[0:09] We don't have that

[0:10] many people here, but, um,

[0:12] I hope that people,

[0:13] um, more people

[0:14] will come or

[0:15] come in via Zoom. I

[0:18] was hoping,

[0:23] but, um, the agenda for the

[0:24] meeting is that

[0:25] we, um,

[0:26] talk a little bit about

[0:28] our intentions when we

[0:29] started this project

[0:30] two years ago and what

[0:32] we were trying to

[0:33] accomplish with it, and then

[0:34] hear, um, would any

[0:40] of you like a

[0:41] hard copy to

[0:42] review,

[0:44] um, and could you

[0:45] even chair

[0:46] this meeting? You

[0:48] probably remember that

[0:50] they, um, are the headlines

[0:51] and subheadings, and we are

[0:57] required by

[0:58] law to, um,

[0:59] review them to

[1:00] get, um,

[1:01] questions and

[1:02] comments on all of

[1:03] them.

[1:05] Of course. But the first thing to

[1:08] do

[1:10] is simple, and I

[1:11] invite my, um,

[1:12] fellow commissioners

[1:13] to join in on this,

[1:14] which is to say why

[1:16] we started and what the purpose of

[1:17] rewriting the

[1:23] territorial

[1:24] distribution rules is, um. Um, from

[1:32] my perspective, when

[1:33] we first

[1:34] looked at the

[1:35] old document, we

[1:36] found it

[1:37] full of

[1:38] legalese and copies from

[1:40] other cities, where it was

[1:41] , um, inappropriate, didn't

[1:42] meet

[1:44] Marro's needs, and, um, it

[1:45] was also inconvenient in

[1:46] terms of, um,

[1:47] the wording of the process

[1:48] that applicants had to go through

[1:49] . So we

[1:57] really wanted to

[1:58] clarify this process.

[2:01] Hmm, we also wanted to

[2:03] get rid of

[2:04] as much

[2:05] legal

[2:06] nonsense as possible, hmm, but

[2:07] at the same time, hmm, make

[2:11] it

[2:14] enforceable.

[2:15] And I just forgot,

[2:17] um, one of the things

[2:18] that, um, we did was

[2:19] ask for

[2:20] help with this

[2:22] task. And the first

[2:24] person to

[2:24] ask for, um,

[2:26] help was the city

[2:27] attorney, um, Bob Fisher.

[2:31] Hmm, he set a

[2:32] goal for us

[2:33] to make it as clear as possible

[2:34] for non-

[2:35] hmm, specialists, and

[2:36] as simple as possible for

[2:38] people who

[2:39] might want to divide

[2:40] their land. Hmm, then

[2:44] when we were finishing,

[2:46] he reviewed and made

[2:47] suggestions, hmm, some

[2:49] of which we included in the

[2:50] document. Another

[2:53] person who was

[2:55] very helpful to us was a

[2:56] staff member from the

[2:58] Windham Regional Commission, um,

[3:00] whose name is,

[3:05] um,

[3:07] or you're talking about,

[3:08] um, um, Matt

[3:11] um, Bachler, um, oh yeah,

[3:15] um, and Matt um, Bachler,

[3:17] or Bachler, I'm not

[3:18] sure, um, gave us

[3:19] very detailed, um,

[3:21] suggestions, and we

[3:22] incorporated almost all of

[3:23] them. Hmm, then we

[3:27] sent the document

[3:29] back to both of them, and, hmm, they

[3:30] said: go for it. You are

[3:33] ready to listen.

[3:35] Um, so what we're

[3:36] doing

[3:37] tonight is to

[3:38] hear from you all, um, and

[3:40] clarify any

[3:41] things, um, and find

[3:42] any things that

[3:43] might be

[3:44] in error. Hmm, just this

[3:47] afternoon while reading this I

[3:48] found a confusing

[3:50] number that we're

[3:50] going to change from

[3:52] four to five. Hmm,

[3:55] and that's really helpful.

[3:58] Hmm, but, um, why don't

[4:00] I turn it over to

[4:01] you guys to

[4:02] fill in what I

[4:04] just said about our

[4:05] intentions.

[4:07] Can I just say

[4:08] one thing? Although we've

[4:13] done a lot of

[4:14] work, 90% of it–our

[4:16] plan, maybe 95%, there are, uh

[4:18] , some of these, uh,

[4:20] sections that we

[4:21] can't discuss.

[4:27] This is, uh, uh, a

[4:28] state ordinance.

[4:31] Yes. And we do

[4:34] n't really have a

[4:35] word there, and we'll

[4:36] clarify that as you go

[4:37] through and

[4:38] say it's

[4:39] state-owned, and that's where you

[4:40] can find this, uh

[4:42] , document. Uh, we

[4:45] should...Tim Seeger–my

[4:46] name is.

[4:48] Brian Potter, Will

[4:49] Shakespeare,

[4:50] Jennifer Gerard,

[4:51] Donald Sheriffkin,

[4:53] uh, Patti Smith isn't

[4:54] here yet. Uh, but

[4:55] I hope she, uh,

[4:57] joins us.

[4:58] Uh, one of the things we

[5:15] did when we, uh,

[5:16] started working on

[5:17] this was to set a

[5:21] starting point. We

[5:22] started, uh, reading

[5:24] the original, which

[5:25] remains on the

[5:26] city's website. If

[5:29] any of you want

[5:30] to go to the

[5:31] city website and look,

[5:33] you might

[5:34] have already done, um, the difference

[5:35] between what's

[5:38] left from 201 or

[5:43] 2018, maybe, I don't

[5:45] remember, I don't

[5:47] remember when it was

[5:48] finally

[5:49] approved, but, um,

[5:53] the distances are quite

[5:54] large, we

[5:55] did change the wording

[5:57] , but we didn't

[5:58] change the substance that much. We haven't

[6:02] changed much in what is

[6:03] required of

[6:04] applicants. Um, we

[6:10] highlighted one

[6:11] important change, which is,

[6:12] um, the difference between small

[6:14] division and large

[6:15] division, um, changed a little bit

[6:16] from, um, the

[6:18] division line was three and

[6:19] now it's four.

[6:23] Three areas.

[6:24] Hmm. Lots and

[6:26] lots of this one.

[6:29] So if you were dividing

[6:31] your, um, if you

[6:32] were dividing your line, um,

[6:33] before that, um, you

[6:35] were allowed to

[6:35] divide it into three

[6:37] parts, um, um, without

[6:38] going through, um, a

[6:39] lengthy process with the

[6:42] development review board.

[6:45] No.

[6:46] Um,

[6:48] every division

[6:49] goes like this

[6:50] . Now,

[6:52] it's not such a high

[6:53] bar, but they all

[6:54] go within the framework of DRB.

[6:55] Yes, that's

[6:56] right. Yes, that's

[6:57] right.

[7:00] Um, this, um,

[7:01] boundary

[7:02] line adjustments, um, can

[7:03] be approved

[7:04] directly by the

[7:06] zoning administrator.

[7:09] Not now, but they

[7:10] will, be in the

[7:12] proposed

[7:13] document. They

[7:14] will be

[7:15] correct. Um,

[7:17] right. So, um,

[7:22] we were discussing, um,

[7:23] whether to continue

[7:24] Marborough's long-standing demand that the

[7:25] division, um,

[7:27] be determined by a

[7:28] land

[7:29] survey. And, um,

[7:34] although attorney Bob

[7:35] Fizer pointed out

[7:36] several towns in

[7:37] Vermont that, um,

[7:38] still allowed, um,

[7:39] citizens to subdivide

[7:40] their land without a

[7:41] land

[7:42] survey. We didn't

[7:45] think it was wise.

[7:46] So we rejected

[7:48] his advice. Um, we

[7:50] believed that having

[7:52] mandatory

[7:52] legal documents

[7:54] for all

[7:55] landowners in the city was a

[7:56] wise way

[7:57] forward.

[7:58] Ahem.

[7:58] And, um, we would definitely

[7:59] demand that from

[8:01] any, um,

[8:02] developer

[8:03] coming to town.

[8:04] So why do we

[8:07] require this from

[8:08] permanent residents

[8:10] when they divide their

[8:11] property between their

[8:12] families?

[8:12] They are all good.

[8:14] Um, their own.

[8:16] So, um, this, um, as

[8:17] Malcolm knows well,

[8:18] he has such a long

[8:20] career in surveying. Um

[8:24] , it can be an expensive

[8:25] procedure, and um, it

[8:27] creates a financial

[8:28] burden on someone who

[8:29] may be dividing their

[8:30] land,

[8:33] but it's an expensive

[8:34] procedure when you

[8:35] do it

[8:35] wrong and don't

[8:36] know. So,

[8:38] or it could be

[8:39] much more expensive

[8:40] if you had your

[8:42] property if you were

[8:43] later

[8:44] sued outside your

[8:45] property.

[8:46] That's right. And you don't

[8:47] think that where

[8:48] you think the

[8:49] line is,

[8:50] Malcolm, give

[8:51] evidence. While we're on the

[8:56] subject, another

[8:57] incentive for a

[8:58] city planning commission

[9:00] to require a

[9:01] survey is the

[9:02] presence of virtually

[9:03] any requirements,

[9:04] such as setbacks,

[9:05] boundary setbacks.

[9:09] Yes,

[9:11] you could say that a

[9:12] setback is any

[9:13] minimum that the

[9:14] state sets. But

[9:16] to know what

[9:17] the deviation from the limit is,

[9:18] you need to know where

[9:19] it passes. And

[9:22] the people of Lenos are known

[9:25] for saying, "Oh, I

[9:26] know it's right here,

[9:27] so a 50-

[9:28] foot setback is perfectly

[9:29] acceptable." But they

[9:33] keep getting surprised, and the

[9:35] city keeps

[9:36] getting surprised, and finding

[9:37] that there's a violation of their

[9:38] setback requirements,

[9:39] because they didn't really

[9:41] know where that

[9:42] setback was coming from.

[9:45] It was. Yes,

[9:47] that's a good point.

