►
From YouTube: Tuesday, January 26, 2021 5:00PM Planning, Economic Development and Land Use Committee
Description
The Committee reviewed Resolution 5.12.20R and Resolution 6.12.20R. Resolution 5.12.20R reappoint Chris Ellis, Jr. to a term of the Planning Board, which will expire on December 31, 2025. Resolution 6.12.20R reappoint Martin Hull to a term of the Planning Board, which will expire on December 31, 2024. The Committee also reviewed Ordinance 46.122.20. This legislation is necessary to give the USDO consistent numbering and to increase user-friendliness in terms of layout and readability.
A
B
C
B
B
B
Well
so
we
met
last
week
on
I'm
going
to
start
with
the
resolutions
for
the
reappointments
of
christopher
ellis
and
martin
hall,
and
let's
start
with
christopher
ellis
judy.
I
know
you
were
going
to
reach
out
to
both
of
them
and
I
know
you
had
questions
that
you
didn't
get
answered
last
week,
so
I
had.
D
B
D
D
B
E
No
I'm
glad
we
moved
for
the
chris
chris's
name
for
it.
I
apologize.
I
I
wasn't
going
to
go
on
on
it
snowing
out.
Then
I
wasn't
going
to
be
driving
home
with
my
zoom
on
as
I've
done
in
the
past.
I
just
want
to
be
safe
and
sorry.
So
I
apologize
a
few
minutes
late,
I'm
okay
with
judy's
recommendation
as
well.
B
F
F
F
Mr
ellis,
I
didn't
know
much
about,
but
I
have
since
as
both
when
I
was
on
the
council
when
they
were
serving
and
also
as
an
active
community
member.
I
have
attended
planning,
board
meetings
and
I've
been
very
impressed
by
both
of
them
by
the
questions
that
they
ask
the
level
of
engagement
that
they
each
have
and
the
demeanor
in
which
they
conduct
themselves.
When
often
they
are
being
abused
by
members
of
the
public,
which
is
unfortunate.
F
F
It's
part
of
that
taking
criticism
is,
you
know,
part
of
what
happens
when
you're
in
public
life-
and
you
know-
and
I
I
feel
especially
bad
for
the
folks
who
serve
on
these
committees,
who
are
you
know,
working
hard
putting
in
the
work
putting
in
the
efforts-
and
you
know,
then
people
get
very
angry
when
things
don't
go
the
way
that
that
they
want
them
to.
So
I'm
just
saying
that
I
do
strongly
support
both
of
them.
F
This
is
the
mayor's
appointment,
of
course,
and
if
the
council
agrees
with
the
appointment,
it's
your
approval
process,
which
I
certainly
respect,
and
you
know
I
do
hope
that
that
the
committee
that
the
council
looks
to
the
committee
that
the
council
looks
towards
for
how
to
go
on
things
I
mean
you
did
a
very
thorough
interview
of
both
members,
more
thorough
than
I've
ever
seen
so
anyway.
I
just,
I
think
that
they
both
deserve
a
positive
recommendation.
G
I
G
B
D
B
D
D
B
Okay,
thanks
judy,
I
want
to
turn
to
tom.
Did
you
I
know
you
you
just
got
here?
We
did
vote
christopher
ellis
out
with
a
positive
recommendation.
Just
so
you
know,
and
now
we're
discussing
the
reappointment
of
martin
hull,
and
I
want
to
give
you
an
opportunity
to
say
anything
that
you'd
like
to
say.
D
B
C
B
B
B
B
E
I
supported
judy's
motion
to
move
forward
with
no
recommendation.
I
I
don't
think
there
would
be
any
harm
done
to
to
candidate
because
he
would
still
be
moving
forward
to
the
next
common
council
meeting
where
individuals
hadn't
would
have
had
an
opportunity
to
vote
up
and
down
one
way
or
the
other.
I
think
it's
important
that
members
will
make
these
decisions
get
the
answers
that
we
need
to
be
able
to
move
forward.
So
I
will
not
be
supporting
a
positive
recommendation.
B
B
B
Okay,
now
we're
gonna
move
forward
to
the
ordinance
46
122
20,
concerning
renumbering
of
the
usdo
and
last
week
we
met,
and
I
thought
we
had
a
very
productive
discussion
on
how
we
were
going
to
move
forward.
With
this.
We
tried
to
deviate
up
a
little
bit
and
I
know
that
judy
you
sent
quite
a
few
issues
that
you
saw
on
to
the
whole
committee,
and
I
I
spent
a
lot
of
time
with
article
four,
but
I'm
not
done
it's.
