[0:11] Okay,
[0:11] >> thank you.
[0:13] >> Okay, I'm convening the Browboro
[0:15] Planning Commission meeting to order.
[0:18] This is September 9th at 6 PM.
[0:21] Uh, first order of business is to review
[0:24] and approve the minutes of our last
[0:26] meeting, August 3rd.
[0:32] and I'll just make that motion.
[0:34] >> I'll second it.
[0:36] >> Thank you, Lindsay. Any comments on
[0:38] those minutes?
[0:40] >> Uh, just give me a second to stand over
[0:42] them one more time. I don't think there
[0:43] was anything else that I had.
[0:54] No,
[0:57] >> always interesting when cameras pick up
[0:59] reality um with a mirror image if that's
[1:02] what the owl's doing because the banner
[1:04] behind me on the screen is
[1:05] >> It looks like it is. I'm probably
[1:07] there's probably some setting but
[1:08] >> yeah,
[1:12] it's not going to reverse our words. So,
[1:17] » okay. All those in favor of approving
[1:19] the minutes.
[1:20] >> I
[1:21] >> That's a three here. and Lindsay, that's
[1:23] all in favor. Okay, for announcements,
[1:27] um I have a couple points. Um after our
[1:30] maybe a couple days after, I don't know
[1:33] when it was, but after our letter about
[1:35] advocating for the BMH um of obstetrics
[1:38] services um was published. Um the found
[1:42] manager emailed me and said, "Well
[1:45] written, good job. Thanks for, you know,
[1:48] adding your voice." and he he applauded
[1:50] um our letter. So, wanted to share all
[1:53] that with you. Um and I responded to
[1:57] him, you know, thank you. It's a it's a
[1:59] team effort. Um
[2:04] yeah, the other thing is that um it's
[2:06] not set in stone, but for our October
[2:08] meeting, the um health and whatever
[2:11] we're going to title it, the community
[2:12] health and wellness chapter, um our
[2:15] community members, Cassandra and Shila,
[2:18] who are the main people working on it,
[2:20] um
[2:22] think tentatively that they'll for our
[2:25] October meeting have a draft for us to
[2:27] review. It may be November.
[2:29] Um, those are all the announcements I
[2:31] have. Anyone else? Sue,
[2:34] >> I have a couple. Okay.
[2:35] >> So, the select board has set the town
[2:37] plan town plan public hearings for
[2:40] October 6th and October 15th. The they
[2:44] have to have two public hearings and
[2:46] then after they close the public hearing
[2:48] on the 15th, they could vote to adopt it
[2:51] if they so choose. Um, so it would be
[2:55] really great. Maybe I'll send out a
[2:56] separate email, but it would be great to
[2:57] have some planning commissioners um
[3:00] either online or in person. And if you
[3:02] want to split it up or you know,
[3:04] however, it would be great to have some
[3:06] support. I suspect
[3:08] um at the October 6th, I'll make a
[3:10] presentation unless any of you want to
[3:12] make the presentation um or help me with
[3:14] the presentation and then uh they'll
[3:17] open it up for public comment. So um I
[3:20] don't expect these will be, you know,
[3:21] they're part of the regular agenda. So
[3:23] there'll be other things on those
[3:25] meetings as well. Um and then I also
[3:29] wanted to report that um public works
[3:32] has bought and started installing some
[3:35] bicycle racks in the downtown. Um I saw
[3:39] two of them in front of the works today.
[3:41] I think there were there was one I
[3:43] couldn't recall if it was um already
[3:45] existing, but there's kind of one near
[3:48] Maragold and then one uh kind of in the
[3:51] Amy's area. Um I know that they were
[3:54] following the recommendations and they
[3:56] have bought the um the ones I think the
[4:00] post and ring and I think they've bought
[4:02] 10 of them. So I haven't found them all.
[4:05] That's what I saw today. So yeah,
[4:08] >> that's great.
[4:10] I had been thinking recently and I I
[4:12] won't admit that it's the entire reason
[4:15] for delaying writing a letter to um some
[4:19] of the private property owners
[4:20] encouraging them. Remember we were Gemma
[4:22] and I were talking about we don't do
[4:24] that. I recent most of the reason that
[4:28] hasn't happened yet or at least it
[4:29] hasn't come before a commission is just
[4:31] procrastination and other things but um
[4:33] on on my plate but also I was thinking
[4:35] recently like oh it'd be kind of nice if
[4:37] like the town government does like its
[4:41] part first so to speak and then we're we
[4:43] say the private property owners not in
[4:45] such blunt words but like look we did it
[4:48] now you know we invite you to consider
[4:51] doing it too. So I think it's nice to
[4:53] lead by example. So, I'm glad I
[4:55] procrastinated so long and continued to
[4:58] a while longer.
[5:00] >> And I would also just add that when I
[5:02] walked by the two in front of the works,
[5:04] there was a bicycle
[5:06] um locked up on one of them. So,
[5:11] >> okay, thank you for those announcements,
[5:13] Sue.
[5:14] >> Um
[5:16] okay, moving on to the residential land
[5:18] uses functionally similar. This is um
[5:22] the project that Lindsay has spearheaded
[5:25] and um updated us agency over the past
[5:28] months and has a memo or a whole write
[5:32] up and proposals for us um and
[5:36] potentially decisions to make. Lindsay
[5:40] pass it off.
[5:42] >> Sure. Um, I don't really have anything
[5:44] to add to the memo, but if people have
[5:47] questions or comments or feedback that
[5:50] they want to give, then um, I'll take
[5:54] notes and make note of that for
[5:57] consideration. Um, but it's just as
[6:01] written. soon.
[6:11] » Well, hopefully um we all had time to
[6:15] read through it. At least the first
[6:18] one, two, three pages. I think the pages
[6:22] after that are, you know, important
[6:23] context, but not the main main thrust of
[6:27] it.
[6:29] Um Anybody
[6:39] want to ask some questions or should
[6:42] they have any before? Maybe we
[6:47] had like perspective or
[6:52] our point of view on
[6:56] » I'm just getting back from a trip. So, I
[6:58] only reviewed this briefly. So, I I
[7:01] guess I was personally need more
[7:04] clarification on it. I know it says what
[7:06] it says, but when a lot of acrimans are
[7:09] used, I have to not really know
[7:14] » you're not sure.
[7:16] >> I'm just getting picked on to what the
[7:18] ac
[7:19] and everything. So um anyway, so in a
[7:23] nutshell, I guess
[7:26] we're trying to recategorize
[7:30] um single room occupancies into
[7:34] something different. Is that correct?
[7:37] >> That's part of it. Yep.
[7:39] >> Like a quick summary would be what
[7:41] you're trying to do.
[7:43] >> Okay.
[7:45] Um,
[7:46] then I guess I'll just
[7:50] uh I don't think so. I'm happy to
[7:53] provide a quick summary, but I don't
[7:54] have anything beyond what I wrote. I
[7:56] mean, that's that's my summary is what I
[7:59] wrote. I can read from it if people
[8:01] would like that.
[8:05] » No, that's not necessary. But I'm also
[8:08] like if people haven't had a chance to
[8:10] read it, then it's fine with me. If if
[8:12] people need more time and we come back
[8:14] to it in October, it's not an emergency.
[8:17] I'm happy to take whatever feedback
[8:19] people have today or questions and then
[8:22] come back to it in October if there's
[8:24] more.
[8:26] >> Okay. Um I'll go next. Um,
[8:29] one thing that seemed informant to me is
[8:33] that
[8:35] in the other specialized residential
[8:39] category, um, the SRO's does seem quite
[8:44] different than all the others things
[8:47] that are in that as per our definition
[8:49] in land use reg. It's things like
[8:52] barracks and dormitories and
[8:56] shelters. and SRO's.
[9:00] Um I think maybe they're all lumped in that definition with similarity
[9:05] because well because they're kind of
[9:06] miscellaneous and two because of the
[9:10] general structure that like the actual
[9:13] physical stuff maybe that they take um
[9:17] they conventionally are have been um
[9:19] could be strict throughout
[9:23] or even four or five story unit
[9:26] residential But what I'm getting at is
[9:28] that um an SRO is like a a real
[9:32] permanent um
[9:35] or it can be like a long-term permanent
[9:37] residence for people that's akin to an
[9:40] apartment or a house or a roomy house
[9:43] just like a different form of where
[9:45] people live. But like barracks and
[9:48] dormitories and um shelters, those all
[9:52] seem to me much more like purpose
[9:56] or like oriented. So um and like
[10:00] contextual like dormitories often with a
[10:03] school and barracks is with the military
[10:05] or law enforcement and shelters with um
[10:08] because of an emergency or because
[10:10] homeless um needs and uh people um
[10:15] having services related to those. So I
[10:19] think SRO's
[10:21] um if we were to do anything uh with SRO
[10:25] it it shouldn't
[10:28] it in line with the the um the purpose
[10:31] of Lindsay's work here. I think just
[10:35] potentially focusing on and changing
[10:37] SRO's
[10:39] um
[10:40] the changes should happen only to
[10:42] specifically SRO, not the whole larger
[10:44] category of other specialized
[10:46] residential.
[10:47] That's a clear way of saying it. and the
[10:50] um the LDCS, which is the landbased
[10:53] classification system, which is how
[10:55] pretty much all of our uses are
[10:56] categorized. It's like some
[10:59] American or worldwide um planning
[11:03] categorization.
[11:05] Um I think other residential services,
[11:07] yeah, it's right there on the screen. Um
[11:10] 1300 is the is the code, but um
[11:15] >> SRO's 1340. What page of the land use
[11:20] regulations is this? Five. Okay.
[11:22] >> Uh 5-6 or
[11:24] >> the wrong place.
[11:25] >> 221 if you've got it up.
[11:28] >> I was looking at the the 3-9 page that
[11:31] Lindsay referenced in her.
[11:34] The heck is this? It's way down there.
[11:36] >> There's some special regulations. I I
[11:39] pulled up the definitions. The 3-9 that
[11:42] Lindsay referred to is probably the
[11:45] special regulations.
[11:46] um that applied to SRO.
