 It's okay we give you we give you a good lead in right behind me I don't know they still made fresco we maybe only sell it here it's the only place welcome everyone to the town of Essex Planning Commission this is March 28th 2024 call into order at 1802 are there any changes to the agenda or additions or changes that staff would like to call out there are none it's moving on to ask the Planning Commission for a motion to approve the agenda as it moves second moved by shoe seconded by Paula all those in favor hi hi motion carries we at six six zero okay so folks the next thing on our agenda for tonight is we have to elect a clerk so Catherine normally turn this over to you to manage election of officers and I think I should still stick with that so I'd like to transition this process process over to you so with the resignation of John Mangan there's a vacancy for a clerk and so I'll take some take a nomination I nominate Georgia I second that we have a first and a second all in favor hi hi looks like everyone oh no that would you like to abstain okay so motion passes five zero one okay thank you thank you so Josh you and I want to take a night off George is in charge George is in charge sounds good to me next item on our agenda is public to be heard and is that opportunity it is an opportunity for anyone in the public to present comments to us for items that are not on the agenda there anyone like to provide commentary to us can't can we you running that from up here can we clear that yeah well you're up Kent could you turn on that okay I'm not seeing any not saying any hands are raised online and oh you are going to be able to participate in the planning discussions a B&C sure sure sounds good I would say as a ZBA member we welcome your participation in particular with number two yeah B&C yes yeah otherwise I'd say something for public to be heard but yeah mainly didn't he be able to sit here we've had that discussion and we'll get to it when we get to it oh okay so next on our agenda since there's no hands raised this is a slightly different format we are looking for a presentation from and discussion with the Economic Development Commission regarding zoning changes related to child care can that's you oh Kent okay also Rebecca Robinson who's the chair is online okay so please who's who wants to start start us off and I'm gonna kick us off and then we can go through the discussion okay hi I'm Ken Signorello I'm a member of the Economic Development Commission this is a resolution from the EDC to you so I'm gonna just briefly explain to you how it came to happen and then let Rebecca take over and explain some of the details but the Economic Development Commission meets with businesses every month we've met with six I believe it is now this fiscal year and one of them businesses that we met with is growing with wonder which is I think right in your neighborhood dusty if I'm not mistaken child care business a child care facility and one of things we always ask businesses when we meet with them is what can the town do to help make businesses like yours or yours particularly more easier to operate and one of the things we learned that growing with wonder was that while it might be helpful if child care facilities like hers could be located in residential areas so what I did at that point was looked at their zoning regulations a bit found the few ambiguities in the cross chart that shows the different uses and where they're allowed and met with Catherine and she agreed there were a few issues that could possibly cleaned up contacted a few other folks Ray Garrafano for example who was on the EDC before and had a lot of interest in child care located in the town and you'll find the memo from her actually in your package you couldn't attend to me and we came up with this resolution the I wrote it primarily I had the members of the committee Commission go over it we approved it together and everybody signed it and have submitted it to you so I think at this point I was able to take leave and let my chairperson Rebecca Robinson take over the presentation thanks Ken there's a few insights that we've been digging into when we've talked about economic development in the community and how we can support a few of the insights that have been brought to us is that 3 out of 5 of Vermont's youngest don't have access to child care needs over 195 million is lost annually with earnings productivity and revenue and over 1400 additional childcare slots are needed in Chittenden County alone to support the gap that we have in our area and I think that we've been talking a lot about is an EDC of when we think about bringing people into our community what are some of the basic needs that are needed to be met and one of them is childcare so what we have in the resolution that we're asking for is really two areas one is to correct some of the definitions to align with the state definitions so you'll see them listed out on exactly what the definitions are that we're asking for them to be adjusted to and then there's also some ambiguity in adult versus child care that changes some of the different zoning practices so we just wanted to help clarify and clear up to make sure that we're meeting the standard state definitions and then secondarily is around permitting child daycare wherever possible with your conditions so residential is one of the pieces for consideration and a lot of this is also if you think about our community in the town of Essex we actually have a lot of our elementary schools middle schools etc within residential areas so for opening up some of the potential abilities for people to have childcare in some of these areas more could help service our community and needs for closing the childcare gap so this is what we wanted to present and then there is a formal letter on representative Ray Garofano wasn't able to make it tonight so she wrote a letter in support of everything that we've laid out and then I did want to open it up for others who are in the room if they wanted to use their voices to be heard so I think Luanne and Don are there as well in the room. I'm in a resident of Essex and I also work at Let's Grow Kids and Ray asked me to come because she knew she wasn't going to be able to make it because of the busy time in the legislature. Excuse me with the passage of Act 76 last year Vermont moved into being a national leader in states who are investing in a strong infrastructure for a child care system. It's just beginning to roll out. Act 76 increases the support for families including an estimate by the Joint Physical Office that most Vermont families with children 0-5 whose parents are in the workforce will by October of 2024 qualify for some childcare assistance from the state of Vermont. Families whose income is up to 575% of the federal poverty level will qualify for some assistance. A smaller increase of families eligible will happen next month on April 7th where families with incomes up to 400% of the federal poverty level will qualify for childcare financial assistance. This is compared to about 175% of the federal poverty level as it was previously so you can see the state is stepping up to really increase the supports for families to pay for childcare. At the same time the state paid reimbursement rate and readiness payments to childcare businesses both family childcare and licensed centers are moving toward the cost of care allowing programs to compensate experience credentials teacher credentialed teachers to stay in the field and the state is investing in increasing capacity by offering expansion grants with technical assistance to qualified childcare business leaders. And another change that is happening on July 1 is that legal residents who are not US citizens or key members of our workforce here in Chittin County will qualify for childcare financial assistance through this new law as well previously non resident non citizens were left out of receiving support. A strong economy and workforce needs housing and childcare that fits the needs of the family. The key to quality childcare is trained experienced teachers partnering with parents within a program with a sustainable business model. We've never had this in Vermont and we are moving closer. In Vermont in Chittin County we do not have enough childcare available for the current workforce. We don't have Essex specific data at Let's Grow Kids but so I was only able to narrow it down to Chittin County but in Chittin County 79.74% of families with children under 5 have all available parents with in the workforce 79% almost 80%. Given the current capacity Chittin County needs 1479 additional infant toddler preschool combined slots to serve the needs of these families. The good news is that with additional financial incentives being offered qualified and skilled childcare business leaders like Dawn are looking to expand existing programs and open open new programs with the new jobs coming into global foundries. Cure Green Mountain our families our community will benefit by removing barriers. Healthcare businesses are good neighbors. I'm happy to answer questions if there are any but I'll turn it over to Dawn. I'll speech on my phone. So hi everybody. My name is Don Irwin and I'm the owner and director of Growing with Wonder which is located in Essex. First I want to thank you for allowing me to speak at this meeting. The fact that we're even engaging in a conversation like this fills my heart with hope. I have been an early educator since 2010 an advocate for the field and Vermont family since 2015 and I've been a small business owner since 2020. Early childhood education has been on the brink of collapse and trying to stop this collapse from happening has been difficult to say the least. One way Vermont has tried to write the ship is with Act 76 which has allowed the state to invest money some much needed funds into the field. Another crucial element for our field is professionalizing the language used to describe ourselves and what we do on a day to day basis. Through my years of experience as a licensed early education early educator I have seen how essential it is to change the vernacular surrounding our profession. People will not take our jobs seriously or recognize us as qualified professionals when terms like daycare and babysitters are associated with our work. I would like to thank the planning commission for their efforts to rectify this issue. Additionally finding a way to create more high quality early childhood education programs is another crucial missing piece of the puzzle. Essex Vermont like many other towns has zoning laws that are designed to maintain the character safety and economic stability of its various districts. They play a crucial role in shaping the town's growth and development. However there is a growing need for early childhood education programs in Essex and across the nation. My school alone has a three year long wait list for infants and toddlers. By the time I will finally be able to take these students they won't need those spots anymore. And my wait list is not unique. Most programs in our area also have extremely long wait lists especially for the infants and toddlers. The lack of accessible and affordable childcare is a significant issue that affects many of the families in our community. Early