B
It
is
really
arduous
to
go
through
this
document,
and
I
I
found
myself
I'll
just
speak
for
myself.
First,
you
know
I
had
the
three
documents,
so
I'm
trying
to
make
sure
that
that
whole
you
know,
tables
weren't,
missed
and
all
that
the
first
time
I
went
through
and
and
looking
for
that
sort
of
thing
and
then
to
actually
sit
down
and
go
through
the
clean
copy
you
should.
You
know
you
should
be
isolated
up
in
the
adirondacks
or
something
and
the
only
person
in
the
room
with
no
television
or
whatever.
B
B
H
I
I
mean
I
can
speak,
you
know
pretty
directly
to
just
judy's
comments.
I
did
have
an
opportunity
to
go
through
them
and
I
thank
her
for
her
time
put
into
to
researching
those
and
and
really
the
only
one-
and
I
spoke
with
her
there's
zephany
and
the
only
one
that
I
had
a
question
on
was
the
question
with
respect
to
the
fees
being
added
in,
and
I
think
you
know
we
did
agree
upon
that
we
may
have
been.
She
may
have
been
referencing.
H
H
The
the
fees
we're
putting
forward
are
consistent
with
what
was
in
the
original
adopted
document,
and
if
anybody
wants
that,
I
do
have
it
it's
the
the
time
stamp
date
on
it
is:
may
11
2017
11
42
a.m.
I
believe
so
consistent
right
around
the
adoption,
and
I
did
want
to
say
well,
there
were
a
few
in
there
where
a
few
comments
that
I
think
were
left
unresolved.
So
I'll
leave
that
to
you
know,
to
judy
to
bring
those
up.
H
E
So
it's
a
little
bit
difficult
to
read.
You
know,
but
that
was
it
I
I
so
between
the
first
few
dose,
I
didn't
find
any
major
differences
between
the
final
document
and
the
proposed
document.
My
question
about
the
question
that
I
asked
to
last
time
about
the
differences
in
a
different
section
of
that.
Wasn't
wasn't
that
it
was
here,
but
it
wasn't
here,
I'm
not
sure
if
you
had
an
opportunity
to
look
that
up
red.
If
you
remember
what
I'm
talking
about,
I
think
it
was.
This
is.
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
E
H
D
Kathy,
so
you
know
I
I
did
this
complete
somewhat
lengthy
memo
partially,
because
I
thought
it
would
be
helpful
as
we
move
this
to
you
as
we
do
our
own
review
and
and
as
we
move
it
to
the
full
common
council,
a
review,
and
so
as
as
you're
asking
that
question,
I
guess
the
you
know
we
have
to
do
article
4.
Yet
yes,
but
the
question
is
and-
and
part
of
this
is
a
question
for
brad.
What
are
what
are
the
most
helpful
next
steps
for
us
to
be
doing?
D
H
Yeah,
I
think
there
are
two
options
here.
We
can
certainly
provide
a
list
of
changes
to
gen
code
and
see
what
their
response
is.
I
think
they're
within
the
realm
of
something
that
we
can
work
with
them
on.
There's
also,
you
know
being
that
there's
not
an
overwhelming
amount,
although
some
of
the
new
ordinance
information
that
needs
to
be
incorporated
is
a
little
bit
detailed,
you
know
I
have
been
playing
around
with
editing.
H
The
pdf
document
seems
to
be
an
option
to
to
move
forward
on
some
of
those,
so
I'm
happy
to
kind
of
proceed
on
both
tracks.
I
think
the
question
that's
outstanding
in
my
mind,
is:
are
we
coming
back
for
another
committee
meeting
when
the
document
has
been
edited
and
finalized,
or
is
this
coming
out
with
the
recommendation
of
a
list
of
items
that
we're
being
instructed
to
change?
And
if
so,
you
know,
do
we
have
that
list
of
items
completed
at
this
point.
B
C
B
D
D
D
It
is
look
at
what
is,
I
want
to
say,
absolutely
necessary
to
clear
up,
inconsistencies
or
citation
errors,
or
rather
than
tinkering
so
much
with
the
language,
to
obtain
that
kind
of
clarity,
because
sometimes
when
you're
obtaining
that
kind
of
clarity,
you
are
then
changing
the
meaning-
and
I
think
at
this
point
that
overall
is
not
our
goal
unless
there's
some
sort
of
real
inconsistency
there.