[11:51] » Yeah. The only real questions that I had
[11:53] um you know were pretty much related to
[11:55] what Tom just said that um I think that
[11:58] there's a danger of lumping all of these
[12:01] different types of facilities into you
[12:03] know one catchall category when they
[12:06] probably really shouldn't be right and
[12:08] they they currently are in our lane use
[12:10] strikes but but if we're looking at this
[12:12] and trying to improve it then
[12:14] >> yeah I think SRO is are quite different
[12:17] >> yeah I mean the idea here is that we
[12:19] want more housing of all kinds
[12:22] There we go. 56.
[12:24] >> And I think it is in that category as it
[12:26] the code is a structure code
[12:28] >> as some of the other codes are function
[12:30] codes like go down congregate living or
[12:32] I think rooming house might be you know
[12:34] a function code as well.
[12:36] >> Um
[12:38] >> yeah the structures are it has to do
[12:40] with like the type of building the
[12:42] structure on the land and then if you go
[12:44] down to the next it's the function. So
[12:47] the economic function or type of
[12:49] establishment and then there's even a
[12:51] further category in the land use uh the
[12:53] land classification system which is the
[12:56] activity which is kind of the observable
[13:00] characteristics of what's going on on
[13:02] the land. So we tried to when we did the
[13:04] regulations stick at structure and
[13:06] there's function mixed in for sure and
[13:09] that's where um on the other specialized
[13:13] we went up one higher. I I don't know
[13:15] why we did that. I mean, I think it was
[13:17] just to not have list all these uses. Um
[13:21] and the you know, in this situation, the unifying feature is that these are
[13:27] all kind of multi-unit
[13:29] um structures. So,
[13:32] >> do we have access to a copy of this LBCS
[13:35] document?
[13:37] >> Um it's online.
[13:38] >> Okay. Where would I find that? Uh you
[13:41] could look up land use uh land
[13:44] classification based system
[13:46] >> but I mean is that like a federal
[13:47] website?
[13:48] >> It's uh I think it's from the American
[13:50] Planning Association.
[13:51] >> Okay.
[13:53] >> Yeah.
[13:54] >> The definition on that website
[13:57] says um
[14:02] for SRO's
[14:04] that they are other
[14:07] I didn't write down the whole
[14:08] definition. I can pull it up,
[14:10] >> but it wrote it said um it described it
[14:12] and then it said or other structurally
[14:15] converted buildings. Oh, no. No, that's
[14:17] what it isn't that our should
[14:20] >> unfortunately I left my regulations.
[14:24] >> That's structurally no different than
[14:25] hotels.
[14:27] >> And maybe that's how they used to be. I
[14:29] don't know. I think it is a row I'm
[14:32] aware of in town. Sometimes people refer
[14:34] to the cobblestone in my neighborhood on
[14:36] the corner of Canal and the exit of
[14:38] Clark Street.
[14:40] It's right next to that agape church.
[14:42] >> Oh.
[14:43] >> But it just, you know, it just looks
[14:44] like a three or four unit or a big
[14:46] house.
[14:47] >> Yeah. So I don't
[14:49] you know I don't know
[14:53] in our current regulations I interpret
[14:55] SRO as being
[14:58] um a defining feature of it as being
[15:01] like the type of the structure itself.
[15:04] >> Um obviously it's multiple units in
[15:06] there and the units aren't aren't full
[15:08] apartments. But um another thing
[15:10] Lindsay's memo kind of talks about is um
[15:13] maybe some confusion about what the
[15:15] difference is between SRO's and rooming
[15:18] houses. And it seems like they're pretty
[15:19] similar, but
[15:22] to me a rooming house is looks like a
[15:26] house on the outside and an SRO looks
[15:28] like like a block building or a hotel or
[15:32] commercial blocky building. And now
[15:34] inside SRO are do are structured or are
[15:38] formatted a bit differently than rooming
[15:41] houses inside as well.
[15:43] >> But um
[15:47] to me it's the outside. It's kind of the size and the aesthetics and the form
[15:52] the outside that is
[15:55] like a foundational difference. But
[15:57] other people might feel different about
[16:00] that.
[16:01] So, um I think you're accurate. Do you
[16:04] mind if I speak?
[16:05] >> I think you're accurate, um in that, you
[16:08] know, our definition of a single room
[16:10] occupancy is ba based on the kind of
[16:13] historical context of hotel or block
[16:16] building and the rooming house, sporting
[16:18] house is more of a single
[16:23] family residential conversion, right?
[16:26] Um, so I'm thinking, you know,
[16:30] maybe in the 20s or 30s where somebody's
[16:32] moving around to work and they're going
[16:34] to rent out in a room or boarding house
[16:36] or whatever and and stay there for a
[16:38] short period of time. The rooming and
[16:40] boarding house is really getting at, you
[16:41] know, some a shorter term tenency. Um,
[16:46] I think Lindsay is proposing, you know,
[16:50] putting
[16:52] um the SRO and the rooming and boarding
[16:55] house and modernizing it and calling
[16:57] them um co-l livingiving
[16:59] >> um which I think is is really
[17:02] interesting. The American Planning
[17:04] Association has a definition of
[17:06] co-living which is a residential
[17:09] development type that features
[17:11] individually rented lockable private
[17:13] sleeping or living quarters and combined
[17:16] with centrally managed shared amenities
[17:18] like kitchen, lounges, workspace. Um
[17:22] that's the definition I could find and I
[17:24] don't know if Lindsay that's what you
[17:25] were kind of working from kind of the
[17:27] APA. Um,
[17:30] >> that was the idea behind it. And I first
[17:32] heard about it being used in in
[17:34] Portsouth, New Hampshire.
[17:37] >> So that's where this idea sort of came
[17:39] from and then
[17:40] >> them adopting that.
[17:42] >> Yeah. Interesting. I was in Portsouth
[17:44] kind of touring around a couple of um
[17:47] towns in New Hampshire and Maine for
[17:49] economic development purposes and they
[17:52] talked about, you know, have permitting
[17:53] some microtells like, you know, as kind
[17:57] of a modern SRO, right? co living. Um,
[18:00] and so I think it's it's interesting and
[18:02] I'm intrigued by it. It it would it
[18:04] would be a departure from our landbased
[18:08] classification system which has worked
[18:10] for us. So some of my colleagues I think
[18:12] have a little bit more consternation
[18:14] about going in a different route when we
[18:16] felt like previous zoning ordinances
[18:19] anytime a definition was wanted it was
[18:21] made up. And you know, and at the same
[18:23] time, I think that these two definitions
[18:26] have always been very dated to me. And
[18:28] so, you know, I'm maybe a little bit
[18:31] more open to taking both of them,
[18:33] calling them co-living. Um, actually, in
[18:36] the American Planning Association, they
[18:37] also put congregate living um under the
[18:41] co- um co-living. So, in in one sense,
[18:44] we could do this co-living and get rid
[18:46] of those three definitions and
[18:48] regulations and go that route. Um but
[18:51] there is some consternation within the
[18:53] department of do we depart from the
[18:55] landbased classific class classification
[18:58] system that we've held to for the last
[19:01] 11 years and has worked well for us. Um,
[19:06] regardless of which way we go, I think
[19:08] the work that Lindsay has done in
[19:11] looking at how are we treating, you
[19:13] know, the the different as permitted or
[19:15] conditional, I think that's really solid
[19:18] and helpful. And,
[19:19] >> you know, we should probably go ahead
[19:22] and make those changes. To me, the
[19:23] bigger question is, do we try to define
[19:26] SRO and rooming boarding houses?
[19:30] You know, does it work the way it is? is
[19:32] do we need to do something or do we add
[19:35] a you know replace them with the co-l
[19:36] livingiving I would still keep other
[19:39] specialized residential just because
[19:40] it's got things like the barracks the
[19:42] dorms the shelters
[19:44] um and then the only other thing I would
[19:47] say is if we agree that co-living is
[19:49] more of that multi-unit then we want to
[19:52] make sure there's parity there um with
[19:55] our conditional permitted and
[19:56] conditional uses for example if you are
[19:58] doing more than five units in a
[20:00] residential zoning district in a new
[20:02] building that would be a conditional
[20:03] use. I think we'd if we're going to say
[20:06] we just want to make sure how we're
[20:07] treating multi-unit is equal to what we
[20:10] do with the co-living uses.
[20:13] >> Yeah. The only real question that I had
[20:15] about that was this introduction of a
[20:19] new term co-living when there is already
[20:22] a term congregate living
[20:24] >> in the uh in the land use regulations.
[20:26] And I'm not sure why we would move to a
[20:29] new definition that could be potentially
[20:31] confusing to people.
[20:32] >> Could you give are there any examples in
[20:34] town of congregate living? So
[20:38] >> I don't know if any of congregate living
[20:41] I I mean these kind of uses all of them
[20:44] are probably happening and you know it's
[20:48] kind of just
[20:50] people doing their thing and using their
[20:52] houses in ways and we're not so
[20:55] concerned about it. I think there is
[20:56] congregate living in Putney. I think
[20:58] Putney Cares operates a house on Kimell
[21:02] Hill and I think it's generally for
[21:05] seniors and I think meals are provided.
[21:08] That is that's the one that I'm aware
[21:11] of. Um I'm not sure of other congregate
[21:15] living around. Um, the definition does
[21:18] seem to tie to some 1970s
[21:22] um, federal act where they were trying
[21:24] to get more congregate living. And so I
[21:28] think that's why Lindy Lindsay was
[21:30] suggesting I don't know if it was in
[21:33] your notes or if it was in in your main
[21:34] thing, but the congregate could actually
[21:37] go into the the housing for elderly or
[21:40] whatever. Um,
[21:42] >> and [clears throat] part of the reason I
[21:44] chose co-l livingiving in addition to it
[21:46] already being a used term elsewhere is
[21:49] that it's a term that people associate
[21:52] more with quality than some of the other
[21:56] terms that are currently being used for
[21:58] the same type of housing. So, I wanted
[22:01] to try and help eliminate some of the
[22:05] implicit bias that certain terms can
[22:07] bring up and use a term that's more
[22:09] modern and less associated with poverty.
[22:19] » I go first.
