[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.

Brattleboro Planning Commission Mtg 9/9/26

Transcript