Good evening.

I'll call the Brattleboro Select Board meeting of Monday, December 22nd, 2025 to order.

This is a special meeting beginning at 6.15.

John, was the meeting properly warned?

Yes, Liz, it was.

Thank you.

Are there any adjustments to the agenda?

No, no, I'm worried.

Great.

And uh we are welcoming Isaac Evans Franz uh remotely.

Good evening.

There you go.

And then uh let's approve the minutes of December 2nd, 2025.

Um Isaac, can you like make a I move that the select board approve the uh uh meeting minutes?

What's the date again, Liz?

Second.

I move that the select board approves the minutes from December 2nd, 2025.

Isaac has made a motion to approve the minutes of December 2nd.

All select board members in favor, please raise your hand and say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Peter.

Aye.

Very good.

It's unanimous five zero.

Uh chair's remarks.

Um my only remark is it's very dark out and I cannot see the dog walkers.

And if I can't see them, nobody else can.

So please allow yourselves to be seen while you're walking in the street at night.

John, do you have comments?

No comments tonight.

All right.

Are there select board members who have comments that they'd like to make at this time?

Hearing none, um are there members of the public who have something to say that is not part of tonight's agenda.

Dick.

Thank you, madam chairwoman.

I notice again that uh the time clock is for two minutes, and I was wondering if this was a unified board decision or a chair decision.

It happened last meeting, and I know that uh a board member spoke up, but nothing more was said.

So could you clarify that if that was a full board decision or your decision?

Thank you.

It's my decision.

I'm the chair.

The rules of participation that all the board members signed allow me to make these judgments, and I made them because there were several meetings where we ran to 11 o'clock at night, and I don't think that's fair to our board or to the public, and it's certainly not fair to the people trying to follow town business.

Uh let's see.

Anyone else public participation on elements that are not on tonight's agenda?

Yes, Mr.

Fay.

Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

Uh regarding the going down to two minutes.

Uh if there's a going to be a meeting where there's only two people showing up and talking, uh, that doesn't seem fair to them because it won't go to 11 o'clock.

Uh what I suggested uh to a couple board members is you have a sign-up sheet ahead of time so you can determine who will be talking and then determine what uh time is needed.

So instead of because why not make it 30 seconds?

All right, it's a decision on the chair.

We shall continue.

Um sent agenda.

John, you want to give us a thumbnail sketch of this consent agenda item.

Yes, uh, you have one item on the consent agenda tonight.

By approving the consent agenda, you'll be approving the errors and emission certificate to the state for the grand list.

Great.

Would someone like to make a motion about the consent?

Oh, does anyone have any comments about the consent agenda and want to remove this item from the consent agenda?

Okay.

Uh would someone like to make a motion regarding the consent agenda.

I'll motion that we accept the consent agenda as presented.

All right.

Peter has made a motion to approve the consent agenda as presented.

All select board members in favor, please raise your hand and say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

There we go.

Five zero.

Thank you.

All right.

The regular business.

Uh public hearing on the interim by law for social assistance or charitable services.

And there's a presentation by planning staff.

And here's our town planner.

Zoofilion.

First, let me officially open the public hearing, and then we shall proceed.

I have officially opened the town hearing.

Go ahead, sir.

Thank you.

At your December 2nd Select Board meeting the board voted three to two to hold a public hearing on an interim zoning by law.

And that is now before the select board tonight for the public hearing for consideration of adoption pursuant to state statute.

Interim bylaws are a form of emergency action that can be enacted by the select board after one hearing and then they go into effect immediately.

Interim bylaws typically last for a period of two years unless renewed or adopted through the standard zoning adoption process.

They can be reconsidered at any time, and they can also be reconsidered by the select board if 5% of the voters sign a petition, but it is the select board's decision for this.

So the interim bylaw that's being discussed tonight proposes to change the land use social services or charitable assistance from a permitted use to a conditional use in the following zoning districts: the urban center, the village center, the neighborhood center, the mixed-use zoning district, and the institutional zoning district.

And Seth can put up a map if you would like to see the zoning districts.

Social services or charitable assistance uses are defined as an establishment that provides social assistance services directly to individuals.

It excludes residential or accommodation services.

Um before you know that gets submitted is usually the applicant will tell us what they want to do, or they'll tell the zoning administrator what they want to do.

And when the application is submitted and determined to be complete, the zoning administrator looks at the proposal and makes a determination on the use category that it falls into under our zoning regulations.

The classification is usually uncontested, but if an applicant feels that the use has been incorrectly classified, this decision can be appealed to the development review board.