[22:19] >> Yeah. So, one um different angle I have
[22:23] on it is not on the on the term co-l
[22:26] livingiving but um kind of expounding on
[22:30] what I said before where I think of a
[22:32] moving house as looking like a house
[22:34] from the outside and an SRO looking I
[22:38] think generally having more so-called
[22:41] unit on it than the rented bedrooms in a
[22:43] rooming house but not necessarily but
[22:45] looking like a bigger building and more
[22:47] blocky building. Um,
[22:49] I think maybe the most similar use in
[22:53] our rags currently to an SRO is a
[22:56] multi-unit
[22:57] five plus
[23:00] >> maybe hotel in the sense of how it looks
[23:02] on the outside at least conventionally.
[23:04] But as far as like the impact to the
[23:08] neighborhood, traffic, noise,
[23:11] people interactions, I think a
[23:13] multi-unit um five plus five and up is
[23:17] most similar. And so
[23:21] we
[23:22] have some similarities in how we permit
[23:25] or don't permit or conditional treat uh
[23:29] multi-unit five and up compared to
[23:32] single family residential.
[23:34] Um we have some similarities there but
[23:36] we also have some differences.
[23:38] So similarly in my mind lumping SRO
[23:41] together with rooming house is a bit too
[23:44] general.
[23:47] I'd say you know a good comparison is
[23:49] like in my mind is that wherever we
[23:53] permit multi-unit five and up maybe
[23:56] that's where we should permit SRO's.
[23:59] Wherever we're conditional conditionally
[24:01] allow multi-unit five and up that's
[24:03] where we should conditionally allow SRO.
[24:07] wherever we don't allow multi-unit five
[24:09] and up. Same with SRO's. That's my
[24:11] thinking.
[24:12] >> Yeah, I think
[24:12] >> but unnecessarily treat rooming houses
[24:14] the same way as those. I
[24:16] >> I think that's kind of a no-brainer that
[24:18] if if we have differences in that now
[24:20] that that should be corrected. They
[24:22] should be permitted, you know, where things are already permitted. Um
[24:27] I'm just wondering if we even need to
[24:30] make any changes to these different
[24:32] definitions. Um, the one thing that
[24:34] really struck out really stuck out to me
[24:37] in the definition of the congregate
[24:39] living in the land use regulations is
[24:41] that it's really the way it's phrased
[24:43] one or more structures intended to
[24:45] provide housing and services to
[24:47] residents. It seems like that it's like
[24:49] a company providing that service to
[24:52] somebody and that's not really, you
[24:54] know, what we're talking about here.
[24:55] When we say co-l livingiving, we're
[24:57] really talking about something that's
[24:59] more like an SRO where people are have
[25:02] shared facilities in the building, but
[25:03] we want to call it something different
[25:05] than an SRO because that name has
[25:08] negative connotations for some people.
[25:11] Um, but as far as, you know, the types
[25:14] of buildings and the types of uses that
[25:16] are actually being employed, it seems to
[25:19] me like they're all covered in these
[25:21] definitions. We just, you know, might
[25:24] talk about them on paper one way and
[25:27] talk about them in person a different
[25:28] way.
[25:34] » Okay.
[25:35] >> So,
[25:38] me if I did not get this clearly, but so
[25:42] you compared it to like a five unit,
[25:45] right?
[25:45] >> That's what I think is
[25:46] >> but like I think a five unit is
[25:48] >> five and up.
[25:49] is is what it is. It's it's
[25:51] a it's a house with a kitchen and but an
[25:55] SRO, please correct me, it's just it's
[25:58] you're sharing the facilities. So like
[26:00] the impact is different on it's not it's
[26:04] not like you can have like two or three
[26:06] or four people in that one unit. You're
[26:09] it's a single, you know, just one person
[26:11] and we're sharing one um that space. The
[26:14] person that bought my previous house on
[26:17] Little Street did this. She it was a
[26:18] three-bedroom house and she rented out
[26:21] the two bedrooms
[26:22] >> in a residential neighborhood. So,
[26:25] >> I mean, if she had a big house in which
[26:27] we do have a lot of big old houses that
[26:29] have several bedrooms, maybe even more
[26:32] than five,
[26:33] >> and they all share the same kitchen and
[26:37] you're not going to have the same
[26:38] impact, I think. And that's the way I
[26:41] see it. I see what Lindsay is trying to
[26:42] do is create like less of a stigma
[26:45] around it. And I I just don't think it
[26:47] compares to five unit plus because five
[26:51] units you could have 10 to 20 plus
[26:54] people living in that area where
[26:58] >> a five SRO or co-l livingiving you could
[27:00] have five maybe six people living in
[27:03] that that that place. What I think
[27:06] >> I would I would definitely agree with
[27:08] what Dina is saying about what I'm
[27:11] trying to do and about the difference
[27:14] between five units and SRO's is that I
[27:17] think that part of what I was trying to
[27:19] get at with the research and work that I
[27:22] did was that we seem to be putting a
[27:26] particular type of sort of almost
[27:29] roommate type situation into an overly
[27:34] um
[27:37] policed for lack of a better word
[27:39] category when we don't do that in other
[27:43] situations where in fact the same thing
[27:47] may functionally be happening.
[27:50] Um and so like for example I mean
[27:53] correct me if I'm wrong but if I had a
[27:55] 10bedroom house I don't is there any
[27:58] limit on the number of roommates I could
[28:02] have? No, we don't regulate that.
[28:05] >> Yeah. So, like that to me is sort of
[28:07] what I was getting at with some of this
[28:09] was trying to note the fact that we give
[28:13] people who perhaps own single family
[28:16] houses certain privileges to do them and
[28:19] occupy them in a way that we don't apply
[28:24] um to other types of structures um that
[28:27] may be really serving the same purpose.
[28:31] um but sharing a lot of the same
[28:34] services in the same way.
[28:39] » Yeah, I was just going to say before
[28:40] that I think what Tom was getting at is
[28:42] that any place that we're already
[28:44] permitting five unit plus building,
[28:47] we're talking about also permitting
[28:49] things that are going to have less
[28:50] impact than that. So there's no reason
[28:52] why really we wouldn't permit that. Bird
[28:55] force shouldn't.
[28:56] Yeah.
[28:57] >> I just um I do want to say to Lindsay's
[29:01] point like we do not like there's a lot
[29:04] of house sharing that goes on. So it's
[29:06] co-l livingiving arrangements, it's
[29:07] roommates, it's whatever.
[29:09] >> We are not regulating that. We we don't
[29:12] go looking for it. So I just want to
[29:15] clarify like you know we're not we know
[29:17] what goes on.
[29:19] >> That's not something we're looking to
[29:21] regulate. These are kind of applying to
[29:23] new developments. If somebody comes in
[29:25] with a business plan to to operate SRO
[29:28] kind of thing, that that's when it would
[29:30] apply. But
[29:31] >> I just want to clarify, we're not
[29:33] looking for
[29:35] pleasing it in any way like that.
[29:42] It just
[29:47] I would have liked I mean I bring up the
[29:49] multi-unit five and up. Um it would be
[29:51] helpful. I could have done it myself in
[29:53] preparation, but to have that added to
[29:54] the table.
[29:57] >> Yeah, I made a note. I can add that to
[29:59] the table so we can look at it next time
[30:01] and folks can see how that compares too
[30:03] if you're interested in that
[30:05] >> because it'd be you know it'd be odd for
[30:07] me if there's some districts and I can't
[30:10] hold them off the top of my head but
[30:11] let's say the rural or rural residential
[30:14] >> I don't know if that applies but um
[30:16] maybe or waterfront I don't know where
[30:19] maybe multi-unit five and up is
[30:22] >> conditional or let's say not allowed but
[30:25] then like a 30 unit SRO might be because
[30:28] of the changes we're proposing. It seems
[30:30] like
[30:31] >> unless then unless we reconsider adding
[30:34] the multi, you know, five and up, but if
[30:35] we decided that that's too much impact,
[30:39] but then we allow a 30 unit SRO, it
[30:41] seems not be consistent because an SRO
[30:45] is not only it would not only be 30
[30:46] people, but it would also at least
[30:47] conventionally be be like a big blocky
[30:50] building that may not fit
[30:53] the the character of the area maybe.
[30:59] Can I um
[31:01] >> it seems like based on the previous
[31:04] conversation earlier conversations that
[31:07] can we all agree that single room
[31:09] occupancy is not well placed in other
[31:12] specialized residential structures and
[31:15] that should come out with its own
[31:18] definition or like however which way
[31:20] this goes but I don't know. Is there any
[31:23] agreement that that needs to come out of
[31:24] other specialized residential
[31:26] structures?
[31:27] >> Yes, it doesn't seem well placaced to me
[31:28] in that category.
[31:32] » I I have no objection to that. I'm I'm
[31:35] not sure that it's necessary really, but
[31:37] I have no objection to it happening
[31:39] either. So, if you feel that um it's better placed in its own category,
[31:46] I'll support that.
[31:48] >> On the LBCS, which is planning.org, or
[31:52] website. Um they break down other
[31:56] specialized residential structures into
[31:59] 1310 is barracks, 1320 is dormitories. I
[32:02] won't say the number for all of them. So
[32:03] barracks, dormitories, hotels, motel,
[32:06] and tourist courts. We've already pulled
[32:08] that out
[32:09] >> in our ranks in a second section.
[32:12] >> Um single room occupancies.
[32:15] >> How are they defined in SRO? Could you
[32:17] read that?
[32:18] >> Yeah, in just a moment. um temporary
[32:20] structures, tents.
[32:24] They're really um and
[32:26] >> because it's a possibility,
[32:27] >> right?
[32:28] >> Yeah.
[32:29] >> Don't we have shelters in our death?
[32:30] >> Yes. So, they don't include shelters in
[32:33] theirs and they have their last um
[32:36] edition 1360 is other structurally
[32:38] converted buildings.
[32:41] >> I think it's very problematic to include
[32:43] single room occupancies with things like
[32:45] homeless shelters and dormitories and
[32:48] barracks. They're not the same. As
[32:49] someone pointed out earlier, people
[32:52] >> may very well live in an SRO for,
[32:56] you know, decades.