So
I
do
intend
to
do
a
little
bit
more
review
bottom
line.
D
I
A
A
B
And
we're
talking
about
the
technical
amendments
here,
the
ordinance
yes
yep.
So
does
it
make
sense,
then,
for
us
to
continue
going
through
the
document,
the
areas
that
have
haven't
finished
and
then
we
can
send
the
information
to
to
bread
in
advance
of
our
next
meeting
and
then
brad.
If
can
you
incorporate
those
changes
as
best
you
can
into
the
document
and
then
we'll
have
that.
H
H
So
I
can
keep
you
all
appraised
to
that.
There
were
a
few
comments
in
in
judy's
memo
where
it
was
left
open-ended
as
to
which
direction
the
council
should
go.
So
we
should
probably
talk
about
a
methodology
for
answering
those
questions
to
guide
the
staff
or
gen
code
in
which
which
changes
they're
making
with
respect
to
those
items.
H
H
H
B
H
H
C
A
H
We're
trying
to
start
the
larger
code
review
in
march
and
in
order
to
do
that,
we
wanted
to
have
a
online
accessible,
codified
document.
That's
consistent
that
everyone
could
access
for
the
purpose
of
doing
that
review.
We
can
certainly
you
know
we
do
have
a
committee
date
set
up.
I
think
for
the
second
to
go
over
the
data
and
statistics
related
to
the
first
several
years
of
administering
the
code.
So
again
you
know
that's.
H
C
E
Number
one-
I
guess
my
I
guess
I
understand.
What's
with
you
know
the
goal
tom
is
to
try
to
get
the
one
that
we
really
want
to
get
our
hands
on
as
soon
as
possible,
but
we
can
actually
go
in
there
and
start.
You
know
making
some
some
some
sustainable
changes.
You
know.
So
my
concern
is
my
question.
It
shouldn't
be
a
concern
I
shouldn't
say
the
word
concern.
Maybe
I
say
that
word
too
much.
E
H
That's
what
I
was
thinking,
I
think
you
can
it
just
defeats
the
purpose
of
what
we're
doing
right
now.
I
think
we
were
doing
the
copyeditory
numbering
first
so
that
we're
all
referencing
a
consistent
document,
that's
online
accessible.
That's
why
we
split
this
out
separately
from
you
know.
Whatever
I
mean.
E
I'm
happy
to
go
about
it,
but
my
question
my
question:
brad
is:
if
we
have
all
the
numbers
renumbered
and
we
have
it
all
done
and
approved
here,
you
know,
and
it's
february
15th
and
doesn't
get
to
go
to
the
county
until
march.
You
know
why
can't
we
put
those
numbers
in
this
version
so
that
you
know
we
can
start
reviewing
it,
even
though
we
still
have
to
approve
this
in
march,
we
can
start
working
on
this
in
march
as
well.
Does
that
make
any
sense?
That's.
A
H
E
C
B
H
D
D
I
have
recommended
some
more
significant
language
that
might
be
anticipated,
including
changing
the
heading
appeal
decisions
of
the
chief
planning
official
or
the
chief
building
official
I've
added
in
the
chief
building
official
and
I've
added
in
references
to
appeals
to
the
hrc
or
the
planning
board
is
maybe
appropriate
there.
So
that
goes
a
little
bit
beyond
technical
changes.
D
E
D
D
D
G
D
D
D
I
just
don't
have
any
paper
trail
related
to
that,
but
brad
says
that
his
copy
of
the
document
of
the
complete
final
usdo
produced
on
may
15
has
those
fees
in
it,
and
that
is
good
enough
for
me
that
he
actually
has
a
document
date
that
where
it
has
not
been
amended
where
I'm
relying
on
things
that
are
online
for
subsequent
usdo.
So
I
want
so
we're
keeping
that
in
is
my
recommendation.
H
D
D
D
D
H
C
D
H
Okay
and
then
there
there
was
one
more
that
I
saw
when
you're
speaking
to
the
tree
and
vegetation
permit
the
intro
language
that
requires
compliance
with
the
provisions
of
375
504
has
been
deleted.
I
would
suggest
for
the
ease
of
resolving
the
issue.
We
just
add
that
intro
language
back
in
and
when
we're
doing
the
larger
changes.
If
we
want
to
remove
that
intro
passage
for
all
of
the
subsections.
In
that
article
we
can
go
ahead
and
do
that
because,
like
you
said
it's,
it's
probably
not
necessary.