childhood education programs both in home family childcare and center based programs are not just facilities where children are looked after. They are an integral part of our community that supports working families contribute to early childhood development and has influence on our local economy. We need the ability to open more programs in various parts of our community. Imagine families being able to walk their child to their childcare program because it's located in their neighborhood instead of a business complex. Students and teachers creating essential connections and relationships with community members and local businesses that will help the children connect to their learning through real world experiences. Partnerships between larger corporations and local childcare program. Teachers developing curriculum from a place based framework which supports a student sense of belonging stewardship and a better comprehension of the world around them. This could all be possible if zoning changes allowed programs to open in most if not all zoning districts. Currently Essex zoning laws do not allow for the establishment of childcare programs in all of the districts. This limitation can create barriers to access for families who live or work in areas where such centers are not permitted. It also hinders the growth of new childcare businesses. Before opening my program in Essex I had tried to open my program in Burlington for over a year, but was ultimately unsuccessful due to zoning restrictions and covenant issues, some of which were over a hundred years old. I finally opened my small school of 20 students on July 1st of 2020 in a local business complex in Essex. I would have chosen a different space if I hadn't been facing time restrictions. I have not expanded because I want any other program I open to feel like it's a part of the community and the neighborhood it is in and not just not just placed somewhere because it was the only available building that qualified. There is a proposal to amend the zoning laws to allow early childhood programs in all zoning districts. This amendment would recognize the importance of these facilities in our community and the need for greater accessibility. However, it is also important to note that this change should be implemented with careful consideration. While we aim to increase access for childcare, we must also ensure that the character and integrity of each district is maintained. For example, in residential districts, early childhood education programs should blend in with the neighborhood. Perhaps by occupying or repurposing existing buildings or unoccupied homes. In commercial districts, this could be integrated into multi-use buildings or created inside of a larger corporation's already existing locations. Amending the zoning laws in Essex to allow early childhood education programs both in home and center-based in all zoning districts could greatly benefit our community. It would support working families, promote early childhood development and stimulate local economic growth. Anything that we can do to expand access to affordable, high quality early childhood education for Essex families that also encourages entrepreneurs like myself to open or expand their small businesses and employ Essex based educators the better. Thank you so much for your time. Thank you. I can answer any questions too if you guys have any. Tell you what? Why don't all three of you come up to that table? Yubi, why don't you come up and take the corner here please? If you're going to, if you're going to, you're not going to ask questions? Because I'd like to have, I'd like just to have it be an area where we can just ask some questions and compose. So, commissioners, questions? I have a question. Just, I just would like it clarified. So, there's, there's essentially two types of care centers. It's, that's, it's the family child care home and the center based child care preschool program. Okay. And the family child care home, is that something that the state recognizes? It is. It seems like a mouthful to me. Yeah, so the state of Vermont regulates child care and there are three ways that programs are regulated. There are registered family homes. Those are women in their homes, bringing in a small number of children to care for in their homes. Those are overseen by the state. Then there are licensed family homes where they are an actual licensed program similar to a center but still in a home with a few more children. And there, then there are licensed centers that are the larger where someone doesn't live in the building and it's a more like a school. I see. What's unique about my experience is before I started working in Essex, I started my career at a school called Stepping Stones, which is based in Burlington. And it's located in a house in the Five Sisters neighborhood. And it was incredible because basically it was the neighborhood child care center. So all the families would walk to school with their students every day. They'd walk to pick them up. We could walk to the library. We could walk to the park. And it was, it felt like a home. It looked like a home. It just was a part of the neighborhood. And the kids felt so much ownership over that space and that neighborhood and that place. It really did add a lot of value to the learning that we, they were engaged in every day. How big was that center? About the size of mine. So they had 20 kids a day just like I do. And they also had five teachers in the classroom with the kids just like I do. So I kind of took all of my favorite pieces of the schools I worked at before and created my little space. So Were you at teaching at Williston and Richardson? I was, yes. My daughters went there. Yeah. Josh, we don't see you right now. Do you have any comments? Comments are I really like this proposal. As long time viewers of the planning commission know I have three quarters of a commissioner running around behind me at any moment. So I'm very, very sensitive to the issue and very appreciative of this proposal. So thank you for coming to us tonight. Okay. I'm gonna I'm gonna jump in feet first splash and let's let's let's get the painful trip the bandaid off. I'm, I'm, I've got red flags going up when they when when we talk about doing this in all zoning districts and red flags when we talk about doing it in residential districts. Specifically, if we just blanket, say, residential districts, the area behind your place would not in any way support the traffic required to support any additional any any any business oriented childcare area because there's there's no there's no circulate it's one way in and out. Anybody who's used to traveling on Route 15 as we've had a number of people in the public comment to us, entrance and egress from sunset is extremely painful twice a day for the people going and coming from work. So that's just it's an example. The facility looks great. There's no no no challenges with that where it is because you're not in the residential area. And I'm not picking on your facility, but I'm just you as an example of if we said anywhere in the residential area, I can see tremendous challenges in the older areas of Essex that don't have the wide roads that don't have good sidewalks that don't have circulation that aren't built for the increased circulation of the increased traffic coming and going. So I think a blanket statement of any residential is troublesome. Can I address that? Let me let me just don't don't lose the thought because I'll I'll release it in a sec. I try to remember. I understand like the concept of being implied in Burlington of a walking of the neighborhood site because we walk back and forth and you can still see the neighborhood stores in Burlington, right? There you don't have vehicular traffic. So you don't have that's not the same set of circumstances criteria. So I'm worried about embracing and residential all all areas of the all zoning districts blanketly. We can find a way to put criteria around that so that if in a residential area where these conditions exist, I might be more open in my mind to to looking at it. But again, a blanket statement of all residential. I've got warning flags. I've seen a lot of conflict with traffic. We've seen a lot of developments come through where the neighbors are very concerned about having a second exit in their area because of the increased traffic of just normal residential traffic. There's two primary developments in the communities are joined to communities where that came into play. Not that far along not that long ago. So I to me this is a this is a real it's a no way am I am I questioning the goal, right? The goal is clear. There's there's absolutely no no question about about the need. But I think we have to be careful about letting a need drive blanket decisions without the right safety protocols in place to make sure that we're not doing something that's a knee jerk reaction that's going to come back and bite us because I would hate to create a situation where you know children are if we put a child care area as a as a as a co habiter with an industrial area and all of a sudden we have truck traffic coming through and we have tricycle traffic and truck traffic. They don't go together. Again, I know these are just it's exorbitant exorbitant way out examples. But those are the sorts of thing. When I look at this and the uses in the areas, I'm not looking at just the need. I'm also looking at the potential conflicts of those uses coming into coming into into conflict uses coming into conflict. Okay, Ken, I'm going to release this. So help me out. So remember, we've asked you to put in two different definitions. One is the home care. How many of those limited to family child care homes can take up to 10 10 children. The amount of traffic that that's going to generate is going to be very limited, especially if they're serving their neighborhood where people will be walking to the daycare center. And that's one of the whole intents of having that ability. It actually would reduce traffic, not only for those folks that could walk their kids to school, but they won't now have to drive some other place bring their kids. So net overall traffic townwide would actually be reduced by allowing small residential child care centers, not centers per se, but the home the home style in residential areas. In terms of safety, one of the things that I think is lovely about this when we put it in the whereas in the one of the whereas is in the resolution is that, let's say in an industrial zone, you might say, whoa, we can't put a child care center in an industrial zone, it wouldn't be safe. They wouldn't be able to get a license in that situation, right? It's not going to be an issue from your perspective. They simply would not be allowed to get a license that couldn't operate. So the safety aspect really isn't isn't going to be an issue at all in terms of where it's located because license will prevent that. Can we can we go back to your first point or do you mean let these folks if they want to respond as well and then then yeah, okay, I do want to speak on the safety aspect. There's regulations that were required to follow as the business owners. And one of those things is making sure that there's a safe space for the kids to play outside, safe areas for