[32:58] >> Yeah. I mean, there is something in the
[33:00] I guess it's in the I'm not sure what
[33:03] level of the LCBS. There's like
[33:06] basically residential uses and there's
[33:09] transient uses and an SRO would not be
[33:12] transient like that is somebody's
[33:15] resident. So
[33:17] >> um so the definition it's a few
[33:19] sentences of single room occupancy is
[33:21] historically many hotels and motel are
[33:24] converted SRO's even new SRO buildings
[33:27] are structurally no different from
[33:29] hotels but many have small cooking
[33:32] facilities whether independent or common
[33:34] and other amenities not associated with
[33:37] hotel SRO may also have building code
[33:40] specifications different from hotels and
[33:42] motel for tracking the number of
[33:44] occupants guest rooms or beds use
[33:45] additional attributes or fields and then
[33:47] they use database.
[33:48] >> That's an awful definition.
[33:49] >> Yeah,
[33:51] [laughter]
[33:54] » that's not a definition I ever want to
[33:56] use. I mean, and I think it it points to
[34:00] the, you know, the proposal of a
[34:02] co-living
[34:03] category because these are dated and in
[34:06] br you know, that's talking about New
[34:08] York City and LA and, you know, it's not
[34:11] talking about the Brattleboroough scale
[34:13] of development. Now, I guess you know,
[34:14] Hotel Brooks could have been an SRO at
[34:16] some point, but you know, it's not
[34:18] really our scale.
[34:20] >> I I mean, I don't know about that
[34:22] because the the experience that I have
[34:24] that I'm comparing it to is largely that
[34:26] of living in Ocean City, New Jersey,
[34:28] >> which has a number of SRO's, rooming
[34:31] houses, boarding houses, hotels. Mhm.
[34:34] >> Um I mean I look at these definitions
[34:36] and I don't I don't really feel like
[34:40] they need to be that distinct from each
[34:42] other, but if other commissioners feel
[34:44] that they do, I would support that. Um
[34:47] and and maybe it is that you know what
[34:49] we really need to do is sit down and
[34:51] make new definitions of these. I'm
[34:53] perfectly comfortable with that, too.
[34:56] I mean certainly a a single room
[34:58] occupancy building is definitely
[35:00] different than a barracks or a dormatory
[35:02] or a homeless shelter, you know. Um
[35:06] so if we feel that we want to have those
[35:08] definitions, let's write them.
[35:12] Well, and I think what Sue was saying
[35:14] was, can we just at least to start with
[35:17] just take single room occupancies out of
[35:20] other specialized residential structures
[35:23] category? And I think that what I'm
[35:27] hearing from people is that that at the
[35:29] very least makes sense because you just
[35:31] said that it's not like those other
[35:34] which of these things is not like the
[35:36] other and the most obvious one is SRO's
[35:38] is not like the others in that list. So
[35:43] I think that's at least a starting point
[35:47] is taking it out of that.
[35:49] >> Yeah. I'm just wondering if as like as a legal matter, do these need to have
[35:56] different definitions in order to get
[35:58] them built or permitted and in use?
[36:02] >> When you say these, what are you talking
[36:03] about? All the various
[36:06] >> of buildings,
[36:06] >> all the the
[36:08] >> like is there something like legally
[36:11] distinct in planning that distinguishes
[36:14] a dormatory from a barracks such that
[36:16] they would have to have different
[36:18] definitions in the regulations?
[36:22] » Well, they would fall under other
[36:24] specialized residential structures. If
[36:26] they came in, we'd look there and then
[36:29] we'd say, "Oh, is this a barrack or a
[36:31] dormatory?" Doesn't really matter. like
[36:33] we'd classify it as one based on the
[36:36] we'd go to the LBCS I think elsewhere in
[36:38] this document that says we're using
[36:40] definitions from there and then we'd say
[36:42] okay it's other specialized residential
[36:44] structure so therefore it's conditional
[36:46] >> so that's how we'd use it
[36:50] you know a lot of times there's gray
[36:51] area we're like which which does it fall
[36:53] under
[36:54] >> but that's kind like is there enough
[36:57] gray area in there that this would
[36:59] potentially be a stumbling block for
[37:02] permitting that such that we need to
[37:04] have a firmer definition in order to
[37:07] streamline this process.
[37:08] >> If I may, it allows or separate
[37:11] definitions allowed for different
[37:12] treatments, different different
[37:15] permitting, different conditional,
[37:16] different not approved in different
[37:17] districts.
[37:18] >> Yeah, that that's what I'm trying to get
[37:19] at, you know, is is that a lack in our
[37:22] current regulations?
[37:24] Are you saying are you asking whether we
[37:27] need to have definitions for like
[37:29] barracks and dormitories and the other
[37:32] items in that category?
[37:34] >> Well, well, really all of them.
[37:36] >> Okay. So, I don't I don't know whether
[37:39] that's the case or not, but I personally
[37:43] for this exercise and this activity
[37:46] would want us to stay focused more on
[37:49] the stuff that I already did the
[37:50] research on. and if we can take care of
[37:54] this and then maybe that's something
[37:56] that we come back to in the future. But
[37:58] like I haven't done any study on those
[38:01] categories. So I don't and I don't think
[38:04] that we I don't think frankly that
[38:06] they're as important to focus on as the
[38:08] ones that I'm focusing on right now
[38:10] because we are unlikely to have any
[38:12] barracks or dormitories built in the
[38:14] near future. is we can hope that we will
[38:16] have perhaps
[38:18] co-living type spaces built for folks.
[38:21] >> Yeah. I mean, but all that I'm trying to
[38:23] get at is that is there something in the
[38:25] regulations that is preventing SRO's or
[38:29] co-living uh buildings from being built
[38:32] or permitted and put into use that needs
[38:35] to be changed.
[38:36] >> Um
[38:37] >> well, the point
[38:38] >> that's hard to answer. I mean, well,
[38:40] part of the point of this is that
[38:42] they're not allowed in some areas where
[38:44] I think that they should be allowed. So,
[38:46] yes, there is a problem, at least as far
[38:49] as I'm concerned, um that they aren't
[38:51] being allowed in certain areas. And
[38:53] that's partly because they're being
[38:55] lumped into this category that is not
[38:58] entirely suitable for them.
[39:00] >> Okay. Gotcha.
[39:02] Although I will say just as a final note
[39:05] on that subject, I personally am hoping
[39:07] to see more dormitories get built in
[39:09] this town, I would really as a long-term
[39:12] project would really like to see a new
[39:14] university be built here.
[39:17] >> That'd be great.
[39:19] >> UBM [clears throat] needs to share the
[39:20] wealth.
[39:20] >> Yeah. Branches.
[39:22] >> Yeah. Yeah.
[39:26] So,
[39:27] if I may.
[39:29] >> Yep. We're going to pull SRO out of this
[39:32] definition.
[39:34] Um
[39:36] and then um
[39:41] so um you know we could play around with
[39:44] this what it would look like if it was
[39:45] the co-l livingiving. I mean I think I
[39:47] don't I went through what Lindsay
[39:49] proposed in terms of impact from
[39:51] different uses and how they should be
[39:53] treated similarly. I'm pretty
[39:55] comfortable with that. You might all
[39:57] want some more time. Um with that
[40:01] um
[40:05] yeah um
[40:08] there are some followons like if we did
[40:10] a co-l livingiving it's going to affect
[40:12] some other if we if we had a definition
[40:14] for co-living it would be um
[40:19] you know we'd have to change some of our
[40:21] special standards in section chapter 3.
[40:25] um if you went that route, if you if we
[40:28] stick with and we add a definition for
[40:30] single room occupancy and a definition
[40:33] for
[40:35] um the rooming and boarding house. Um we
[40:39] could we could do it that way. Lindsay,
[40:41] I'm sorry if I'm going off script from
[40:44] your
[40:44] >> No, I think so. You're talking about the
[40:48] logistics of how things would change in
[40:50] the land development regulations. Yeah.
[40:52] And basically I knew that those would be
[40:56] things and I deliberately didn't foc on
[41:00] that in the memo figuring that if we
[41:03] moved forward you all would help tell us
[41:06] the best way to sort of reach the
[41:08] general consensus that we had gotten to
[41:11] um as far as the actual logistics of how
[41:14] it would look in the ledrs. Yeah,
[41:19] » I'm I'm open to seeing a unified, if
[41:22] that's the right word, category called
[41:24] living, but
[41:26] um I don't want to but my inclination is
[41:28] just to keep them separate and just
[41:30] figure out how to treat SRO's and
[41:32] rooming houses and like congregate
[41:35] living um all separately. Um, I'm open
[41:38] to seeing these details worked out a bit
[41:41] or a draft, but I mean, at least as far
[41:43] as I'm concerned, at this point in time,
[41:44] I don't want to
[41:46] >> ask people to do additional work that at
[41:48] this point in time I don't really
[41:49] support.
[41:50] >> Um, because I I think SRO's are quite
[41:54] different than rooming houses. Maybe in
[41:56] the modern era, SRO's aren't different
[41:58] than rooming houses, but I Yeah,
[42:01] actually there was an SRO for a little
[42:03] period of time. Wasn't Holton home a
[42:05] style for a long period or or
[42:07] >> uh it was yeah I mean essentially it was it was permitted under another
[42:11] other specialized residential
[42:15] structure. Um yeah I think we considered
[42:17] it an SRO. It was um
[42:21] uh traveling nursing housing and
[42:23] doctors.
[42:23] >> And I guess one could look at that and
[42:25] say that's a home. It's a mansion and it
[42:28] could be rooming houses inside or it
[42:30] could be a rooming house with rooms
[42:32] rented inside.
[42:34] >> I don't know who would own that and do
[42:36] that but but maybe um so I don't know. I
[42:40] mean in in the like the conventional
[42:42] definition of an SRO historically what
[42:44] it is and
[42:46] >> I think
[42:46] >> difference but if there's if there's big
[42:48] gray areas then I or a lot of overlap in
[42:51] reality and in the present day and in
[42:52] Brattleboro then I'm open to seeing them
[42:56] unified but they do seem different to me
[42:58] at least by their definitions. I mean,
[43:01] obviously since I proposed it, I'm most
[43:04] in favor of unifying them, but in um
[43:08] bullet point D, I think goes to your
[43:11] point, Tom, about the poss if they
[43:14] aren't unified, then what is the other
[43:17] option? And
[43:19] um you know, so I did sort of
[43:23] >> put that forward. if if we didn't want
[43:25] to unify them. That said, if we
[43:29] don't choose to combine um SRO's and
[43:32] rooming and boarding houses, I'd still
[43:34] really like to see the name of single
[43:37] residents occupancies changed, which I
[43:40] don't think I I put in the memo, but I I
[43:43] would like I don't think that that term
[43:46] is as helpful and I think it elicits
[43:51] certain biases. So, I would prefer to
[43:53] see maybe it could just be called co-l
[43:55] livingiving and we could still have
[43:57] Romanian boarding houses. Um, but if
[44:00] they didn't come together, I' I'd still
[44:02] like to change the name if possible.