[9:48] That's the incentive that

[9:49] comes with

[9:50] having

[9:51] a survey done: you

[9:52] determine where the

[9:53] boundary runs and then you know

[9:55] where to put it,

[9:56] and if you put

[9:57] your house in the

[9:58] wrong place and it

[9:58] ends up on the

[9:59] wrong side of the

[10:00] boundary, what happened. We

[10:01] know

[10:02] Smith, our

[10:03] last

[10:05] commissioner. I think that, uh

[10:07] , we should also

[10:08] point out that one of the

[10:09] most important

[10:10] elements added to

[10:11] this document

[10:13] is on

[10:13] page six, which is a

[10:15] division flowchart,

[10:19] which we think will

[10:21] greatly clarify and

[10:22] make more

[10:23] transparent the process that

[10:24] everyone will go through

[10:25] when they, uh,

[10:26] change any

[10:27] boundaries, creating a

[10:29] minor or major

[10:30] division. and this can be a

[10:35] good way

[10:36] to organize how

[10:37] we discuss the

[10:38] document as well. Another

[10:45] new thing that was

[10:46] added is

[10:48] that we created the

[10:49] ability for people

[10:50] to create subdivisions, uh,

[10:51] allowing for subdivisions of

[10:52] conservation lands

[10:54] . Currently, in

[11:01] most areas

[11:02] designated for

[11:03] rural residential

[11:04] development, the minimum

[11:05] size of any

[11:06] lot is

[11:07] two acres. When dividing

[11:11] lands under

[11:12] nature protection, it is possible to

[11:13] actually provide the

[11:14] same number of

[11:15] plots, but they

[11:16] may be on

[11:17] much smaller

[11:18] areas. Uh,

[11:22] on page 21. 820,

[11:28] that is, uh, we

[11:29] got a huge

[11:30] help, uh,

[11:31] reading the Brattleboro Conservation

[11:32] Land Division Rules

[11:35] , and we

[11:36] adjusted them and

[11:37] made them a little, uh,

[11:38] more demanding, uh,

[11:39] which I misrepresented

[11:40] in our

[11:41] Q&

[11:43] A not

[11:50] long ago. Uh, this is, uh,

[11:55] the percentage of land that

[11:56] needs to be set aside

[11:58] to get

[11:58] the privilege of smaller

[12:00] lots if you're a

[12:01] developer. The percentage

[12:06] went from

[12:08] 50 60 to 50 to 60. I think

[12:15] Rattleboro was 50, and we

[12:18] thought,

[12:19] um, we should

[12:23] fix that, Patty, you've

[12:24] been working on that too

[12:26] .

[12:26] Yes. Um, um, rest

[12:35] assured that

[12:36] the developer, um,

[12:37] has allocated, um, more than

[12:38] half of the, um, land

[12:40] that they can, um, there are

[12:41] a lot of plots of land

[12:42] in Marlboro

[12:44] that have either very

[12:45] steep slopes or, um,

[12:47] areas of wet

[12:48] soil or, um,

[12:50] habitats for repair

[12:51] plants, and that the

[12:52] zoning regulations already, um, yes

[12:54] ,

[13:03] prohibit people from, um

[13:04] , building in the

[13:06] state, prohibit them from

[13:08] .

[13:08] Yes. Yes. Um, but, um,

[13:13] so we ask

[13:14] readers of the document

[13:15] to pay particular

[13:16] attention to

[13:17] conservation

[13:18] units as a new

[13:19] opportunity for, um,

[13:20] people who may

[13:21] want to, um,

[13:22] protect some

[13:23] part of their land

[13:24] as they

[13:25] develop other

[13:26] parts of their land.

[13:31] Um, one thing we

[13:33] never figured out was,

[13:40] um, how to distinguish, um,

[13:42] or whether to distinguish at all

[13:43] , um, a

[13:44] commercial

[13:45] developer of land in

[13:46] Marlborough from, um, a

[13:47] citizen

[13:48] developing land in

[13:50] Marlborough. Um, and ultimately

[13:56] we thought it was

[13:57] unwise to create

[13:59] any kind of boundary between... Um,

[14:00] we've been asked about this a lot

[14:01] in our

[14:02] Q&

[14:03] A. How, how, how

[14:06] can we all be the

[14:07] same, but before the

[14:10] law? I think, um, it

[14:16] seemed

[14:17] reasonable to us to at least

[14:18] state, um, that the

[14:19] same rules

[14:20] apply

[14:23] whether you're doing a large

[14:24] land subdivision, um, a

[14:25] corporate

[14:26] developer, or a

[14:27] local person who's

[14:28] subdividing their land, um,

[14:29] and trying to make

[14:31] money off of it.

[14:37] So, um, these rules are

[14:38] the same. They are

[14:40] no different. Um,

[14:42] although we were pressured about

[14:43] this, we

[14:44] decided not to

[14:45] change it. Comments

[14:48] on this matter

[14:49] will be welcome at the

[14:50] appropriate time. But

[14:51] , um, um, that's generally what you

[14:55] should pay

[14:56] attention to in this

[14:57] document. And now, as

[15:02] I recently learned,

[15:03] we have to, um,

[15:05] because we warned, um,

[15:07] segment-wise viewing. We should

[15:11] probably start

[15:13] this now.

[15:13] Good. Um, and maybe the

[15:20] first thing we could

[15:22] do is, um, take

[15:23] turns discussing this,

[15:25] um, specifically, um, I'll

[15:26] start with the first article

[15:27] , the first one breaks down

[15:36] division into two

[15:37] categories: division and

[15:38] boundary adjustment. Um, and

[15:40] that's a matter of

[15:41] definition. Um, these are

[15:45] state laws, um, which,

[15:46] um, give us

[15:47] the authority, um,

[15:49] to write these rules

[15:50] at all. Um, according to

[15:55] 101,

[15:56] um, the goal is something

[15:58] we've been working hard on,

[16:00] um, to make a list,

[16:03] and it's a long list of

[16:05] things that we

[16:06] hope, um, these

[16:08] rules will help,

[16:09] um, if not, um, 100%,

[16:18] then definitely guide

[16:20] people towards, um,

[16:20] responsible

[16:21] behavior around, um,

[16:23] renewable

[16:24] energy,

[16:26] farmland, drainage,

[16:27] natural resources

[16:28] and forest fragmentation,

[16:30] um, and um,

[16:31] income sensitivity. These are, um, the

[16:37] main ones

[16:38] listed here. And we

[16:42] want the readers of

[16:43] this document

[16:44] to understand that the city

[16:45] values all of these things. Um,

[16:49] that, and then it

[16:50] explains how it

[16:51] will be taken further.

[16:57] Um, the election commission,

[16:58] um, is planning, uh, or has

[17:00] already, uh, postponed the

[17:01] date of another

[17:02] hearing similar

[17:04] to this one. Um, and, uh,

[17:11] if any of these

[17:12] proposed

[17:13] rules or

[17:14] application, uh,

[17:15] are held

[17:16] invalid, the

[17:16] invalidity will not

[17:17] affect

[17:18] or

[17:19] nullify the other provisions. So if

[17:23] the lawyers, uh, discover

[17:25] something that we've

[17:26] exceeded, the rest of the

[17:27] document will still be

[17:28] valid.

[17:31] So, uh, article

[17:32] two, someone else, I

[17:34] get a horse.

[17:37] Do we want to open

[17:39] each section to...

[17:40] Oh, yes, of course,

[17:41] the question is about section

[17:42] one,

[17:43] and then walk through

[17:44] it. Is

[17:46] anyone, uh,

[17:47] getting on Zoom yet? No, one is on Zoom.

[17:50] Good. Uh, so, uh,

[17:51] okay, no

[17:52] comment on

[17:53] that. So, the

[17:58] application and

[17:59] approval procedures, this is

[18:00] exactly what

[18:01] our flowchart is on

[18:03] , uh, the

[18:04] first, uh, page

[18:05] six,

[18:10] but we were required

[18:12] by law to do it

[18:13] both graphically in the

[18:14] flowchart and to do it

[18:15] verbally. So there is redundancy in this

[18:17] segment

[18:18] . Er,

[18:20] oral, er, definition of

[18:21] major and

[18:22] minor

[18:23] divisions. Um, and I'll

[18:26] repeat that

[18:28] we used to have three, um, but

[18:35] now it's four for the

[18:37] mind to

[18:40] divide

[18:41] its land as much as possible. Now,

[18:45] during the question and

[18:46] answer session that we

[18:47] had, um, some

[18:48] people were questioning whether the

[18:50] initial plot

[18:51] counts as one,

[18:52] or whether you could have three

[18:53] more than one, but

[18:55] that didn't make any sense at all

[18:56] , because one isn't

[18:57] one anymore. It's minus three

[19:00] parts or something.

[19:02] So, um,

[19:03] we didn't change it, even though

[19:04] some people asked

[19:05] us to. Can I

[19:06] put it like that?

[19:08] Yes, continue.

[19:09] Question. Um, do

[19:10] I understand correctly,

[19:12] then the division into four

[19:13] plots is if

[19:14] a person, if a person

[19:15] owns a plot of

[19:16] land and sells three

[19:17] plots, that's four,

[19:19] right?

[19:20] Is that correct?

[19:21] Yes.

[19:21] Right.

[19:22] Yes. Because the new

[19:23] plot, even if

[19:24] they don't sell it, is a

[19:26] newly defined

[19:27] segment of the farm. I

[19:28] think it may be up to the

[19:30] state, but it is

[19:30] certainly within our

[19:32] rights that it

[19:33] states that you

[19:34] count the number of

[19:35] lots that result from the

[19:37] subdivision.

[19:38] Or in other words,

[19:39] if a person owns a

[19:40] plot of land

[19:41] and sells one

[19:42] plot, it is two

[19:43] plots.

[19:43] These are two sections,

[19:44] because now there are two of them,

[19:45] and that's

[19:46] common sense. And yet

[19:48] I wanted to...

[19:48] Yes.

[19:49] But you need to

[19:50] make that clear in the

[19:51] book. This is very

[19:53] relevant to families who

[19:54] , ahem, settle their

[19:59] grandchildren or children on the

[20:00] same initial

[20:01] plot in other

[20:02] places. And this, obviously

[20:04] , MacArthur is a good

[20:05] example.

[20:07] I mean, there are

[20:08] some family

[20:09] plots that have

[20:10] organically

[20:10] developed throughout the

[20:11] city. There are

[20:13] several of these on our

[20:15] site. There's, um,

[20:17] MacArthur Road, various

[20:19] places where the land

[20:20] was de facto divided

[20:21] long before

[20:23] it was

[20:24] legally divided, and, um, um,

[20:25] so we understand that

[20:27] this is a tradition that we

[20:28] can't really

[20:29] interfere with, um, and we don't

[20:31] want to.

