of the introductions and the summaries they provide for each chapter, I really appreciated that. And I think that it is useful for general public and more interested parties, for that matter, to at least have a good idea of like, this is what I'm going to find in this chapter. It's more efficient. When you talk about specific language, are you referring to the bolded language in the summaries? You're saying like heart and soul, that's kind of a rhetorical approach from the past. But are you talking about where it says more cohesive, better connected, that a community that is connected, diverse, sustainable, and a joy to live in, is that the language changes that you're referring to that's being sprinkled in? The whole thing is new. The whole introduction is new of each chapter. So those are highlighting some of the bigger themes that we've heard. But it's a whole rewrite of that. Right, so that's the bolded, you're right though Daniel, the bolded elements are sort of the, you're going to hear this one again, kind of stuff. And so the overall introduction sets the tone from both what our working group did and what we had from community inputs. But you hear that again and again throughout the document. So it's like, oh, remember when we said we wanted a walkable community back in the introduction? Well, in this chapter, which pertains to land use, you're going to hear that again, and we're going to give you some regulatory suggestions as part of the vision. You're just getting a book? Okay. Yeah, so that's that. Yeah. Thank you for that added clarification. I appreciate that. Those are my size PC number. And I imagine these summaries will be revised in the final draft to match any subsequent changes that are made. Oh, sure. Yeah. And just to note, this is just some of the work that's being done on the town plan. We have boards and committees, departments, community development staff, spending a lot of time and working on more of the, probably the technical nature of the chapter. So you'll see like all the census data has been updated, which is a side note. I just want to let you know that I'm really hopeful of the next round that there's any census data that they separate the village out. So fortunately, they do provide just village numbers. And so I can separate out, but we're our own. This is how many we need to have our own census data. So just as a side note. So I just want you to, everyone to be aware that there's a lot that's been going into this behind the scenes. And it hasn't, it's been at your table some, but not as much yet. We'll start seeing this more. It would be maybe even on application night. Maybe it's time to have a standing item on the agenda. That if we don't have time, we don't have time. But if standing item to just at least give a quick update, just like it is, town plan discussion. So that we, if we have an opportunity, a light night, we can just work on it. Yeah. Might I suggest, like, I really like that to give, you know, special attention to this and have it be an agenda item. But I was, I also think like focusing on specific sections where action items are located would be ideal. Just, you know, there's context in history and that stuff can be verified outside of, you know, meetings such as this. But when it comes to like, here's what we actually hope to do and when we hope to do it. Oh, that's a great point. More in-depth. Yeah. And I think as, you know, the Public Works Department can say, oh, we, well, no, fire maybe is a better example. Like we, we need a new fire station and we need a new truck. And so it's not really up for us to say, like, no, you don't. But there are plenty of other spots in here that are more subjective. You know, when we're talking about future land use or we're talking about what might go in the regulations. So we're, we're still looking at our first meeting of the month before application, second meeting for planning. Right. So, I mean, what I'd like to see is even on the first meeting, our application night have an even an update. And maybe it's, maybe it's a preparation that the next meeting we're going to be doing chapters three and four and five or whatever. So it's a staging thing. But every meeting we have a little bit of this and have a lot more specificity in the, in the planning, in the planning meeting. If we have, in this will allow us if we have a night that we don't have many applications, we have, we have a placeholder to work more on this. So. Sounds great to me. Patty, your hand is up. Is it still up or is it new? Is it new? I just have one little quick thing that I wanted to add to Josh because I got to get off in a minute when you guys were talking about the town plan. I didn't get to read the whole thing, but I wondered if, if you guys would think of a mission statement like, okay, clean air, clean water. We want to be sustainable. We want walkable. We want connected like that, that, that poster that you said, Catherine, about, you know, the words everybody threw out during the, the input sessions. If I have, by making our mission statement first, what our objective is for the whole town, walkable, connected, clean air, clean water, sustainable, something like that, then it'll be easier when you go through every single district. As long as it goes back to that mission statement, you can't go wrong. That's my two cents. And maybe we'll even get a label or a logo out of it. Wouldn't that be cool? Anyway, I just thought I'd throw it out. Thanks. Thank you, Patty. Yes, Ken. Two things. What is the coloring in the, Ken Saginawala? What is the coloring in the document that's attached? Like the yellow highlighting? What does that does in the green? What does