[44:04] That'd be my preference. Ju
[44:06] >> just before I moved here, I was living
[44:08] in Seattle and what they were generally
[44:11] using uh to describe buildings like that
[44:13] was micro apartments.
[44:17] » Sure. Yeah. I think almost anything is better. I mean, using the the term
[44:23] flop house would be worse, but I doubt
[44:25] that any of us are going to suggest
[44:27] that. So, you know, I'm I'm open to what
[44:30] the actual term is. I just like it to be
[44:33] nicer and more modern.
[44:36] >> I I would not consider an SRO to be a
[44:39] slop flop. [laughter]
[44:42] >> I'm just I'm sort of laughing because I,
[44:44] you know, in my early 20s, I lived in a
[44:46] place that could reasonably be called a
[44:48] flop house.
[44:51] I would propose that we could just roll
[44:53] it into the multi-unit five and up. But
[44:56] if I'm hearing from, you know, from Dena
[44:58] and maybe others earlier that, well, an
[45:01] SRO has a lower impact.
[45:03] >> Yeah.
[45:03] >> Like a a 10-unit SRO has a significantly
[45:06] lower impact than a 10-unit apartment
[45:08] building. Well, then then maybe we don't
[45:10] lump it in there.
[45:11] >> Yeah. No, I I think that definition of
[45:13] multi-unit uh building is very much
[45:16] different than an SRO. Mhm.
[45:18] >> I mean that you're talking about in the
[45:19] heart and phil says these tests.
[45:25] » I'm happy to change the name.
[45:27] >> I didn't.
[45:28] >> Yeah.
[45:30] >> No, modernize it. And
[45:32] >> yeah, I I personally do not feel that
[45:35] the name SRO is a negative has a
[45:37] negative connotation for me, but I'm
[45:40] happy for people to use other terms if
[45:42] it has negative connotations for them.
[45:46] >> Great.
[45:51] So, how do you want to move forward? Do
[45:54] you want Lindsay? Do you have more time
[45:57] you can we can work with you?
[45:58] >> Well, I think that um I appreciate
[46:02] everyone's feedback tonight and I think
[46:05] that it's been really good. I am
[46:07] cognizant of the fact that we're missing
[46:08] a couple of commission members. Um,
[46:14] so I guess
[46:18] my thought is to maybe come back to the
[46:22] next meeting
[46:25] um,
[46:26] and see if anyone has any additional
[46:30] comments that haven't already been said.
[46:35] Unless people feel, you know, I mean, we
[46:39] are the ones here this evening. So if
[46:41] people feel like yes, right now I could
[46:44] go ahead and move forward with renaming
[46:46] SRO's co-l livingiving and starting to
[46:50] have the planning staff look over item
[46:54] 1D and seeing how that would play out in
[46:59] the LUDRS, then you know I'd be very
[47:02] happy to make that motion and and have
[47:06] planning staff start to look over that
[47:09] so that we could start to move forward.
[47:10] and then I guess if the other
[47:12] commissioners had questions or issues
[47:14] then you know it's still open to
[47:16] discussion. Nothing's final yet.
[47:21] » Can we just That sounds good to me. Um
[47:24] can we just quickly review the list of
[47:28] uses that you thought were comparable in
[47:31] impact to SRO and the list of uses you
[47:34] thought were higher impact because that
[47:37] >> Yeah. So let's
[47:39] >> how the decision decisions are being
[47:41] made of.
[47:42] >> Yeah.
[47:44] >> Um
[47:46] so I think that that was
[47:59] I think that that's further down in my
[48:01] notes so it's harder for me to
[48:05] Okay. So, I thought that
[48:09] um
[48:11] single resident occupancies had um a
[48:15] similar impact to boarding and rooming
[48:19] and congregate living.
[48:22] Um
[48:24] and I thought that
[48:27] >> you have bed and breakfast or in in
[48:29] there
[48:29] >> that's later. So I I thought in my
[48:34] earlier notes, so let me scan down to
[48:36] see after I receive staff
[48:40] input.
[48:46] » Well, can you go with the one that's
[48:48] like your proposal before us?
[48:51] >> Well, I was looking back at my history
[48:54] because I don't think so.
[48:57] I thought that functionally similar uses
[48:59] were boarding and rooming, congregate
[49:01] living, and SRO's and
[49:06] that if one of those is permitted in a
[49:09] district, then all should be permitted.
[49:12] Now, we're taking out SRO's from other
[49:15] specialized, so it would be separate
[49:16] from that. Um,
[49:19] and then I thought that if boarding
[49:22] room, congregate living or an SRO were
[49:24] conditionally allowed in a district,
[49:26] then all should be allowed. And if a
[49:29] higher impact use, which I defined as
[49:32] retirement, assisted living, BMBB in or
[49:35] skilled nursing is per permitted in a
[49:37] district, then boarding and rooming,
[49:41] congregate living, and SRO should also
[49:43] be permitted.
[49:46] And then lastly, if a higher impact use,
[49:50] retirement, assisted living, BMBB,
[49:52] skilled nursing, is conditionally
[49:55] allowed in a district, then all of the
[49:57] lower impact uses, boarding, rooming,
[50:00] congregate living, and SRO should be
[50:02] conditionally allowed.
[50:05] >> Full agreement with all four of those
[50:06] points.
[50:09] I would ask that um when this comes back
[50:11] to us that the multi-unit five and up
[50:14] get gets added in there one of those
[50:20] you know because it'll be part of the table of comparisons I think is what
[50:24] we talked about.
[50:26] >> Um
[50:27] I'm not sure that
[50:30] retirement housing is is a higher end.
[50:32] The only retirement housing I know in
[50:34] Bridleboro might be the Black Mountain
[50:36] Estates,
[50:37] which is basically just single family,
[50:42] single unit attached dwellings in like a
[50:45] neighborhood.
[50:47] >> Well, to me it's higher impact because
[50:49] they all have their own bathrooms,
[50:50] kitchens, and things of that nature. So,
[50:53] that was primarily how I was defining
[50:55] things like that. And so to me that
[50:58] could be a lot of units [snorts] in in
[51:02] one place. I mean some retirement
[51:04] housing communities and some places are
[51:08] hundreds and even thousands of units.
[51:12] >> That's a kind of a funny one. It's like
[51:15] >> is weird.
[51:15] >> Is it even necessary?
[51:18] >> It's not very well defined.
[51:20] >> Yeah. So, I'm looking at the the table
[51:23] in Lindsay's notes and where where under
[51:26] hotel or motel and it says it's
[51:28] conditional in village center and
[51:30] neighborhood center. And I'm I'm
[51:32] wondering why that is. A lot of my
[51:36] wonderment has to do with the fact that
[51:37] I don't remember exactly where the
[51:39] village center is and where the
[51:40] neighborhood center is.
[51:41] >> Yeah. So, Village Center is basically
[51:44] the bridge at Melrose Street is like the
[51:48] entrance to it probably up to like I
[51:50] think Green Leaf Street um is the
[51:53] village area and it goes as deep as the
[51:56] Chalet property and I think it's been
[51:59] extended to include Melrose Terrace, the
[52:02] former Melrose Terrace. So, so that's
[52:05] West Brattleleboroough Village District.
[52:07] And then the neighborhood centers are
[52:11] um
[52:13] they're out in West Brattleboroough. So,
[52:14] it's the area just past that along Route
[52:16] 9 that goes to Sunset Lake. And then
[52:20] there's um the area from the Veterans
[52:23] Bridge up to the Royal Plaza. That's
[52:26] neighborhood center meant to be smaller
[52:28] scale kind of walk pedestrian oriented.
[52:32] And then there's another one on Canal
[52:33] Street um which goes uh basically
[52:38] uh like
[52:41] just say Fair View to the interstate.
[52:45] >> So apparently Dan's [clears throat]
[52:46] trying to log in
[52:48] >> really
[52:52] » I have not seen him pop up but could be
[52:55] because I'm st sharing.
[52:58] He should try again. And I haven't
[53:00] gotten notification that he's trying to
[53:01] get in
[53:04] that I know of.
[53:11] » Is he using the right link?
[53:13] >> So I can add the five unit to the table
[53:17] too so that people can see that because
[53:19] it sounds like people are interested in
[53:21] that and then I can share with the
[53:22] staff. Does staff to start looking at
[53:27] what's proposed in D and thinking about
[53:30] the actual logistics of that? Do you
[53:33] need a motion from us or is us
[53:35] expressing our general agreement and
[53:37] opinion here tonight sufficient?
[53:39] >> That's sufficient.
[53:40] >> Great. We'll start looking at that and
[53:43] we can start looking at um a definition
[53:47] for
[53:49] co-l livingiving or whatever.
[53:50] >> Okay. You know, like I said, um, some
[53:55] staff feel really strongly that we
[53:56] should stick with the LBCS, so maybe we
[53:59] can find something in there, but their
[54:00] definition of an SRO was not something I
[54:03] would go with. So, we might deviate. I
[54:06] don't know.
[54:08] And so, I can work with you, Lindsay, on
[54:10] that.
[54:13] » Okay, then. I mean, I'm satisfied with
[54:16] the discussion we had tonight. I don't
[54:17] know if anyone else needs to say more on
[54:20] the topic, but I'm happy [snorts] to
[54:22] move on and do that work on the table
[54:24] and come back next month.
[54:27] >> Sounds good to me.