[20:36] So, but, um, eventually,

[20:38] those people who

[20:38] have occupied the various

[20:39] homes are going to have to

[20:41] face the, um,

[20:42] legality,

[20:43] illegality of what

[20:44] they're, and, and, and, and

[20:45] fix it, and

[20:46] local families

[20:47] recently had to

[20:49] fix it. Come on

[20:52] , mayor. I just think there's a

[20:54] plot here that

[20:56] I and I don't...I don't know how to

[20:57] clarify this, but

[20:58] the definition of large...

[21:04] if you

[21:05] mean existing

[21:06] plots of land that have

[21:07] already been divided into

[21:08] large families into

[21:09] plots one above the

[21:10] other. So now, if

[21:15] you have people

[21:16] subdividing existing

[21:17] parcels and you end up with

[21:19] more...I

[21:21] mean, do they, given the

[21:22] way they tax it

[21:23] , consider it all

[21:24] one big

[21:25] piece of land...But

[21:27] if it's

[21:28] on...if it has

[21:29] its own

[21:30] parcel number, does that allow you to

[21:37] essentially subdivide each

[21:38] parcel into the

[21:39] maximum since ancient times? I just

[21:41] think it's

[21:42] a bit of a vague

[21:43] Bay Area for me, and

[21:44] maybe something for

[21:45] someone who is who...

[21:46] yeah, more closely

[21:47] follows

[21:48] zoning

[21:49] for further

[21:50] development. We

[21:52] understand that this and

[21:53] other issues are not

[21:54] entirely resolved

[21:57] by this document, but

[21:58] we believe it is

[21:59] such a big

[22:00] improvement that I am saying

[22:01] it for the record at

[22:02] this point. I know

[22:04] you understand,

[22:05] and I say this for the

[22:06] record because I think

[22:07] this is an issue that will

[22:08] probably

[22:08] need to be

[22:09] addressed at some

[22:10] point, and it's

[22:13] unclear enough

[22:14] not to be. I mean,

[22:16] I was just

[22:18] asking, isn't there a title deed for

[22:21] every lot sold

[22:23] that

[22:25] also goes to the

[22:26] city if, with their

[22:27] approval, the

[22:32] state requires a

[22:33] land development.

[22:36] Yes.

[22:36] Registered. This does not

[22:37] require registration

[22:39] of the title deed

[22:40] . I believe

[22:41] we are in

[22:42] this new

[22:43] subdivision procedure that requires the

[22:44] title deed to

[22:45] be

[22:46] registered before

[22:48] it is

[22:48] considered a

[22:49] separate parcel.

[22:50] For example, it

[22:51] cannot be built on

[22:52] until the legal title deed is

[22:53] registered

[22:55] with the

[22:56] city

[22:56] administration, because that is

[22:57] where

[22:58] taxes are paid.

[23:00] based on the

[23:01] title deed, not

[23:02] on the

[23:02] land registry.

[23:03] Yes. Yes.

[23:04] So, uh, that's a

[23:05] distinction that I

[23:06] think you've added,

[23:07] and I think it's important that the

[23:08] title deed

[23:09] also be

[23:10] consistent with the new

[23:11] land use planning

[23:12] and accompany

[23:13] it. Well, the challenges

[23:14] for the

[23:20] zoning administrator position in the near

[23:22] future will include,

[23:23] ahem, insisting that

[23:31] , ahem, the

[23:33] subdivision process, ahem, includes

[23:34] filing a survey

[23:35] and a deed of ownership. hmm, this is about

[23:47] building permits and

[23:48] starting construction.

[23:50] In fact, it says here

[23:51] that, um, you have to

[23:52] complete this process

[23:53] before you can

[23:54] start

[23:55] building. And there's a time in

[23:57] state regulations where there

[23:58] 's a limit on how

[23:59] long you can

[24:00] wait before a

[24:01] survey is

[24:04] registered, and that,

[24:06] well,

[24:06] we've emphasized where

[24:07] possible, on this

[24:09] survey, we

[24:12] say this many

[24:13] times, because if you're

[24:14] going to subdivide

[24:15] your land, you

[24:16] should

[24:17] start looking for a

[24:18] surveyor immediately and get

[24:19] that part done properly,

[24:21] and then you figure out,

[24:22] um, what the implications are.

[24:27] Uh, there are some

[24:28] deviations, um, from

[24:30] this process, which, um

[24:31] , in circumstances of

[24:32] undue hardship,

[24:34] practical difficulties

[24:35] , um, there are, and the determination of

[24:43] special circumstances

[24:44] for a particular, um,

[24:45] piece of land. Hmm,

[24:50] maybe there will be a request

[24:52] to, uh, repeal

[24:53] some of the definitions.

[25:03] So, and actually

[25:04] some of the fees, uh, there's a

[25:06] separate document in

[25:07] the city office

[25:08] regarding the fee for the division, uh

[25:10] , forgot her name, which

[25:11] was

[25:19] Rebecca briefly.

[25:20] Rebecca, thank you. Uh,

[25:22] Jessica, you're talking

[25:23] about Jessica.

[25:25] thank you. Jessica,

[25:26] you're not talking about

[25:27] Rebecca. This is the treasurer.

[25:29] You're talking about

[25:29] Jessica.

[25:31] made a new

[25:32] fee table, and we didn't

[25:33] change it. We

[25:34] believe it is

[25:35] fair.

[25:36] Uh,

[25:37] it hasn't been changed in

[25:39] about 18 years.

[25:41] Yes. Uh, another

[25:45] difference in the

[25:46] previous

[25:47] document was that it

[25:48] seemed like

[25:49] the applicant was

[25:50] required to, uh,

[25:51] notify all

[25:52] residents that they were

[25:54] doing this. In fact, this is

[25:59] not true. The city

[26:01] is obligated to, uh,

[26:02] inform and

[26:03] hold hearings

[26:04] for residents that this is

[26:06] happening, that the

[26:07] division is underway. So, uh

[26:10] , we fixed that

[26:12] mistake.

[26:12] Well, that's not a mistake. That's how it

[26:14] was. It was true.

[26:16] It seemed that this was not the

[26:17] case. That was the rule.

[26:18] But yeah, but that's

[26:19] crazy because people

[26:20] don't do that. So,

[26:23] uh,

[26:25] we should also

[26:27] mention, uh,

[26:28] coordination, a very

[26:29] important, uh, letter D,

[26:31] uh, just above the

[26:37] waiver authority, is

[26:38] coordination with the

[26:40] zoning administrator. So the first

[26:42] step

[26:43] any applicant takes is to

[26:46] meet with the

[26:48] zoning administrator. And the

[26:50] zoning administrator is a key

[26:52] person in this whole

[26:53] process because he

[26:54] can provide

[26:55] recommendations to

[26:56] anyone who proposes

[26:57] any kind of subdivision.

[27:00] And this is the point where

[27:01] they can see

[27:03] if there are any immediate

[27:04] problems that might

[27:05] arise from what

[27:06] they are proposing. And the

[27:10] zoning administrator can

[27:11] lay out

[27:12] the steps for them very clearly. So, this is a

[27:14] really important

[27:15] position in the city, and we

[27:17] hope to have a

[27:18] solid

[27:21] zoning administrator appointed this year. Hmm, hmm, a

[27:27] huge thank you and

[27:29] respect to Jennifer

[27:30] Jara, who, hmm,

[27:31] translated a significant

[27:32] portion of our work

[27:33] into a flowchart and

[27:34] made it

[27:35] understandable for all

[27:36] applicants. Hmm, so the

[27:42] previous meeting on

[27:43] page seven is what

[27:46] Donald was just referring to. Uh,

[27:51] and then oral statements

[27:52] about the process,

[27:53] notices of

[27:54] exceptions, I already wrote about that

[27:55] . Hmm, applicants for

[28:13] minor subdivisions without

[28:14] proposed

[28:15] improvements, ahem, may

[28:16] skip the process.

[28:22] Public hearings,

[28:23] phasing, DRB can

[28:25] tell the entity, uh,

[28:26] okay, it looks like you're

[28:27] doing something complicated.

[28:30] Hmm, subdivision, access

[28:35] roads could be

[28:37] first, and then, hmm,

[28:39] wastewater catchment basins

[28:40] could be second.

[28:43] And these are just examples

[28:44] of what could force

[28:46] the DRB to give a developer

[28:47] certain target milestones

[28:48] before they

[28:49] complete what they

[28:51] need to do. Hmm,

[28:58] anyone else want to take the

[28:59] initiative?

[29:00] My voice, um, is

[29:01] shaking. I think

[29:05] one of the important

[29:06] things we did

[29:08] was eliminate the

[29:09] DRB hearings. Am I

[29:12] right? Regarding

[29:13] the adjustment of the boundary

[29:15] line.

[29:18] And providing...Yes. So this is the

[29:21] zoning administrator's approval.

[29:22] Yes. Yes. Yes. It used to

[29:23] seem like everything

[29:24] had to go to the DRV,

[29:26] which was for minor

[29:27] issues. Hmm, lots of

[29:46] compliance segments, hmm,

[29:48] approvals and lots of

[29:49] compliance issues

[29:50] , once the

[29:51] division plan is approved,

[29:52] hmm, ZA issues the permit

[30:03] after DRB approval. Hmm

[30:07] , applicants, hmm,

[30:08] especially applicants

[30:10] who may have been

[30:11] denied, hmm, for

[30:12] the reason, hmm, of a division

[30:17] that they may have

[30:19] wanted, have 30 days

[30:20] to appeal this

[30:21] decision made by the DRB.

[30:23] Hmm, so it's at least from an

[30:25] ecological

[30:27] perspective,

[30:28] at least it's possible that

[30:30] , um, they have the

[30:30] opportunity, um, to,

[30:32] um, try again.