So first you establish the use and then you look at the property and what zoning district it's in.

So all lands in Brattleboro are assigned to a zoning district.

Each district allows specific land uses to occur.

Some land uses are permitted, meaning that there's no special approval for that use needed.

Maybe it needs site plan review, but it's it's the use itself is permitted, then it's being reviewed to see how it fits with our regulations regarding site planning.

Other land uses are conditional uses, and those uses may or may not be appropriate on a property.

It just depends on the circumstances.

Due to the potential for impacts to adjacent properties, conditional uses require special consideration and additional approval by the development review board.

So it all happens in one night.

So they the development review board reviews conditional use proposals at a public hearing for compatibility with the surrounding properties as well as some of the other criteria.

And in order for that use to be allowed, it needs to meet all the standards that we have and all the criteria for the conditional use permit.

The burden of the proof is app is on the applicant to provide evidence to demonstrate that the proposed land use can be in harmony with the neighborhood and again meet all the required standards.

And then the proposal can be denied if it doesn't meet the criteria.

And I just want to say a word about the development review board.

They are a seven member body that's appointed by the select board, but they are independent from the town government.

In fact, I think in their preamble to their hearings, they even say the town is just another interested body.

They conduct quasi-judicial hearings.

So they take evidence, they weigh evidence, they can question the evidence.

And when they issue decisions, it is based on the criteria in our land use regulations.

All decisions of a development review board can be appealed to the environmental court, so there's an appeals process for that as well.

So just kind of to recap the use classification is determined by the zoning administrator, that can be appealed to the development review board.

Conditional use review is reviewed by the development review board, and that can be appealed to the environmental court.

Let's see.

One other point I wanted to make is that within social service and charitable assistance uses, there are some statutory limitations on what can be reviewed for emergency shelters.

So state law basically says that with emergency shelters, the law limits review to location, size, height, building bulk, yards, courts, setbacks, density of buildings, off-street parkings, loading facilities, traffic noise, lighting, landscaping, and screening.

So there's some limitations to what can be reviewed if it is an emergency shelter.

The definition by state law for an emergency shelter is any facility the primary purpose for which to provide a temporary shelter for the homeless in general, or for specific populations of the homeless that does not require occupants to sign leases or occupancy agreements.

So within our land use category, there are some limitations that come from state law that could apply for like if it was an overnight shelter or something like that.

At the last meeting, there was some question about other times that Brattleboro has used interim zoning bylaws.

And there's kind of five examples since 20, like 2006.

In 2007, there was an interim zoning bylaw for suburban commercial zoning district.

That changed some uses and some of the development standards in that particular zoning district as a result, I think, from the West Brattleboro master plan that had come out.

So that was adopted by interim zoning.

In 2007, and again renewed in 2009, there was an interim zoning bylaw for flood hazard area regulations where the town was regulated within the floodway, different from the state standards.

So that got renewed after two years, and then eventually it did not pass through regular zoning.

So that was done by interim zoning bylaw and then eventually adopted in 2023 as part of permanent zoning.

And then in just last March, there was an expansion of the residential zoning neighborhoods district to meet some state law changes that had been made.

So basically saying if you had water and sewer in areas, you had to have a minimum density of I think five units an acre, and we had some areas with water and sewer that did not meet that density standard, and we used interim zoning bylaw to change the map that you see before you and also some other changes.

So those will need to be formally adopted at some point.

We did take a look at several other towns in Vermont.

Brattleboro, in Brattleboro, we classify our land uses by the American Planning Association's land use classification system.

Not every town does that.

So it's actually kind of difficult to find a couple, you know, find exactly how towns are doing it.

There are a couple that do use that system.

They do allow, they do have some conditional use in other areas of towns for these uses.

Let's see.

It's conditional in other zoning districts.

Let's see.

St.

Albans, they use soup cond they have a soup kitchen definition, and that is conditional in their central business district and their service industrial zoning district.

St.

Johnsbury.

A lot of towns were kind of silent on it, but they do have a provision that if a use is not listed, then it can be considered as a special as a conditional use.

So Springfield's one of those towns.

Let's see.

Burlington.

Uses that I looked at.

They have a crisis counseling center that's not allowed in one part of their downtown in the downtown waterfront park district and in their enterprise zoning or zoning districts.

But it's conditional in a variety of other uses, and it's not permitted in some of their some others.

So Milton has allows for social services and charitable assistance like our land use.

So it's a little it's a little all over the place.

Well, we don't permit it in all the zoning districts, but in all of our kind of commercial zoning districts, it's currently permitted.