the kids to walk. Safety is always the first primary concern. So Ken's right, if we were looking at a space where we couldn't provide a safe outdoor space or safe inside space, if it was in some big industrial building, they just wouldn't allow us to. We wouldn't get the license even if it was zoned for it. They just would not allow us to do it. So there's that umbrella layer, which I think is pretty important actually. I also, however, think that if the zoning was allowed and these big corporations like TwinCraft or Global Foundries really wanted to create some kind of space for a child care program for their workers, you know, it would be there. That would be something that they would have to figure out. So it would be on that business to create the safe space, not necessarily the child care business owner that was going to partner with them. So I think the more hands we have trying to solve the problem as creatively as we possibly can, the better it is for Essex families. Now look at the elementary school at Hayawatha, for example. It's in the middle of a residential area. This is a large elementary school. It generates a lot of traffic. I think it does have two ways in and out. You're absolutely right about that. And I think that probably that would be a restriction that you might want to have. You could not have a child daycare facility in a residential area unless a traffic flow would work. But the homestyle, I think that it's not an issue. It's going to serve that neighborhood and actually reduce traffic. So let's talk about that, the neighborhood piece. And anybody else, can you want to jump in? Well, one of the things that I was thinking is that, you know, if we move ahead with this, there's no reason why we couldn't add stipulations that would be required to be met regardless of where it is. So, you know, looking, I mean, you wouldn't want to put a daycare facility of any kind next to a bar. So, I mean, there are just things that this board or whoever ultimately makes the decision. Yeah. The conditions, conditions in the zoning, I get that. But like if we go back to your, you get the whereas and so forth, but your statement number five is in as many districts as possible in conditional in any remaining districts where the only condition might be that only an existing structure can be used. So, I mean, this is where I don't think this goes far enough because I'm just where I'm going to. As far as the neighborhood piece, if we look at Essex Town as an example, I'm challenged to take the idea of the walking neighborhood piece because that's a, that's about a maybe a four-year window. How what's the youngest that you get? Newborn? Six months. Okay. So, we've got a six-year window and then that population has grown out. Most neighborhoods don't have a turnover in overall community population every six years. So, that, that neighborhood walking team that you, that you start with is going to outgrow your facility and then where's the rest of the population going to come from? Now, you may have families that have multiple children. So, you've spread it out a few years, but that's, so I think the idea of having a net loss in traffic is a challenge for me to embrace immediately. Again, I get the concept of limited numbers and I've been, my own son was at a neighborhood child care, home child care, whatever the term is, and I know there are limits. How many, how many kids and age and people and so forth. I get that. Again, it's just conditions on that I think should be in the town, a set of a blanket, a blanket, any residential area, it's residential area when certain conditions apply or need to be applied like, like two exits or two entrances, you know, something like that. All that stuff I think would be wrapped in, not just allowed in any situation. I'm just, again, I'm thinking this out loud and how do we get to the point of embracing greater child care facilities? It would seem to me that if you say a center based child care, that that would have to be more restricted than home child care. That's two definitions. Yeah, that you wouldn't want to, but you know, you wouldn't want to take a residential neighborhood and have someone build a big, relatively big center with a parking lot in the middle of it that you would want it to be at a place where there's other businesses, I guess. And, but yeah, that's kind of my point. To address the reoccurring families, Stepping Stones has been in business for over 25 years. And there are always families that are moving in and out of neighborhoods. So, and there's never been a problem with them being at full capacity. Their wait list has always been one to three years long. So I hear what you're saying about families growing up, but I don't believe it's as much of an issue as it looks like on paper because young families are always coming in and I don't think that that will be as much of an issue as it might seem like it will be. Just from my personal experience. That would be easy enough to understand looking at the duration of home ownership in the town of Essex. Because I think it's a different population than Burlington. So again, it's the concept that you're looking at from Burlington, which has a different population base. Is that the same sort of thing that could be applied? Again, I'm looking at this is how, and again, people have to tell me to shut up at some point. Just really quick, my Patty Davis just had her hand up and then I'd like to go after Patty. Okay, I don't care if you want me to go first. It doesn't matter. I hadn't finished, quit finished yet. Oh, so I'm not quite looking for the for the crowd to tell me that it's more the commissioners tell me to shut up. It's more like how do we need? How do we get there? We want to get if we if we want to say we want to get from point A to if this is point Z or B or C or whatever, what do we need to do to make sure we do it right and not just have a blanket statement of do it everything. So it is your job to write the zoning regulations, I think, right? We have a we have a we have a resolution in front of us from you guys that it's not granular. You have to write the zoning regulations. You can do you can ignore that totally. I mean, just do some we I think we'd be looking at help and not just saying to do it, but but like how do we do it? Yeah. So this is my example to what are what are the other examples? We invite all commissions to help with us all the time. Well, the chairman's right there. Let's keep the discussion going and we'll figure out what the next how do we get from here from move forward with it. I think one thing that might be helpful is to know before you wrote before you write zoning regulations wouldn't you want to know what the state will approve? Like you said, there's certain situations the state wouldn't approve child care in that location. Well, you'd want to know what those situations are before you wrote the zoning regulations so that there's nothing that that fell through the cracks. Well, the other thing is that you can make it a conditional use you can not prohibit a daycare facility in any particular zoned area and then but make approval based on the conditions that need to be met. So conditional use across the board. So so if you look at the our use chart, which I could actually pull up Patty, we'll get to you in a moment. We haven't forgotten. Thank you, Rebecca, for pointing it out. I think Rebecca did want to say something. Yeah, I know both have their hands up. Okay, so if you can see, I know this is has that weird water work there. The daycare facility. And if you look across the board, I should pull up a different version of this doesn't have each one, but it's conditional pretty much already across the board across the board, except for it's not it's permitted in the RPDI and not permitted in the 01C1 or C2 districts. That's about our there are conditional already. So we've got a stepping stone already. So this the enabling language, at least the starting point is there. So and home is not allowed everywhere, but there are some districts where there is not residential uses allowed. So that wouldn't make sense to allow it there, but there I think we could open it up into some districts with we have maybe existing homes or like the nxd district might have residential could be there. And as far as, you know, neighborhoods aging out, I mean, I live in a neighborhood that is sort of in that transition or has been for the last five or six years and but there's also always the possibility that younger parents can drop the kids off at grandma's and grandpa's house in the neighborhood and that, you know, that's, you know, so just because you have young families or not doesn't necessarily limit. Yeah. So a couple of things that come to my mind, one related to what you just said. What we don't want in our town is to encourage unregulated care. And that's that happens when communities don't have enough childcare, people start operating unlicensed unregulated care without any oversight in their homes, in their basements, in their closets. That we don't want. It's not good for the community. Trust me. Don't talk to the licensors. They'll curl your hair. There is such a need for childcare that parents are desperate and unregulated care is a concern. So making this more accessible is, is such a great goal for our community. I also think we have to remember the traffic is there. The 79, 80 percent of our parents with young children are working. They're driving somewhere to drop their kids off. So the traffic's there somewhere. I get your, you know, the one way in that's, that's a specific situation. But parents are driving, you know, in two different directions to drop children off, to drop a second child off and then to go to work in a third direction because the availability and accessibility is not there. The funding is there now. There's support there for parents and for, for business owners. So the more communities can support the better. And to your question about, oh geez, what was your question about? Oh, you wouldn't want a zone where it wouldn't be safe to. So communities across the state and across the country have child care programs of all kinds in various types of neighborhoods. So they fit in various types in a lot of different places. And as Dawn pointed out, the first thing you do as a child care business developer owner, you bring the licensor in and they'll help you figure out. So that one doesn't worry me so much as, and I will also say with all the supports in place, the finances, it is not an easy thing. A thousand people aren't going to try to open child care businesses in our community. So this is not going to, this is not encouraging an onslaught of business. Development, so. Patty Davis. Yes. This is very good discussion. We are a very large neighborhood off of Sandhill Road right across from the RPDI district. There's existing daycares already along. I think it's Alan Martin, the street that goes across from Thomas Drive. And I see long strollers with babies and unfortunately, big trucks going by that we're trying to get off Sandhill Road. We're all still working on that. It has been a bedroom community, this neighborhood along Sandhill, lower Sandhill, especially very large neighborhood for IBMers is a bedroom community. All these homes were