[30:35] Hmm. Um,

[30:38] right, you know,

[30:39] the appeal is filed

[30:40] with the department,

[30:41] just not, um,

[30:51] most of the

[30:52] wording of this,

[30:53] um, as you can

[30:55] imagine, um, we

[30:56] had to, um,

[30:57] edit from existing

[30:58] laws in other

[30:59] cities. Hmm, one thing

[31:02] that Donald

[31:08] Sherifkin did a great job

[31:09] of doing in this

[31:10] process was seeing

[31:11] for us what

[31:13] other cities were doing and

[31:13] researching what

[31:14] their

[31:15] documents looked like, and we were

[31:16] really excited to find

[31:17] similar cities that were

[31:18] facing

[31:19] similar issues

[31:20] . Hmm, another important

[31:29] change was on

[31:30] page 11, applicants

[31:32] for division, hmm, what they

[31:33] need to do to have

[31:39] their application

[31:40] move forward. There

[31:42] is also a list there, and this

[31:43] list is important for

[31:45] applicants to

[31:46] review,

[31:47] read, and

[31:48] understand. And the

[31:50] zoning administrator

[31:50] will work with

[31:51] applicants to

[31:52] review this

[31:53] list to

[31:54] make sure they

[31:55] understand everything that is

[31:56] written on it. It

[31:59] was a very complex and

[32:00] different document,

[32:01] initially with two

[32:02] columns and different

[32:03] types of check marks and

[32:04] different items. But

[32:08] we think it's important that

[32:09] this is pointed out

[32:10] when people divide their

[32:12] land, as well as on the

[32:13] flowchart.

[32:19] And another thing we

[32:20] quickly discussed is

[32:22] the importance of the write-up in the

[32:23] closing section 2.4

[32:24] on page nine.

[32:29] Um, this is important, um, we

[32:30] say that the applicant

[32:31] who applies

[32:32] within 180 days of the

[32:33] date of receiving

[32:34] final

[32:35] plan approval

[32:37] must submit two

[32:38] copies of the final

[32:39] plan of subdivision for

[32:40] registration in the

[32:41] land records. We

[32:44] were told that was

[32:45] too much time. But, um

[32:48] , of course, you can,

[32:49] um, do it

[32:50] over two days

[32:52] if you want. This

[32:55] simply gives you permission

[32:56] to take up to six months, but

[32:58] it is an important step in the

[32:59] process. That

[33:02] doesn't mean you have to

[33:03] do it.

[33:15] So, um, making

[33:16] changes to the

[33:17] approved, um,

[33:18] division, um, is not

[33:24] allowed. If, changes, um, are

[33:28] necessary, if the person the

[33:32] applicant wants to

[33:34] make changes, they have to

[33:35] start all over again

[33:36] . She

[33:40] should, she should

[33:42] reapply, and, um, unless it's

[33:43] just a

[33:44] clerical difference

[33:45] , um, a typographical

[33:46] difference or something

[33:47] like that. But if

[33:51] they're going to

[33:52] move the boundaries, um,

[33:53] they have to

[33:55] resubmit. Um, it might

[33:59] be a minor division

[34:03] at that point. This may

[34:04] be a minor division,

[34:06] as the changes are

[34:06] small. But this

[34:07] starts the process

[34:08] over. Does anyone want to

[34:17] start with the third

[34:19] article?

[34:19] Should we

[34:20] confirm that there are

[34:21] no questions

[34:22] or comments?

[34:23] Should we

[34:23] confirm that there are

[34:24] no questions

[34:25] regarding

[34:26] this section?

[34:27] We were trying to, uh,

[34:29] throw some

[34:30] nonsense at you.

[34:34] Not from me.

[34:36] Not yet. Although, although, when

[34:38] you were talking about

[34:39] property deeds...I don't know

[34:40] if it's that far into the

[34:41] conversation...

[34:42] Yes, we could

[34:43] ask you a question

[34:44] about property deeds.

[34:45] Try it.

[34:46] Good. I...I...I didn't

[34:47] understand all the

[34:48] details of what people

[34:49] were saying about

[34:50] title deeds from a

[34:51] surveying perspective

[34:52] .

[34:53] Let me not be

[34:54] mistaken.

[34:56] Geodetic maps do not

[34:57] transfer

[34:58] ownership. Title deeds

[34:59] transfer

[35:00] ownership. Uh,

[35:02] geodetic maps

[35:03] are created for various

[35:04] reasons. One of them is for

[35:06] local

[35:07] zoning purposes. They are like that

[35:08] , and they can be

[35:09] seen as a plan, and

[35:11] they can be

[35:12] written down or not.

[35:13] However, they do not

[35:14] transfer

[35:15] ownership. Transfer of

[35:16] ownership is

[35:17] only ownership

[35:18] and only ownership deeds

[35:20] . I wasn't sure that was the

[35:22] perfect

[35:23] way to say it.

[35:24] Excellent explanation. Is

[35:26] there something that informs

[35:27] the act to make sure

[35:28] that the act provides accurate

[35:29] information? A

[35:30] well-written deed

[35:31] refers to a

[35:32] land use map. Yes. I would

[35:34] assume,

[35:35] but still, the existence of a

[35:36] land use map does not

[35:37] transfer

[35:38] ownership. It is worth

[35:39] remembering this.

[35:40] Yes. Right.

[35:41] And this is an important

[35:42] reminder, perhaps,

[35:43] for

[35:44] zoning administrators to

[35:45] convey to people

[35:49] who are subdividing their land

[35:50] .

[35:53] And it's there.

[35:54] have been many cases

[35:55] where people have had a

[35:56] registered map

[35:57] and they thought that or

[35:58] they thought they

[35:59] owned the land

[36:00] because there is a map

[36:01] showing it. Yes. Well, no

[36:02] . The land management act

[36:03] transfers

[36:04] ownership. Perhaps the only other

[36:06] thing

[36:08] worth mentioning about this

[36:09] is that there is a

[36:10] section that specifies

[36:12] what must be shown

[36:13] on the map on the

[36:14] land use map,

[36:18] and these are the requirements of this

[36:19] committee, the local

[36:20] zoning board.

[36:24] There is also a whole

[36:25] separate list of requirements

[36:27] for what should be

[36:28] shown on

[36:29] land use maps. This is on

[36:31] the page...does everything

[36:32] seem

[36:32] normal to you?

[36:33] Uh, it seems like it

[36:34] seems normal.

[36:36] From a

[36:37] land management perspective, we

[36:38] can meet these

[36:39] requirements. Of course.

[36:40] Good.

[36:41] But the state has its own

[36:42] set of requirements for any

[36:44] geodetic

[36:45] survey map that

[36:46] is submitted, which is slightly

[36:49] different from

[36:51] this.

[36:52] Well, but it seems like it

[36:53] seems important.

[36:54] Maybe that's how it should

[36:55] be if the state has

[36:57] requirements and they're not

[36:58] exactly the same as what we have.

[36:59] I think we should

[37:00] consider that they

[37:02] must

[37:03] meet

[37:04] state requirements.

[37:05] Uh, unless the state

[37:06] requires

[37:07] it, besides, the

[37:08] planning commission

[37:10] can require it...

[37:10] I probably should

[37:11] n't have even

[37:12] brought this up

[37:14] before I looked at

[37:15] that list. Well, I mean

[37:17] , would

[37:18] you recommend that

[37:19] we add a

[37:19] disclaimer that

[37:21] says that the survey requirements

[37:29] set forth in the

[37:31] Marorrow subdivision rules are somewhat

[37:32] different from the

[37:33] state requirements,

[37:36] and that the applicant should

[37:37] research what

[37:38] those

[37:39] differences are.

[37:40] I don't see the need to

[37:41] draw this.

[37:42] Good. Good. Good.

[37:45] So, I'm just

[37:46] trying to understand

[37:47] if one of our

[37:48] tasks after this

[37:50] evening is to convey

[37:51] any changes or

[37:52] additions that may have

[37:53] come up during the

[37:54] meeting.

[37:59] Um, um, maybe I

[38:03] shouldn't even have

[38:05] mentioned it, because I

[38:06] don't think it's a significant

[38:07] problem. The

[38:09] Planning Commission can

[38:10] require that anything it wishes be shown on the

[38:11] survey maps

[38:13] . And I just

[38:14] wanted to say that there

[38:16] is also a list

[38:17] that the state requires for

[38:18] geodetic maps that are

[38:20] registered.

[38:20] Good.

[38:23] So, Malcolm,

[38:24] essentially, what you're saying is

[38:26] that, um, there are

[38:27] state regulations that

[38:28] apply to the land surveyor

[38:30] , not necessarily the

[38:31] city district. But

[38:35] if it doesn't meet the

[38:36] recording requirements,

[38:37] the state regulations

[38:38] for certified

[38:40] recording, then it's not

[38:41] good for the city. It

[38:42] can't be

[38:43] registered if

[38:44] it doesn't meet these

[38:45] standards, right?

[38:46] Well, it could be, it

[38:47] could be. You can

[38:48] record anything.

[38:50] Good.

[38:50] You can make

[38:51] a sketch on a napkin and

[38:52] take it to the forest

[38:53] to be registered.

[38:54] That's what I mean

[38:55] , that's what I

[38:56] misunderstood. But I

[38:58] guess I thought that

[38:59] if it was

[39:00] certified, then everything should

[39:01] meet

[39:03] government requirements. No.

[39:05] Uh, yes, they are

[39:05] licensed under a

[39:06] geodetic

[39:07] survey

[39:08] prepared by a

[39:09] licensed

[39:09] surveyor. It has to

[39:10] meet

[39:11] state requirements,

[39:12] but you can

[39:13] demand, you can

[39:14] write something that's not

[39:15] ...

[39:17] I have...that's what we on the

[39:18] planning commission

[39:20] assumed...Um,

[39:21] surveyors have a

[39:22] professional practice.

[39:26] This professional

[39:27] practice is between

[39:28] the landowner and

[39:29] the surveyor. This

[39:34] professional practice,

[39:36] um, hopefully, of a

[39:37] high, um,

[39:38] high standard,

[39:44] and um, and as long as the owner is

[39:45] happy with

[39:46] the surveyor that

[39:47] he has chosen and in his

[39:48] practice, then we are

[39:49] all good...

[39:52] I've probably

[39:53] talked about this a lot, it's

[39:54] clear enough

[39:56] ...

[39:56] wait, wait,

[39:57] Mary... the

[40:02] planning commission requirements that are not

[40:03] part of the

[40:04] state requirements are shown on

[40:05] this list... um, with

[40:06] a note that the planning commission

[40:09] requires them. That's good.

[40:13] Of course. Um, um, and the

[40:15] state may

[40:16] or may not require them, and

[40:18] I don't see a problem.

[40:19] Good. Good. Good.

[40:21] So, thank you for

[40:23] noticing. Um, okay.