Usually it's some sort of mix of permitted and conditional, uh, from what I was seeing.

But we didn't call the towns, we just were looking at their zoning regulations.

Um I just would finish in terms of um conditional uses.

Oftentimes, you know, the development review board is looking at kind of the disparate impacts that might be had.

Um I gave in the backup materials a couple of examples of developments that have been reviewed under conditional use here in Brattleboro.

Um actually in January, there's one that's going to be a child care facility in an industrial zoning district.

That's a pending application, but things that they'd probably be looking at is how is the traffic circulation of children being dropped off with large truck truck traffic.

Um there's been some cannabis grow operations in the downtown that have been reviewed.

There kind of the impact is kind of is odor, typically is is what they were looking at, and making sure that their equipment handles that.

There was one conditional use permit for in our service center, which is kind of the Putney Road area.

Somebody wanted to build a single unit dwelling.

Our zoning encourages multi-unit dwelling, so that was actually sent back for reconsideration because it didn't meet the character that we were trying to establish there.

Umdoor self-storage in the Putney Road area has been reviewed as conditional use.

Um a car wash in our mixed-use zoning district.

So and then finally wellness retreat in the rural zoning and an inn with a boutique was also reviewed as conditional use.

So thank you very much for you.

All right.

Um stay there for questions.

Right?

Um, so here's how I propose to conduct this hearing.

There'll be uh opportunity for the select board to comment on our the presentation.

Then there will be uh opportunity for public comments.

Uh then we will close the hearing, and then I'll ask if there's uh a motion by one of the select board members.

And then we'll hear from the select board on the motion, we'll hear from the public on the motion.

There'll be final select board comments before we vote, and then a vote.

So um are there select board members who would like to comment on um within this public hearing about the presentation that was just made.

Sure.

Okay.

Thank you.

And thanks, Sue.

I know this is sort of a charge conversation.

I appreciate you stepping in and giving us all that great info.

So thank you.

Um the two things that are most on my mind when I'm thinking about this, and I just want to lay them out so that if anyone in the public wants to respond to them or question them, you'll have a chance.

within this public hearing about the presentation that was just made sure okay thank you and thanks Sue I know this is sort of a charge conversation I appreciate you stepping in and giving us all that great info so thank you um so the two things that are most on my mind when I'm thinking about this and I just want to lay them out so that if anyone in the public wants to respond to them or question them you'll have a chance um the two questions I've been working on are first of all is this an appropriate tool for what we're trying to accomplish here I actually have a couple questions about that so in the complaints there are a couple different topics so let me just ask a couple hypotheticals um if I get permitted for a space and I say the use is X and then I'm doing Y what is the what's the policy for figuring out that I'm doing something else and then what sort of you know how does that get handled?

Yeah so uh typically it's either complaints or observation that something else is going on and then the zoning administrator will take enforcement.

Usually we start with a letter saying hey we notice something's going on there can you come in and talk to us?

If there is not responsiveness to that then we can move to like a more formal um enforcement process which would be a letter saying you have seven days to come into compliance with that so typically the person will come in and they'll you know we'll talk to them they'll get a new permit for the use or they'll submit an application if it's like you know changes to a conditional use they'll submit the application and we kind of just you know insisted on that.

And and if I if I I'm the the pretend business owner here if I just hold the line and refuse to do anything I assume my permit gets revoked at some point and I can't so um we can't revoke it that would have to be court action.

So basically we would take them to court and as a remedy we would ask for um Bob can you help me out here but yeah I'm gonna jump in you could either ask for uh fines the revocation of the permit any other injunctive relief uh but yes it could be revoked at that point but it would be by order of the environmental court okay great and then let's say I'm there's a I'm not no one's allowed to sleep over at the business whatever I've set up it's a bookstore or something and people find out that I have been sleeping there I assume there's a similar process someone would need to develop some kind of evidence and say hey we've heard that this is happening and now we're taking escalating steps.

Yes.

Presumably ending with you can't run your bookstore anymore because you're sleeping there and you're not allowed to I would think if if that was asked for as relief from the the code and then not to belabor it belabor it but the fire code question I assume is the same if I'm cooking and I'm not allowed to cook or I'm using open flames and I'm not allowed to do that same sort of it's more a fire code and and for the an issue for the for the fire department not for the zoning or zoning administrator.

If it's a health issue that also spills over into the health officer perhaps issuing a notice of a health violation but those morph into different issues with more departments.

But I'm assuming that's a similar thing of I get a warning and then I'm allowed to try to address it and then if I don't other things happen and eventually maybe I'm not allowed to do it anymore.