built to support these families. And as you said, they aged out and now we have all newborn babies. They're waiting in line to get into that one daycare that's off of Alan Martin. We want a walkable community. And I'll tell you what, the person in the middle, sitting in the middle at the table I see, our daughter, Emily Davis, went to Stepping Stones since age two. We know the owners well. You're right about the neighborhood people walking their kids. It never ages out. I remember the owner from 1994. You probably know who that is. Yes. Yes, I know her well. And we can't say enough good things about it. And I'll tell you what, you open a daycare along Sand Hill Road right across that in a dog place. We have a lot of dogs and a lot of kids and the trucks are going to go. We were there before the trucks. We were there before the industrial. So don't give up. I am on your side. You go, girl. I just wanted to move into what we can practically do for next steps on, if there's certain zoning areas or certain conditions that we want to start to discuss of, do we need to go back and do some additional work to get more detailed? Or is there something that from your perspective, from a planning and zoning that you would have recommendations for if there's somebody specific for us to start to work with offline and bring it back to one of the next meetings? I think that was more of my question than the other piece that I had a question of is pending on certain conditions and then opening up some of the different zoning areas. I mean, as somebody who would potentially want to put in an application to open one of these places, they would technically have to come before the planning and zoning board any way to get approval for their proposal. So I just think that there's a couple areas where as a commission and board from all of you, that there's areas where you could check to make sure too if we did open up some of the different zoning areas to allow for residential, you would still have almost like another double check to make sure that it made sense in that area. So those were just two things that I wanted to just bring up for how we can start to come to what next steps or resolution could be. I think remember too when we're doing it, I mean folks have been involved in regulations for a long time. If it's not in the regulation, we really can't say things like is it a good fit and so forth. We have to outline it. So that's why I'm looking have upfront what that means. You know, I appreciate the clarity on the definitions. You know, that would help get more granularity as one definition could be allowed and be a non conditional use and the other could be a conditional use in certain areas and so forth. And I know the resolution doesn't call it. Your resolution calls out as many districts as possible and conditional in the remaining. So we're essentially halfway there already because it's primarily conditional in most districts now as well. We just have to sort of spell out what the conditions are for different areas. Well, I think that's where I'm stuck with. Some help with that could be. Yeah, could I make a comment? Please, please. So we have a section in the zoning regulation section 4.5 that talks about daycare homes and facilities. So maybe we rename that but there's specific instructions for how to review these already. So a daycare home is and it fits the state definition so it serves up to 10 children and it can be just approved through a zoning permit. A daycare facility, the larger one so that would be over 10 has to go through site plan review from the planning commission already. If it's conditional then it also has to go through conditional use review. And so there are a couple. After January 1st that'll be a one-stop shop. Right, right. Which will be a lot easier. But there's some for the conditional use criteria there's already some additional things that are looked at. So including you can't have on-street parking. Noise is a problem if the noise is a problem needs to comply with state requirements has to have a playground and equipment. And then the planning commission review for site plan has specifics for off-street parking the number of spots that's provided and screening. So I think there could be something that's rejiggered in here and so maybe it's not conditional use or maybe it is. I don't know. You know I think I mean we have something already to work with. So it may not be that far apart from the goal. And if everything is more or less conditional now maybe that's where we could ask for some some more detailed review Kent and Rebecca and team is to see where if we where is it not conditionally allowed at all right now that you might want it to be and where it is conditional is there legitimate reason to keep it conditional or review or as you know let's look at that maybe in that next level of what where we go if we've already got some skeleton or initial review policy and practices how far apart are we maybe that that could be and also to maybe what our regulations say whether or not it's the conditional use or not that have been having to do site plan review is that extra burdensome as well like it like I'd be interested to know how other towns are regulating this maybe there's some good lessons that we can learn from say Williston or Colchester Colchester yeah and maybe Burlington but I know I think yeah it's kind of a different that's a bit of a different yeah it's a different animal I definitely don't look to Burlington for our zoning changes because of that I don't know what might not be a bad idea to have the design review but if it's if it's an if it as you mentioned all of it mentioned if it's reutilizing existing structures existing facilities that is a conditional use then we can move then then we don't have the same need to say to do as a site design review then it's a is it there so you know I don't after this sort of discussion I don't feel that far apart and I don't think that we've it's just we've got a really good starting platform to further modify this and to accommodate more than we maybe do now or maybe we just look at it differently clear so the next steps then it sounds like our we'll need to work back and understand where some of the pieces either are conditional or currently don't have some of the conditional in what those are in what are the current barriers and what would be some of the small tweets that we would need to make to some of the zoning areas and what's currently included in them and then if there are or aren't conditional what are the recommended areas so if it's as simple as using an existing structure in this zoning area and it's based on home care etc those were some of the recommendations that really need to be brought forward in order to have the next level of conversation it sounds like well it would also be helpful for us to have in front of us what the state requires of the different levels I'd be happy to bring you a regulations booklet we can I can email that to you tonight and then what we can do to is just take a quick look at Williston and Colchester issue benchmarks to see how they're performing this and if there's an opportunity to leverage some best practices there if we can especially if we can start with what Catherine's dug out of the existing regulations as a platform what do we need to change there to enable greater use because we've already got enabling language to a point but we don't have these definitions so we don't necessarily accommodate these definitions the same way and it's all conditional right now so is there an opportunity to make something permitted versus conditional and is the areas where we're not currently allowed at all can some of it be conditional you know or permitted this doesn't sound that I mean this sounds very achievable yeah just um I pipe there and I can't seem to find my hand yeah hang on just a second yes just go ahead here in the room for a minute I don't want to stop the zoning conversation but I hear that we're getting to the end of this conversation and I just as a person who's done this work for 50 years in Vermont and know that the people in this work like Don are credentialed professionals and these programs serve the needs of families I really are just to all be in agreement though that the the word daycare that is offensive and archaic disappears from our zoning regulations here in my community where I live that is a term that was developed a long time ago and is not used in any sort of professional professional language it does not describe the work that is done and the care and the early education that is provided our Essex and Vermont family so I just wanted to slip that I know that sort of there's two you got it number five already I just wanted to just make sure that that is every time I hear the word daycare I just might cringe okay uh was it was it Patty that wanted to speak I just wanted to add one comment I know I'm not on the planning commission anymore I've learned a little bit though I suggest the planning commission look at the sister neighborhood because not only because Emily went to Stepping Stones but Stepping Stones is a great example of a walkable community that that our large area of Essex neighborhood along Sandhill we're only one of two big large neighborhoods want that walkable community that Stepping Stones has so we can cross the street and drop our kid off in a stroller if they looked at Stepping Stones and the sister neighborhood just that neighborhood I think they should look at Burlington that's my two cents thanks thank you Ken so I remind you that the resolution has two general distinct sections it's asking you to clean up the existing zoning regulations correcting some of the terminologies like daycare and some definitions that's just correcting what's already in play I don't think that's going to be a major problem it's not changing anything per se it's just making it more specific and accurate and consistent with the state regulations in the second part you're going to be doing a zoning review anyway you just we just passed a new town plan there's going to be a lot of work done on the zoning regulations I would assume is included in them one the other thing I'm going to say is that I don't have any kids so why am I so interested in this I've got ears and I hear constantly people saying we need more daycare it's a child care what's what's what's your child care child care sorry thank you just elbowing just elbowing when he says it so I constantly hear that I heard it from Ray when she was on the EDC I've heard it from Georgia in fact I've heard it over and over and over again so after you're done with the tweaks that need to be done for the corrections I'd like to suggest that the attitude that the planning commission have is what can we do to make this happen as much as possible instead of why can't we do it so instead of being a resistor try to be an enabler that I think would echo well in the community there was a tremendous now at act 76 there's going to be even more call for daycare child care that's it for me commissioners Justin can I pipe in for a second just a moment please okay sorry I agree with Josh what Ken just said yeah this is definitely a huge need I mean this is only addresses one small part of that need but thing we can do I