that does? Yeah, it varies in what it is. So things are in the, in different flux. So in some cases it says this is, this is language that's good. This is needs to be updated. So it really, it really varies. And sometimes there's a comment off the side. That I understood. I could see that was clear. And the straight throes are straightforward. I just couldn't understand the yellow and the green. Yeah, it varies. Maybe a little legend at the top might be helpful. Are you talking about like, say, for example, in chapter one, section two, economic development is highlighted in yellow? In yellow, what does it do? Whereas the following is not. Section is highlighted in green. Then that's right. And then there's a lot that isn't. So I just think, what's the difference? Yeah, so in the case of economic development, there's some of that that is already been updated. Some that hasn't. And so the part that hasn't is what is highlighted in yellow. Hasn't. Also, here's a green. I don't know if it's yellow on my screen. But if you select an area of text and then make your comment, that's what the highlighted points to. That's not the part I'm talking about. There's a comment highlights, but then there's. That's different. Comment highlights are quite obvious. Yeah. So it is a lot more of my internal record keeping, but you're right. It would be helpful to be. I see a yellow section with strike through. So obviously that's been edited. Well, so. This is a living document. It is. It is. And it's your document right now that you're working. Okay. So for future it may be handed just so that a reader could look at it and understand what's going on. Now I'm going to speak to you as the chairman of the Conservation and Trails Committee. I really appreciate most of the action items that we spent quite a bit of time working on are included word for word. I appreciate that very much. Just want to remind you that when we submitted it, it was a draft. We're going to have one more meeting to approve it. I know there's at least one item that we heard at the select board goals, budget goals that we're probably going to try to sneak in. So just be aware that there might be one more tweet coming. There'll be very minimal, I promise. Now I'm going to speak to you as a member of the Economic Development Commission. Send them a memo asking them for input. I've gone to many of their meetings. I'm now on the commission, never on the agenda. And there's a whole section in the town plan about economic development. I don't think you've gotten any input from that commission at all yet. I have not. And maybe if you ask, you might. We have. We have. Again. Well, there's a new leadership. So give it another shot. I would encourage you. Thank you. I appreciate any way we can get the information. I will plug it. I promise. Before you get the way, Ken, it is appreciated the effort that you've done working with Josh on the overall town plan stuff and helping bring the conservation elms in. This has been a big push from the commission, try to get involvement at the beginning instead of at the end. And it is noticeable and it is appreciated. Thank you. Commissioners, any questions before I'll go back? Oh, I just wanted to point out one thing. There's another group that's been working. It's the Act 171 group. And that's about protecting forest blocks and habitat connectors. And Shu is the one who's been heading up that one. And so we're coming close to being able to insert language into the town plan, but we have a map that's been made up. That'd be really good because that's been an ongoing concern and an issue. And we've tried to champion the habitat connectivity. On many applications. So it'd be good to have that included. Yep. And I should say Ken has been a part of that group as well. Again? Yeah. So we just had the conservation and trials committee stepped up to try to get some input on the Act 171 issue. That's the forest blocks and wildlife habitat maintenance. And so we had a hearing and there's a report. It's in the minutes. A lot of the notes were taken. And not very many people from the public were there. Shu was supposed to be there, but wasn't. It's recorded, obviously. You can see it. But Betsy made a nice presentation. She spent a lot of time with the individual from the state. What's his name? Ken Silke. Thank you. And so I think we did a good job collecting the requirements and got some input. And yeah, there should be something coming, I hope. Pat is working on this. Excellent. Great. Pat is our, Pat Mon is the intern that, from UVM that worked with me this spring. And I think Jen's, Jen's. Jen's. Had been a presentation a few years ago for us. And it was really informative. Yeah. I mean, it was really informative. Commissioners, any questions, comments at this point? Let's, I mean, this is on the, the town plan, the process, the, the ideas, the, the approach. How, how was everybody feeling at this with this? Daniel. My only comments, if, you know, conversation is primarily restricted to the summaries, I really appreciate them and think that they're coming along. And I think that Josh has been able to achieve his goal of making it accessible to a much larger audience by keeping the language, you know, really clean and simple. And so there's that. I am also glad to hear we're going to be addressing specific action items along the way. Being someone that's on the energy committee, there are certain sections that I want to speak to it in that area as well. So that's it for me. Josh, do you feel good with what you've written? I once again agree with myself. Thank you. That's, that's, that's a way that's twice in one night. John. I personally just want to