Correct okay unless in an emergency situation for like a health order or a fire hazard those can be done on an emergency health order basis.

But again that's different from zoning.

Okay.

Yeah so I mean the big question I'm wrestling with is we're talking about a big uh across the board blanket change to our zoning to deal with what's been a pretty specific issue so those questions are I'm wondering do we have more focused tools better tools that we could be using to deal with specific problems at a specific place.

So that's one thing I'm gonna be thinking about while I'm listening to you guys.

The other thing is just uh I have to say that I'm a little worried about I I'm concerned about the conversation I'm concerned about changing our zoning in what has felt to me just participating in the conversations as specifically about one organization specifically about 69A the conversation last time was about 69A the backups the log of complaints I I'm not sure I am wild about making a broad change to our zoning laws overtly targeted at a specific organization.

So that's another thing I am wrestling with and hope to hear from you guys on.

But that's where I'm at right now.

So thank you.

Can I ask Bob, can you uh jump in to talk about the fact that this is as a zoning uh element directed at one use, but it's directed.

I mean, with all due respect to people's views, this is a hearing on an interim zoning change to make this a conditional use.

It doesn't matter which or which social service organization you're talking about.

So pick some organization that you think is the fabulous best organization in the world, and they want to come into the urban center, and should they need if they want to have uh that type of a use there, should that be a use that the DRB should be uh discussing and potentially putting uh conditions on.

And those and those conditions uh in one of the backup materials talk about compatibility, the character of the area, the traffic that it might generate, uh pedestrian circulation, all of those different things as you go down through that list.

And so my suggestion is to think about this in the broader context.

This is not designed to be uh looking at any one particular uh address or business in town.

Can I respond briefly?

Please.

Uh that's a fair point, Bob, and this I agree this hearing is definitely not some sort of referendum on 69A or anything like that.

I I think even in the law, the context around a conversation is not always irrelevant.

I mean, there if we were if this was about a broad pattern of problems among charitable and social service agencies that needed to be addressed with the broad tool governing the entire class of charitable and social service agencies, I feel like we would have had a very different conversation at the last meeting, and the supporting documents would be very different.

But this is I mean, I I'm not a lawyer, but I have experienced a very specific conversation related to solving the problem of 69A with this tool.

And I think if you go back and listen to last meeting, you'll you'll probably hear that.

And that's just a concern for me.

So that's yeah.

Do you have any other comments?

No.

Thank you.

Okay.

Anyone else on the select board would like to make a comment at this time?

No comment at this time.

All right.

Um comment at this time is that um and the I hate to say this again, but I have been a land use planner for 40 years.

Um this situation with the one social service agency is not the focus.

It's essentially the trigger.

And through the um inability to manage that land use in as as Sue pointed out, in a harmonious way.

It has brought the town to the point of land use change because of the potential, not only for this use, but for any social service use to uh need that type of review to make sure that it's harmonious with the other uses in the district.

And this is all about uh, you know, good government, what the town can do to um create an atmosphere where different uses can work together for the benefit of the public, and that's why we're here, and it's an opportunity for any social service agency that would fall under this rule to present themselves and to have the opportunity to work with other social service agencies and the town and the neighbors to create harmony where it's sorely needed, especially in the downtown.

Okay, so um again, any select board members I'll I'll go to the public.

All right.

Uh public comments.

I see a hand in the back.

Abby Manukin, District 8.

Um I'm really disappointed to be here because I don't think we should be having this meeting at all, but here we are, so thank you for calling on me.

I'm absolutely against this rezoning.

Um the history of zoning in this country is one that's rife with racist and classist intonations, and this has the potential of doing the same.

If we want to do rezoning in this town, we need to follow the process that is already in place, and that process was not followed here.

We have a planning commission.

The planning commission's job is to address zoning concerns.

They were bypassed.

The planning commission submitted a letter to the select board asking that no vote is conducted tonight and that it is waited until they meet again in January.

I really hope you listen to the planning commission because they are an important part of the checks and balances of this town and not concentrating power in the hands of just five people.

Um we've heard that 69A is not why we're here.

It's the trigger.

And I think we also have heard how this conversation consistently returns to the to 69A.

As um a social practice and community art space, they have never been invited to present at a select board meeting as organizations like Groundworks have been.

Um the clerk of the select board, who I believe is here on Zoom, um, suggested that happen, um, and it has not been.

I also think that it's just straight up mean spirited.

We are here the week of Christmas for a special meeting.

And instead, and Hanukkah, thank you, as a Jew.

