Bowdoinham Planning Board Reviews State Land Use Changes

[0:24] Speaker A (unidentified): We did it. That looks new. It [9:36] Speaker B (unidentified): must have been old night. It must have been open because I came over and undid it, and I thought that looked a little different. Didn't still lock them or no, this looks [9:45] Speaker C (unidentified): like it's, is that free now or no? That's not free, but will it pull open? Yeah, I thought about that. I thought I'd lock everything, get ready now. You like to try and lock me up? Oh yeah. You. Yes. [10:08] Speaker A (unidentified): Hopefully we [10:11] Speaker B (unidentified): don't drag this. Some of them seem pretty straightforward. I think some of them, they're talking about maybe just like making a reference to state. Statue versus like the cannabis stuff, they didn't think we needed to add because we already have cannabis uses. Is, I mean, this is just from them talking [10:34] Speaker C (unidentified): yeah, I didn't actually, I didn't go in to see if there was any substantial changes to what we have. [10:41] Speaker B (unidentified): I think the 2173 is probably our huge [10:44] Speaker D (unidentified): you know, the big, the big [10:48] Speaker B (unidentified): big pull, yeah, and that's the stuff that's maybe, we've already done most of it because we did, but I think the work's going to be kind of seeing what they did that changed it. I [11:03] Speaker C (unidentified): agree, I think. But remember, I changed the ordinance after Leah got it. Because we didn't like what Leah had. [11:15] Speaker A (unidentified): What was that for? [11:16] Speaker C (unidentified): For the 1829. [11:19] Speaker B (unidentified): Right. And then we pulled it because... [11:21] Speaker C (unidentified): And then we pulled it because and... [Speaker E (unidentified): Now] we're back at it. But I guess the real, where I had issues with that was defining a development, the area, what do they call it? [11:45] Speaker A (unidentified): Developed area? No, like a significant planned, [11:52] Speaker C (unidentified): an area planned to develop in Ontario. [11:55] Speaker A (unidentified): Well, you [11:59] Speaker B (unidentified): know what I'm talking about. And I think Leah also said that with what we were proposing, we were giving more density than what the states, this is, this was 2173 right, yeah, she said that we had given more dwelling units per lot than what the state was allowing, you know, which we can, but they [12:24] Speaker C (unidentified): fixed the issue I think with [12:25] Speaker B (unidentified): the public sewer system. Would they say on that, you mean like just the wording or like how it's going to be dealt with, what it, what it means? Yeah, because I'm sure a lot of people, it'd be nice if it wasn't open for interpretation, so every town kind of dealt with it same. I'm [12:58] Speaker A (unidentified): trying to get them and [13:39] Speaker B (unidentified): we changed the height allowance too, kind of how they worded that, like if they put a maximum height on it. I listened to, or I sat in and listened to a 4173 seminar on how to implement it, and they did talk about the growth areas in the mat. [14:28] Speaker C (unidentified): So that was the word, the growth area versus... I mean, do they have that language in here anymore? [Speaker E (unidentified): In the...] Because we still have to adopt the 1829 as well, right? [14:45] Speaker B (unidentified): This is well the 2173 is 1829 with amendments so a lot of this is probably redundant to 1829 but they but they amended certain sections of it like if you look at the height allowance I think like on this document it has the strikeouts yeah so you want this or I haven't [15:13] Speaker C (unidentified): I almost asked you a friend before I know I didn't even think about it until I saw you and I'll need it I have too much I have too much paper in my as it is and so you can you mean I get you and like figure out the select board stuff I bet it's just too much yeah you guys I mean you've got a lot of them and none of us actually like get rid of anything because you never know when you're going to have to go back [15:45] Speaker B (unidentified): To something right to review or like be able to answer a question anything some people they as soon as the meeting's over they're like I'm not saying you guys at the select board level but I think a lot of these people, though. [16:01] Speaker C (unidentified): On the album, I don't know if you have the name. [16:05] Speaker B (unidentified): That was kind of... [16:06] Speaker C (unidentified): Did you listen to them? [16:10] Speaker B (unidentified): I like to watch because, you know, we get public comment about the message on Karen and stuff. But also, I've been watching the Chris and the Ed stuff. And then all of a sudden, I was watching. I was like wow they're really talking to each other like that like you know what I mean it was getting kind of between the board it seemed a little contentious last week yeah like between mark and him at one point about an email like reading the email it just it's not a good look [16:47] Speaker C (unidentified): For the board right I mean I know you guys aren't we're we're the issue that what the whole issue with it is that we're stuck in the middle because the public is pushing one way for the answers on that and nicole's been silent so it all comes down to us and you know leah said don't talk not talk about it because of a possible litigation and you know and I'm to the point where Or, like, I can't, why are we even bringing up the litigation at this point? Because I don't even know if the contractor's been asked to pay for it. [17:30] Speaker D (unidentified): Well, that's what I mean. Usually, that's like, that's the resort. [17:33] Speaker C (unidentified): I have, like, zero clue what's, you know, what's actually been said and who said what. And so does Alan. And that's why Alan was doing what he was doing. Yeah. Like, we need answers, right? [17:46] Speaker A (unidentified): And, anyway. [17:52] Speaker E (unidentified): Yeah. It was an interesting meeting. [17:56] Speaker B (unidentified): I'm sure it wasn't fun to sit through. [18:03] Speaker C (unidentified): Well, and much like other people on other committees, they like to yell and want to report by making personal comments that weren't called for. [18:26] Speaker B (unidentified): It seems like that's kind of happened the last two meetings. I think you were part of one. [18:30] Speaker C (unidentified): Call them, I mean the meeting, yeah. And that happened with a member of the power. [18:36] Speaker A (unidentified): Yeah, I know who replied. Yeah, we both, yeah, and. [18:45] Speaker C (unidentified): So he said, and that's just not fair. [18:47] Speaker B (unidentified): You know, because you're supposed to be treating you guys as a board, not individual people, right? You're, you're acting as a boy at that point. Didn't mean, yeah, but. [18:58] Speaker C (unidentified): Alan was acting on his own when he stepped away. Well, I mean, he should have stayed and. [19:04] Speaker B (unidentified): Stepping away, stayed, he shouldn't, he shouldn't have come back to his seat at that point. [19:09] Speaker C (unidentified): not if not if he was actually told to not continue right because you're kind of muddying the water a little bit by playing both sides and then when nobody wanted to entertain yeah motion like so you're just what i'm supposed to do i mean look out there's no love i haven't been hope not to you know one hand and who are you hey how are you right how are you yeah [19:51] Speaker F (unidentified): I was just a few years older, you know. [19:54] Speaker G (unidentified): It feels like it, yeah, it seems. [20:04] Speaker B (unidentified): Like the leaves changed all of a sudden, yeah. [20:06] Speaker F (unidentified): Too dry, they were going early, yeah. A couple weeks ago I was like, all of a sudden, like, whoa. [20:12] Speaker B (unidentified): Because usually it's not like this until like next week, yeah, right, yeah, it's a little. [20:16] Speaker F (unidentified): Yeah, it must be starting to get pretty good up north. Yeah, [20:28] Speaker C (unidentified): So, anyway, as we were saying on this one, the gray area is still the growth area. The growth area of the vibration. And what does that exactly mean? [20:43] Speaker B (unidentified): It means that your comp plan has identified growth areas that fall in under that. [20:50] Speaker C (unidentified): Yeah, but ours doesn't really have that. Ours has like big circles that I would say are sleeves, probably. [20:59] Speaker B (unidentified): If someone comes in, they're going to say we have it. Yeah. Well, some of the people in that seminar were talking about following lot lines. Maybe not a seminar, we're talking about following lot lines. Maybe not districts but lot lines, and that way people don't get how they're going to know if. [21:23] Speaker C (unidentified): They're in or out, so are you in or out? Because right now the circle is like, yeah, right by my. [21:33] Speaker H (unidentified): House, yeah, somebody see what I'm saying? Oh yeah, oh yeah, you know, I mean, I thought it was. [21:42] Speaker F (unidentified): The whole, the whole, like if we're gonna, I think it's gonna be a problem at some point if we don't have a problem, but it's gotta be a process to designate those, I. [21:56] Speaker B (unidentified): Think there's some feeling that no one's approaching us for that, so why fix that, or why, I think that's where we landed last. Yeah, I still haven't received any questions about growth area. [22:14] Speaker C (unidentified): But we haven't adopted the language either. [22:18] Speaker F (unidentified): But looking, you know, reviewing these, the new statutes, all of those, a lot of them, it doesn't matter for us in any way because we don't have the septic or the water, but like so much of it is contingent on your designated growth area. And we're like, well, you know, it doesn't look good. [22:40] Speaker B (unidentified): I figure if someone or a company was going to do this, you know, a development, they would have reached out because they've already known about this at 1849 and there's already people doing stuff with that in different towns. So it makes me feel like we're not on the list. Yeah. Yeah. That's both right. How do I say that? Right. [23:04] Speaker F (unidentified): Well, I guess that'll be sort of the instructive thing that will drive the horse back in and make it more clear. [23:15] Speaker A (unidentified): It's not too painful of a thing. So [23:30] Speaker B (unidentified): Are you guys aware that Richard didn't get reappointed, Richard Joyce? [23:35] Speaker H (unidentified): No. Is that going to be done by the time he's aged? I don't know. [23:40] Speaker B (unidentified): Or did he not? It was at the town manager level. Well I was just hoping he wasn't ready. I think there's something in the bylaws about [23:48] Speaker H (unidentified): missing a certain number of meetings [23:51] Speaker G (unidentified): They just want to let you know we have a vacancy if you know someone is that what you're saying [23:58] Speaker H (unidentified): And just remember to get a boundary survey done there's not going to be anybody to cross-check [24:19] Speaker I (unidentified): Nate did not tell me that he was not coming, so I'm hoping Nate's coming. [24:25] Speaker E (unidentified): Oh. I'm almost positive Nate's coming. [24:28] Speaker I (unidentified): Usually he warns me. Maybe. Maybe that's him. Hi. Hi. Can't wait. Problem. Oh well. [25:07] Planning Board Chair: Well, part of my lateness, I will go ahead and call this meeting of the Bowdoin Hand Planning Board to order on September 24th, 2026. Record show that we do have a quorum of members today. Hope everyone had a good summer off from the planning board. Today on our agenda we don't have any new applications or old applications for review, but we do have some materials to look at in terms of updates to our land use ordinance for the preliminary start. So after we do meeting minutes we will get into that, which will involve some different, really at this point