[54:30] >> Great. Yeah. And thank you, Lindsay. So,
[54:33] thanks for looking into this works and
[54:39] » Okay, moving on to the sidewalks
[54:42] session. Um
[54:45] last time we talked about how we would
[54:48] like to work on this kind of um look
[54:52] into developing and enacting so to speak
[54:55] a multi-pronged sort of initiative to
[54:59] hopefully improve the conditioning of
[55:00] the sidewalks as far as upkeep,
[55:02] maintenance, snow removal, etc. And um
[55:06] we t staff and to both think about this
[55:10] and with their expertise knowledge and
[55:13] um kind of sketch out plan
[55:17] and have people see
[55:19] >> very detailed.
[55:22] » So
[55:25] do you want to
[55:26] >> Yeah. Do you want me to walk you through
[55:27] it? And I apologize you many of you may
[55:30] not have seen it because it did come
[55:31] today. So, um, I'm proposing a work plan
[55:35] to improve pedestrian safety,
[55:37] accessibility, and yearround mobility by
[55:41] updating the sidewalk ordinance to
[55:43] reflect current best practice and legal
[55:45] requirements.
[55:46] Evaluating existing winter sidewalk
[55:48] maintenance responsibilities,
[55:50] enforcement mechanisms, and operational
[55:52] practices, and developing and
[55:54] implementing a public information
[55:56] campaign to increase awareness of
[55:58] sidewalk maintenance obligations and
[55:59] pedestrian safety.
[56:01] Um, so the proposed I see this as kind
[56:05] of taking a year to complete. I mean, if
[56:08] the planning commission is going to want
[56:10] to make recommendations about how winter
[56:12] maintenance is done, like
[56:15] we're going to need support to do that
[56:17] um to take something like this to the
[56:18] select board. So, as you all know,
[56:20] winter maintenance is now um basically
[56:24] the town does the plow routes, the
[56:25] business or property owners do the
[56:27] downtown area and there's lots of
[56:29] sidewalks that are not being taken care
[56:32] of. So, if we are proposing anything
[56:35] that you know increases the amount that
[56:38] this town is sidewalk plowing, there's
[56:40] obviously there's budget to consider. If
[56:43] we are going to make any recommendations
[56:45] that people people are now responsible
[56:48] for doing their sidewalks, that is a big
[56:50] cultural shift for this town, although
[56:54] it's normal everywhere else, right?
[56:56] >> So, um, so I really thought we needed to
[56:59] like go through everything. I did have a
[57:02] conversation with the DPW director and
[57:05] he was like,
[57:07] "Yeah, that's fine." He's like, "It
[57:09] needs to be looked at." and um you know
[57:11] particularly you know in areas around
[57:13] enforcement and and stuff definitely you
[57:16] know obstructions and sidewalks and that
[57:18] kind of thing it be good to improve
[57:21] those. Um, so the first task would be to
[57:25] look at our exist existing regulations,
[57:28] the sidewalk ordinance, maybe anything
[57:30] the zoning is saying, um, public works
[57:32] policies, snow and ice, uh, removal,
[57:36] enforcement procedures, and anything
[57:38] that the charter says, which I don't
[57:40] think is much, but they might talk about
[57:42] traffic safety committee in there. Um,
[57:45] and then collect background information.
[57:47] So the the inventory maps which I you
[57:49] had requested some change to the map
[57:51] that you had seen. Um maybe pedestrian
[57:54] crash data.
[57:56] Um some of this was also based on you
[57:58] know what what you might look if we were
[58:01] putting together a sidewalk maintenance
[58:02] plan. And DPW is actually working with a
[58:06] consultant. So, this next piece, the ADA
[58:08] transition plan, they um are actually
[58:12] having a consultant who's looking at the
[58:13] sidewalks and identifying the areas
[58:15] where there's missing ramps and that
[58:17] kind of thing. So, that report, you
[58:20] know, might be the end of the year. We
[58:21] might get some information before budget
[58:23] season um that they're hoping to have
[58:25] when they're putting their budget
[58:26] together. And so, yeah, the deliverable
[58:29] there for this set tasks would be
[58:32] existing conditions inventory. Um phase
[58:35] two would be researching and um best
[58:39] practices. So looking at other Vermont
[58:41] municipalities, looking at other
[58:43] downtowns,
[58:44] um comparable New England communities,
[58:47] uh maybe even tourist destinations that
[58:49] you know you identify that have good
[58:52] practices. Um we could also do a legal
[58:56] review. will probably figure out what
[58:58] the town's obligations are, what ADA,
[59:01] um, accessibility requirements are, all
[59:04] those kind of things. Um,
[59:07] and then, uh, assess public works. So,
[59:11] what are their current operations,
[59:14] equipment capacity, staffing levels,
[59:16] budget, um, known problem locations,
[59:20] uh, and any future maintenance
[59:21] responsibilities. So here I'm thinking
[59:23] about we add a sidewalk on Putney road
[59:27] like or a multi-use path. Um
[59:32] state's not going to maintain that. So
[59:33] the town is So I think as we're planning
[59:35] this forward, we should be thinking
[59:36] about the future sidewalks that we'll be
[59:38] taking on. So that's one of them. New
[59:41] sidewalk on um Route 142 that's going to
[59:45] go to the bridge once we get the rail
[59:47] railroad clearance. So, um, those kind
[59:50] of considerations just just to know that
[59:53] there are some expanding obligations
[59:55] that we're going to have.
[59:57] >> Um, and then report out on that and
[1:00:00] compare ordinances.
[1:00:02] Um, phase three would be, you know,
[1:00:05] really digging into the winter sidewalk.
[1:00:07] Again, this might come up under the
[1:00:09] other assessments, but but then also
[1:00:11] having stakeholder interviews because
[1:00:14] any change there would really change. um
[1:00:17] maybe evaluate maybe this winter there
[1:00:19] can be some time out evaluating areas um
[1:00:23] particularly the school roots. You know
[1:00:25] there is some method to the roots that
[1:00:27] they're plowing but there you know
[1:00:29] talking to school officials and others
[1:00:31] and figuring out where there's there's
[1:00:32] problems um accessibility barriers. You
[1:00:36] know, we know that the maintenance
[1:00:38] happens in the downtown, the property
[1:00:40] owners are shoveling and whatnot, but
[1:00:41] then we also know crosswalks aren't
[1:00:43] necessarily open for people to cross at
[1:00:46] the crosswalks. Um, and so then
[1:00:48] analyzing policy alternatives um for the
[1:00:51] winter maintenance and then public
[1:00:53] engagement. So, you know, that could
[1:00:56] happen earlier or it could happen when
[1:00:58] we have enough information. So,
[1:01:00] community survey, workshops, focus
[1:01:02] groups, anything like that.
[1:01:05] Then um staff could draft ordinance
[1:01:08] changes. Um we could present that to the
[1:01:10] select board and uh ordinances are
[1:01:13] passed with two hearings, two readings
[1:01:15] and then they they can vote on them. So
[1:01:18] planning commission I think would be
[1:01:19] involved with those hearings with the
[1:01:21] select board. It's the select board's
[1:01:23] obligation though. And then uh from
[1:01:26] there could be a public information and
[1:01:28] education campaign about um you know
[1:01:30] that that could also be happening now
[1:01:32] about people's responsibilities while
[1:01:35] this project's going on. Maybe we could
[1:01:37] see if we could get um some help from
[1:01:39] the communications coordinator to put
[1:01:42] something in the newsletter,
[1:01:45] do social media blasts and whatnot. I
[1:01:47] mean definitely um we try to get stuff
[1:01:50] out there particularly with the change
[1:01:52] in daylight. um to improve safety for
[1:01:56] everybody, but you know, maybe there's
[1:01:58] something for winter maintenance that often doesn't go out.
[1:02:02] So, that's the proposal. Um you know,
[1:02:04] staff is pretty we're pretty busy. Um
[1:02:08] we'll be able to support some of this,
[1:02:09] but it's not going to be a completely
[1:02:11] staff-driven initiative. if you the
[1:02:14] planning commission decides something
[1:02:15] that you want to undertake, we're going
[1:02:17] to need um assistance in doing some of
[1:02:20] this research and um conducting some of
[1:02:23] these activities. So
[1:02:28] um and this doesn't touch on traffic
[1:02:30] safety committee because I'm not really
[1:02:32] sure how to weave that in. This does get
[1:02:34] at public information ordinance, winter
[1:02:36] maintenance and stuff. Um I wasn't quite
[1:02:40] couldn't really wrap my head around um
[1:02:43] you know traffic safety committee
[1:02:45] purview. Um I didn't spend enough time
[1:02:47] with that ordinance although I know it is pretty heavily leaning towards
[1:02:52] parking and intersections and roads and
[1:02:55] stuff but we definitely the traffic
[1:02:57] safety committee I do staff that and we
[1:03:00] do um deal with sidewalks and we take
[1:03:04] safety action complaints on sidewalk
[1:03:06] conditions. In fact, I got one today um
[1:03:09] and sent it along to public works for
[1:03:11] enforcement.
[1:03:13] >> I don't Yeah, I mean, yeah,
[1:03:16] >> kind of in some ways. Um we make the
[1:03:20] traffic safety committee has made
[1:03:21] recommendations to public works on what
[1:03:24] should be plowed. Um but it's not an
[1:03:26] regular ongoing thing that we do. As we
[1:03:28] get requests, we might make a
[1:03:30] recommendation to them. So there's probably area in there to be
[1:03:34] looking at that ordinance. I don't know
[1:03:35] that that needs like the full,
[1:03:39] you know, public outreach process and
[1:03:42] whatnot.
[1:03:44] >> So, specifically when you you're talking
[1:03:47] about winter maintenance and stuff, but
[1:03:49] what about summer maintenance?
[1:03:50] >> No, same like the vegetation, the signs,
[1:03:53] anything that is impeding
[1:03:56] >> the sidewalks and
[1:04:00] yeah, you know, just
[1:04:03] there's got to be some
[1:04:06] regulations and hope.