say, you know, definitely awesome work. Clearly a lot of time was put into this. I will say there's just one thing that I was, maybe it's just me, but I was a little bit confused by the wording of what, what you will see. Just me, when Josh, when you first told us beginning of this meeting, your, what your attempt was to like explain to people what the, what the chapter is going to do. And then you, then you tell them that and then you conclude with what you told them. That makes total sense to me. I first read that, that and what you will see. I just, I don't know if maybe the, the word see, maybe what you will read or I don't know. I don't know if it's really a problem. It's just something that stood out that I was a little bit confused on when I first read it. But after, through several of the introductions, I got it. I'm like, yeah, but okay, that's, that was the intent. So that's. The reason I went with the back. Okay. The reason I went with C is because there's also going to be like, like things like word clouds and graphics and, and such. So I went with C as opposed to just read, but I'm not, I'm not too hung up on it. If read is a, if you think read lands better. It was just one thing that tripped me up. So I just thought I'd mention it in case. Totally fair. That's a little thought. Yeah. Five. Maybe. Wait, wait, wait. Comment from Paula to use find. I like find. Okay. Georgia. No, I really liked how the introduction, I went to as a just member of the public to one of the town plan meetings. And I liked the way the introduction kind of encapsulates what people spoke of and you kept seeing them come up throughout, which I really appreciated the way it was organized and together. And yeah, I'm wondering, this is a weird question, but all the maps are all the maps going to have to be redone. Yeah. That's going to be a big project. Fortunately, we have an in-house GIS person, Janet Munderville, and she's working. Yeah. So one of my requests for her, well, obviously taking the village out of the map, but expanding past our borders a little bit. So seeing maybe where some roads go. That'd be great. When we're talking about our forest blocks, they extend outside of the town. So somehow being able to represent that. So we're seeing that we're, you know, we're part of a larger. That's a good idea. I mean, it doesn't stop it. It doesn't stop at the town line. So it's good to know. We have that same, I mean, the same question comes up when you're looking at a property. You know, we get an application and they show us a map and they only show us the property. Yeah. And we never see what's on that other side. That's a, that's a great idea. Trevor. Um, I think it's a really good document. I was impressed with the detail. And it was one thing that sticks out because it affected me. It affects me. I live on the corner. Well, I won't say where, but I live on a dirt road. And I noticed that it was in the plan that, that there's been the recognition that there's some dirt roads. I probably use more than a dirt road is intended to be used. And I just thought that was really, you know, really good level of detail to get down to that level. And I was, I really liked that. So that sounds like content and everything we're going well. Is everybody feeling comfortable, including Catherine and Kent? Are you guys feeling comfortable with the pace, with the approach? It's happening right now. Are we, are we looking at any time, time constraints or any time targets? Yeah, we are. Um, I think we talked about this a few meetings ago, but the public hearing ideally should be held in November for this. And I was suggesting November 16th, maybe, which would be an extra meeting in November. You're, you have one meeting in November because of the Thanksgiving holiday that would just be sliding an extra meeting in there. Just to give us a little more time to talk about it. So what needs to happen by October, that's 30 days before that meeting, um, statutory requirements require it to be sent out to a budding town. I don't think we have to warn it in the newspaper at that point. It could be, but, but anyway, so essentially we have to have our draft ready in the middle of October. Okay. So do you feel we're on track to make that? We are. And I think, I think we need to, um, you know, make sure, like you said, it's a standing agenda item. We make sure we're touching on the important things. I think like the action items and So knowing that we don't have that many more meetings in this, I'd actually maybe I'd like to go turn to the commission and see can we, would you feel comfortable in actually dedicating time, not just as a, as an ad hoc in each meeting, but actually to do some of the action items, some of the detail work at each meeting so that we potentially can be ready for October, because we're only talking to three meetings. Right. You know, and also too, if there are a couple or three of you that would want to take us, you know, help work with staff on like the action items, or you know, Daniel, I don't know if that's something that you might be interested in. Yeah, no. I know I'm already helping in some regards with the energy related sections, along with Will Dodge and Tom Yando. But I'd be happy to, you know, talk with you further about looking at other sections as well. I do, however, appreciate the suggestion to have some time committed to, like at least reviewing those and going over, you know, the action items in each chapter in the, in meetings before October, you know. Looking forward to use, do you know of the application load that we have coming at us? Is it heavy? Is it light? Is it? It all sort of depends, doesn't it, Kat? It's seeming