some different new statute coming out of the state that we, that Jason has flagged as things that we might potentially need to update [26:24] Speaker A (unidentified): the main use ordinance to and firm to. [26:28] Planning Board Chair: And then we can also have a brief discussion if there are any other things that members would like to look at [26:34] Speaker A (unidentified): in terms of updates to the main use ordinance as well. So that's been about it. [26:41] Planning Board Chair: We can look at the meeting minutes quickly from March 26, a while ago, yeah, but you've already gone through it all [26:57] Speaker H (unidentified): Great, but it'll only take you about 15 seconds, I'm sure. Have [27:12] Planning Board Chair: you looked at any [27:15] Speaker G (unidentified): any needed edits, any problems? I [27:26] Speaker H (unidentified): don't know what you're saying. Oh [27:34] Planning Board Chair: yeah, remember this so well [27:36] Speaker E (unidentified): because I was not here, I was in police, I mean [28:16] Speaker I (unidentified): then one more time. Yeah, I'm going to move to accept the meeting minutes of it on March 26th planning board meeting. Second, motion, second. [28:29] Planning Board Chair: I did it all there. I don't post meetings and the minutes are approved. And then this is just the next step is just to sign approval. [28:47] Speaker B (unidentified): Yeah, that was the reason the finding was so slow. [28:50] Speaker I (unidentified): Don't need to vote, we just need to sign. [28:52] Speaker F (unidentified): Do you have a special copy you want to do? OK. Cool. [29:02] Speaker E (unidentified): I guess you can sign it on the right line. [29:10] Speaker F (unidentified): What am I? Less of a check every time? Okay, [29:27] Planning Board Chair: So let's get into, so I think you know these were all just sort of flag. I'm not sure that all of them actually need are done to need any changes of land use ordinance. So I think, you know, we can go through and have a brief discussion, and obviously if there are ones like the only 2173, for instance, that will need some more substantial discussion, we can start in on having that discussion. These [30:07] Speaker I (unidentified): are all approved at state level, right, they've already passed. [30:12] Planning Board Chair: They've all passed this previous session. [Speaker A (unidentified): So I] don't know if you guys have had a chance to review them. [Speaker A (unidentified): I have not.] I thought we could just, let's go from simplest to more complex. That way we can feel like we're making some progress. The first two, maybe we can review our LV, the two cannabis ones, 1840 and, 1897. And I'm not sure that the, either of these are going to require, changes to the ordinance. [Speaker B (unidentified): I mean] 1840 does make mention of the ability from the municipalities to create like a designated safe zone where like certain types of transactions or other marijuana sort of associated businesses can't happen but feel like unless we get You know, unless we get like direction from the board or for public that there's a significant concern and like We should like that the town should be considering this type of safe zone. I'm not sure that it's like warranted to add it into the land usefulness. [31:46] Speaker H (unidentified): What are we required to do as a planning board, like can we be more restrictive Or we have to be is the same [32:00] Planning Board Chair: you know I think it depends a little bit on [32:02] Speaker H (unidentified): I'm thinking of the other one but I mean this is sort of going from transport to also sell you know so that's like loosening things up under O on 1840 [Speaker G (unidentified): yeah I mean] I think we just got to understand, you know what I mean, like we need to follow the letter of the law and update our ordinance to be, you know, identical. What's the legal way we [32:32] Planning Board Chair: I think, I think in this case, I mean, it's a question of, like, what does the ordinance already cover and are these, I mean, I'm not sure that the, for instance, the update to the expansion of transport here [Speaker E (unidentified): ] There's no, there's no, at the ordinance, yeah, there's no new use, sort of cannabis related use, that's being sort of all of a sudden allowed that isn't already covered in review of cannabis businesses, if that makes sense. Yeah, so I don't know if, to me, I don't think we, that's going to have to update our review process for cannabis businesses. Yeah, this is really just [33:26] Speaker F (unidentified): A clarification of the type of activities that a caregiver can engage in and still be within the legal protection under the, so they're opening this up so the caregiver can't just, isn't limited [33:40] Speaker H (unidentified): To transporting somebody else's product that the caretaker, you know, the person who's getting the [33:47] Speaker F (unidentified): Service has already purchased. My guess is that it's really about clarifying, it's really about being more clear about what it is that they were trying to say in the first place, and that it's trying to encompass those activities in a way that's just easier for everyone to interpret [34:06] Speaker H (unidentified): But yeah, I mean, there's a very big difference between, you know, transport a product and sell a product, especially with like a controlled substance, and I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just, that's kind of, so I don't know if there's other statutes that were amended and I have no knowledge of these statutes at all. Well, that's the thing, yeah, if you look at the [34:27] Speaker F (unidentified): Statute and see what the statute is doing, it's, it's not, hey, I think most importantly for our purposes, it's not related to a new use as far as [34:44] Speaker I (unidentified): The land use goes, right, we don't bar, because in a previous iteration of our ordinance we had like barred retail sales of cannabis, I think, but I don't think that's in it anymore, so [34:59] Speaker H (unidentified): But I mean, if the statute allows it, then we can't restrict it because they're more restricted, it's just kind of a, just trying to understand what perspective [35:10] Planning Board Chair: I do believe with cannabis, although this is the same for now, that sort of medical use has been sort of was combined with what's called the dollar use. but you know when recreational use was first allowed there was the ability for municipalities to limit specific uses so like you could say we're going to allow cultivation but we're not going to allow sales yeah you know so i'm not sure i assume that but that was also when recreational and medical were separate and municipalities couldn't even been reviewed medicinal at all. Now we can. I assume that might still be in effect. I mean, I think the question here is what's being clarified. And again, I'm not sure if it's, you know, allowed for the first time is that caregivers can essentially not just provide or sell their product on their own property where they rent or lease, but they can also do it essentially at the property of the qualifying patient or registrant. [36:52] Speaker G (unidentified): Yeah, public property. [36:56] Speaker H (unidentified): Right. It reads like they're opening a new class of license for a person with a caregiver that allows them to stand probably in a way that helps people who are bedridden. [37:09] Planning Board Chair: I don't think it's a new class of license, since but I think it I think it's right it's a it's a clarification and it may be an expansion of like you know but it clearly certainly clarifies that right if you're a caregiver right you can I guess meet someone at the waterfront park and give them marijuana in [37:31] Speaker H (unidentified): exchange for there are caregivers out there every Friday and Saturday night I'd see him for like 16 years old no I'm just kidding but it does say for a caregiver registering based upon bank out right like it reads to me like there's this new class of registration whether you want to call it a license where it's like opening it's loosening things up for carrier caretakers to cultivate sell and transport I'm guessing completely changed the law like four or five [37:57] Speaker B (unidentified): years ago that allowed for the dilute right and that's this is like you're saying it's just clarifying what was already on the books for your transport I think within you know our ordinance [38:11] Planning Board Chair: right so we already allow for you [38:16] Speaker E (unidentified): know sort of sales [38:19] Planning Board Chair: of marijuana products and so I guess there would only be a question of you know now most of that is I guess envisioned as being on site right So I guess the question would be if sales of marijuana products is now understood to be, you know, so if, you know, I'm going to be opening up, you know, a small medical cannabis business that falls under this definition, I'm not, you know, I may not just be selling at my own premises. And so the question is, do we, is there anything in the ordinance that we need to do to change to essentially better regulate this more expanded definition? [39:17] Speaker H (unidentified): Yeah, and maybe in addition, if I were the caregiver and I registered under this new revised statute, would there be anything in Fotenham's ordinance that would prohibit me from growing and selling at somebody else's house or public place or something like that, which I think is what looks to be opening up here? [39:45] Planning Board Chair: i think the answer to that is no okay then that sounds like pretty i think it's i think it's only is there something within like our existing site plan review for marijuana businesses that we would want to add to be more or not i can't think of what that might be but here's the case like right [40:12] Speaker I (unidentified): now if you want to have a cannabis establishment that covers all the different things right you have this is just the definition something gotcha you have to come before the select board to get a license and before the planning board to get a site plan review yes however so you'd have to do that to grow it at your house say but what if you wanted i'm totally making this up but just for fun but if you wanted to sell it at the farmer's market you know is that a different establishment so like i'm not sure that we have anything for how do we regulate selling it in public property which is now allowed i'm not sure we need to if we're just regulating the grow do we need to regulate the sale you know that's the only thing that i'm not sure the ordinance tells us what we're supposed to do we do anything for like i mean locally do we leave it to them there it is you have to vote on it locally to have an [41:10] Planning Board Chair: a license but there's nothing but there's nothing in the land use ordinance right specific alcohol that's what i mean it's it's just it's just a municipal license i mean so the definition right as you just said right the definition shall include a cannabis facility store testing facility as well as registered as well as a medical cannabis registered caregiver rolling [41:41] Speaker I (unidentified): the first part right testing selling transferring delivering or otherwise engaging in any activity [41:46] Speaker G (unidentified): like you've got a pretty broad definition that implies all of those are allowed yeah right i guess i'm just not sure like what are we i don't actually think we need to do anything i just [41:57] Speaker I (unidentified): if somebody started wanted to sell it publicly i'm not sure what so this is a this is specifically [42:03] Speaker F (unidentified): Private delivery or a private arrangement with a qualified patient or registered, but it does say [42:09] Speaker I (unidentified): on public property it does, but I mean, I guess, like your care, you have to, it could only be your private registered care people you are growing for you could get sell it to, but I don't, but I [42:22] Planning Board Chair: I don't see where this actually fits in site plan review. I guess if the select board wanted