mean I think it definitely looks like the language seems like it would be an incredibly easy lift you just change that language and then yeah I mean the one thing I was wondering about was with the licensing is it every year is there a relicensing or is it a one-time thing you get relicensed so and we're inspected by a licensor every year and we are times a year yeah four times a year they come into programs and there's also I don't want to get too much in the weeds but there's also another program called the stars program which programs if you want access to act one 66 funds it's you know a priority to get as many stars as you can for your program and so that's another level of qualifications oh that's the five star thank you for hearing about it yes yeah the quality rating system for our state because that was my only concern was if you're putting child care in an industrial zone that's being built out and then something comes in next door after it's already open then you know maybe it's a hazard but it sounds like the state would be on top of that that was my only only concern I understand the concern about the traffic but like in the neighborhood I live in there really are that many kids like the idea of walkable yeah but if there's only one entrance and exit I guess there is the length of our neighborhood I guess there is more of a concern there but yeah it's not so much just to be clear it's not too much just concern for the kids it's also concerned with conflicting traffic like for example this evening vehicle coming off from 15 in fast swim wide and I was looking at real real close to the front end of that vehicle as I was leaving to come here and it swooped in anomaly it doesn't happen every day but that's that's the sort of thing when there's when there's a restriction on the traffic which we've had a lot of people talk about traffic on 15 so 15 is an anomaly and I you know you even said that that wouldn't have been your choice yeah if you had others yeah and I think that's just something to keep keep in mind is it is it you know what's the traffic situation and you mentioned it can maybe it's a condition that there has to be you know an entrance in an egress especially for a facility exactly so again I don't think we're that far off from being able to enable more with acknowledging the some of the the overall community safety not just the safety of the kids which there's already lots of restrictions and requirements for that restrictions might not be the right word conditions so let's let's see what that's let's see how far apart we really are with what we've got written now versus what it would take to make it be either either permitted use or what would it take to make conditions be more readily available and that's where I think you guys could help since you've already done that from the EDC on this to see you've already done some of the work as far as identifying what the need is take a swing at it EDC's job is to advise that's what we're doing and we ask for advice out of the time we've asked her from the zoning board we've asked for it from the energy commission we asked for it from EDC so if you feel like taking a swing at it to get a little more a little more in the weeds please do if you don't we'll put it on our list and we don't we don't have I mean it's one group of people as well we have a part time staff personally so we don't really have a lot of bandwidth so let's we won't worry about the how and the what right now the idea is that we need to get more granular as far as what we need and that might be something that we can as part of our zoning agenda we have it we have this now on the list officially on the list so we'll be asking for additional in the state of Vermont we have an organization called first children's finance which is a business technical assistance program for child care businesses and there are people there that do this kind of work with all the towns including the Colchester Williston neighboring ones and I wonder if as you're looking to clarify and things if I could I could connect you with the name of someone there who might be a really great resource if could you pass that on to me happy to perfect perfect Patty did you have something else you want to add Jane that would oh yeah no no thank you I'm looking into Sharon the sister area of Burlington to look we're stepping stones look at stepping stones Sharon did you I'll pass thank you okay okay this is really quick as we're closing up I just want to say thanks to the planning commission and zoning board for hearing us today and having us on your agenda thanks to Ken and the rest of the EDC for bringing this forward and we will then continue this conversation and bring it up again and see where we can get to so thanks for all of your time thank you thank you thank you thank you okay onward to the next item on the agenda which is a DRB discussion we have UV come sit up at the table no he has to stay way back there that there's a chair behind you please come up here and join us you can sit on you can sit there you can sit here wherever you want I should show you one of those nice comfortable chairs well why don't you you can actually drag one over there oh this is fine you're fine to sit over there nope nope no this is fine we can share they say he I feel more important here he can see the screen this way the center of attention okay so what do we got all right so following the select board meeting that I went to I did send out an email just updating everybody about what happened there and just to reiterate everything that you all decided on that you thought was important and the process and was supported by the select board I'd say the only questions were really related around the membership numbers for the boards and which which is good I mean I think that that was it's a good sign that there's support for trying to keep the board members existing board members either on the planning commission or going over to the DRB that was one I think we were concerned about so that that doesn't seem like it's an issue so as far as next steps go I think we need to figure out the number issue and I think you know I've been working on the zoning regulation updates to you know make make those changes in the meantime too just trying to merge the zoning and the subdivision regulations together into one document so so that's in process I'm trying to think of what else we need to to do set dates for the set dates for applications application reviews yep yeah that that was on my list too so as far as like the if there's a development application coming in the door is that what you mean yeah like the last date we'll accept new ones right you know like August or something like that nothing after the second meeting in August yeah well and it probably depends on what kind of application it is as well if it's you know just a maybe a sketch plan for something I think we could see it if it's a site plan chances are that could get in the door in October and fine but if it seems to be a very complicated one that we anticipate will be difficult then you're right we have to make sure that because we don't want it we don't want to we don't want to start it because it's either right anything that hasn't been finaled by December 31st has to restart not final like each each version of this whether it's sketch preliminary or final yes every every stage has to have been completed or it's got to restart after yes on January 1 and it's probably better for applications I think as we were talking to complete through final even this for that continuity of review but that's that would be up to an applicant too I don't think we could say no we can't hear applications but and and sort of to that that vein we're going to start hearing some applications on the second meetings of the month now just in sure we don't get the backlog thoughts questions oh first question I guess is charter been approved I don't think the governor has signed it yet but I think otherwise it is it could be an issue oh yeah you know it's like that it ain't over until somebody sings or whatever you know and uh you know how our legislation can be kind of fickle at times so in the governor whatever but anyway it sounds like it's pretty good but yeah you know that could change things a lot so chickens have not hatched fully yet yeah what's the expression don't count your chickens so we've we've we were suggesting I think we had variability between we had seven talking seven on the planning and either seven or five on the DRB right yeah and then a question of alternates too in the DRB and the the select board I think one member was thinking that maybe seven was too much for the planning commission and it was mostly I think based on filling vacancies well we have a problem filling vacancies I don't think we have had a problem with that particularly on the planning commission I think a larger number is good just to provide a diversity of opinions and background and experience what you have now fine and it looked like Greg was fine with that so I think that's a positive so going to the DRB is there was there I mean we had we had mixed feelings when we when we met when all of us met whether it was seven or five would be the number provided and and I would I mean I'd go so far as to let's flip a coin but then include in it a recommendation or requirement that we revisit the number in six months to a year whatever as the sitting commission and select board felt appropriate right and that that was I think part of the plan anyway I mean they do their exactly other other issues that we cleaned up as well so like like for example the number of meetings right yeah and the the idea of the alternate I think there was some banter around the room with you all on that I don't think this luckboard had as much to say about alternate if we have a if we did have a question I don't know who brought it up but if we have more than a single alternate then it's who gets called who gets you know who who's they have to set a rotation is it first come first I mean I think that's that's more of a challenge and we've been successful with an alternate with a single alternate and I don't think we've ever needed more than one um for quorum purposes for quorum purposes yeah I don't think the zoning boards ever had an alternate designated you can't close last week I like the I like seven if we can do a straw poll I like seven on the DRB is speed at that I'm I'm I'm a seven I mean it's there's there's value in numbers same reason for the planning commission correct yeah the more voices you have I mean the DRB is going to be a little bit different than planning planning is more more um well it's a long way to change but but but planning is more opinion you know so you want to have more you know I think you want to have more as many opinions as you can that's still manageable DRB is going to be more I think you'd be you you mentioned it from a zoning perspective it's either black or white one or zero I mean it's it's it's less ambiguity but the the previous planning functions rolled into the DRB do introduce some interpretive stance I don't I don't believe that's going to disappear so I think now we have a you may not be play as as as cut and dry as far as you judicial see you need to have those opinions so