[40:28] What stage are we at

[40:29] ? Chapter

[40:33] three, article three

[40:34] , article three. Thank you

[40:36] . Um, article three. Um

[40:58] ,

[41:00] yeah,

[41:05] has a general

[41:05] optimistic view

[41:07] of what development

[41:08] can do to

[41:09] real estate. Um, um,

[41:16] you know, it seems like

[41:17] the development

[41:18] will proceed

[41:19] safely without

[41:19] undue

[41:20] negative impacts

[41:21] on public health

[41:23] , safety, the environment,

[41:24] neighboring properties, and the

[41:25] rural and

[41:26] scenic nature of

[41:27] the community. Um, that's an

[41:28] optimistic

[41:29] statement. Um, and um,

[41:33] any development

[41:34] seems to

[41:35] jeopardize all of that. Um,

[41:38] but, um, we didn't

[41:39] feel like we wanted it to

[41:40] continue, at least not without

[41:42] saying so.

[41:44] Um, I think it's

[41:50] fair to say

[41:51] that our

[41:52] zoning document and our

[41:53] city plan

[41:54] also had that in mind

[41:55] when we were working on them,

[41:57] because we want to

[41:58] make sure that it's

[41:59] consistent with the

[42:00] city's vision, the current

[42:01] rules and regulations,

[42:02] and the aspirations of

[42:03] the city that are outlined

[42:04] in the city

[42:05] plan. Yes, we

[42:10] first say that the

[42:12] urban development plan

[42:13] and zoning regulations

[42:14] were important

[42:15] guidelines for us

[42:16] when we were doing this

[42:17] work. Um, protection. Oh,

[42:35] when

[42:36] we were working on the

[42:37] city plan a few years ago, we had

[42:38] internal

[42:39] arguments about

[42:41] whether the city plan was, um, an

[42:50] aspirational document, or,

[42:51] you know, a look at the

[42:54] city's hopes and desires for the future, um,

[42:55] or an accurate representation of what

[42:56] it is

[42:57] now. And it's somewhere in

[43:00] the middle, I think.

[43:02] Yes. And this is the section where

[43:05] a lot of government

[43:06] regulations come in

[43:07] regarding

[43:08] water and wastewater use and

[43:09] so on. Hmm, these are rules

[43:13] that we don't necessarily

[43:14] have the right

[43:15] to ignore.

[43:17] These are the states

[43:18] that are not there, they

[43:19] have to be

[43:20] approved before

[43:22] you can

[43:23] do anything.

[43:24] Yes, they influence the

[43:25] development of the plan.

[43:30] Many of the edits in this

[43:31] section were

[43:32] linguistic

[43:33] clarifications on

[43:34] things that were

[43:35] unclear or just

[43:36] subjective that we were

[43:38] trying to resolve.

[43:40] Yes. Um, the protection of

[43:47] natural resources

[43:48] and cultural

[43:49] resources, um,

[43:50] is divided into

[43:51] primary and secondary,

[43:53] um, issues, and these

[43:54] issues, I think, are more

[43:55] useful, um, to the DRB,

[43:57] um, more than to the

[44:03] applicant, perhaps

[44:05] because, um, the primary

[44:06] ones are the ones that the DRB,

[44:07] perhaps, has more

[44:09] strict control over. And

[44:12] the secondary ones are perhaps

[44:13] more open to

[44:15] interpretation. Um, as

[44:29] you can see in

[44:30] point 3.4 before, um,

[44:31] preserving

[44:32] open space,

[44:34] creating common

[44:35] lands. Um, these things, um

[44:39] , are important to Marorrow. Um,

[44:44] and we want, um,

[44:45] developers and people

[44:46] who subdivide their land to

[44:48] be aware of them

[44:49] . Again

[44:59] ,

[45:00] stormwater management is a

[45:01] joint affair between the

[45:02] state and cities,

[45:03] but the state has a lot

[45:05] more say in

[45:06] stormwater management

[45:07] than we do. So

[45:09] this part is short.

[45:11] Um, flood hazard zones

[45:12] are defined

[45:19] in Marboro zoning regulations

[45:20] , and they are also

[45:22] important, um, roads.

[45:28] We worked with, um,

[45:29] Andrew Richardson

[45:30] to make sure that,

[45:32] um, he had an

[45:33] opportunity

[45:34] to look at this

[45:35] section of the roads,

[45:36] and, um, he seemed to

[45:38] think it

[45:39] covered the needs of

[45:40] the roads.

[45:43] This is another case where there

[45:44] is a gap between

[45:45] municipal and

[45:46] state regulations

[45:47] , state roads

[45:48] . Unfortunately, we have nothing to

[45:50] say about

[45:51] Route Ninth. Did

[45:54] you say "unfortunately"?

[45:56] Unfortunately. Oh, sorry. This is not

[45:58] an opinion. Well, um, uh, this

[46:03] current council and Andrew

[46:05] have been ambitious about the

[46:06] roadworks and, um,

[46:08] it's not our place

[46:09] to criticize here. Er,

[46:22] so 3.10 is the

[46:23] standard for

[46:24] large divisions. Uh,

[46:29] and, um, they also, uh, a

[46:36] color map that

[46:37] we borrowed from

[46:38] Bradborough. Uh, and it

[46:41] shows how

[46:44] building lots are assessed,

[46:45] um, how to calculate, um

[46:47] , how much land, um,

[46:48] that you own

[46:49] can be opened up

[46:51] for, um, subdivision. Um, and

[46:55] part D represents the

[46:56] , um, conservation

[46:58] subdivisions, which, um

[47:00] , we spend

[47:01] a lot of time working

[47:02] on, um, and

[47:03] we hope that, um, you know, there are two

[47:06] things, there are two ways that you

[47:07] can do a

[47:09] conservation type of

[47:10] subdivision. One, um,

[47:13] is called, um,

[47:15] planned

[47:16] unit developments. It's

[47:19] outlined in the

[47:19] zoning regulations, and there's

[47:21] one of them already at the

[47:22] edge of the college campus,

[47:23] um, where the music

[47:24] house and the music, um,

[47:26] there's two,

[47:27] they have two now, oh,

[47:28] two, the one that Donald

[47:29] just worked on

[47:30] ,

[47:31] and it's also

[47:33] at the other end, in

[47:34] this case,

[47:38] um, the size

[47:39] is determined by

[47:43] the boundaries of

[47:47] the right, um, slowly

[47:49] sensitive, um,

[47:49] tangible land, and

[47:51] which, and actually, the

[47:52] conservation

[47:53] subdivisions that we're

[47:54] proposing do the

[47:55] same thing, but they

[47:56] provide for

[47:57] individual

[47:58] ownership, um, on these

[47:59] resulting subdivisions,

[48:00] unlike the other

[48:02] two, where they're

[48:03] jointly owned.

[48:08] Right. That's

[48:10] right. Hmm,

[48:18] the nature conservation areas

[48:19] are defined, sizes,

[48:21] dimensions. Hmm, there is a formula

[48:24] . Where is the formula for

[48:27] determining, hmm,

[48:28] how many

[48:29] plot sizes do you have? Um,

[48:37] if you look at

[48:38] this example on

[48:39] page 19, which

[48:40] shows a

[48:42] 50-acre site, uh,

[48:43] which, uh, has areas that are

[48:45] too sensitive for

[48:46] construction. In this

[48:52] case, this example

[48:54] shows coastal

[48:55] setbacks and, uh,

[48:57] slopes that are steep 25% or

[48:58] more. You subtract

[49:01] those 20 acres and you're

[49:02] left with 30 acres.

[49:05] Typically on a

[49:07] 50 acre lot and

[49:08] anyway

[49:09] you are allowed to

[49:10] build 20 to

[49:11] divide it into 25

[49:13] 2 acre lots

[49:14] assuming you

[49:15] can create

[49:16] access to all of those

[49:18] lots. So, uh, uh,

[49:23] if after

[49:24] subtracting those 20

[49:25] acres, you're

[49:26] left with 30 acres.

[49:31] You can still

[49:32] build on these 25 plots

[49:34] . You can still

[49:35] divide them into 25

[49:36] lots, but of

[49:37] course they won't

[49:38] be two-

[49:40] acre lots, and that's completely

[49:41] allowed. As long as

[49:43] the site is

[49:44] large enough to

[49:45] support a

[49:46] septic system or

[49:47] some other

[49:48] approved method of

[49:50] waste management.

[49:51] I think there

[49:52] is a minimum

[49:54] plot size somewhere now.

[49:55] That's true, but an acre is more

[49:56] than enough.

[49:57] Hmm. Oh no. I know it's

[49:59] less. This is much

[50:00] less than less than.

[50:01] But I'm saying there is a

[50:02] minimum

[50:02] set by

[50:03] state law.

[50:04] Maybe that's true. I don't

[50:05] know. I just

[50:06] remember seeing it.

[50:07] Maybe for the village. I

[50:09] think the septic

[50:10] system

[50:11] is still the determining

[50:12] factor in the end, right?

[50:13] Well,

[50:13] since you might

[50:14] have a

[50:15] half-acre lot, that's not

[50:16] entirely

[50:17] possible. Um, the other

[50:22] part of the city where

[50:24] small

[50:25] lot sizes apply, the part

[50:26] we're in right now

[50:27] , um, a

[50:28] designated rural

[50:29] district, um, has

[50:30] much smaller

[50:32] lot size requirements,

[50:34] right? And our theory

[50:39] all this time for PUDs and

[50:41] for preserving, um,

[50:42] neighborhoods has been that

[50:43] clustered

[50:44] housing is better than, um,

[50:46] even lots

[50:47] spread out over

[50:48] long distances. We have a

[50:50] lot of them in

[50:51] Marlborough. We have a lot of

[50:52] rural development.

[50:53] Most of the apartment

[50:55] buildings in Marlborough,

[50:56] as Donald, um,

[50:57] pointed out to us, um,

[50:58] are situated in such a

[50:59] way that they can't

[51:00] see their neighbors,

[51:01] right? And um, but that's

[51:03] unrealistic,

[51:04] maybe in the

[51:05] future. So, we're

[51:06] trying

[51:07] to adapt the city to the

[51:08] possibility that

[51:09] this cluster housing

[51:11] could come to

[51:12] Marrow at some

[51:12] point.