to, within its municipal licensing for marijuana establishments, wanted to restrict, say, sales on public property, I think they could do that through the licensure, but that would be the place. Restricted, you know, you have to say that, like part of this town license that allows you to do all these things, like there are these restrictions, and it includes like not selling to a registered [43:08] Speaker F (unidentified): patient, you know, but in public would create a farcical situation because this is contemplating, this is addressing caregivers throughout the state, and you could just meet up, like someone from out of town could just meet up at the waterfront and meet their [43:31] Speaker D (unidentified): patient and do the transaction there's nothing there's no hook right and that's only [43:37] Planning Board Chair: honestly, if the municipality still has the ability to be stricter than, yeah, because the state is allowing it here, but I can't see in site plan review when we're evaluating a specific location for a business that we're also, you know, it's like it's hard to, you know, you wouldn't, I don't know, like if you're, if we, if we're, if there's a bakery that's applying and they're doing deliveries across the state, we're not going to be evaluating their like deliveries and sales off the premises of their bakery. We're just looking at site plan reviews specific to their facility, and so I think in that sense it's like no action needed, and then the next cannabis really deals with expanding the allowances for outdoor [44:46] Speaker H (unidentified): Are you talking about 1897 now? Yes, yeah, I was talking about the two together because I think they're related a little bit. Sure, well, I think yes, because we just had all the relates to that. [44:59] Planning Board Chair: Okay, great, oh yeah, really quickly, I feel like in my mind this is maybe more pertinent to the state licensing than like we already allow for outdoor growing within our ordinance, and I don't think anything here is going to change, and we wouldn't prohibit [45:28] Speaker H (unidentified): Any of the caregiver, like it looks like they expanded what the veteran caregiver can do, and they can, they can do all these activities, provided, you know, we don't, we don't address or deal with what's in like section 322. That's going to continue to be allowed, and it's not restricted [45:50] Speaker B (unidentified): by our ordinance. Yes, exactly. Yeah, I don't think we can restrict caregivers in the town. We can make them get a license, right, here prohibitive. Yeah, all right, so we don't have to [46:05] Speaker I (unidentified): think about that, right? Yes, yeah. [46:11] Speaker E (unidentified): So [46:15] Planning Board Chair: LD 2042, this is the public notice. We, I talked with this briefly with the event, and it's not actually clear. Yes, it's very confusing. It doesn't actually seem like it changes any of the noticing requirements. [46:37] Speaker F (unidentified): Well, yeah, it's not clear on does the date of effectiveness. I assume that what it's trying to do is your date of effectiveness is when you publish on the website, as long as you then go on and put it in the actual paper. It's not right. I don't think it was totally specific about that, but no. [46:55] Speaker I (unidentified): So is this just about meeting your notice requirements by getting it online first? [47:00] Speaker F (unidentified): Yeah, I think that is what it is about. I, yeah, I assume the point is because you have more and more papers that are running on a pretty truncated schedule, so every week or something, yeah, so you get it in on the website and then your clock starts ticking, but you have to, it only like if you do not actually get it into the paper, then your clock would disappear, but it doesn't [47:26] Planning Board Chair: say that, right? I mean, it wasn't clear. I didn't sound like when we talked to you that there has been that this has been specific issue for town staff. I [47:42] Speaker I (unidentified): mean the issue is whether anybody sees the notices in the newspaper or cares, but this doesn't address it. Well, I think it's, yeah, I mean [47:50] Planning Board Chair: as we were saying, all this adjusts is that if the town staff is constantly frustrated that they, you know, they want to, you know, notice in a timely manner on a Tuesday and the local papers and running another issue until Saturday, and that is sort of stressful and messing up with, you know, exactly. Then I guess that [48:16] Speaker F (unidentified): just say may meet this requirement by placing the notice on the publicly accessible website, which [48:22] Speaker G (unidentified): I guess as long as the interaction [48:25] Speaker I (unidentified): is followed by [48:27] Speaker F (unidentified): is that anything you put it in the website, right? Yeah. [48:32] Planning Board Chair: I mean I sort of would defer to announce that if this feels helpful, I mean you guys are doing most of the noticing, right, doesn't seem to be a problem. [48:48] Speaker F (unidentified): Yeah, are noticing requirements set out in the ordinance? [48:52] Speaker G (unidentified): No, would this require any sort of update? Well, there it does say like how many days notice you [49:01] Speaker I (unidentified): need before certain things, right? Or does it say what constitutes notice? I think it says like newspaper of record, unless we change that in this latest iteration. No, it hasn't changed because it [49:12] Speaker G (unidentified): was a state required. Okay, so it says something like in current circulation or something. Yeah, [49:20] Speaker F (unidentified): something very, yeah. So it could, I mean, it might not be the worst idea to throw this in or something, just to, I don't know, [49:33] Speaker G (unidentified): there could be more flexibility to say like [49:37] Planning Board Chair: posting on the website is fine. [49:39] Speaker F (unidentified): I would say that it's fine even if we don't update it. 's the state notice provision. I'm not sure that our, if we're not very specific, so we have our, obviously the timeline needs to be met. If our ordinance is not, if it's just saying it's got to be in the local newspaper, yeah, this is telling us how it can be in the local, yeah. I, but yeah, I think it's probably not the worst idea to, I mean, I think [50:14] Planning Board Chair: I think that if you right that, right, I mean, you probably want it in the ordinance if you're gonna like try and rest on it, because the only, the only time noticing is ever gonna come up is if someone is appealing a decision [Speaker B (unidentified): because] they feel like noticing was incorrect, at which point, you know, saying [50:35] Speaker E (unidentified): well, the state says [50:37] Planning Board Chair: this, so we just went with that even though our ordinance is different. [50:41] Speaker F (unidentified): It's specific enough that you could not, I don't even know where it is on the ordinance. [50:47] Speaker I (unidentified): I'm not sure how to find it. [50:49] Speaker A (unidentified): It's in a different section [50:51] Speaker B (unidentified): of each section. [50:55] Speaker C (unidentified): They're settled then. [50:57] Planning Board Chair: Is the language the same in each of the review sections? Okay, so if we were to change this, we would just, so here's the switch out, here's a sentence, I'm not [51:07] Speaker H (unidentified): sure which section, but that's a written notice for such site inspections shall be published at least once in a newspaper of general circulation in the community, and the date of the publication shall be at least seven days prior to the site inspection. I guess there's a little bit different benefits saying the number of days prior, so here's another one, public hearing, same language, at least [51:29] Speaker I (unidentified): seven days prior, so we could specify the date of public publication can be either on the website [51:36] Speaker F (unidentified): or, yeah, it's published on the, you know, the newspaper in general circulation or said newspaper's website. Yeah, they all say seven days prior to marriage, so [51:53] Speaker A (unidentified): probably the new [52:03] Speaker H (unidentified): bylaws you can search without finding the pcr on the pdf. [52:09] Speaker F (unidentified): We just really need to make sure this town staff, it would be easy, we would be helpful if our, whatever language we use, was specific about the fact that you need to publish in the newspaper itself afterwards. Just almost as a reminder to town staff, because it would be easy to throw something on the website and then not maybe throw it in the newspaper and, right, well, yeah, I mean, but [52:43] Speaker I (unidentified): You can't put something on a newspaper's website without, I mean, I don't know how you'd get something on a newspaper's website other than by submitting it to be published in the news, like it's not like he's there for like a chat board. Yeah, right, I mean, I guess, well, unless there are, I don't know [53:03] Speaker D (unidentified): These are those one things in the web version, right? Exactly, so you know, you could like and [53:09] Planning Board Chair: Maybe they publish on the web three times a week but only in paper. Sure, sometimes, I mean, the other thing, you can just leave it as is and then figure the town can post on the website whenever they want to and they just still have to meet the requirement in the printing paper. I think we're [53:25] Speaker B (unidentified): Doing that already. I think we put it on the website and then we also, I think we're going to [53:31] Planning Board Chair: Meet the deadline. Yeah, absolutely, I would say just leave it as is if there's no, there's no big issue [53:39] Speaker F (unidentified): With the town function now, right, then still, if we're able to meet our deadlines as, because as [53:46] Planning Board Chair: You did, like, I mean, not that we couldn't figure it out, but the language could get a little bit funky if you, if you're particularly in like 10 different places of the order that you're trying [53:56] Speaker D (unidentified): To like spell out this thing of like published in the, you can, yeah, the date of notice is worked [54:02] Planning Board Chair: On the website but also you still need to within a week put it on the, yeah, so that's, that's [54:08] Speaker C (unidentified): The real question, right, so if you publish it on the website at least seven days in advance but the only available newspaper publishes three days in advance, does that still meet the notice [54:17] Planning Board Chair: Requirements or not as it's currently in the ordinance and, well, not as it's in the ordinance [54:23] Speaker C (unidentified): But how about with this, is that what they were trying to, that's what they're trying, that's what [54:27] Speaker F (unidentified): They're trying to address, because the, you put it on the website and that's your newspaper of general [54:33] Speaker I (unidentified): Circulation doesn't specify or date of publication doesn't specify print publication as opposed to website publication. What is a newspaper? All right, so we think we probably don't need to mess with this at this point since Jason says Steph is not concerned about it [54:58] Speaker F (unidentified): Yeah, I think that's fine. It's good to know it's there, and I think we, you know, you could probably away in 98 of situations if we got a jam, use this procedure anyway, and it could be fine, but [55:19] Speaker I (unidentified): Yeah, somebody will go, we'll have litigation about it, and we'll see what happens to them. [55:24] Planning Board Chair: Next is, listen, let's just hit all the easy ones. This one's really easy, LD 1999, which is just a quick addition to the subdivision. This is good, this is, yeah, this is George's passion. Yeah, so that seems very straightforward. It just, it gets plugged into the definition of subdivisions, and just as a clarification, so that definitely should be one that will advance forward, but I don't think it doesn't need any work on our end. It just needs to be put in there. Okay. LB 1934, if active or not, promote