[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.