[51:16] And even, I

[51:17] mean, you don't

[51:18] have to look

[51:19] at cluster housing

[51:20] to realize that, you

[51:21] know, even if

[51:22] we think about it in

[51:24] terms of

[51:24] affordability, the

[51:26] two-

[51:27] acre requirement shouldn't be

[51:28] mandatory,

[51:29] shouldn't be a

[51:30] necessity in

[51:31] order to be able to

[51:32] live in Marvel. Hmm.

[51:35] Can...Yes. Yes,

[51:37] please.

[51:38] Yes. Because

[51:39] actually, um, there are

[51:41] already existing lots

[51:42] that are smaller than,

[51:43] say, two acres that

[51:44] are in...that you can...you

[51:46] can

[51:46] use

[51:47] because they already

[51:48] exist, because they

[51:50] ...they are...suitable

[51:51] for development, even

[51:52] if they don't

[51:53] meet the two

[51:54] acres, or whatever the

[51:55] minimum

[51:57] lot size is. But there are

[52:00] size restrictions, and I don't know, I don't

[52:01] think it's

[52:02] related to the septic tank,

[52:04] but there's a

[52:05] physical restriction somewhere

[52:06] that says you

[52:07] can't build on

[52:08] something, even an

[52:10] existing lot that's

[52:11] smaller than a tenth of an acre,

[52:12] etc.,

[52:13] and you say it's a

[52:14] state rule or

[52:15] not, I think it's somewhere in

[52:16] our

[52:18] bylaws that I've seen,

[52:19] because in a rural

[52:20] area you can

[52:21] have a central septic

[52:22] tank, but you won't

[52:23] be limited by the septic

[52:24] tank requirements

[52:25] that I've never

[52:26] seen,

[52:27] but there's a restriction that the

[52:28] lot can't be,

[52:29] I think it's 0.18 or something

[52:31] in our zoning.

[52:32] Ha?

[52:32] In our

[52:33] zoning document.

[52:34] In zoning. Yes.

[52:35] Good. I think it's in

[52:36] the zoning. But in other

[52:38] words, there are already

[52:38] existing plots that

[52:39] you can

[52:40] build on, but which are

[52:41] too small to

[52:41] build on today

[52:42] . I mean, you

[52:43] can, because they

[52:45] exist, but there is a

[52:45] minimum

[52:46] lot size that is too

[52:48] small, I think,

[52:49] for building.

[52:52] I have to watch this.

[52:55] Hmm, I do

[52:56] n't have that on

[52:57] my pages.

[52:58] Sorry. I

[53:05] think I expressed something

[53:06] incorrectly

[53:07] earlier.

[53:08] I'm currently reading the section

[53:09] on conservation

[53:10] units.

[53:11] The question I

[53:13] asked

[53:14] Donald earlier, um, and the

[53:15] document says

[53:17] that no more than 50% of the

[53:19] total area of a

[53:20] subdivision can be

[53:21] used for

[53:22] residential lots.

[53:23] So it's a 50/50 split, I

[53:25] think, that's what we

[53:26] got.

[53:27] Yes, I think that's

[53:28] right.

[53:29] I think, uh, I

[53:30] mispronounced it at first

[53:31] .

[53:32] Um, um, in the fourth

[53:37] segment, there's a segment

[53:38] on fees,

[53:38] enforcement, and

[53:40] fines. It's kind of

[53:41] like...

[53:42] But do we want to

[53:43] check the articles?

[53:45] Oh, check the third

[53:46] article for

[53:47] questions from

[53:48] the audience or a

[53:49] large group of you on

[53:50] Zoom. Educational

[53:57] question. Uh, does

[54:00] that 50% include, uh,

[54:01] setback space,

[54:03] or is that part of,

[54:07] um, setback allowance

[54:09] , part of that

[54:11] 50% that is

[54:12] not

[54:13] built on or

[54:14] undeveloped? No.

[54:17] I mean,

[54:18] right. Right.

[54:20] I would have a digression.

[54:22] This is just talking about the

[54:23] land itself, first and

[54:24] foremost,

[54:26] but you can't help but

[54:28] consider the retreat

[54:29] to your 50%. The setback,

[54:32] this 50%, includes

[54:34] setbacks from

[54:35] construction, etc.

[54:39] It's possible that at

[54:40] some point a

[54:41] future review of

[54:42] zoning regulations

[54:43] will revisit the issue

[54:44] of how

[54:45] large the setbacks should be

[54:46] , but for

[54:47] now, they are as

[54:48] they are.

[54:49] But we have excuses

[54:50] for the demands. So,

[54:51] excuses

[54:52] are different from, um

[54:53] , rejections. Refusal is

[54:55] possible, and it

[54:56] only applies to

[54:57] DRB-based waivers.

[55:00] You can, but you don't

[55:01] have to,

[55:02] apply

[55:04] to the DRB to have the

[55:05] setback revoked because you simply

[55:06] prefer to build

[55:07] elsewhere. You can't

[55:09] do this with denial

[55:10] . A refusal that you

[55:11] must

[55:11] abide by. There are

[55:13] five state

[55:14] regulations that say

[55:15] you can't

[55:16] build on the street

[55:17] because of these physical

[55:18] restrictions. Sometimes it's

[55:21] not true, but with

[55:22] rejection you can

[55:23] do it simply

[55:24] because you like this place

[55:25] here

[55:26] more than this place.

[55:27] I understand. Yes. So, I

[55:29] understand.

[55:30] So, the retreat

[55:31] is actually, um, it's a

[55:33] condition, but not a strict one.

[55:35] Right. And I'm

[55:37] sure it

[55:38] stems from the numerous,

[55:40] um, moments where

[55:41] people wanted to

[55:42] put something up. So,

[55:45] um,

[55:46] you know, a garage, a shed

[55:47] or something like that on a

[55:48] setback,

[55:50] and the DRB, um,

[55:53] takes into account the needs of the

[55:54] neighbors and so on. Um,

[55:57] anyway, it was,

[55:58] um, none of our

[55:59] business. Um, I would just like to

[56:04] tell Mary that I did

[56:06] n't find it. It's

[56:08] 1/8 of an acre.

[56:09] Good. I see, I found it

[56:11] .

[56:11] You indicated the figure eight

[56:15] anywhere.

[56:16] Thank you. So I

[56:17] mean, regardless

[56:19] of whether it's an

[56:20] existing lot,

[56:21] it's too small to

[56:22] build on,

[56:23] right? And I also have to

[56:26] correct myself about the

[56:28] save sections. One of

[56:31] the things we've

[56:31] implemented for all the

[56:33] major sections

[56:34] is a new document

[56:35] that goes beyond the

[56:36] typical

[56:37] survey. And this

[56:42] document, its design is

[56:43] meant to be a

[56:45] place where you

[56:46] indicate all the sensitive

[56:47] areas on your

[56:48] property. So, this

[56:52] includes coastal

[56:53] retreats. This includes

[56:57] wetlands, uh

[56:59] ,

[57:00] winter weathering, uh

[57:02] , winter, uh,

[57:04] deer wintering areas,

[57:07] Uh,

[57:08] that's similar to what we

[57:09] ask people to do

[57:10] if they're going to

[57:12] develop outside of the

[57:13] 500-foot

[57:16] wildlife overlap zone. We

[57:20] asked them

[57:21] to do a similar

[57:22] environmental assessment of

[57:23] their property, and

[57:25] as a document it is

[57:26] used, uh

[57:27] , for DRB hearings, and so

[57:28] will this one.

[57:32] So this map will show

[57:33] you where you are allowed

[57:34] to build, and the rest of

[57:36] the land is where you will

[57:37] then figure out how to

[57:38] place your

[57:39] plots. Is

[57:41] n't that part of

[57:42] usually having

[57:44] someone certified do

[57:45] the examination? No.

[57:47] Who owns this mountain?

[57:50] Repeat this again.

[57:51] Mary

[57:52] doesn't...I...on many

[57:53] surveys I've seen

[57:54] survey areas

[57:56] that indicate, say,

[57:58] wetlands or something like that.

[57:59] Maybe not, mass

[58:02] plantings or anything like

[58:03] that. There are things about

[58:05] something

[58:06] on a certified

[58:08] survey. Since

[58:09] you bring this up

[58:10] , uh,

[58:11] wetland identification

[58:12] in

[58:13] Vermont is a separate

[58:15] licensed

[58:15] specialty of the

[58:16] sub-species.

[58:19] Oh, and do you really

[58:20] intend to require

[58:21] people to do this?

[58:24] Hire someone for

[58:25] this? I mean,

[58:27] I'm a licensed

[58:28] land surveyor, but I'm

[58:29] not

[58:29] certified by

[58:30] the state to

[58:31] delineate

[58:32] wetlands.

[58:33] Right. If we don't

[58:34] want people

[58:35] to build on

[58:36] wetlands, then

[58:37] we'll do it this

[58:38] way. That is if the state

[58:39] doesn't allow you to get there

[58:40] .

[58:40] We intend to

[58:42] do this for large

[58:43] developments, and, um, it's

[58:44] not

[58:45] entirely clear to

[58:46] me.

[58:47] For small, and if, a developer

[58:49] comes to town and

[58:50] buys a

[58:52] 50-acre site, hmm, it doesn't

[58:53] seem like a requirement for them

[58:54] to hire someone to

[58:56] come in and

[58:56] figure out where the

[58:57] sensitive

[58:59] areas are. Okay,

[59:01] this plot analysis

[59:02] is on

[59:03] page 19, and there are

[59:04] nine points there.

[59:06] Yes,

[59:06] they are identified,

[59:08] including the major

[59:09] agricultural

[59:11] lands that we have,

[59:13] some

[59:17] people who have

[59:17] state licenses

[59:19] to

[59:19] identify where the

[59:20] wetlands are

[59:21] .

[59:21] How do you even

[59:22] know? How can you

[59:24] know? You find a

[59:25] plant that likes to

[59:26] live in

[59:27] wetlands.

[59:28] When, uh, when, uh, I was

[59:35] buying land that

[59:36] I owned, I, uh,

[59:37] called the

[59:38] state and they

[59:39] sent someone

[59:40] for free

[59:42] and I had to

[59:43] wait a little while. Yes. But, uh

[59:45] , I wanted to make

[59:46] sure that the place

[59:47] where I was going to

[59:48] put my

[59:49] house didn't affect the

[59:50] wetlands,

[59:52] and they came and I

[59:53] broke it up, and, uh,

[59:54] so there are

[59:55] resources available that aren't

[59:56] expensive.

[59:57] Steeply.