responsible outdoor lighting. [56:21] Speaker I (unidentified): I didn't read through this whole thing. This is a lot. We have some stuff like this in [56:27] Speaker F (unidentified): So the important thing here is that this only applies to public outdoor lighting, but we can adopt an ordinance that if we want to, that mimics it, but they will, the main community office or whatever, will create an ordinance, which I think we should wait for it. [56:46] Planning Board Chair: Whenever they have time. Or staff capacity, what do they say? [56:53] Speaker I (unidentified): Looking forward to discussing with applicants about the value stated in pelvins of their correlated color temperature because I think that will go well, yeah. [57:06] Planning Board Chair: I believe the, you can speak for yourself, but I believe the CEO was hoping that maybe that would not happen. I wonder that there wouldn't be any measuring of like traffic at the property line between neighbors. [57:23] Speaker F (unidentified): I think it's important to keep our town staff energized with new fields of learning, new devices. [57:36] Speaker I (unidentified): About 80 degrees from the luminary's nadir, that's just been wandering around. [57:43] Speaker C (unidentified): Down there's like two satellite dishes in his hands. [57:46] Speaker D (unidentified): It's finally the only in the dark. [57:56] Planning Board Chair: Okay, the question that I could think of here is, you know, obviously, insight from review, right, we do have lighting standards. Is it worth a note that says for public projects lighting must meet the requirements set out in, you know, you know, whatever this, you know [58:22] Speaker G (unidentified): So we don't have to remember this exists, well, and also so we don't need to put all of this [58:27] Speaker F (unidentified): Language in the ordinance for us, for one public project every 20 years, exactly, yeah, I was thinking the same thing, just a line saying right as [58:46] Planning Board Chair: We got mentioned, I think all of the public projects that could be thought of that ad body income just happened. [58:55] Speaker H (unidentified): All the new lighting down there actually complies with it. [59:02] Speaker C (unidentified): I'm going, yeah, we had that discussion because it was because the state funded, so you know what, the only thing that it doesn't, it doesn't fly is that it's on all night right now and I'm trying to get that. [59:19] Speaker G (unidentified): Yeah, oh good, right. [59:26] Planning Board Chair: Okay, so I think these sort of come together in a way, right, so we have. LD 2173, LD 128, LD 2231, so LD 2173 was like the cleanup to LD 1826 that was passed previously that we were working on last year, right, okay, and so I don't know if you guys remember, but like essentially what happened there is we made a bunch of proposed changes and then sort of at the last moment, like right before, once they had gone out of, left us and were like being like right before being considered for the warrant by the select board, the town attorney was like, actually, you guys should probably wait on this because LD 1826 is going to be passed and if you guys pass yours, there's going to be a, there's going to like some of what you've allowed is not, is likely not going to be required yet or like you've gone too, like you're being more generous than you have to under what likely this new legislation will be, but it hasn't been passed and so it essentially the select board decided to pull it and not put it on the warrant and so we're essentially I think 2073 deals with some of the same issues in terms of like increasing, you know, smaller lot sizes such, increased density for affordable housing in growth areas that have depending on your sewer and all that, but it's, like, slightly different. LD-2231 deals with some specific changes to model home parts or defective housing parts. [1:01:34] Speaker H (unidentified): And do we deal with some of the, like, rent increase and those types of things in our ordinance? We don't, no. [1:01:39] Planning Board Chair: So I think there's nothing, yeah, everything that is, I mean, if we just look at that one first, right? Everything that has to do with rent increases and deeds and all of that is not, it's really when you get to page four, section three, where it starts talking about changing density requirements for mobile home parks. I don't think we have specific, we have, Jason, do you have the email that you bet, the email chain that you bet had with the, yeah, because that might be, yeah, because that talked about [1:02:46] Speaker B (unidentified): about how the two different LDs had different standards. You almost have to create a mobile home standard set aside [1:02:55] Speaker F (unidentified): because they don't have that. Because now I have the 10,000 minimum for the lot. [1:02:59] Speaker B (unidentified): Yeah. Yeah, they're different numbers. Yeah. Yeah. [1:03:02] Planning Board Chair: But let me pull that out. But that's in a part. And we'll. [1:03:05] Speaker I (unidentified): We have a definition for our manufactured housing part. [1:03:09] Planning Board Chair: We do. And we do have performance standards. [1:03:12] Speaker A (unidentified): We do have a specific standard. [1:03:14] Planning Board Chair: of a standard but it doesn't deal specifically with like density with density so basically [1:03:24] Speaker I (unidentified): the only the way that this is relevant to our ordinance is that if our ordinance limited a lot size to 20 000 square feet this is this ld is saying you're putting a manufactured house on the it only has to be 10 tests is [1:03:41] Speaker F (unidentified): that what you're saying i didn't the size of any mobile home [1:03:46] Speaker G (unidentified): park lot with on-site so there's gonna have to be in a designated well not just an individual [1:03:54] Speaker H (unidentified): person so i believe where is it is that the new oh you're reading the statue i'm reading the [1:04:01] Speaker F (unidentified): revised I got you know it's the definition of manufactured house does it [1:04:13] Planning Board Chair: have this because I feel like there is a state we have manufactured housing park [1:04:19] Speaker I (unidentified): and manufactured housing as definition [1:04:25] Planning Board Chair: yeah I think the thing is that a parcel of land so for housing park right. It's not just like anywhere you want to put a mobile home. Right. Yeah. It has to have unified ownership. Yeah. That's then accrued by the municipality for the placement of three or more manufacturing homes. [1:04:42] Speaker I (unidentified): So this isn't just like somebody wants to buy a mobile home to put on their own lot. This has to be in the apartment. [1:04:49] Speaker B (unidentified): It almost lets you. [1:04:52] Planning Board Chair: It's almost like its own like mini subdivision. yes yeah right which is you know and so i think what it's saying here is that like right so it's not just anyone it's not even like hey any three people we wanted to buy into three lots and then we can each person's gonna buy their lot and put on their own manufactured home because that would be just sub division instead it's saying oh we're creating an association to take this one lot and put three mobile homes on it and then I guess instead of going subdivision you would go to site planning [1:05:30] Speaker G (unidentified): I was trying to I was going to look [1:05:33] Speaker I (unidentified): for the table in the table because I've never I've never reviewed one [1:05:38] Planning Board Chair: or would it go to something no [1:05:47] Speaker I (unidentified): manufactured housing planning board no yeah subdivision okay [Planning Board Chair: subdivision okay] okay we updated things but don't we you're in the old ordinance i'm in the old ordinance so [1:06:04] Planning Board Chair: in the new ordinance we cleaned this up as the can i order a copy of the new one did you already [1:06:10] Speaker I (unidentified): give me one and i didn't and i forgot about it thank you sorry can i can i put it in order i was like no we changed this didn't we did yeah peanut butter so it would it would go into [1:06:26] Planning Board Chair: Subdivision, I guess you would just then be allowed to have lower density than you would in a regular. [1:06:33] Speaker I (unidentified): Subject, so do we need to add something to our subdivision ordinance that said, that says if you are a manufactured housing park the minimum lot size is 10 square feet, or do we need to add [1:06:44] Planning Board Chair: something to just the land use districts because they already include? Oh yeah, right, so like we [1:06:50] Speaker I (unidentified): already have, yeah, in the subdivision, yeah, so we just need to add another number, yeah, it's like [1:06:57] Planning Board Chair: it's like but it's still lots within the subdivision but it's lots within the subdivision that are in a mobile phone park yeah just to add more or yeah i think that 's okay where you [1:07:09] Speaker I (unidentified): would do it, this is article five, does that make sense, Jason? Dare you still are like resident ordinance updater or have you resigned that position? I still have all the files, that doesn't mean you're willing, [1:07:34] Planning Board Chair: but I think that seems to be pretty straightforward though, [1:07:43] Speaker C (unidentified): to put it in article five to deliver us although, [1:08:00] Planning Board Chair: again, you get into this, [1:08:03] Speaker E (unidentified): what we've already added, well, [1:08:19] Planning Board Chair: here's a question, right, so if you look at this, so there's, there's, again, like everything, there's three options. So you get, if you have public sewer, you can go down to 4,000 feet, but we don't have public sewer. [1:08:32] Speaker I (unidentified): I can't even remember how you dealt with that, because you had to break that out before for the language that didn't get included, but you must still have a draft of it. [1:08:40] Planning Board Chair: But here's, for a mobile home park with on-site subsurface wastewater disposal, it's 10,000 square feet, right? Right. And isn't that what we've come, no, I see, okay, so we've only come down to I [1:08:59] Speaker I (unidentified): did that, I'll just get removed because it wasn't in the, because that got pulled, those changes got pulled, right, okay, [1:09:07] Planning Board Chair: so right, currently within the subdivision, oh, within the subdivision we're still at 20,000, [1:09:15] Speaker C (unidentified): yeah, right, okay, in our end, yeah,, [1:09:29] Planning Board Chair: So yeah, right. Somehow you need to work in. So this, again, might be the language of this might be also, again, mixed up with what we end up doing with this next 21, second, three. Yeah, I think that 's essentially on site. But I think that's the only pertinent part of this, is that minimum lot size change. Beyond that, I don't think we necessarily need to, I mean, I think we have the definition [Speaker E (unidentified): definition of a] manufacturer of housing park that goes to subdivision, so I don't think we have any of, we don't need to like, I don't think we need to add in, Jason, like a new definition. [1:10:34] Speaker G (unidentified): For mobile home park into the ordinance, I feel like we didn't, we updated that recently. [1:10:39] Speaker I (unidentified): Like for some other reason. [1:10:53] Planning Board Chair: We just look at LD128 next. I was actually getting a little bit turned around by this one. Did you look, did you go through this at all? I looked at this and so. [1:11:09] Speaker F (unidentified): It's relating to types of projects that require permit from DEP because of the look scale of the project, and they have their own sort of, within that universe, they have their own subdivision definition, and so I think this does not really implicate our, yeah, ordinance in their special world. It is trying to incorporate a lot of these other things that are coming into. [1:11:44] Planning Board Chair: That makes sense because I was trying to think, it's like, yeah, did I not hear something that like. [1:11:52] Speaker