I again that's why I'm I still I like the seven number because it's awkward when we get down to four people and have a meeting and you have to have a unanimous decision now if it was five would it be three be three okay so you wouldn't you wouldn't need it's still still cumbersome yeah can I ask in the past couple of years when there's been an opening has has I've from what I've seen there's always been at least one applicant I don't feel I mean I know there was concern I watched the meeting and there was definitely concerned about getting enough people but I don't think that's a answer I think there's I think there's been openings on the zoning board yeah we've gone times when we've we've been short a member for long periods of time so that that would be one of my concerns with seven and seven I don't disagree with seven and seven seven planning seven DRB but that has been expressed about the the ability to get people to to be on those boards the idea of being able to go six months and revisit that you know I think that's a good idea I do agree with you that it's more appropriate for seven on the on the Planning Commission because as you've already said you know you're seeking opinions there and so on so so the more input you get the better on the DRB you're not you're not seeking opinions you're seeking for people to listen and adjudicate the the evidence that that's being presented so it's a little bit different thought process or whatever so that's that's my thought I I can see a problem with filling both boards you might also say that Planning Board you might ask for someone that wants to be on the Planning Commission what was their motivation for wanting to be on the Planning Commission was it because they really wanted to plan or was it because they wanted to do site plan reviews okay there's those are kind of two two distinctive things Zoning Board you know that's pretty much a one shot kind of deal you're being an adjudicator for whatever comes before the board so a little bit different motivations for so it'll be interesting to see who applies and how the boards get set so it's they're they're going to be slightly different and that's been one of my it's I don't want to say issues or problem or whatever is that one of the things I think about is that when you're when you're blending site plan review and a zoning variance for example you're kind of doing a little kind of two different things in a way okay so because in in it's like in sketch plan for example as a planning commission and as a DRB you would have opportunity for the board members to have some input that's a good idea but I'd like some maple trees rather than helm trees you know when you're in the zoning board we always have to be warning ourselves we are not designers we cannot offer design opinions okay now we may couch some words offer some some discreet not suggestions but thoughts but we have to be very careful about about designing something so I think discussion last week or last or last meeting about not designing yeah so there's that you know so there's so and that's that's why with a DRB my one of my concerns I say concerns that's probably not the right word but is that when the DRB I think operating procedures have to be set to say now we are operating as a in a type of planning commission capacity now we're operating as a zoning in a zoning board capacity so you take you change your hats a little bit okay depending on what aspect you're working on okay now clearly there are elements of the planning process where you are truly adjudicating okay and now you're beyond the suggestion stage so so now the the operations could be similar but you know so it has to be operating procedures has to be careful I think about about how that is set up so but that that's the come I'd also add that I really like what Catherine has done as far as going to the other towns and and you know I'm a firm believer in not reinventing the wheel one of my favorite cartoons is the Larson cartoon of the of the K-band standing in front of his cave and he's whacking on this he's making he's fashioning a wheel out of stone in the horizon he's standing and he's looking and here's a convertible that's just spinning away you know so you know reinventing you know there's a lot of a lot of opportunity of it and it was brought up again about whether you're hearing about the Economic Development Commission you know and what what they have from other communities so I think that's similar and and well anyway I'll also I'll also jump okay because I know this is part C of your your work plan it likewise I think there's opportunities to go to other towns and see some of their what they've done on certain issues in order to you know to work out certain certain zoning issues like you said as far as what they do for date for child cares not day care or preschools you know another term is often used as preschool yeah that can mean something a little bit different a little bit different like the Montessori schools and so on are usually thought of as preschools and and I think some some child cares you know kind of classify themselves as preschools and so on well and yeah the the pre-kindergarten programs that in some places exist are a little more preschool than child care yeah so Catherine what do you feel you need from us and zoning board members to move forward um well I think the settling on the number I think is one I think at some point I'd like to get an idea from all of you right now on both boards what you would like to do for your you know what when January 1st comes where do you want to land and some of that could actually help us a little bit thinking about our numbers too you know if there's some people that are like you know I'm just done you know then well if we want to I mean would folks be interested in going around the room tonight and just giving you a sort of an initial thought process or do you want to hear people I'm ready to hear now I'll jump and say if this comes down to play I'm a process person so I would actually probably lean towards the DRB more than the planning Josh I would definitely want to be planning and while you were talking I was looking up the status of the house bill and it's been sent on to the governor as of Wednesday so it's probably probably a pretty done deal and yeah I'd want to do planning in the January 1st shakedown so far I'm not surprised with the I'm good that's that's how we've that's how we've been sugaring out for the last few years so that's that's not a you know stretch Paula I actually really want to do both shoe you probably won't be surprised but I'm not really sure yet sure well you know I'm on both now but and I don't know what do you think should I do the DRB or I mean I'm a civil engineer and you know I I guess I I understand things about traffic and stuff like that so maybe DRB is better for me although I do like to you know wax philosophical about this isn't this is we're not locking anything in here okay so this is any any comment you make today until somebody draws a line in the sand it's just being taken under advisement at this point I think it's just to sort of sort of seeing where where numbers might might go but I mean I I do both I like both joy I would want to stand the planning because I'm not as impressed what did you say George you're standing planning interesting I don't know can we ask you Hibi you could ask me but I probably say that you know in ultimately it's up to the select board anyway and you don't know who's going to be coming out of the woods you know right there could certainly be some some folks that are just chinking out the bit you know yeah so that the as this flies as I understand it the planning commission doesn't go out of existence so anybody who's currently a planning commission who chooses to is a planning commission until their term expires correct without without anything else the DRB is new so it would require an application process now that I think is something we may potentially could bring up to the select board to find out whether or not you know they would entertain the idea of if the current volunteers who have a term and either the planning or the zoning board want to be in the DRB would they just be willing to transition them or they force a re-application because that that could change that list to be quite frank that that question was not asked I do I do think that it was brought up that one of the things that I want to say it have paused but by we're on a DRB it would be good to have someone from the planning that has previously experienced on a planning commission because as you brought up it's like what was the philosophy behind the way this particular regulation was established you know it's the old Bill Clinton what is the definition of is is okay you know so you need to it's it's good to have that context that that well crossover I guess you could say you know at least initially and you know it's not been unusual when in some cases well not unusual it happens all the time when something comes before a court they're always citing previous decisions okay and and so on and trying to to understand what the what the philosophy was so I think that's a good a good thing to have someone from the planning commission certainly and and serving both board is probably not a bad idea initially I'm not so sure that that should continue I would think that that would be that's like having the the lawmaker now become the adjudicator okay so that that to me would as you go forward you know once you've once you've crossed over the philosophy if you will and have got a better understanding and more experience on the DRB you don't need that double board stuff well but but it's always good to have some conversation between the people who are implementing no question and so to have you know whether whether it's you know just in an advisory role or what is to have some sort of ongoing connection between the two and you know questions may come up where the planning group may input from the DRB in terms of things that may be need to be looked at well oh yeah no i'm not disputing that and it's been talked about that they have periodic meetings between the two boards to exchange ideas and so on but to have someone on both boards and now have their influence from the planning commission be inserted into a decision on the DRB I think that would you'd have to be careful about that when the when the in the current situation when the planning in the development review is done by the same group I don't I don't see that being a conflict so I don't think we're fixing something is broken now because we're not we're not getting inside information it's all part of this it we we judge the applications based on the existing regulations and then we turn around and say we need to fix that and we put that on the list to done to do zoning regulations but we still put it in there have been a number of times or we've had to vote affirmative even though we don't like it because the regulations it meets every single regulation that's there and you can't say no if it's meets every single checks off every single box sometimes you just have to fix it so again this might be one of those things where we have if if the select board would agree that there should be crossover then it could be on