[59:58] But you can have a

[59:59] long, you know,

[1:00:00] waiting period, and

[1:00:01] I don't think mine was like

[1:00:02] 4 months or something

[1:00:04] . But I think

[1:00:05] it's important to note,

[1:00:06] and the regulations

[1:00:07] state that the state will not

[1:00:08] allow you

[1:00:09] to build on land

[1:00:10] that they call

[1:00:12] wetlands, and if they are the

[1:00:14] only ones who can

[1:00:15] identify them.

[1:00:16] We have setbacks that

[1:00:17] follow all the,

[1:00:19] yeah, uh,

[1:00:21] repairman habitats and wetlands

[1:00:25] that we already know about

[1:00:26] in the city. So, it's not like

[1:00:29] , uh, there won't be

[1:00:30] some big

[1:00:31] surprises there, because this is an

[1:00:33] overlap, what's it

[1:00:34] called?

[1:00:38] Oh, wildlife habitat overlap area

[1:00:40] .

[1:00:41] No, not that one. Rivers and

[1:00:43] streams. What is it?

[1:00:44] Oh, the coastal

[1:00:45] environment.

[1:00:46] Coastal

[1:00:47] habitat

[1:00:48] . Is this what we

[1:00:49] call inclusion

[1:00:50] ?

[1:00:52] Yes, there is a map in the city.

[1:00:54] Number three or number

[1:00:55] four. Maps

[1:00:56] corresponding to the area

[1:00:57] that is located there.

[1:00:59] The slope of the land is something

[1:01:01] we also take into account.

[1:01:03] And, um, would the

[1:01:06] conservationists

[1:01:07] that we might have

[1:01:08] or might have now have the

[1:01:10] right to recognize

[1:01:11] wetlands?

[1:01:13] I would...I would...

[1:01:14] No, that's what

[1:01:15] you just said.

[1:01:17] It's only the state that

[1:01:18] can, actually that's what

[1:01:19] I didn't say. I said the

[1:01:21] state

[1:01:22] can say that,

[1:01:23] right? I said the state

[1:01:26] has a system for, um,

[1:01:28] certifying people

[1:01:29] to identify

[1:01:30] wetlands.

[1:01:32] Good.

[1:01:38] Um, okay. If it comes down to

[1:01:43] it, I hear in

[1:01:44] your, um, response

[1:01:46] to this request that, um,

[1:01:48] this is a potentially

[1:01:53] sensitive area that we

[1:01:55] should, um,

[1:02:00] consider,

[1:02:01] review, um, be

[1:02:04] aware of, I would

[1:02:06] say, um,

[1:02:07] I mean I wonder

[1:02:08] if

[1:02:09] we refer this to the

[1:02:13] Election Commission as a

[1:02:14] problem area. Are

[1:02:16] you asking me, Jim?

[1:02:17] Yes,

[1:02:18] because you raised this

[1:02:19] issue.

[1:02:20] No, I don't think this is an

[1:02:21] area that you

[1:02:22] should submit

[1:02:24] to the election

[1:02:25] board as a problem.

[1:02:26] Right.

[1:02:27] But I think that should

[1:02:28] be something that the zoning administrator would point out

[1:02:30] : maybe

[1:02:31] you need, if

[1:02:33] you have a piece of land that has

[1:02:34] wetlands

[1:02:35] and you're

[1:02:36] relatively close to

[1:02:38] them, or you want to

[1:02:39] develop it, you

[1:02:40] need to hire a

[1:02:41] state professional

[1:02:42] if you can't

[1:02:43] afford it, and

[1:02:44] many of us can, to

[1:02:46] come and

[1:02:47] do it. This will take

[1:02:48] more time. Well,

[1:02:49] but here's something I have to

[1:02:51] admit. When we were

[1:02:52] planning this meeting,

[1:02:53] um, one of the things

[1:02:54] we wanted to make

[1:02:55] sure we

[1:02:57] mentioned early on

[1:02:58] and often was this

[1:02:59] requirement. I neglected to mention

[1:03:02] this at the beginning of my

[1:03:03] introduction, and Don just

[1:03:04] reminded me,

[1:03:05] saying we

[1:03:09] should be

[1:03:10] upfront about

[1:03:11] it,

[1:03:12] like

[1:03:13] something we added

[1:03:14] to the

[1:03:18] um marbos rules. So

[1:03:27] I regret not doing

[1:03:29] that.

[1:03:41] Good. Um,

[1:03:43] administration.

[1:03:45] So, where are

[1:03:46] we with the

[1:03:47] segment review

[1:03:49] ?

[1:03:49] Uh, are there any questions

[1:03:50] about security

[1:03:51] units? I have

[1:03:54] one.

[1:03:56] Good.

[1:03:59] According to F, section 3.11,

[1:04:04] yes,

[1:04:05] at least 50% must be

[1:04:07] designated as

[1:04:08] protected, uh, and

[1:04:09] I'm afraid our list

[1:04:11] here is not like that, I thought

[1:04:12] we changed that

[1:04:13] list. It says

[1:04:16] easement owned by

[1:04:17] the state,

[1:04:17] qualified

[1:04:18] land trust, or

[1:04:19] conservation organization

[1:04:21] . And I think for

[1:04:22] most of the lands

[1:04:23] we're talking about,

[1:04:24] none of those things would be an

[1:04:25] option. So,

[1:04:28] we were going to have

[1:04:32] something more like

[1:04:35] something more

[1:04:36] informal, a

[1:04:37] contract submitted to the

[1:04:38] city. Uh,

[1:04:40] what's it called...

[1:04:41] What's it for? I do

[1:04:42] n't remember what you mean

[1:04:44] .

[1:04:46] So we say that

[1:04:47] land that

[1:04:48] is set aside as

[1:04:49] permanent conservation

[1:04:50] land must be

[1:04:51] protected by one of these

[1:04:53] three things. And those three

[1:04:58] things are probably not

[1:04:59] realistic for

[1:05:00] many lands. I don't

[1:05:02] know about the easement that

[1:05:03] belongs to the state. I

[1:05:04] don't even know what it is

[1:05:06] unless it

[1:05:07] becomes public

[1:05:08] land.

[1:05:09] Qualified

[1:05:10] land trusts

[1:05:11] will not be interested in

[1:05:12] every plot here, and the same

[1:05:13] goes for

[1:05:14] conservators. So

[1:05:16] I think we need

[1:05:17] something more

[1:05:18] informal. But, I

[1:05:20] think we can't

[1:05:21] put it on the city.

[1:05:22] No, not a city.

[1:05:24] Wait. We

[1:05:26] were talking about, um, a

[1:05:30] landowners association.

[1:05:32] Homeowners Association.

[1:05:34] Um, who is

[1:05:37] responsible for

[1:05:38] managing this

[1:05:40] land. And you noticed

[1:05:43] that we didn't specify that.

[1:05:46] Yes. If we just

[1:05:47] add something like

[1:05:48] "

[1:05:49] satisfactory",

[1:05:50] right? I think we all

[1:05:51] understand that

[1:05:52] ambiguity, but

[1:05:53] I don't know if there was

[1:05:54] ...

[1:05:55] Yeah, I think,

[1:05:56] and also the fact that it has to be

[1:05:57] registered with the

[1:05:58] state in the city

[1:05:59] records, not just...

[1:06:00] I think we might have to

[1:06:02] add those

[1:06:03] two little things,

[1:06:04] because otherwise... Okay. Well,

[1:06:05] that means we

[1:06:06] need to do

[1:06:07] some

[1:06:08] homework before, um

[1:06:10] , it becomes a reality.

[1:06:11] But this shouldn't...this

[1:06:12] should be set aside as a

[1:06:13] separate area. Um, you

[1:06:15] can imagine what

[1:06:17] we were thinking, right? If

[1:06:22] you allocate this land

[1:06:23] , you develop

[1:06:24] small areas in

[1:06:25] one area where

[1:06:26] possible, and then who

[1:06:27] looks after the

[1:06:28] sensitive lands

[1:06:29] that are not developed?

[1:06:34] And, um, and who was responsible for that

[1:06:35] ? And, the Battleboro language

[1:06:40] was, um, something like a

[1:06:42] state easement, a

[1:06:42] qualified

[1:06:43] land trust,

[1:06:45] or a conservation easement.

[1:06:49] Um, and what Patty is

[1:06:50] up to, is what we

[1:06:52] also talked about,

[1:06:53] um, what do you call it

[1:06:55] ?

[1:06:57] Homeowners Association.

[1:06:58] Homeowner. What are they

[1:07:00] called, what is it

[1:07:01] called?

[1:07:02] HA. Yeah, actually,

[1:07:05] um, this should be on

[1:07:06] this list.

[1:07:07] Yes. And it's not a perfect

[1:07:08] solution, because

[1:07:09] no, but it's not a perfect

[1:07:11] solution.

[1:07:11] Yes. And they aren't even

[1:07:12] viable

[1:07:13] options. So

[1:07:15] I'm trying to

[1:07:16] think about, let's say

[1:07:17] we

[1:07:18] do a big

[1:07:19] division, like, let's

[1:07:20] look at the example

[1:07:21] we gave on

[1:07:23] page 19 or

[1:07:26] maybe better, on

[1:07:28] page 20.

[1:07:29] Let's say this

[1:07:30] happens. You

[1:07:32] go in, build

[1:07:33] your property,

[1:07:34] divide your

[1:07:35] property, file a deed

[1:07:36] of land division, everything is

[1:07:37] registered. Someone

[1:07:41] comes after 5

[1:07:42] years and says, "Here

[1:07:44] I have this land that I

[1:07:45] want to divide again." The

[1:07:48] city has a document

[1:07:49] that divided the land. Would

[1:07:56] n't the zoning administrator

[1:07:57] see right away that

[1:07:58] it was in the document?

[1:08:00] It says "no." The

[1:08:01] document does not

[1:08:03] say this. The document

[1:08:04] says this.

[1:08:05] needs to be

[1:08:07] recorded somehow.

[1:08:10] And if we create

[1:08:14] this new designation for

[1:08:15] protected lands,

[1:08:17] right? Um, the deed of

[1:08:22] this land,

[1:08:23] this green part on

[1:08:24] who owns

[1:08:25] this land – it's some

[1:08:26] combination of

[1:08:27] homeowners,

[1:08:32] right?