D (unidentified): If you have 30 or more acres, you can like, all of a sudden you get 15 lots. [1:12:00] Speaker F (unidentified): Yeah, I was like, [1:12:01] Speaker D (unidentified): I'm walking up in very different. [1:12:08] Planning Board Chair: Okay. Okay. So you're thinking then that we don't need to like really deal with this. [1:12:17] Speaker F (unidentified): I think that is right. [1:12:23] Speaker H (unidentified): And so is that because we don't expect to get an application that would be substantial enough to trigger a slow-dose permit from DEP? [1:12:32] Speaker I (unidentified): We're not doing slow-dose permits. [1:12:34] Speaker H (unidentified): I think that's what you're saying, right? [1:12:39] Speaker I (unidentified): Our ordinance doesn't care about this trigger, but that the slow-dose permit does. [1:12:50] Speaker H (unidentified): Because I mean they do have like very specific regulations around SLOTA and NERPA, yeah, so if that's what this is then like yeah. [1:13:05] Speaker A (unidentified): I think that's what was going on, yeah, they should. [1:13:08] Speaker I (unidentified): It would be helpful if they were a little more specific before they just started with the definition of so, but I gotta read the title, yeah, I gotta read the title. [1:13:18] Speaker F (unidentified): But I realized going through these is the best thing you can do for yourself is locate where you are in the statutes and what's going on in the right then. You start reading you're like, what, that sounds really nice. [1:13:39] Planning Board Chair: Is that where you, the site location of development laws, is that what's putting you on to that with that. [1:13:46] Speaker F (unidentified): Well I didn't know that, I just went to the, I went to the statute and worked backwards to. [1:13:52] Planning Board Chair: See what guys were this all and it was pretty clear, yeah, okay, let's put that aside and not worry about that. [1:14:16] Speaker I (unidentified): Okay so now the 2173, so is this, is this one placing 18, whatever it was that we looked. [1:14:28] Speaker G (unidentified): That last time or in addition to, I don't think it, I think it just like changes parts of it so. [1:14:37] Speaker I (unidentified): It doesn't necessarily, it's not like that one was already incorporated into the statute and now this. [1:14:42] Speaker G (unidentified): Is revising that same staff, exactly, yeah, that's my understanding of it, yeah, and a lot of cross out. It seems like the. [1:15:20] Speaker F (unidentified): Reality is that because of the sewer water requirements, we're really not at least for these density requirements and hiring allowance. [1:15:33] Speaker E (unidentified): I think that's [1:15:36] Planning Board Chair: one of the things that's great and it was probably because of communities like ours that were getting caught in the spin of like well wait, [Speaker E (unidentified): you know,] we're a rural community we don't even have the public infrastructure and now we're going to incorporate all this stuff into our ordinance. [1:15:54] Speaker E (unidentified): Yeah, there were a few. [1:16:02] Speaker I (unidentified): So this specifically says affordable housing development. Did we have to contend with that before? [1:16:09] Planning Board Chair: We did. And part of the proposed changes last year was to add definition for affordable housing into our ordinance. [1:16:18] Speaker I (unidentified): And there's like a state definition for that, right? [1:16:22] Speaker C (unidentified): Yeah I think we added it last year okay I think it's in there okay is it well [1:16:33] Speaker I (unidentified): we didn't get adopted it's in the draft that didn't pick up I think we adopted the definition [1:16:37] Speaker G (unidentified): did we not pull that back out yeah I could be wrong you're like I know I wrote I remember the language came directly from later I'm not [1:16:51] Speaker H (unidentified): finding the retirement affordable yeah you're okay i think i just felt like that it got pulled [1:16:56] Planning Board Chair: it got pulled it was in yeah it wasn't it was all within that yeah but so you still have well i mean that was there was a lot of baton for the leaves so yeah the land just came from her and then at the last moment she was like actually you guys shouldn't be yes so [1:17:30] Speaker E (unidentified): like for instance right like on [1:17:36] Planning Board Chair: page three the density requirements this whole section here section 5382 which is that like that is no longer applicable to us because that's just only serving only served by a public sewer system [Speaker A (unidentified): okay and] then same as i believe the additional hate of violence too is also, you know, no longer applicable because we don't have a sewer system. But I do think there's some of these things in the school that the city, the big, the [1:19:04] Speaker C (unidentified): name, the height allowance appears to be A and B are connected by M4, which means we can put a multi-story property on reused. Yeah. [1:19:53] Speaker G (unidentified): It gets us back to our designated growth area. [1:19:58] Speaker I (unidentified): or a public sewer system. Public sewer and water. We're going to have to figure out this growth area thing someday. [1:20:13] Speaker C (unidentified): The same thing under the density requirements above. It's an or, not an and. A growth area or be served by water and sewer. Gotcha. Okay. [1:20:27] Speaker G (unidentified): Thanks. I was just thinking that would have been easier the other way. [1:20:33] Speaker D (unidentified): I was reading and I was like, well, we don't really have this [1:20:36] Speaker F (unidentified): community growth area i [1:20:39] Speaker I (unidentified): Feel like the lawyers are going to fight about that one too. Well, some people think we do and some people say we don't. [1:20:49] Planning Board Chair: I mean I would do, I mean I would step back and just say I think that if we are going to put things in our ordinance that are dependent on or if we need to put things in our ordinance that are dependent on a designated growth area, then we need to [1:21:11] Speaker D (unidentified): know where that is. Then we need to [1:21:13] Planning Board Chair: take that floating bubble and make it real on the map. Because at the end of the day, if your neighbor wants to build [Speaker G (unidentified): a 55-foot building,] someone's exactly someone's lawyer is either going to say it's in the growth area or it's not and like having a bubble doesn't that you're superimposing somehow so I feel like that [1:21:41] Speaker I (unidentified): like I don't know I just think we need a two-year public process so that people can vent all their feelings about it in many public meetings and then we can finally come to the decision well [1:21:57] Speaker F (unidentified): I forget do we have to by virtue of do does our are we not required to have a growth area designated if we have a comprehensive plan like oh it does keep referring to in the comprehensive [1:22:09] Speaker I (unidentified): plan but can't we adopt it into the ordinance well no but I mean what's do we need to have a [1:22:15] Speaker F (unidentified): growth like what are the skills for having no just having one or not having well we need a growth area first of all as a first question the language was what are that do we develop us the [1:22:29] Speaker I (unidentified): development must be in a designated growth area of a municipality as identified and a comprehensive [1:22:35] Speaker F (unidentified): plan adopted pursuant to some chapter yeah I'm assuming there's all the incentives like tied to having a comprehensive plan or like the growth area is a requirement of that at this point [1:22:49] Speaker I (unidentified): I mean, I think what we have in our comprehensive plan fulfills the requirements of the comprehensive plan. It just doesn't fulfill the requirements of... No, I know that. No, I know. [1:22:59] Speaker F (unidentified): This is sort of a broader question of do we need... What is the mechanism that requires, if there is one, that we have a growth area, first of all? Like, regardless of whether that growth area has very blurry lines or very sharp... [1:23:16] Speaker I (unidentified): Oh, are you saying we could say we don't have a designated [1:23:19] Speaker F (unidentified): I'm just trying to get my there. [1:23:22] Speaker H (unidentified): Do we have [1:23:26] Speaker G (unidentified): I feel like [1:23:28] Planning Board Chair: the comprehensive plan committee could have decided we want to have designated drug areas or not. They decided [1:23:35] Speaker I (unidentified): it is to put a dot directly in the middle of those two sentences. [1:23:43] Planning Board Chair: But I mean, but it is, I mean, I think at this point they are in the comprehensive plan. They're just not in a way that's functionally functional to use, and so I think the question is, you know, like, I'm like, I feel a little nervous about just being like, well, the they're not functional, so like, let's just pretend they're not there. No, I don't, I'm [1:24:09] Speaker F (unidentified): not, that's not what I'm saying. I'm just trying to understand where, but it's like, what the [1:24:16] Planning Board Chair: sort of room for maneuver on this? I mean, I think what feels to me appropriate based on the general way that the comp, you know, sort of the relationship between the comprehensive plan planning board would be that we as a planning board take what has been provided in, let's call it like conceptual form in the comprehensive plan, and then we like try to create, yeah, more detailed functional and say this is actually, you know, like in spirit with what is in the [1:24:58] Speaker H (unidentified): is that possible to do in like no uncertain terms though, like, or would we need to sort of make decisions of where the bubble falls and where the bubble doesn't fall? Because to me that feels like [1:25:12] Planning Board Chair: I think we would have to go with a process that I think somebody else should be doing, or at least a process, well, I think it would definitely be a process, I think that [1:25:22] Speaker H (unidentified): it seems like comprehensive planning versus like ordinance [1:25:26] Planning Board Chair: is, I've seen what you would need to do with it would be just like creating districts in that you would find, you would, you put the proposal, you would put proposals like essentially on paper on a, you know, on a map based on the lot lines, because honestly I don't see how you do anything but lot lines, because at some point like if you draw the line halfway through a lot, that just becomes, you know, I mean, that you got a very simple way, but you could take the circle, you could put it on the tax map and you could say anything that's, everything that's in the whole lot because growth area, and you could, and then you could look at that and see what that looks like, and but I [1:26:17] Speaker H (unidentified): agree, I think it, I think it would involve a valid reference place a little, like if you have a valid reference point like Jack, you can know Microsoft Word shape art [1:26:31] Speaker I (unidentified): which is what my memory is, and I was like, they're not georeferenced circles. [1:26:35] Speaker H (unidentified): They told me that before, I didn't like, I'm not done, so I'm just saying like, I think we can, is it at the lot size level to look at those a starting point? I didn't know exactly [1:26:49] Speaker D (unidentified): I think you could make like a clip [1:26:52] Speaker H (unidentified): I don't think [1:26:55] Speaker I (unidentified): Like four different graphs like this is one interpretation, this is another interpretation, this is another interpretation, and the public [1:27:03] Planning Board Chair: is to discuss. I mean, what you could say, this circle that's up near Richmond is trying to encompass areas that are within the Richmond water district and like are congruent to the sort of developed village of Richmond, right? So you could take that and then you could use that to say, okay, on the map, what do we actually feel like represents that? Or