Um, Solstice, Yuletide, um, Kwanza, we are this is a holiday week.

This should be about giving, giving the gift of how can we be better neighbors?

How can we meet more needs in this community?

How can we help those less fortunate?

In we should be lowing barriers to help one another, and instead, this town made a special meeting during a holiday week when not even one of the select board members themselves is traveling, and we're rushing to create more bureaucratic red tape to make it harder to meet people's basic needs.

I think this is offensive and really harmful, and I hope that the vote is um five to zero against rezoning.

Uh Lisa.

Hi.

I'm Lisa Ford, board chair of the Boys and Girls Club, and I'm just curious: is there a definition for social services or charitable organization?

Thank you, Lisa.

So the definition in our land use regulations is an establishment that provides social assistance services directly to individuals, excluding residential or accommodation services.

So sometimes, you know, it uses social assistance in a definition of social services.

Um, you know, we look to other resources sometimes to help define that.

The Bureau of Labor Services in their NAICS codes has under it individual and family services, uh, community food and housing and emergency and other relief services.

So that's what we'd uses under that is what would be considered as social services or charitable assistance.

So that includes services for children, services for seniors, services for it does to some extent.

I feel like let me just check something in the regulations.

I feel like uh there is some sort of service that gets at um senior services that is pulled out separately.

Well, I'm just curious.

I mean, so is that just consider a pop-up that provides social services or is there a structured social services agency with a board and um guidelines?

I'm I just am curious to know what the if it if it includes anything else.

So this this the ownership structure of it, is that what you're getting at?

Like whether it's a nonprofit, a government agency, and a for-profit that we don't look at ownership models under the land use.

So thank you.

Uh Andy Davis.

I find the mic's a little quiet, hard to hear where I'm sitting.

I will try to speak up.

Suppose there were dozens of smoldering fires in downtown.

This would probably deserve the description of an emergency.

We'd call the fire department, the police to respond.

Brattleboro's finest would certainly not simply attempt to move the fires to new locations.

They would not construct barriers and attempt to conceal or disguise the fires.

They would immediately incapably put them out.

We do have an actual emergency in our town, but I don't think it's the one you're talking about.

Um Vermont has one of the highest per capita rates of homelessness in the country.

The numbers are growing.

We have hundreds in need of housing and sheltered support right around us in this town.

The state's shelter capacity is far below the need, and services are overwhelmed.

Each one of these individuals or families in need is like a fire, a human being in need and discomfort and danger.

Do we try to move these people elsewhere?

Do we try to conceal or disguise their presence?

The emergency is the suffering and the risk experienced by individuals, families, and children on our streets.

This is not unlike having numerous smoldering fires, but the fires are in the human heart.

How do we address this suffering and vulnerability?

Currently, we have many individuals and groups in our downtown center responding to these needs.

We have food shelves, free food kitchens, free clothing facilities, daytime sheltered places for the elderly, the disabled.

We have the children, we have so many of these.

These services are currently operating out of church buildings, social service nonprofits, and so-called third spaces, which I think is where 69A fits.

This is a well-known thing in planning.

Third spaces are social settings outside of home and work where people gather informally to connect, build community, and engage in playful conversation and activities, fostering a sense of belonging and civic engagement.

This is what I've seen at 69A.

This proposed zoning response is a transparent effort to restrict and relocate actual and effective responses to poverty and homelessness, hunger, and exposure that our town and state governments are incapable of handling.

Attempting to label and categorize the efforts we have as fraught.

If a church's activities were to move into a downtown space and to cause people to congregate and raise complaints, will we make religious organizations another conditional use?

Reference to the New Testament, please.

Art spaces I'm almost done.

Art spaces, free food kitchens, and pantries could all become problematic in some people's eyes.

Do we relocate our problems or do we face them?

Do we disguise and conceal them?

I think we need to offer support to people that are responding to unmet needs and not put up barriers.

What I've seen directly at 69A is not an emergency, and I don't think we need this broad brush.

Thank you.

Thank you.

The woman in the turquoise sweater.

Hi, my name is Angela Gray.

I own a business in, I think it's neighborhood center, West Bratterboro.

Um we have a free pantry.

We give away donations every single day, sometimes directly to people, sometimes bringing them to third-party organizations.

We don't make sure anyone that walks through our door actually buys something, and we don't monitor how long they stay there as long as we're open.

Are we a social service agency or are we a retail store?

I don't know the answer to that for sure.

I mean, I might be putting myself to go to the new planning board if you pass this.

I don't know.

What I do know is I've been watching you all at home, and there's a lot of things the board's doing that are really cool.