a revolving basis it couldn't it might not be the same person it might not be a you're on both boards for a period of time it might be that you take somebody from you switch them over share time or something like I don't know I don't know that it matters too much but you know once a month or something like that somebody should somebody goes back and forth well time and that could be a pretty big time commitment to you know depending on on the activity you have on on the the DRB and in the and the planning commission I think all whatever we put in place whatever we put in place for both commissions I think should have a one-year check-in to determine whether or not are we meeting enough do we have the right do we have enough people we have too many people we have too many people then they just would say at the as as as terms expire we're gonna we're gonna reset to a five-member board or whatever if we don't have enough people then we're gonna expand it to a whatever now can you go up tonight are we meeting enough you know the planning commission needs to meet more now you had mentioned that even even now we could do things on an ad hoc basis but if we're doing an ad hoc basis on regularly might as well make it formal and always cancel a meeting yeah so I don't know I think I think that's good Josh you've been quiet any any comments just a lot of playing truck noise in the background here but so I think generally the seven seven is a good idea and I also like the notion that if we find out that seven is is for some reason too much on presumably the DRB as people retire we could just to select for a good degree to notch it down to six and then to five or what have you but I pretty much agree with what you've been saying I do think we had a request in alternate for the planning commission for the DRB that has proven to be a valuable tool not not reflective of the individual necessarily I don't want to call you a tool but it's been it's been helpful even when we when we first instituted that with John Alden when we had a commissioner who was out of the country for an extended period of time and was planning wanted to come back we were able to use an alternate to fill that fill that time fill that space and if the alternate is available to come to meetings they're stay current with what's going on so they're able to fill in as a voting member easily two people I think would be a stretch you know if we're if we're questioning whether or not we can get seven on a board then I think to get seven plus one plus one I think you know that would be a stretch and an uninformed alternate isn't always and a benefit right but one of the things that Josh brought up is like I would expect that when because the DRB is going to be new appointments that they would be staggered yes you know so that there's almost it's built into there that you could have with attrition if you decided if the select board or whoever decided to reduce one you know that you know last one in first one out kind of thing or whatever so if they were if they would take the existing members and transfer their current terms to the DRB then we'd have staggers see I don't but my suspicion is that it's like a restart complete restart DRB is brand new thing so you'd have to have brand new members you do with brand new terms there could be well it should be staggered still be staggered say you know Dustin you have what three five three I think I have three years left yeah you could make the appointments based on what's what's left what's left that's what I mean it's just is is transition transitioning the remaining term the value would be you maintain the knowledge base that you've got now but you've got the attrition that would either allow you to to re a point a point either reappoint or interview new people when that term expires the same thing that happens now or not or not or not we decided that we're not going to refill this position that would be that would be the potentially the easiest transition beard because we've got a the other concern that that I have and it's been noted I think Ken even mentioned it one of his earlier presentations to us is that the knowledge that people have at the table tables today if that is not carried over then we really are at a full restart on January 1 and I'm thinking more of the DRB than the Planning Commission and that to me would be a a loss and I think this select board got that you know they they didn't have a problem with that idea of the institutional knowledge and making sure that existing members would have to need it sir I think my in my mind that the question is is less the opportunity and more the interview process you know would they because this is this is a unique situation for this community in a unique solution be applied which is it's a new board we've got these existing members we're going to appoint them to the board to the DRB for in their terms will be new but they will be for the remainders of the time that they had so one year two years three whatever well yes and so that that was the question that wasn't asked but the idea the general idea of keeping current members or allowing current members to be on the DRB was supported so how we get there that's another conversation so again talking about the work plan do you have any other questions I mean from that because it seems like a good transition to and you be already crossed the line by mentioning the work plan I didn't it's my fault you just just used that word institutional knowledge it's kind of I like that term in a way but then and the other side it's like what institution did you come from that one over there how did it let you out and where are you going back to corporate knowledge you didn't get let out we're still here yeah so I think I think the work plan in my mind this is what we came up with sort of last year got readjusted earlier this year I think the fact that we're doing this DRB transition applications might be heavy we're doing applications the second meeting and whether or not it's one or more we'll kind of have to see how things go I think the actual planning might not be very heavy this year and we know we have zoning regulation updates so there's maybe a question of and what else could be maybe put in those zoning regulations do we do we see that as as a possible lift or is it just the bare bones you know getting us to the next step well with I'm sorry can I yeah with the number of surveys that have been done about Essex in the past year even that have been online for you know anybody to to take how about taking a look at the results of those or everything oh just taught just as a conversation well some some of it had to do with what Essex what people wanted Essex to look like just trying to remember what the last one was I can't you mean the surveys for the town plan they were like the monkey surveys that are online there's one about town meeting there's one about town meeting is that the one you're thinking about yeah there was yeah there was that but there have been several others in the past not necessarily 2024 it might have been 23 but yeah there's a local object so my thought wasn't so much of what else can we add on we already have a work plan it's like what what do we have the capacity for I was just going to go to that I mean it feels like that we need to do we need to do X to prepare for January 1 can we do X plus 1 that's I think yeah a lot of that's going to be I think on you because you've you've taken on the like the merging the melding of the zoning and subdivisions so that's that that in itself is is a change that we have to get through and approve any of the work plan not work plans the operating procedures that we need to have I mean to Yubi's point they are going to potentially need to be crisp sorry up to you to make that be more appropriate for the DRB activities versus the Planning Commission activities even though we've got it we've got an operating set of operating plans or procedures you can take and work from but it kind of feels like those are things that are going to take a fair amount of work to do well we have the bylaw modernization grant too that is it's going to be coming to you some point soon so we've got some yeah so I mean it's it's if we got started late winter on on zoning big zoning regulation updates you're immediately going to have to shift a group and have you know a change in flow so it's it could be disruptive right may use the planning commission should be I think through the process of the zoning amendments before January 1st whether or not the select board takes it up right away they can sit on it it doesn't work with their budget budget season well I mean if you were doing big zoning yeah do we have time to get big big zoning through and that's that's what I'm just wondering is if if if we have to have a better understanding of the the little zoning required that would that would be required to enable the drb function or support the drb function do you have an idea I mean I know you start looking at it but you guys looked at it yet to see if it's I mean it's really just terminology that needs to be changed it's not doesn't you know I think like in one case it does say something like that like the planning commission or the maybe it's the zoning board doesn't have to review something if the planning commission's already reviewing it so it's you know it's things like that they need to be changed it's not not major rewriting it's just reconfiguration really if we add in some other things though you know say we the economic development mission comes back with their child care changes is that something that could get put it housing act that went into effect last year did that get put in I personally haven't done like a deep dive into that and what what it would require here so that could be a bigger lift so the the the stuff for the care child care I mean that it really seems like that might be not as great a lift as necessarily the the resolution sort of made it seem to be I agree and I think we can we could we could potentially wrap that in and put some site requirements in it to make it you know from from from a town community perspective that would be better yeah I think I think that's doable yeah and I think we probably or I know we have a small list of things that we can you know like kind of a running list of changes that maybe we could put some of those little things and off the top of my head I don't have it but I know like your your fence issue oh yeah that's why that's one of the reason I hear was one of those that this luck board asked the planning commission to to dive into that again or maybe that's that should be a priority all fences um I think that that was part of it yeah the tall fence but there were two different types of fence like one on top of the other oh dear yeah here we go yeah no I think I speak to that that that the the uh should ask me I guess yeah of course I have some very personal experience with with this fence issue and I could give you some examples of fences that people could build that would be completely within the regulations you would think would be terribly abhorrent okay the regulation that we currently have is very very loose very wide open I'd suggest that you look at the regulations for Williston and South Burlington