you could take an area that's by the highway and say, the idea here was to like, say areas that are, you know, off of the main roads near the highway should be, and you could sort of, you know do that same thing and just try and say but yeah at the end of the day I mean you are at some point you're saying is this locked in or is this locked out and I mean what we did with the [1:27:54] Speaker I (unidentified): districts is we made several different options we were like this is option one for village one this is option two and then people come and look at the maps and haggle over them a little like [1:28:05] Planning Board Chair: we got comments I think the question is that if we try to do growth zones right based on loosely based on the comprehensive plan and they get voted down at town then we don't have growth zones then they don't pay for us just not to have growth zones even though the comprehensive plan [1:28:25] Speaker H (unidentified): still has like some real interesting what you're talking about right so that's overlaid on a tax map so you can look at what properties are in and out exactly no it is it is definitely possible I mean 100 like you can look at this and you can say this one bisected by this one is not [1:28:41] Speaker G (unidentified): You would just be doing it with your eyes, that would be the GIS tool, but that's... [1:28:45] Speaker F (unidentified): And you would be imposing this level of specificity on the process that we thought there in the [1:28:51] Planning Board Chair: beginning. Sure. Well, but here, turn that around though, right? So what you might do- [1:28:58] Speaker H (unidentified): We know that this one, this one, this one, this one. [1:29:01] Planning Board Chair: like this one maybe you're like okay realistically like this parcel should not be in here [1:29:08] Speaker G (unidentified): right that was just like a haphazardness even though even though like this circle you know [1:29:14] Planning Board Chair: encompasses a sliver so like if I were to try and draw this I'd say you know let's not include this giant parcel let's include these ones coming down to like here maybe here and then just call [1:29:29] Speaker I (unidentified): that good you know this is what I mean why you have several versions you can have like here's the most literal version of all you know that literally has everything that touches the circle [1:29:39] Speaker G (unidentified): Right here's one where we including part of Richmond right yeah you know I think it'd be [1:29:44] Speaker H (unidentified): good to come up with criteria and then apply that criteria to be to not be arbitrary [1:29:55] Speaker C (unidentified): Good luck I mean I mean I agree I agree completely with Chris here and I think the most what would be reasonable to at least start with would be the water districts yeah right that's [1:30:10] Speaker H (unidentified): Actually if you have water if you have water if you have water either right which is what they [1:30:15] Speaker C (unidentified): were doing that was out of the thinking right you're right that's a fair criteria that's an [1:30:21] Planning Board Chair: an accomplishment or so you could do that 's one criteria or you can say let's look at the circles and if a prop if a lot is more than 50 inside the circle you include it and that's criteria and it's less than you say it's not and you just go with that I mean but I agree it's better to have something like that than be like let's go lot by lot and like sort of arbitrarily say with very little other information like this lot should be in this one shouldn't right because [1:30:56] Speaker H (unidentified): at the end of the day like and either is it the inside of the line or outside there's a line part [1:31:01] Speaker F (unidentified): of the boundary that it contains and I think then you can get to the point of like I don't know like okay there are some parcels in here in here within the area that is served by the by public water whatever the sort of actual rationale is for the zone beyond those circles okay these parcels don't make sense because they're like you know I think w land or something you can sort of start removing some of those and then sure right if it's not a land trust well I don't know about the state or other that might get into like looking at these well I'm thinking just the state plan which is just yeah [1:31:51] Speaker C (unidentified): that's a that's a lot of your circle down there [1:31:53] Speaker F (unidentified): well that's exactly what I thought about it because like it was in there it's in like the actually it's not on public water but it's in the lower whatever it is village two so right [1:32:12] Speaker I (unidentified): and that field would make our work a little bit higher [1:32:14] Speaker F (unidentified): Oh yeah, the field's good [1:32:17] Speaker H (unidentified): from like a [1:32:18] Speaker C (unidentified): from like a public [1:32:21] Speaker H (unidentified): perception like stakeholder process point of view it could be one meeting to come up with criteria and we talk about it outside of like any specific piece of land and then we have another, you know [1:32:34] Speaker I (unidentified): we develop maps based on those criteria [1:32:37] Speaker H (unidentified): Like you said, this was important or this was not important. Or because I think if you haven't completed looking at that's my property right there and I don't want that or I do want that, you're getting sidetracked pretty good. I [1:32:53] Speaker F (unidentified): think we want to be clear, get clear on the process that requires us to have these designated and, you know, so that we can say to people like this is, we are required to do this or we're not. And that feels still a little like I just need to understand what the actual sort of impulse [1:33:19] Speaker H (unidentified): Well, [1:33:20] Planning Board Chair: I mean, right, so it's a hard thing, a requirement, right? It's like we have this new statute that says, you know, you can, your ordinance can allow these like increased [Speaker E (unidentified): densities for more] housing development if you have the designated growth areas in your comprehensive plan, which we do, but we just don't have them in a functional way to actually like utilize them. So I mean, I feel like really the thing is, again, it's, it's just, no, it's just finalized, literally the comprehensive, it's a plan already put in place. And again, we can, I mean, I guess if people don't want to do it, they don't want to do it, but I feel like the board should take the step to like actually try to make [1:34:13] Speaker F (unidentified): it a reality given that 's what was voted on but i think you're you're right about that it's just we're gonna have to like once the rubber starts hitting the road on this meeting something [1:34:25] Planning Board Chair: I think what we need to clarify for people is what it actually means in terms of like people who are going to be like, are going to think that this is like a whole new zone, yeah, when it's actually a decision or it's going to like change drastically all of their density requirements. And all we're saying, well, no, actually no, only if you're putting in an affordable housing development are you going to get big bonuses, right? Like it's not just anyone [1:34:56] Speaker G (unidentified): Anyone who's getting like a bunch of, well, I guess some of the others are there, increased density for [1:35:02] Speaker I (unidentified): non-affordable like there was before or, well, I think there is a little bit for like, yeah, I mean [1:35:08] Speaker G (unidentified): I guess so, you're right, it's like your project still rules you, well, you get like one [1:35:12] Planning Board Chair: additional accessory dwelling unit, right? Yeah, or is that, I think that's it, you get, you get one [1:35:17] Speaker H (unidentified): or is that only that with and there's a parking requirements i think that is that 's with [1:35:24] Planning Board Chair: Width, I think that's the width. Yeah, so you're right, because again it's like on the next page in four one b, again it's four. So it's like you get at least four dwelling units attached, or attached inclusive of accessory dwelling units, per lot, if the lot is located in a designated [1:35:42] Speaker H (unidentified): growth area as identified. Yeah, I know it's the and or four is a lot of stuff, right? So once again you're sort of in this like angle or so, you know that, but then you at the at bottom there's the [1:35:56] Speaker F (unidentified): this process where you then have to the sort of end thing you've got to get by is the septic requirements. That is kind of like they build that, they're like you just can't get a cert, you can have these units, you just can't have a certificate of occupancy until you've gotten like a right [1:36:15] Speaker I (unidentified): Right, which is always how it's been. [1:36:17] Speaker D (unidentified): Which is, yeah, it's right, but, yeah. But you couldn't really think of it. [1:36:21] Planning Board Chair: You're allowed to have portable units, but, oh, actually, there's no way you could get more than a few in on it. Right, yeah. Right. [1:36:28] Speaker F (unidentified): But anyway, the point is, it's really, like, to the extent it does anything, it gives people potential development possibilities, and it doesn't impose. [1:36:39] Speaker H (unidentified): Well, it could bring affordable housing to a community that needs it. [1:36:44] Planning Board Chair: Of course, I'm saying in terms of people's, the way that they are in order to, well, I think people's opposition would be, I'm driving by this open field and what's now, you know, a growth area and it's going to be a slump before you know it. You know, yeah, I think that 's, I'm just trying to anticipate where the opposition would be. [1:37:12] Speaker H (unidentified): are two things that would happen here. One is that somebody could develop who's a landowner and wants to profit, and there are people that could get affordable housing that currently can't [1:37:24] Speaker G (unidentified): get affordable housing in their community. So just right, and you could sell, I mean, so right, it's not [1:37:29] Speaker I (unidentified): like somebody can come in and build an affordable housing unit on your land without your permission just because this designated grocery area, so like right on your neighbors, but I guess right, it means your neighbor could sell their land or develop it themselves. Yeah, right, but I do think to reuse my few ships, I think to reuse point, we should get a clarification that if we go through this process, which we I think we should, and it goes on the war and it gets voted down, does that mean we do not have a designated growth area, because if we go through this process and it doesn't pass and then somebody wants to use this [1:38:18] Speaker G (unidentified): And we can't interpret it, then what do we do? So this would be when I feel like [1:38:23] Planning Board Chair: this is actually like a great place for guidance again, maybe to the main municipal. Yeah, it was just like this basic question, which is that like, you know, we have and we, the planning board, are recognizing that we have designated growth areas in our ordinance, they are, I mean, in our comprehensive plan they are, but they are lucky functionally useless, they're, they're circles on a map that are functionally useless, and then we are interested in a process to like actually, you know, make them functional and like, is that, you know, one, I guess like, do they have any guidance for us on that? What happens if we present something to the town at town meeting to approve like maps, actual maps for, growth areas, and that those get voted down, does that mean that we like in lieu of this or of this statutory change like that [1:39:24] Speaker H (unidentified): no longer have growth areas? Or I'm wondering like we're required to have the development areas is, and we and it gets voted and we put something forward and gets voted down, are we like out of compliance with the state statute? That's right there for what, you know, can the county be sued by a developer for, you