I'm feeling really good.

Like the map you have of the spaces in town and how they can be used.

That was awesome.

What you guys did with leaf pickup, that was awesome.

This is a time in history where a lot of people are stressed and looking to be able to be creative, and it seems really wrong to throw up more things that limit creativity and limit the directions that help can be coming from.

And to set something up where now that I've come this to this meeting and said this, anybody that feels cranky with me can go report me to the planning board and say my purpose isn't being a retail store, despite the fact that I can show them my tickets.

At what point is a space actually social service versus we're all supposed to be caring about everybody in our community and doing things that are helpful when we get a chance to.

Why are we reporting and pointing fingers at people for being good to each other?

Um would you like to um describe the process by which that determination is made?

It's it's not us, it's it's not this proposed zoning ordinance.

Yeah.

So it's usually so you know, there's the primary land use, and it sounds like you are a retail store.

There's lots of times where uh businesses or churches or you know are doing kind of smaller accessory type things, so we don't um it's it's the primary land use that we're we're looking at.

But if somebody reported me as a social service agency, how many people would have to be involved and what would be the process for you to come to that conclusion and decide it?

If my retail sales weren't doing great, but lots of people were hanging out, at what point would you tell me you have to go out of business or change what you're doing?

I I don't know if that's rhetorical or whatever.

It is there is discretion.

No, there's a real question.

If someone reports me and you go, no, that's a store.

Do you have to follow a process for them to look in and to investigate it?

Does there have to be conversations?

Does it suck resources that could be used for something else?

So what would happen is if we got a complaint, the zoning administrator would investigate it, he would make it, they would make a decision that would be you know appealable if you know, so they might find your retail and that's just something small you do on the side, and that could be appealed by by somebody.

Um that would be the process.

Okay, so it does sound like it could potentially be a congressman processing.

Yeah.

All right.

Um is there another comment or oh, yes.

Go ahead.

Yeah, you madam chair.

Well, Marta walks to the mic, may I ask a question at this time, or should I a clarification question?

So go ahead and ask.

Do you mind Martha if I ask a quick question up to it?

For existing social service organizations that are are under the umbrella of permitted.

Um I think the mic is still recording.

These are for folks watching it all.

Is it coming there?

Yeah.

Okay.

So for existing organizations, social service organizations, charitable organizations that are already permitted, is there a procedure that they will additionally have to go through with this interim zoning bylaw, or are they grandfathered in, so to speak?

But they're existing can their existing conforming uses.

So if something exists, it does not need a new permit.

If they look to move locations and they move into a district where it was conditional use, then they need a new permit.

Zoning permits run with the land, not with the business or the organization.

So if they were to move, then they would need a new permit.

Okay.

Marja.

Yeah, I just wanted to um point out two things about the um supporting documents for the meeting agenda, the agenda packet.

One is you've got a lot of stuff in there that's like, I saw this on Facebook, or I this happened, and I don't see any follow-up to investigate to see if there were um there's anything behind the allegations.

We just kind of believing what people say on Facebooks.

Uh sounds kind of uh not a great way to make decisions.

Um, but one of the uh, but there are two things that are missing from them, and one sorry, one thing that's missing from them.

I don't see the planning commission's letter, and I think that um maybe it would be nice to make that public, put put it somewhere so that people can read that our planning commission um does not feel happy that they were skipped in this process.

And the other thing I wanted to point out is on page 50 59 is a letter from Sevka, which um informed me what I didn't know be previously is that um social service or charitable assistance uses are already regulated and reviewed in meaningful ways.

These uses are not allowed at all in several districts, including residential neighborhood, rural residential, rural, waterfront, and industrial.

And he uh very succinctly points out that um even when they are permanented site plan review, there's a whole lot there, and um that institute this special cases hurdle can cost our anybody wanting to do you know charitable items things, time for the monthly DAP schedule, application deadlines, hearing cycles, decision timelines, cost, professional site plan preparation, and legal and technical support, and uncertainty whether a use that is plainly needed will be treated as negotiable based on organized opposition.

Um so that's something that I just kind of wanted to bring out for everybody.

Um but I also kind of wanted to say that this is this is a really hard time, and I think we could call this like the depression 2.0, and we've got years to go.

Brattleboro is a town with 60 percent um of folks at the poverty pro poverty line are under, and it's not gonna get any better, folks.

This is something that until we make massive change in this country is gonna continue to trickle people from housing into being unhoused.

Uh and and doing this in this way really because of complaints that again we haven't really established uh separated them into what is legitimate about an organization and what is just the the results of having homeless people in our town, which again, I mean they're always going to be with us.