H
D
H
H
D
I
did
notice
a
number
of
things
that
were
worthy
of
looking
at
and
potentially
cleaning
up,
some
of
which
are
more
minor,
but
none
of
them,
in
my
opinion,
reached
the
level
of
being
near
technical
or
corrections
or
corrections
of
inconsistency.
So
I
left
them
as
potentially
for
us
to
deal
with
later.
So
when
you're,
looking
at
that
last
section
that
starts
on
page
11,
that's
all
stuff
that
we
can
also
wait
for.
D
B
B
H
H
B
C
H
H
D
I
just
want
to
know
tom
that
my
14-page
memo
contains
every
one
of
the
inserts
to
have
it
comply
with
your
ordinance
for
blood
plasma.
I
did
most
of
that,
except
for
the
insertion
of
the
actual
standards
in
the
use,
special
use
thing,
and
I
just
referred
to
the
legislation
because
I
ran
out
of
time.
C
D
C
C
C
B
B
D
H
A
C
A
H
B
B
A
G
A
B
D
D
D
B
D
Is
that
a
decision
that
we
need
to
make
now
or
is,
can
we
give
it
a
go?
Brad
can
make
the
changes
that
are
in
my
memo
that
we
have
discussed,
and
hopefully
you
can
do
that
before
february.
Third,
which
leaves
you
know
just
a
third
as
many
arguably
a
third
as
many
additional
changes,
I'm
not
quite
sure
why
we
wouldn't
be
able
to
do
that.
Make
those
decisions
by
february
3rd.
If
we
buckle
down.
H
If,
if
I'm
able
to
make
the
changes
effectively
in
the
document,
I
think
that
is
doable
if
we
need
to
send
that
to
general
code
and
we're
not
meeting
to
discuss
again
until
february
3rd.
I
have,
I
highly
doubt
they're
going
to
be
able
to
send
it
back
by
february,
8th
so,
and
I
I
should
know
soon,
whether
or
not
I
can
do
that
again,
I'm
just
concerned
with
the
tables
and
things
of
that
nature.
I
think
the
text
edits
should
not
be
a
problem.
B
B
B
E
I'm
going
to
say:
oh,
I
don't
know,
I
don't.
I
don't
believe
that
we
can't
start
working
on
this
on
march
1st,
just
because
we're
waiting
for
the
county
to
approve
this
on
on
in
march.
I
don't
believe
we
you
know
that
should
hold
us
up.
I
mean
I,
I
know
that
it
won't
be
the
final
voted
on,
but
it
would
be.
E
You
know
to
be
honest
with
you
100
honest
with
you.
I
don't
know
why
you
couldn't
just
do
all
this
one,
but
I
understand
that,
and
I
respect
everyone's
viewpoint
you
know
so
I
I
don't
think
this
needs
to
be
held
up.
I
don't
think
this
needs
to
be
held
up.
You
know,
because
if
the
county
denies
this
well,
we're
still
gonna
have
to
be
working
on
this
anyways
or
whatever
they
denied
yeah.
A
G
A
E
This
is
the
final.
This
is
what's
voted
on.
This
is
what
was
the
law
effectively
when
this
was
printed
out
in
2019?
So
that's
why
I
say
this
is
the
law.
So
when
I
say
we
go
back
to
working
on
this,
it's
what
we're
trying
to
change
and
make
it.
You
know
the
the
heart
changes,
the
the
more
substantive
changes.
This
is
the
proposed
changes
where
we're
trying
to
fix
the
numbering
as
well
as
the
the
you
know,
the
grammatical
stuff.
E
E
So
when
we're
going
through
this
again,
we
don't,
you
know,
find
our
own
values
that
we
could
have
fixed
here,
but
so
that's
how
I've
classified
it
in
my
own
mind
to
try
to
make
it
so
that
I
I
understand
all
these
different
versions
like
this
is
the
clean
version
and
you
see.
I
still
only
have
my
one
little
note
because
I
stopped
after
the
first
chapter
and
going
back
to
based
on
what,
where
you
guys
were
looking
back
at
this
version.
E
H
E
B
B
H
D
A
B
A
That's
what
I'm
saying
and
then,
when
we
come
back
right
after
that,
because
once
it's
in
county
there's
nothing
stopping
us
to
further
amend
it
going
forward,
it's
just
whatever
we
adopt
that
we,
whatever
we
sent
to
county,
has
to
be
adopted
and
then
whatever
we
amend
after
that
is
something
separate
and
then
it
goes
back
to
county.
And
then
we
adopt
the
final
form.