know, losses, you know, potential losses or I don't know what that, whatever like what does that look like? Is that even a thing? Well clearly like not [1:39:59] Speaker F (unidentified): every town has a comprehensive plan, not every town. I mean, even the statutes make clear that they're just contemplating that a town that has a comp plan with designated growth areas. It seems like maybe the cleanest way to do this, at least as far as the statute talks about it, is to try and have an amendment to the comp plan or something that provides a clearer map. [1:40:28] Planning Board Chair: It, I'm not sure that would be a great basic question, Jason, would be, you know, this is where we're at, we the plan will recognize is that our existing growth areas as they're like mapped or like unworkable because they're just as you said like Microsoft or bubbles is the appropriate. The appropriate way forward for the comprehensive plan to be amended to have more specific maps that like actually work in terms of, you know, lots on the ground, or is the appropriate for a playing board to create those maps and essentially a man, you know, hold them in the exact [1:41:15] Speaker F (unidentified): that pulled them into language ordinance but all the statutes refer to the designated drug areas [1:41:20] Speaker H (unidentified): Right, it's interesting what you said, because the comprehensive planning committee did this exercise before, and so we adopted that and point to it. So why would we do it now? I'm not saying that we shouldn't, but it would be sort of like they did it before, now there's a change to it. Do they do it themselves, you know, all like the philosophy behind what they [1:41:46] Speaker I (unidentified): did before has a change. It's just they weren't, they didn't, they didn't go the extra step into like making it detail, [1:41:55] Speaker G (unidentified): do an exercise in visioning, right? Yeah, which to be fair, it's a lot of what the comprehensive, yeah, is. So we'll take it from here. That's a great question. I'm not saying, I'm not saying [1:42:08] Speaker F (unidentified): in favor or against either one, just sort of, right, would be good even if it was sort of framed as an amendment to the comp plan for to have it be kind of the whole process. Oh yeah, because we don't want [1:42:19] Speaker H (unidentified): them just to replace like a triangle, right? Yeah, maybe we could help ground it in the ordinance and, you know, the statute, but okay, [1:42:34] Planning Board Chair: so let's, but I do think, yeah, Jason, so in [1:42:41] Speaker C (unidentified): I mean, I actually pulled this up, so in the, in the statute it does, it does talk about a future land use plan must in, must identify and designate geographic areas in the municipality or multi-municipal region as growth areas and rural areas. Which statute? And then it goes later on, gives some exceptions, so this is [1:43:16] Speaker E (unidentified): is a, is it the growth man, growth man, growth man, okay, yeah, so say that again. It says that towns must generally identify a growth in rural areas. [1:43:45] Speaker F (unidentified): You're like in the growth management like, and I assume that we have like you, that's sort of a world you have to enter into purposefully by, I don't know what the town does, but it says like the town opts into, yeah, you're hopping into this like growth management framework [1:44:07] Planning Board Chair: work or something. Yeah, exactly, and then part of opting in is designated to be service, I guess, the [1:44:14] Speaker C (unidentified): question is, have it has, have we done it, and it said it would, I would think that since we have a comprehensive plan, we probably did, but that's true, you get out zoning, you have to have a [1:44:27] Speaker B (unidentified): comprehensive plan, and if you have that, then this growth management act falls in. Oh sorry, I was, [1:44:33] Speaker F (unidentified): is an informed growth act, is that [1:44:39] Planning Board Chair: different, informed growth act, [1:44:42] Speaker C (unidentified): and land use regulation, so chapter two, growth management program, article two, growth management programs, yeah, so that's section 43 26, oh, [1:45:01] Speaker F (unidentified): that's where I was, yeah, a [1:45:11] Speaker C (unidentified): lot of comments, section three, [1:45:15] Speaker E (unidentified): Yeah, that's something [1:45:56] Speaker H (unidentified): we're going to solve tonight. [1:45:59] Planning Board Chair: I don't think so, but I do still think that'll be, again, if you look at the rest of this, takes us back to what we were working on last week. If you go to page five on this LD 2073, right? like this is where it gets to the reduced lot sizes outside of affordable housing and again it's all tied into is it in the designated growth area with a public sewer or with apple and i think again like we if we're this is where it really is going to matter to town residents of, like, you know, if your lot is in a designated growth area or it isn't, it's going to affect, you know, mineral lot sizes. So I think at some point we need to, you know, like, and if, you know, I guess it's a question of, I mean, I think we could work on parallel tracks, which is working to include this language which in the ordinance at the same time that we're working on when develop criteria and then also what we can figure out. I mean, I guess it's first off, who's going to be who's responsible for, sort of changing, making the designated growth areas more specific and then moving that down the road [1:47:44] Speaker C (unidentified): So I'm getting the question of whether it's a required answer. [Planning Board Chair: Right. Yeah, exactly.] I get that from the time. [1:47:53] Planning Board Chair: But it just seems like it would be really hard to put this in the ordinance and say, hey, we've changed all of our minimum lot size requirements based on designated growth areas. Is and now go look at the circle and the comprehensive plan and figure out if that buys to you or not so [1:48:18] Speaker E (unidentified): I feel like you know but I [1:48:26] Planning Board Chair: don't think we need I mean to some degree this is the easier part the harder part is going to be figuring out how to you know yeah and or even just like what the process is and is it is it our job isn't the comprehensive plan's job it is a comprehensive planning made his job is that is that even like a within like a I don't know what their process would be but like is that they have a lot of members you know is that going to all come together within a year I think I totally agree yeah I think We definitely want to but maybe if it doesn't maybe there's a way that we can like not update our ordinance like I don't know what the if there's a date in this LB20 like by which you have yeah beginning July 1 2027 so yeah so it only gives us a year which is what we need so really it should be done by next town meeting so [Speaker I (unidentified): That's that's what's] The word I'm looking for optimist well it's I mean it's not optimistic for this but it's [1:49:46] Speaker G (unidentified): Optimistic for having growth there is, yeah, well, or maybe not. I mean, I mean, it's really not. [1:49:54] Planning Board Chair: Again, if we were to do it, right, and you take, I mean, you, I mean, the vision, the guidance is already there. And so I agree with Chris. You have to like figure out what your criteria is for moving from thought bubble to map, and then you need to apply that criteria, and obviously allow people the opportunity to have feedback, and maybe, you know, yeah, it's just, you know, getting the public. [1:50:34] Speaker I (unidentified): Meeting scheduled, and yeah, it's just, you know, it's not right if we're like on the ball. All we can do it, but the year goes by fast when you have to schedule public meetings and give people, you know, there's only seven months, you know. Well, but yeah, you're right, it's September. [1:50:50] Planning Board Chair: It's September, not January, yeah, right, yeah, you know, I think the, maybe the most important thing is to figure out is like, is this something, I think with respect to the confidence of planning committee, if we can do this, then we should do it. I agree, because it's just, and we can definitely loop in every, you know, obviously everyone's invited, including everybody who's on the comprehensive plan committee and everyone else, but it's just gonna move faster if we can like do it and incorporate it into our. Into the ordinance opposed to update the comprehensive plan. [1:51:29] Speaker F (unidentified): Yeah, I agree, and it well, but we should probably all could end up being a, an amendment to the plan. It does that we couldn't, or it could be a joint, like maybe if it belongs. [1:51:51] Planning Board Chair: In the comprehensive plan that the plan committees laugh, but it could be a joint process because we're going to be the ones using it, so it's going to be like, okay, let's do this together, and we could sort of maybe take a little bit more of the initiative. [1:52:07] Speaker H (unidentified): And I think we'd want the map to go with the ordinance versus the comprehensive plan, right, like the shoreline zoning map. [1:52:18] Speaker F (unidentified): Well, it would be helpful, like in a, that would be sane, but I'm just like, well, excuse me. No, it's just that it just all the statutes refer to the growth zones designated in the comp plan, but I suppose they could be designated there and then also. [1:52:45] Planning Board Chair: One article five if passed allows the comprehensive plan committee to designate their powers, the planning board to pass the name, which is then the warrant article says. [1:53:00] Speaker I (unidentified): Yeah, well, we'll figure it out, I'm sure there's a way to do this, I don't know, the first time. [1:53:11] Planning Board Chair: Yeah, I think let's get some answers and then also it would maybe if the agenda still seems somewhat light for October, which it seems like it maybe, we could also invite at least Peggy if she's still the chair and just to like loop her in and have the floor or if there's other people on the comprehensive plan committee but like loop a few people in to like this is what we're thinking even if we don't know all the answers then at least like put it on their radar so that if it is something that they need to take an active role in like that are already informed and it's not something that we're like finding out about in December and trying to engage them then when you're like Tracy it's like starting to get pretty tough to line up the like public hearings if we need to at that point it'd [1:54:12] Speaker H (unidentified): be helpful to have answers to those legal questions too I think yeah before we meet with them like we could go over it during the meeting or whatever but like this is statutory so if that's possible you know what I mean rather than kind of like we're discussing with them right now we'll be like well we're not really sure yeah you know it's required you know what I mean [1:54:30] Planning Board Chair: Maybe it'll be good to loop lead it into you know like all you know just I mean the more opinions on this the better at this point but just make sure that like that isn't because I mean that as you said like maybe there's some specific you know statutory things about like what yeah only the comprehensive planning committee can like you know do this or whatnot so [1:54:57] Speaker F (unidentified): I mean yeah it's it's like so I'm I'm reading this at the growth management statute and it is you know the comprehensive plan must include growth areas and ours does it's just sort of what's the most elegant solution that's going to do the thing that we need to do which is to give us [1:55:17] Speaker I (unidentified): a workable I mean I'm just I'm just guessing based on what Peggy said the last time she came here which was that she did not want to lead a change to the organs so I imagine she'd be fine with us working together at the bird right [1:55:34] Planning Board Chair: Oh yeah, I doubt that there's like a clashing of the egos like hands off my confidential I