This is not something that's gonna be solved quickly, really bothers me.

Um I think that if this were passed, it would just show that um this town isn't who it thinks it is.

We think we're a kind town, we passed a compassionate town resolution a few years ago.

Um a lot of people in this town really care about folks who aren't doing as well as themselves.

And so I just um and would be disappointed if this passed.

Thank you.

Sue.

Thank you, Susan Belleville, Brattleboro.

Um one of the things that I noted in those supplemental material, and that's come up for discussion several times, is the number of uh interactions with emergency services that um the organization that unfortunately is the topic, and and I really didn't want to make it the topic because it's not, it's it's the opportunity for the town to have um conditions and an opportunity to uh have a business put forward a plan under a conditional use that would um supplement or prove that they have the skill set and the um wherewithal and the knowledge to know how their business is going to impact in a particular community.

One of the things this town shouldn't have to do is rely on police and emergency services to prove that an entity is not compatible with the zone or the area that they're in, or that the people, and I don't mean this in a derogatory way, but the people that are running that uh entity don't have the skill set to manage it appropriately.

They're not just responsible for the activities that happen within the four walls of the space that they're renting or that they're occupying, they have a responsibility to everything that happens around what their business model is and what happens even outside that space.

They have a responsibility to the community to manage it.

And if if this I see this as an opportunity, this uh change to um do a better job and have uh other people responsible and have people responsible for their choices and behaviors and actions.

I had to go through that when I wanted to change a use for a building that I own.

I changed it from a single family home to a um boarding house.

And my clients, my tenants were specifically people on probation and parole and people with substance abuse and addiction issues.

I did not find it offensive or even troublesome because the community deserved to know what I was going to do, how I was going to do it, and that I had the skill set and also the sense of responsibility to control both my building as well as what was happening around my building, so that my neighbors and the area and the neighborhood were not adversely affected.

And if they were, then they could that they had the ability to place um expectations, levels of expectations for what that how I was going to handle different situations.

So thank you.

Thank you, Sue.

Diane.

My name's Diane Cluett.

I am a resident in Brattleboro.

Um I'm hoping you all decide not to go forward with this.

Um, and I have visited 69A.

I've been impressed by people trying to have small moments of agency in their lives.

Um I um I'm a longtime resident who lost a beloved child to an overdose.

When I and that is in a sense an underlying thing that's really being talked about here without being talked about super directly.

Um I see people in town who are clearly struggling with uh addiction issues.

It's like seeing my own kid again alive.

I'm gonna let that sink in for a minute.

I was grateful when I knew that people in this country had services that my kid in extremists could check in and get help with.

It can mean that for a brief time, they feel respite, they feel relief.

That moment of respite and of relief, tiny though it may be, in some cases, is a moment where something can shift.

I would like to believe that my town where my child grew up and went to Green Street and went to BUHS, went to art school and learned to swim in the living memorial pool.

I would really like to think that my town could be a town that would see the value in something that doesn't have a picket fence around it, that isn't always pretty, but that can offer a moment of charity and dignity and grace to fellow citizens who are struggling.

So I wholeheartedly hope that you take this idea and think about it.

Thank you, Diane.

All right, let's move online.

Um start with Robin.

Sure.

Hi.

Um thanks for calling on me.

I know that 69A is not the uh my name's Robin Morgan.

I live in Brattleboro.

And um I know that 69A is not the subject of this meeting, supposedly, but I at the last meet few meetings there have been a lot of um inaccurate comments made.

So I wanted to read into the record a letter from one of the organizers who works there.

Um this is from Kate.

Uh Robin, is this the letter from Caitlin?

Yes, and she had asked if it could be read out loud at the meeting.

I was intending to do that.

If you'd like to do that, you may.

Oh, okay.

If you're gonna do it, that's great.

And I will just share my other comments.

Is that okay?

Liz?

Why don't you use your time for your comments?

Okay, great, thanks.

I um just wanted to say that um the problem that the board is seeking to address with this zoning change is a problem that predates the existence of the organization that everyone has been complaining about.

All of these complaints that folks have been making about unhoused people and struggling visibly folks on Elliott Street and in the the center of downtown have been going on for quite some time before 69A opened.

And in fact, that emergency was what um generated the ordinance that you all passed a year and a half ago.

So I I think that it's kind of a misplaced blame for people to be attributing these behaviors to the the location of where the one organization that was seeking to provide support for those folks is coming from.

I think that, like others have said, our town is going to continue to struggle with these problems and having a support org located where people can easily access it can only help and not cause problems.