[1:04:08] >> There is, but I think the main thing
[1:04:10] that we all noticed was the the
[1:04:12] deficiency in the snow removal on on on
[1:04:15] most sidewalks for private property
[1:04:16] owners. But I think as part of part of
[1:04:18] this process at the least, we'll be like
[1:04:20] updating and modernizing. And I feel
[1:04:23] like in the last few years when I paid
[1:04:24] attention to ordinance uh redoss in
[1:04:27] town, it's just like they took one that
[1:04:29] was like this long and made it this long
[1:04:31] now. Not because staff is just trying to
[1:04:34] or busy bodies are trying to make things
[1:04:35] confusing. But I think to to make things
[1:04:38] effective and I think as time goes on we
[1:04:41] often realize that to make things
[1:04:44] legally enforcable that they they have
[1:04:46] to be longer than they the brevity that
[1:04:48] they used to be from decades ago.
[1:04:52] >> Yeah. Lindsay
[1:04:55] >> um you mentioned how you would need like
[1:04:57] planning commission support. Is it
[1:05:00] possible with projects like this that
[1:05:02] are bigger? And I know that there's not
[1:05:05] a great likelihood that you would get a
[1:05:07] response, but is it possible to put out
[1:05:09] a call to the wider community to ask for
[1:05:13] people to serve on like a subcommittee
[1:05:15] or something like that or advisory
[1:05:18] committee just to try and add some
[1:05:21] additional voices and to make the work
[1:05:25] lighter?
[1:05:27] Um,
[1:05:29] I don't have a solid answer for you, but
[1:05:33] um, because in the past like
[1:05:35] subcommittees have always been planning
[1:05:38] commission members, although at one
[1:05:40] point we did pull from some several
[1:05:42] different committees, but I I think it
[1:05:45] can probably be done. I just want to go
[1:05:47] up through the the channels.
[1:05:49] >> Yeah, maybe I mean maybe subcommittee is
[1:05:51] the wrong word. Like I said, maybe
[1:05:53] >> I think the advisory group or something
[1:05:55] like that where people could
[1:05:58] >> because maybe there are people beyond us
[1:06:00] who are interested in this particular
[1:06:02] topic but not necessarily interested in
[1:06:04] the other work of the planning
[1:06:06] commission.
[1:06:07] >> Well, we can always ask for public
[1:06:08] input. Um, in fact,
[1:06:10] >> yeah,
[1:06:11] >> you know, we do very often ask for
[1:06:12] public input and nobody responds. So,
[1:06:15] >> yeah.
[1:06:16] That's why I'm interested in
[1:06:17] seeing if anyone will actually do work.
[1:06:21] [laughter]
[1:06:22] >> Yeah. And I mean
[1:06:24] >> we need is one or two people, you know.
[1:06:26] Well, you know, in the case of the
[1:06:27] health chapter, we were able I mean, you
[1:06:30] really came to us with the idea that or
[1:06:32] Cassandra did with the just
[1:06:36] kind of um focused on um
[1:06:39] >> drug use expo or exposure to protecting
[1:06:43] children from um so much prevalence of
[1:06:46] drug use. And then we had this idea for
[1:06:48] the health chapter and kind of connected
[1:06:52] her with Shiloh of the Vermont
[1:06:53] Department of Health and they're doing a
[1:06:56] lot of work around that, you know, per
[1:06:59] town.
[1:07:00] >> So I I Lindsay, I think you may be on to
[1:07:02] something like coming to a government
[1:07:04] meeting and like commenting might um
[1:07:09] >> maybe there's more of an ownership
[1:07:10] opportunity.
[1:07:11] >> There might be a different level of
[1:07:12] motivation for that versus like, hey,
[1:07:14] you want to help improve the sidewalks?
[1:07:16] of this project.
[1:07:17] >> Yeah.
[1:07:19] >> And that said to like I think that the
[1:07:21] work plan you described is is a good
[1:07:23] one. I would just like to try and see if
[1:07:25] we can get some more help with it before
[1:07:27] we all start
[1:07:29] >> signing up for it or trying to figure
[1:07:32] out if we can fit it into our schedules
[1:07:34] because maybe that will help us
[1:07:35] determine how important it is and
[1:07:37] whether how quickly we could or couldn't
[1:07:40] move forward.
[1:07:42] Well, we're not going to get this done
[1:07:44] before this winter, obviously. So, maybe that um I mean, if the winner was
[1:07:49] if the the beginning of the winter was
[1:07:51] closer, then I'd say we could add that
[1:07:53] on to the public announcement
[1:07:56] >> because it would be nice maybe to put
[1:07:58] out for Seth or whoever put out a public
[1:08:00] announcement for
[1:08:01] >> Yeah, I think we can.
[1:08:02] >> Yeah. where it's not proposing or saying
[1:08:03] that the ordinance has changed at all.
[1:08:05] And it doesn't lie about, you know, the
[1:08:06] enforcement or the the obligations on
[1:08:08] private property owners, but it kind of
[1:08:10] reminds people and nudges them and
[1:08:12] motivates them to
[1:08:14] >> to uh to clear the sidewalks and then
[1:08:17] but if you want to get involved, the
[1:08:19] planning commission's undertaking this
[1:08:21] comprehensive project.
[1:08:23] >> Yeah. Let me just um check in
[1:08:28] with the town manager. You know,
[1:08:29] oftentimes the select board is
[1:08:31] appointing people and I'd not want to go
[1:08:33] through such a formal process. I'd love
[1:08:35] to find people that were interested in
[1:08:38] working on different tasks in here and
[1:08:40] then, you know, be able to do it a
[1:08:42] little bit more informally, but I don't know. I need to check in with
[1:08:45] that.
[1:08:47] >> You mean the town attorney or town
[1:08:49] manager?
[1:08:49] >> Well, I'll start with the town manager.
[1:08:51] Speak with the town attorney if I need
[1:08:53] him.
[1:08:56] but kind of like a a advisory committee
[1:08:59] or advisory group or I don't know
[1:09:01] interested citizens want to help with a
[1:09:04] project.
[1:09:05] So what would just for the sake of our
[1:09:09] what would these citizens or people that
[1:09:11] are interested what would they do to
[1:09:12] just come up with oh this sidewalk on
[1:09:16] canal street should be wider should be
[1:09:19] this or I you know is that what you're
[1:09:21] looking for is like more input or are
[1:09:24] you looking for just for clarification?
[1:09:26] >> So I think it would be with tasks in
[1:09:29] this in this work plan. So maybe there's
[1:09:31] somebody doing research on, you know,
[1:09:34] other downtowns or Vermont communities
[1:09:37] and, you know, maybe leading a piece of
[1:09:39] it. That's what I'm thinking. What
[1:09:42] you're what you're mentioning, I mean,
[1:09:45] we've done a lot of planning work with
[1:09:47] the Canal Street plan, with the B bike
[1:09:50] walk plan. Um,
[1:09:54] one thing that the public works director
[1:09:57] and I have been talking about is a need
[1:09:59] to prioritize like what comes first. And
[1:10:01] so
[1:10:03] that's probably a separate project
[1:10:05] because that's not in the ordinance per
[1:10:07] se, but the ordinance does deal with
[1:10:09] maintenance and um it's very light on
[1:10:12] enforcement right now. You know, signs
[1:10:16] and vegetation and winter maintenance
[1:10:18] and things like that. And then maybe
[1:10:19] it's the other policies of how do we do
[1:10:22] our winter? You know, I think it does
[1:10:25] say, you know, what streets get plowed
[1:10:27] and that downtown is responsible for
[1:10:29] clearing and stuff. So the ordinance is
[1:10:31] pretty.
[1:10:33] >> So
[1:10:35] is there um something online plan say
[1:10:39] this next this is the sidewalk. This
[1:10:40] could get fixed. This is the this year
[1:10:43] plan.
[1:10:45] >> It's not so great. Yeah. So there is
[1:10:47] money in the capital plan and there are
[1:10:49] some projects usually identified but
[1:10:51] there's not um really a prioritization
[1:10:55] to
[1:10:56] >> that schedule
[1:10:58] is the plan.
[1:11:01] >> I would have to check in with public
[1:11:02] works. Um I think part of the problem is
[1:11:05] their sidewalk funding is like I mean
[1:11:09] the amount that they're getting really
[1:11:11] can only handle like patches and
[1:11:14] repairs. It's so meager. So hope
[1:11:18] >> um
[1:11:19] >> I was just reading um through one of my
[1:11:22] Facebook memories a post that I made
[1:11:24] from several years ago about the fact
[1:11:27] that uh the size of the VR budget in
[1:11:30] relation to other areas of the budget
[1:11:32] and it's just I mean VR is the third
[1:11:35] largest budget item in the state. It's
[1:11:37] [clears throat] insane how much money we
[1:11:39] spend on cars and road maintenance and
[1:11:42] how little we spend on sidewalks.
[1:11:50] I'll admit when we talked about this
[1:11:51] yesterday or last month, I I was in my
[1:11:55] nonp profofessional, you know, fantasies
[1:11:58] was thinking, "Oh, we'll we'll spend a
[1:12:00] few months on this and we'll wrap it up
[1:12:01] before the winter." But I'm so glad that
[1:12:04] I'm still here to
[1:12:07] >> Well, I mean, it would be if we if we
[1:12:09] come out with any recommendations that
[1:12:11] totally like
[1:12:11] >> and since it's spelled out there,
[1:12:14] It totally makes sense that we need to,
[1:12:17] you know, we can't just show up with an
[1:12:19] ordinance and just tell the whole
[1:12:21] community that now, you know, a thousand
[1:12:23] more properties have the obligation to
[1:12:25] shovel their sidewalks without some due
[1:12:28] diligence. And
[1:12:29] >> Yeah. Well, I'm sure we're going to get
[1:12:30] push back on it.
[1:12:31] >> Yeah. Yeah.
[1:12:32] >> And, you know, and rightfully so. I
[1:12:34] mean, the first, you know, objection
[1:12:35] that many people are going to have is,
[1:12:37] well, what about people who are disabled
[1:12:39] and or elderly and who cannot do these
[1:12:41] things? And we have to come up with a
[1:12:42] plan to deal with that. Um,
[1:12:45] I am p personally really interested in
[1:12:49] the actual sidewalk specifications,
[1:12:52] what we may or may not have in in
[1:12:54] ordinances and regulations as to, you
[1:12:58] know,
[1:12:59] whether or not sidewalks must be
[1:13:01] provided, how wide they must be, what
[1:13:04] extent they have to uh go to. Um, I
[1:13:09] don't even know where to begin looking
[1:13:10] for that.