rather light, I think, becoming rather slowly. So then let's, with that idea, let's, let's, let's start dedicating time every meeting to Town Plan Heavy Lift. Sounds good. Is that everybody in agreement on that? Is that reasonable, Josh? Is that reasonable, do you? Okay. I was muted, but yes. Our next meeting, we have, I think, one pretty small application and one that's hard to say, right, the final page coming back. So that's in your, um, September 14th. So I think, I think there'll be time to dedicate. We'll make sure. I think it's, because at this point, that's, that's got to be a priority. For sure. And October isn't that far away. Right. And I want to make sure you have the time to do it without being, and we have the time to look at it. And the other commission committees and so forth have the time to complete their portions of it. So Ken, that's you, at least for three of them, you're on the book. And let's, let's see if we can really push this along so that we can hit those targets. And just, just move it through. Sounds good to me. Anything, um, anything else on town plan? I just asked something really quick. Absolutely. There was an action item around the pedestrian bike plan that we had done, I think with the junction a while ago, one of the action items was sort of redo that just for the town. Who's perv you does that fall under? That'd be correct. Because we don't have like a bicycle pedestrian commission. We hit trails. There is, there are action items committed to that. I was reading, it's in chapter one. I'm trying to remember specifically where it was located. It might be, it could be under the public works section or could be under noted where it was just transportation. Yeah, I think that the way I'm kind of envisioning that to happen is that the CCRPC will be able to work with us to update. I think in the next year is the time frame to really get together what the scope of that work is going to be. And then it's looking like they're going to have time to work on it in 25. I'm sorry, CCRPC? The, the Chimney County Regional Planning Commission. It seems like they'll be able to work with us on that. And perhaps also at the same time, help us to actually develop a transportation plan that that bike ped part would be a component of. We could also then have other pieces could be in there too. Like there could be a rails related plan could be in there. There could be an ADA related plan that could. Georgia, was this, where was your question? Where was this living going to live in the town plan update? Yes. So how does that work? That was my, yeah. I was just calling for it as like an action item to follow that would happen after the town plan is, is done. Is kind of how I was pretty sure. So if it's not called out enough in a chapter that we should, you know, here's, here's our, you know, this plan is outdated. And so to Josh's point earlier, the more cohesive, better connected is reference in multiple places. There's no reason this couldn't be referenced in multiple sections. Yeah. It might have been, which is why it stuck in my mind. I was honestly just even wondering how that, who writes that plan and how that works. But it sounds like then in question, regional planning. Yeah. I'm thinking that they're going to be able to provide a lot of assistance. And then I don't know if it would be a separate consultant, maybe would help write it to, or how much capacity they really have in-house to it and how much we'll have work on it. Your question, Georgia, specifically was about the trails. It was, it was about the pedestrian bike plan. Oh, pedestrian bike. Which I was assuming meant it was going to be done sometime in the future. The plan was to do it. And I just, it just, I'm curious what that happened. There's currently a rather outdated bicycle and pedestrian plan. That's a joint village of Essex Junction in town. Correct. Essex. So we'll be splitting it up into our own town. And update. And updated quite a bit. It's pretty old. It actually does look like on line 229 in chapter one. That action was stricken. It looks like it, it's been. So there's one in line 419. Okay. It's further down. Yeah. Move around. Now there it is. Action 3.7. That wasn't really a town plan related question. It was more of me just being curious. That plan. It's all town plan related questions. I think it's really helpful to have it in the town plan because then that gives it a lot of extra weight going forward. And if we do look for any kind of grant funding assistance, if it's in the town plan, then that gives it another check box. Sure. We can do it. And again, the town plan is our vision statement. It is our visioning statement. Is it an enabler for all the regulation changes and a lot of the work that does, you know, public works and everybody else. This is, this is sets the groundwork. So throw everything into it. Okay. Other thoughts, questions? Town plan related. The next item that we get a hit is the minutes from August 10th. Like a motion to accept the minutes from August 10th. I'll make a motion that we prove except minutes from August 10th. I'll second that. Oh, by Georgia seconded by John. Does anyone want to offer changes to the minutes as written? Hearing none. All those in favor of the minutes as written? Signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries 6-0. Next item, last item is other business. Do we have any additional business, Catherine or Kent that you need to put in front of us? And tonight. With that, I would take a motion to adjourn. Will we adjourn? Second. By John, seconded by Trevor. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? We are motion carries 6-0. We are adjourned at 8-0-2.