[1:08:33] And they are present, they are

[1:08:35] prevented from,

[1:08:38] uh, building on this

[1:08:40] land, from building new

[1:08:41] houses,

[1:08:43] only if it is

[1:08:43] registered. Because

[1:08:45] if it's not

[1:08:46] registered, there's

[1:08:47] no one to

[1:08:48] enforce it. Only it's like

[1:08:49] when you

[1:08:50] write something in your

[1:08:51] deed of grant, the

[1:08:52] city can't...

[1:08:53] I don't argue. I

[1:08:54] see a need for this.

[1:08:56] Good.

[1:08:56] I mean, um,

[1:08:58] we don't have that

[1:08:59] stated in

[1:09:00] US law. Patty

[1:09:01] rightly

[1:09:02] pointed that out,

[1:09:03] because it is,

[1:09:04] but we, I think we

[1:09:05] can do it

[1:09:06] pretty quickly with an

[1:09:07] additional, um,

[1:09:08] wording or

[1:09:09] paragraph.

[1:09:13] I'm just trying

[1:09:14] to suggest that when

[1:09:15] someone comes...

[1:09:16] The only person, the only one

[1:09:18] who really has the right,

[1:09:19] is if you're the previous

[1:09:20] owner, the person who

[1:09:21] issued the restriction.

[1:09:26] The city has no right

[1:09:27] to challenge anyone

[1:09:28] who violates

[1:09:29] the restrictions in

[1:09:30] any act, this is the only

[1:09:31] person, the only one

[1:09:33] we experienced this with.

[1:09:35] Good. But I think I... I

[1:09:36] have to... I just...

[1:09:38] I'm just trying to

[1:09:39] imagine someone

[1:09:40] walking in and saying to the

[1:09:41] zoning administrator, "Here's a

[1:09:42] piece of land. I want to

[1:09:44] build on it." The

[1:09:46] zoning administrator will be

[1:09:47] aware when

[1:09:48] they review the

[1:09:49] survey and

[1:09:50] deed.

[1:09:51] They won't. They wo

[1:09:52] n't. No,

[1:09:53] they don't look... the

[1:09:55] zoning administrator doesn't look at it

[1:09:56] .

[1:09:57] No.

[1:09:58] Well, it's essentially a

[1:09:59] tax

[1:10:00] liability. I

[1:10:03] mean,

[1:10:06] you're talking about, uh, the

[1:10:07] passage of time, in a

[1:10:08] way, where during the

[1:10:10] first few years after a

[1:10:11] development like this,

[1:10:12] of course, uh, it'll be

[1:10:13] clear that they were

[1:10:14] allocating

[1:10:21] the land for the right

[1:10:23] reasons, but you know,

[1:10:24] in 50 or 100 years,

[1:10:25] when, when, uh, when, Tim, well,

[1:10:31] something happens. Uh,

[1:10:37] okay. We will

[1:10:38] work on this. Thank you.

[1:10:40] Uh, let's move on

[1:10:41] .

[1:10:42] Good. Uh, are there any more

[1:10:59] questions from the previous ones?

[1:11:02] We move on to

[1:11:03] article four, which

[1:11:04] defines the nature of the

[1:11:07] zoning administrator's liability. Uh, you know

[1:11:33] , I think, uh, I think

[1:11:35] about this issue of

[1:11:41] appointing

[1:11:42] assistants to

[1:11:42] property, you know, uh

[1:11:44] , I think that

[1:11:45] making it clear

[1:11:46] why this land is

[1:11:47] being set aside can make it

[1:11:48] a lot easier for

[1:11:49] future people,

[1:11:50] even if they

[1:11:51] forgot about the act of resistance

[1:11:52] to say "no,"

[1:11:54] but that means,

[1:11:55] but no, they still have to

[1:11:56] have a

[1:11:57] legal way. They

[1:11:58] still have to

[1:11:59] enforce that "no,"

[1:12:01] right? Whether

[1:12:02] it's obvious or not,

[1:12:04] right?

[1:12:04] As Malcolm says,

[1:12:05] sometimes boundaries

[1:12:06] are drawn when it's

[1:12:07] not obvious.

[1:12:10] Good. Um, um, city, uh

[1:12:22] , four is discussing

[1:12:23] appeals,

[1:12:24] enforcement, and

[1:12:26] , uh,

[1:12:27] registration requirements. Um, and

[1:12:31] number five is the

[1:12:32] definition of, uh,

[1:12:33] many of the terms

[1:12:34] that we

[1:12:34] use in

[1:12:35] this document. Um,

[1:12:40] so in this

[1:12:41] rereading I see

[1:12:43] that part of the work

[1:12:44] that we need to

[1:12:45] do, uh, that we

[1:12:46] just discussed.

[1:12:49] Um, can you

[1:12:50] visitors

[1:12:51] help us with

[1:12:52] anything else we might

[1:12:53] need to

[1:12:54] work on before,

[1:12:55] uh, we take this to the

[1:12:59] board of elections? Have

[1:13:03] you gone beyond

[1:13:04] the definitions?

[1:13:05] Um, this is the end.

[1:13:06] We use "

[1:13:07] anywhere" there. "

[1:13:09] Anywhere". No.

[1:13:10] I have nothing more

[1:13:11] to add.

[1:13:13] I'm just curious

[1:13:14] to know the

[1:13:15] definition. We

[1:13:16] talked about

[1:13:16] indentations, but we do

[1:13:18] n't have a definition of

[1:13:19] indentation in this. Will

[1:13:20] this be useful?

[1:13:21] I'm not sure. It's in

[1:13:22] zoning.

[1:13:23] Yes, it would be

[1:13:25] good to have...

[1:13:26] You noticed something

[1:13:27] before the meeting about

[1:13:29] the number needing to

[1:13:30] be changed, right?

[1:13:32] It was, um, the number of

[1:13:33] blocks in the secondary

[1:13:35] and larger ones.

[1:13:36] Okay, let's not forget

[1:13:37] about that. Something needs to

[1:13:39] be changed before we

[1:13:40] add this to the selection. Can

[1:13:41] you tell me

[1:13:42] which page

[1:13:43] this error was on?

[1:13:47] In fact,

[1:13:48] in some places we

[1:13:49] correctly indicated this.

[1:13:51] is at the beginning.

[1:13:54] The four plots for the 5-

[1:13:55] year period

[1:13:56] are on the

[1:13:57] fourth page.

[1:13:59] This is the fourth page.

[1:14:04] Hmm, it's under the main

[1:14:05] divisions, where we

[1:14:07] say, um, divide

[1:14:08] into four or more

[1:14:09] sections.

[1:14:12] Oh, that should be five

[1:14:13] .

[1:14:13] It should be five.

[1:14:15] We missed this.

[1:14:16] You see, that's right

[1:14:17] in the minors, but

[1:14:18] now there were

[1:14:19] four, now there are five

[1:14:20] .

[1:14:20] Then, too, the flowchart may

[1:14:21] need to be changed

[1:14:23] .

[1:14:24] Uh,

[1:14:25] is that right?

[1:14:26] You see, five months.

[1:14:28] Let me take a look. Yes,

[1:14:32] if you have three, then

[1:14:33] three, but it doesn't

[1:14:34] say five.

[1:14:36] Fourth, there are

[1:14:38] four fewer plots.

[1:14:41] So, um, for those

[1:14:42] listening to this, we're

[1:14:44] brainstorming, um, for those

[1:14:45] who might call up this

[1:14:50] video and watch

[1:14:51] it, we're looking at

[1:14:53] a few small

[1:14:54] edits. Um, and um,

[1:14:57] now our, um,

[1:14:58] task is to thank

[1:15:00] those who came, and

[1:15:01] then submit this

[1:15:02] document with a few

[1:15:03] changes to the election

[1:15:05] commission. Um, I promise

[1:15:10] to attend their

[1:15:11] meeting on Thursday

[1:15:12] night, um, and

[1:15:13] report back on what

[1:15:14] we did that

[1:15:16] evening and provide them with,

[1:15:17] um, any changes

[1:15:18] we make. So I'm

[1:15:22] trying to set aside

[1:15:24] enough time here so that

[1:15:25] we can

[1:15:27] work on

[1:15:28] something for about half an hour, um, so that, um, we

[1:15:29] can do the

[1:15:32] last, final, document

[1:15:35] that we'll submit to the

[1:15:36] election commission. And

[1:15:37] then their task is

[1:15:39] to listen, um, and

[1:15:47] see if it's worth

[1:15:48] repeating this

[1:15:49] exercise of their time.

[1:15:52] Yes.

[1:15:56] Um, I think I would

[1:15:57] recommend to them, and with the

[1:15:58] approval of my

[1:15:59] colleagues, um, that they, um

[1:16:01] , take the

[1:16:02] low turnout for this

[1:16:03] meeting seriously. Does

[1:16:09] that mean they

[1:16:10] should really

[1:16:11] try to get

[1:16:12] people to come and

[1:16:12] listen to it, or does that

[1:16:13] mean they

[1:16:14] should say, "Oh,

[1:16:15] well," throw up their hands and

[1:16:16] say, "Well,

[1:16:17] no one's going to come anyway." I

[1:16:18] mean, this is really

[1:16:19] bad. No, I think that

[1:16:20] maybe our job is to

[1:16:23] publicize the fact

[1:16:24] that the video, um, um,

[1:16:26] exists, that people

[1:16:27] can

[1:16:28] access,

[1:16:28] and that maybe...Okay.

[1:16:30] But no, I'm just saying,

[1:16:32] yeah, I'm not just...

[1:16:33] but, but in a

[1:16:34] way, it's not up

[1:16:35] to us. I just want to

[1:16:37] encourage them

[1:16:37] to keep going.

[1:16:40] Yes. Yes.

[1:16:43] Um, yes.

[1:16:46] OK. And thanks again to

[1:16:48] Brian for the video. Um,

[1:16:50] does anyone want

[1:16:51] to call a recess?

[1:16:53] Offer a break

[1:16:54] for open

[1:16:55] session only. And then

[1:16:56] for an

[1:16:57] open meeting

[1:16:58] . Yes, open

[1:16:59] session.

[1:16:59] I announce.

[1:17:00] All in favor?

[1:17:01] OK. We

[1:17:02] are adjourning as an

[1:17:03] open meeting, and

[1:17:04] now the committee will go

[1:17:05] here and do some work

[1:17:07] . But thank you for

[1:17:08] coming.

Marlboro Planning Commission Public Hearing 8/11/26

Transcript