[1:13:12] So it's in the land use regulations and
[1:13:14] then I think we refer to public works
[1:13:16] specifications if if I recall correctly.
[1:13:19] Um and so we could get those from them.
[1:13:23] >> Is are pedestrian counts something that
[1:13:26] exist? I know Windham Regional
[1:13:28] Commission was doing what? Bicycle and
[1:13:30] traffic.
[1:13:30] >> They were doing bicycle and they do
[1:13:33] traffic. Um and we get some traffic data
[1:13:36] with our speed radar signs that we put
[1:13:39] up for traffic safety. pedestrians. We
[1:13:42] don't do pedestrian counts. Um
[1:13:45] >> you know, we can infer and observe where
[1:13:48] it's popular to walk and we can ask
[1:13:50] people who choose to participate where
[1:13:52] they think people who choose to comment
[1:13:54] at public outreach where what sidewalks
[1:13:56] they think are important and they want
[1:13:58] >> I mean we have a lot of that from the
[1:14:00] walk bike,
[1:14:00] >> right? So we have those
[1:14:02] >> we hit a map but
[1:14:04] >> not hard data. Yeah. And you know, I
[1:14:07] know that the counters that the Windham
[1:14:08] Regional Commission can use, I think
[1:14:10] they can get pedestrian count data, but
[1:14:13] it's I don't
[1:14:15] >> they they have um
[1:14:17] >> Oh, they can make they start
[1:14:18] >> I think they can, but I don't know that
[1:14:22] they'd put them out on the sidewalk.
[1:14:23] They use them like they use trail
[1:14:24] counters and stuff. Yeah. I don't know
[1:14:27] that they'd lay them out on sidewalks.
[1:14:28] They might be too vulnerable.
[1:14:30] >> And if everyone was on straa and tracked
[1:14:33] walking and running, there's a heat map.
[1:14:35] Yeah,
[1:14:35] >> you can see where people go. But, you
[1:14:37] know, that's going to be a narrow
[1:14:38] segment of the populace.
[1:14:40] >> Well, I I would just point out as I have
[1:14:42] before that, you know, this is sort of
[1:14:44] like planning on where to build a bridge
[1:14:46] by how many people you see swimming
[1:14:47] across a river.
[1:14:48] >> Yeah.
[1:14:48] >> You know, it's it's you know, pretty
[1:14:51] obvious in a lot of places where
[1:14:52] sidewalks need to be and, you know, just
[1:14:55] based upon where the infrastructure of
[1:14:57] the town is and what the amenities are
[1:14:59] and the attractions, right? Um, but I
[1:15:02] think that really just as the base case,
[1:15:05] it should be the town's responsibility
[1:15:07] to provide safe pedestrian passage to
[1:15:10] every point in the town.
[1:15:14] » Well, and I don't know if this gets at
[1:15:16] what you're saying, Gemma, but I feel
[1:15:19] like I've heard you say things similar
[1:15:21] to this in the past that making these
[1:15:24] types of investments makes our town a
[1:15:27] better place for people and businesses
[1:15:30] to live. And so while sometimes we may
[1:15:33] just see them as expenses, they could
[1:15:35] also be the instigator of of income
[1:15:38] potentially and at the very least making
[1:15:41] people here happy. But you know, so also
[1:15:46] probably part of a plan if we get enough
[1:15:50] people to be interested in it and do the
[1:15:52] research could be potentially
[1:15:55] researching places that have improved
[1:15:57] their pedestrian systems. um and how
[1:16:01] those places are doing and if we want to
[1:16:03] be like those places. I'll tell you that
[1:16:06] having just come um from Portland,
[1:16:10] Maine, um you want to see some scary
[1:16:13] sidewalks, it makes Brattleboro look
[1:16:15] like a delightful walk in the park
[1:16:17] because all of their sidewalks, so many
[1:16:20] of them are brick and so it's like they
[1:16:23] are impassible.
[1:16:25] M
[1:16:25] >> um especially if you had a disability,
[1:16:28] but um so we're better than some, but we
[1:16:32] can look to others who are still better
[1:16:34] yet and maybe see that as a positive for
[1:16:37] spending the money.
[1:16:40] And I think that one thing, you know,
[1:16:42] that that we're thinking about is right
[1:16:46] there was all this HUDfunding in the
[1:16:48] 70s, I think, where sidewalks were
[1:16:51] really a ton of sidewalks were built and
[1:16:54] we can't keep up with those
[1:16:55] infrastructure costs. So, are there
[1:16:57] places where you can put in a multi-use
[1:17:00] path and we can tackle bicycle and
[1:17:03] pedestrian needs or are there places
[1:17:06] honestly where the like
[1:17:09] sidewalks might not be necessary? Um,
[1:17:11] because these are really low volume
[1:17:14] streets with low speeds and maybe they
[1:17:17] need to come out. So, so I think there's
[1:17:20] like that kind of work that needs to be
[1:17:22] done and I'm the public works would
[1:17:24] probably love the planning commission's
[1:17:26] assistance with that. I think that will
[1:17:28] come as they are working on their
[1:17:30] inventories and stuff but you know Maple
[1:17:33] Street is one that I've been contacted
[1:17:35] on like those sidewalks are in awful
[1:17:38] condition and it's not safe for cyclists
[1:17:40] and so you know is that a space and
[1:17:44] >> dare I mentioned Putney Road
[1:17:48] Well, that's a good segue into the fact
[1:17:50] that Vtrans will be at the select board
[1:17:52] meeting this coming Tuesday and
[1:17:54] presenting a revised plan on for Putney
[1:17:57] Road.
[1:17:58] >> Yes.
[1:17:58] >> Good. Good to know. I've been not been
[1:18:00] keeping up with the select board
[1:18:02] meetings.
[1:18:02] >> Yeah, the the agenda will be out, but
[1:18:04] I've been working with Vrans on that.
[1:18:06] So, they'll be presenting. It's a
[1:18:09] concept, but
[1:18:12] >> but once again, they won't be taking
[1:18:14] care of it. The town will probably be
[1:18:16] taking care of it. Is that correct?
[1:18:17] >> So they will build it and then the town
[1:18:20] will need to maintain
[1:18:22] >> uh not the they do certain things in the
[1:18:24] roadway but sidewalks multi-use path
[1:18:26] would be
[1:18:27] >> repair that needs to be done will be on
[1:18:30] broad
[1:18:33] » they better use granite curving then
[1:18:35] >> I don't know about repair I I honestly
[1:18:37] don't I can get back to you on that
[1:18:40] winter maintenance of sidewalks or
[1:18:42] multi-use path would be a Yeah. Yeah.
[1:18:47] >> Yeah.
[1:18:48] >> So funny. I I p pulled up straa
[1:18:51] >> and yeah see where people walk
[1:18:54] >> and you know well certain people the
[1:18:56] people that you know
[1:18:57] >> and you know want to ask to get the
[1:18:59] flood we're not a sidewalk you know the
[1:19:03] west river trail. So like Gemma said
[1:19:06] yeah
[1:19:06] >> you're not going to build a bridge to
[1:19:07] see how many people swim across it.
[1:19:10] Doesn't make sense.
[1:19:13] Yeah.
[1:19:15] I think Lindsay's point if we want to
[1:19:17] move forward with um seeing if there's
[1:19:19] an enthused individual or two from the
[1:19:21] community
[1:19:23] um then that should be something that
[1:19:25] happens before we get much into this.
[1:19:30] >> Okay. Why don't I see what I can
[1:19:33] what we can do?
[1:19:36] I suppose it's not too early to also
[1:19:39] just send a public notice not about snow
[1:19:43] removal but just about sidewalk
[1:19:44] maintenance in general
[1:19:46] >> and plant growth and all that
[1:19:49] >> and leaves are starting to fall.
[1:19:51] >> Leaves are starting to fall. Yeah. I
[1:19:52] guess every time any time of year,
[1:19:54] especially winter, but any time of year
[1:19:56] relevant. So, I don't know why it's just
[1:19:58] thinking that we're too early to send
[1:19:59] it. Well, we we're certainly going to be
[1:20:02] uh sending out or maybe not sending out
[1:20:04] notices, but at least ramping up public
[1:20:06] notifications of the uh parking winter
[1:20:11] parking ban. So,
[1:20:12] >> in November.
[1:20:13] >> Yeah, it starts in November.
[1:20:15] >> Yeah.
[1:20:16] >> But, you know, the the town starts
[1:20:18] reminding people well before then.
[1:20:24] » Well, why don't I report back in
[1:20:25] October? um you know if we can reach out
[1:20:28] for some others and kind of create some
[1:20:30] sort of whether they are test to do
[1:20:34] things or whether there's actual like
[1:20:35] meeting of them that I warn and whatnot.
[1:20:38] Um let me see what I can do and then uh
[1:20:40] I'll also get with um you know see about
[1:20:44] some
[1:20:44] >> I suppose it could be as simple as you
[1:20:47] know [snorts] um some of us
[1:20:48] commissioners are doing some of the work
[1:20:50] here maybe a member of the public or two
[1:20:52] is doing some of the work you or Steve
[1:20:55] kind of are the the collection point of
[1:20:57] this
[1:20:57] >> in of this this work and then it comes
[1:21:00] to the meeting.
[1:21:01] >> Yep. and whether that community member
[1:21:02] wants to attend the meeting or not or
[1:21:04] just have better work um their
[1:21:06] contributions,
[1:21:08] however it pans out.
[1:21:10] >> Yeah.
[1:21:10] >> But yeah, I'll definitely especially
[1:21:11] with the slower times, months coming up
[1:21:14] ahead, I'll definitely be able to
[1:21:16] participate in some of this and share
[1:21:17] the load.
[1:21:19] >> Same.
[1:21:20] >> Great. Yeah,
[1:21:25] we love that.
[1:21:27] um of our public comment
[1:21:30] um space
[1:21:32] and seeing no public that's over. So we
[1:21:36] finished our business so I join the
[1:21:37] meeting at 7:23 p.m.
[1:21:42] >> Thanks everybody.
[1:21:43] >> Have a good night.
[1:21:44] >> Thank you Lindsay.
[1:21:45] >> Bye Lindsay. Oh,
[1:21:47] >> I thought you might get a kick again. I brought this up.