those are two pretty good examples I've looked at those you know they get a little deep but then the more you think about it the more that it's important that these aspects of fences need to be covered and it talks about where when you go from getting a a straight approval without having to go before for building permit or anything to now when you have to go before a DRB for example in order to get approval so there's some very definitive limits where yeah today the regulation in s6 is pretty wide open pretty wide open so I like to say I think they're again reinventing the wheel not need to Williston South Burlington have some good examples don't look at Burlington talk about bureaucracy at its extreme wow you know there's and good reasons okay there are some good reasons because they got a lot of different situations but yeah ours is a little too loose if we've got low hanging I mean essentially low hanging fruit I think it's going to have to be maybe maybe from your perspective staff perspective to take a look at something and if it's got andrels that go out everywhere do we have enough time to chase them doll down right you know like for example reevaluating all of the uses in the RPDI that's too big I think that's too big and I think we've already decided that it's not just the uses that need to be talked about there are other issues that should be a big package do you know if there are any statistics on how many child care facilities are generally needed according to population I think that was provided to us and them I didn't that didn't stand out to me but let's row kids yeah whoa I don't know if I top of my head I'm sorry but but I'm that that information is there we could see if we could pull that out we don't we don't have enough is the one yeah so there must be there must be some figures out there saying this is this is enough there's carrots and grass yeah because that would be a good place to start well let's see what no I mean on that particular subject I mean yeah not necessarily the grand start but if even if we didn't change the any of the uses from conditional you know we left them all as conditional but we could put more criteria in to make the conditions you know more clear clarify when the conditions can be met so that it's it gets again gets back to the you know or one or zero sort of response right or if it goes to permitted that still needs site plan review then you can put those there and again we to clarify not reinvent the wheel clarify what local jurisdiction we would have versus state requirements so you know we if we have something that's in complete contrast with the state requirement we're going to lose or it's already taken care of by the state and we don't need to look at it right so do you need there are questions on this or are you just just this this more or less the projection at this stage it seems like we're on the same page I think I I felt that this was a good good approach and I felt that this was I mean at this stage any plan is going to verify very very over time and you're going to have to adjust based on what we learn as we go forward right and what else what other issues might just pop up Hubey anything just just two other comments one would be that in the in the reassessment or if you will doing the combination work that you mean there was it was brought up earlier where for certain conditional uses there these go be the site for before the planning commission for site view and then come to the zoning where you know those kinds of things that are going to clearly be absorbed into one action so to speak any opportunity in that culling out or cleaning up whatever that you can make these things approved by the zoning administrator and not have to go before any board would be certainly the best route okay it seems as though we've had times when we've had things come before a board which is a very trivial that it's like why are we all here you know and so on the other thing is another area that I think needs some work is a whole B and B thing you know how you know what the the regulation needs to be built is not there's not really anything there at the moment that that that so that's needs to be included in the in the ordinance work now is that just fall into the general short-term rental concept or is it well or is it I guess that's what needs to be clarified you know you know what is the short-term rental and how you know I don't I'm not sure that that that the definitions go deep enough and so on and so anyway okay those are my last um Patty has her hand up okay a moment um we have two zoning board representatives at the table so can you guys also bring that have this conversation there and bring back any thoughts comments so this becomes a joint task force yes thank you okay patty did you have a comment yeah I I got off and then I happened to get back on so I missed a whole chunk of this but um I my question is who's the person that's sitting at the table that's on the ZBA Hubey Hubey what's his name oh well oh sorry here let me hold on well I just want to say that Hubey that you sound extremely qualified I mean you just you're great I don't I use the chair of the ZBA presently okay well I my suggestion is whoever you know I I was only on the planning commission a short time but I really like the site review section I just Mike my my question is I don't know if you guys would consider having Hubey be part of the the selection process on picking who who's going to be on the DRB um shut up to any of us that's up to the select board I know I know but I I wanted to comment that I'm very impressed with you and I don't know you but you use I love everything that you've talked about especially when you talk about how you know the court system and our judicial system should be separate I totally agree with you that we have separate roles but the other thing I wanted to mention was I don't know if it's the planning commission or the DRB that's going to be responsible for transportation the planning commission or the ZBA down the road would be looking at other towns in residential areas not just for daycares but transportation specifically freight which is not freight is not in any other town around us along residential neighborhoods and I wondered if there's a law with the state that that you know that that cements basically that you don't go through residential neighborhoods and who's responsible planning commission or DRB for transportation I thought Hubei you might know I don't know thanks that's my question I can say it's not the DRB I was going to say that kind of sounds like it's something to be planning and a future planning commission okay okay thanks let's wrap up this discussion for tonight Hubei thank you please come again thanks for listening and uh thanks for coming and uh yeah you know look forward to greater no we need to approve the minutes from March 14th and I have a motion for that I make a motion we approve the minutes from March 14th we have a second all second any additional any corrections that anyone wants to offer beyond what Sharon sent out earlier this week I tried to read Sharon as instructed before to correct some things I wasn't able to read Sharon so well if we don't have them itemized we're I mean do you are they grammatical or are they no content well we had this is the time this is the only time to bring them up then I mean normally we can email them to her but what do you what do you have let's go through this page at a time well hang on let me get to it can you pass these okay the whole thing about what I had said at the meeting is so don't we got it we got to be more specific so give us page one are we on line 85 okay so that's page two line 85 okay alternate starting in line 85 I'm going to put my glasses on hang on so I didn't say that Essex Center sits in 10 feet of sand I said that my house sits in 10 feet of sand because it varies on where you are in the crater as to what the depth is so just so strike as a center and say your how Paul's house or your house it's a quote so okay um and I said 10 feet of sand then hard pen according to Dennis Lutz adding that to the end no that's yeah at the end of sand and I had noted that we not not just I have water in our basements or we did not have water in our basements for about the last six years it was until this year and I also mentioned that that town had cleaned out culverts and two collection and a second collection pond was built in the industrial area and that's when we stopped having water problems for about six years until this year so I think it's time to clean out the culverts but anywhere so it was after that that we started having issues that what else my number you on well I got to see what I'm line 157 that's that's words nothing alternate commissioner Duke that's just a grammatical yep yep online somebody else can remind me in line 237 I remember mentioning wildlife connectivity I don't remember mentioning anything about streetscape or parking so we have to we have two choices if people don't remember the detail we can either strike it or strike portions of the senate so we can strike the entire thing or strike a portion of it because I can't we can't do we think well you can you can strike everything except so was interested in wildlife and connectivity I mean if she wants to listen to it and I said that but that's not you know that's not what I remember but I generally have a pretty good memory for conversations but so in that in that senate straight leaving parking and wildlife leaving wildlife and connectivity leave wildlife and connectivity okay anything else so commissioners do we want to do you accept the amendments as Paula has requested you guys you and you and Trevor made a motion so you accept those amendments okay all those in favor of the minutes as moved and amended signified by saying aye aye aye aye opposed motion carries six zero minutes have been amended I have one item on other business that I would like to put to the commission we had made a change in our start time I'm not sure exactly how long ago we went moved from 6 30 to 6 p.m I want to ask I want to ask the commission if you want to be interested in moving it back to 6 30 I know various times folks have said that the 6 p.m is a burden various times that folks have said 6 p.m is is wonderful this is sort of a time we're going to be getting into a a I don't know how to say probably a heavier time of applications and work and is 6 p.m a burden is that basically we don't have to make the decision today but maybe think about it and you know drop a note to Catherine over the week and if it's if it's if there's a interest in it Catherine we can introduce it as an operating change at the next meeting okay does that sound fair Josh that sounds very very okay oh yeah and all that it all it would be is simply moving the start time back to 6 30 p.m okay with that anything from staff the only thing I was going to mention is the the upper main street parcel the new town owner site we're getting ready to choose the consultant for that project that's that that was the the thing that was on there were questions about that on well we're going the town is starting a big project that will be public development process so yeah cool that's good news I move we adjourn second all those in favor hi hi hi