think it's more just dare you yeah I think it's more of just like figuring out like legal like making sure that we're not you know doing something in the wrong way that has been jeopardized the whole project you know now we're not doing again next year because yes [1:56:04] Speaker F (unidentified): Yes, okay, right, we don't want to do some, yeah, it's like, and you know, somebody's like, well, there's not a, you know, you're basing this land use decision on a growth area map that got adopted as part of the ordinance and was never part of the comp plan, and these are, well, invalid, these are all [1:56:29] Planning Board Chair: Like the statutes that allow, what you don't want is someone to say, well, actually, if I go to the comprehensive plan, my property isn't really, yeah, right, so like that, and so that's what actually matters, not whatever the planning board put together five years later, exactly, so I'm going [1:56:48] Speaker F (unidentified): To build the 50 foot tower, yeah, so yeah, 55, thank you very much, all right, well, lawyers [1:56:58] Speaker H (unidentified): Lawyers to the rescue, okay, I think one last thing, actually, what you said, Tracy, maybe think, can we ask MMA if there are other towns you have adopted these development zones, and like maybe we can find out what they did, and maybe they had a great idea, maybe we don't want to follow what they did, but it would be like kind of a helpful thing to understand if the question [1:57:20] Speaker B (unidentified): Is going to come from the planning board, it has to come from the planning board, I've tried to contact MMA or planning board, but I'm the code officer and they shut me down, so like you mentioned, yeah, so if you want to draft up a question for M&A, if not, I can reach out to Leah with what you've already described. [1:57:39] Planning Board Chair: Well, I mean, I encourage you to reach out to Leah, but I'm happy to contact M&A on that thing, or if that's what you're suggesting. [1:57:49] Speaker B (unidentified): Or you can send the email, like, and we can send it from the town, from the planning board to them, or if you, I think, you have an account. [1:57:59] Speaker G (unidentified): Yeah,, that's fine. Yeah, sure. [1:58:01] Speaker B (unidentified): Yeah, so just let me know how you want it to be. [1:58:04] Planning Board Chair: I can draft an email, and then if that makes sense, and then have you send it on over to him. [1:58:09] Speaker B (unidentified): Yeah, because then that way the question is coming from the chair of the planning board, and they just feel like the code officer asking for things for the planning chair. [1:58:18] Planning Board Chair: Is it doable to, so can I, 'll draft an email, could I have you link in the email the copy of the comprehensive plan so that it's clear like I feel like that it would be helpful for everyone who's answering the question to be like oh yeah I see here what current state is and then this is what we sort of recommend based on that. Could you include a [1:58:48] Speaker H (unidentified): The last channel card or other towns that have developed these and or in the process that we hopefully even if we don't get a confidential answer but something for you know I would just [1:58:56] Speaker I (unidentified): Look, I mean, I assume, I mean, I know Grums because I don't know how they got them. It's already like [1:59:03] Speaker H (unidentified): official development zone for, you know, yeah, I looked at, well, I mean, they may not be based on [1:59:14] Planning Board Chair: 2173 yet because that's like, that's like so new in terms of like this [1:59:19] Speaker G (unidentified): but we could have gotten started last year, right, when [1:59:23] Planning Board Chair: right, we could have gotten started previously on 1896, but yeah, I mean, the same thing [1:59:29] Speaker H (unidentified): so probably not, yeah [1:59:31] Speaker E (unidentified): I'm just going to look at one of the books [1:59:33] Speaker I (unidentified): before these LDs came out, there were, weren't there, maybe it's different, I know I looked at, I know I looked at Brunswick's land use ordinance when we were talking about housing stuff, just, and they have a whole bunch of, but I guess those are districts, they're districts, I don't know, they've designated certain districts as growth areas, yeah, that's, yeah, right, and I think that [1:59:58] Planning Board Chair: that's one of the challenges with voting, right, is that, you know, since we pretty much said, yeah, one giant district and two little districts, like it didn't, you know, like it didn't make sense to like, so it may be that other communities dealt with this by just being like, well, we have 35 different districts already, and so we're just going to say like these eight are [2:00:19] Speaker F (unidentified): growth areas, right, they're all using a pretty determined map, right, it's a lot [2:00:23] Speaker G (unidentified): easier if you're a math, that's a great one, well, yeah, I mean, yeah, like Brunswick's got the full [2:00:29] Speaker F (unidentified): like GIS like publicly available [2:00:33] Speaker C (unidentified): everything, yeah [2:00:38] Planning Board Chair: that's it, I'm certainly not the only kind of that's in a similar situation, again, the parallels are probably less going to be [2:00:49] Speaker A (unidentified): Brunswick and more going to be, I'll talk to [2:00:53] Speaker F (unidentified): yeah, I know a guy who's on the Westport [2:00:57] Speaker A (unidentified): now though or something, yeah, well [2:01:04] Planning Board Chair: sounds good, okay, I will drop an email that you can forward to MMA and then we can sort of, yeah, see what we get back, probably be good to send either copy that email or, you know, to Leah too, see what we get back from her, and then we can not plan on inviting a lot of comprehensive planning, maybe best, meaning, and then hopefully we'll have some of those answers, great, and then I think, I think there will be some things to work up in 2173, but we can sort of, you know, work on that as we go along, and then the only, The only other thing to mention is, what was the date Nicole said for the SLEP board meeting? [2:01:59] Speaker D (unidentified): Wasn't the 8th after all? It was the 13th. 13th? Okay. [2:02:04] Planning Board Chair: So, October 13th, there's sort of a SLEP board meeting that I was invited to, but everyone was also invited to. It is originally, again, it was, I guess, to continue the discussion about data centers and to try and get more guidance from the select board about would they like to see, because they brought up the idea of data centers, so would they like to see the planning board try to deal with that? And if so, in terms of like more or just like not allowing them or some sort of, some sort of, you know, more nuanced, like, I don't know, based on size or just provides their own energy to the solar energy, something like that. But also we were going to try to do it as double it up as the required check-in between planning and this left board about land use ordinance and so I think some of this meeting was to then be able to get you know sort of discuss some of these that may require some changes I guess at this point probably update this left board on this process of trying to figure out how to you know create you know workable growth areas based on [2:03:32] Speaker A (unidentified): On the confidence of planning so yeah just to say if [2:03:39] Planning Board Chair: There's something good on tv over 13 [2:03:40] Speaker H (unidentified): And then they're all the time and persona nandrata will be playing there's like four these days but oh really what time is it are they at six also six o'clock so I'll be there for other [2:03:56] Speaker G (unidentified): Reasons probably okay so Tuesdays are still about still about the paving of the of the [2:04:06] Speaker H (unidentified): Part of the parking area or yeah I mean it has to do with environmental concerns and I don't know if you pay attention to them or anything but like every day and every minute I have been presenting some stuff at the meeting and trying to get some answers so but so you said there was a opening on the plan for Jason do you know how the town's going to advertise that because I think it'd be good to cast your line that and you know I know there's like the town emails that go out with like you know But to you know not just have us sort of like try to talk to our friends and people who think this you know similarly but to get maybe there's somebody that none of us know that is really good and smart and qualified [2:04:53] Speaker A (unidentified): So not sure [2:04:54] Speaker B (unidentified): What yeah I'm not sure either I think either Yvette or Nicole would handle usually I think they go to the town manager to start the process of joining [2:05:06] Speaker H (unidentified): Right use of an application right so I found out about it because it was on like the listserv [2:05:12] Speaker F (unidentified): You know but you're saying how to get it out to the yeah I mean just the idea Jane I don't [2:05:17] Speaker H (unidentified): Know you know if the select board ever thinks about that, but just you know having a committee of all like-minded people is not always the, I'm not saying that's the case or whatever, but just self-recruiting of a committee I think is, we need to be like here for that role that there's [2:05:34] Speaker C (unidentified): The position open and then they don't necessarily see it until the application comes in front of us [2:05:43] Planning Board Chair: Because we need to approve it, right, I mean I think in the past, yeah, it has been like advertised at various places, so I think that would be happening again, I know some other various [2:05:59] Speaker C (unidentified): Committees Nicole actually reaches out to specific people that she knows might be interested, I don't know if there's anything more involved in that [2:06:09] Planning Board Chair: I know that's happened too, I know Nicole has done a pretty good job in the past of trying [Speaker A (unidentified): That point of] Bringing in diverse backgrounds and experiences, I don't think there's a process [2:06:27] Speaker H (unidentified): And I'm not suggesting this is necessarily the case, I'm just responding with Jason, but having to tell manager can't pick somebody, I think it's just [2:06:35] Speaker I (unidentified): Hard to find anybody who wants to do it, so I think it's more like please [2:06:40] Speaker H (unidentified): Somebody and making it a concerted effort to cast a wide net and advertise that there is a planning board opening is good for the community, well I think [2:06:52] Speaker C (unidentified): Writing would be, yeah, I'm sure you had it and put an advertisement on the website of [2:07:01] Speaker D (unidentified): The newspaper or local certification, I know the last time that, yeah, I mean the last time there [2:07:06] Planning Board Chair: Was an opening there was a lot of effort to try and get some more like, I know somebody who was like a builder, yeah right, it was like that, okay, yeah that was the survey or something like that [2:07:21] Speaker C (unidentified): So we need a new animal control officer too, Cliff is really good, yeah he's done a nice job and he's willing to stay on until we find a replacement [2:07:38] Speaker E (unidentified): But it's done, that's a paid position right, yeah it's current time, yeah okay [Speaker A (unidentified): Okay great, well] Anything else, I'm holding out for Harvard master [2:08:01] Planning Board Chair: Thanks guys, thanks, holding out for Harvard master [2:08:08] Speaker H (unidentified): You better get a remember to put your plug in your bug plan, I've never forgotten, I saw you at the boat one when I was helping somebody else you know with a duck boat, you've got a long duck boat with like a small outboard on it, I have a leg [2:08:26] Speaker F (unidentified): They're all small, well speaking of long, I don't know, I don't remember, I maybe I put it in [2:08:35] Speaker E (unidentified): Didn't work out so well, unfortunately. [2:08:42] Speaker I (unidentified): Can I leave you a recycling pile?