Thank you.

Next up is Georgia.

Okay.

We get mother-daughter tag team.

Please state your name.

Georgia Morgan, I'm a resident of Brattleboro.

I have to wonder what it is about social assistance and charitable service organizations that someone thinks are a threat to public health, safety, and general welfare or economic growth.

What happened between the adoption of the current zoning map just a few years ago and last month to make someone think, oh my gosh, we made a terrible mistake in letting Sevka and the Boys and Girls Club and the Center for Salah set up just anywhere in these districts.

They could threaten the character of the neighborhood.

Gee, what kind of criteria can we use in a conditional use hearing to make sure that public health, safety, and general welfare are protected.

Well, of course, Vermont statutes have something to say about that.

But ultimately, a panel of citizens has to say yay or nay.

Putting the right to locate a charitable service organization in the hands of a few citizens on a zoning appeals board or whatever they're called might be the right move for a town where everyone is neatly segregated and the nice rich people live over here with no addictions, and the sketchy, unfortunate people with problems live over there.

And it would make sense to have all the charitable organizations over there.

But Brattleboro is not that kind of town, and people do not sort themselves out like that.

Social service agencies belong where people are, and the zoning rules should not be changed to restrict that.

Thank you very much.

Next one.

Hi, um, oops, I'll take my hand down.

Here we go.

Um, my name is Alan Schwartz.

I live in Brattleboro, I live on South Main Street.

Um, and I am here to urge the select board to reject this interim bylaw because, as others have said, you haven't identified an emergency that warrants this entire class of use of organizations to be moved to conditional status, nor have you provided any reasons why this whole class of organizations need to be subject to this change.

While, for example, like drinking establishments are not being asked to do this.

In thinking about this, I asked myself, what is the problem the town is trying to address?

Um, I know you've said it's not about one particular place, but at the December 2nd meeting, Sue Phillian said, and it's been referred to tonight that her office had received a lot of questions about how 69A received a permit.

Zoning is the wrong tool to address those questions for the reasons Oscar has laid out or raised at the beginning.

And even if this bylaw passes, it would not apply to 69A because it's actually neither a social service agency nor a charity.

I've spent time at 69A.

It's a community space that welcomes everyone in the community and that has some of the same offerings as other community spaces, like the Rec Center, for example, a place to socialize access to Wi-Fi and bathrooms as well as materials for making art.

Um, I think what distinguishes 69A from some other uh community spaces is that when we're in there, we're all treated equally regardless of our housing status or our reason for being there.

Though it hasn't been stated overtly, the impression that I get is that there's some people in this town who don't like the presence of poor and homeless people in and around the downtown area.

Is the goal of this bylaw to drive out those particular neighbors by giving the DRB the power to deny permits to organizations that welcome them?

I think the DRB has a really important role to play in Brattleboro, but it should not extend to determining which people, so-called belong in which parts of town.

Zoning isn't going to solve the problems of poverty and homelessness, which are real in this town and they're real in this country.

They're national problems.

Brattleboro can't eradicate them alone, but I welcome any steps that the town takes to seriously address the underlying issues rather than attempting to push out organizations that it perceives to be friendly to people who are poor and or homeless.

I hope you'll reject this um this interim bylaw.

Thank you.

Uh I apologize.

I don't have video.

Um I also apologize.

I am extremely tired.

Uh my name is Red Durkin.

I am the owner of everyone's books downtown.

Um I walk by 69A uh everything.

Going to work.

Um I am supposedly one of the people who's uh been negatively impacted, and I resent honestly having to be at this meeting tonight uh on the Monday night of the busiest weekend of my entire work year.

Um as it was pointed out, we're on the cusp of Christmas.

We're dirt this is during Hanukkah.

Um the I I don't really have words for how inappropriate I think it is to even be having this discussion.

Um but uh whatever uh weight, my opinion as a business owner who is situated near this this uh this one organization that is not supposedly the target of this discussion, but also seems to be the subject of every comment.

And uh as far as I can tell, if there's any other organizations uh being addressed by this zoning change, uh I'm I'm happy to hear about them.

Um but I think this is just an inappropriate discussion to even be having.

I don't think this is uh that that it will uh remediate any of the issues that arise when people are poor and unhoused, and I think that it frankly is just trying to dispel people who are struggling from the area and targeting whether or not directly or indirectly, one organization that gives a space of comfort to those people isn't a solution to the problem supposedly caused by their very existence.

Um again, I apologize if I'm not being clear enough.

I'm extremely tired and again resent having to be here.

Thank you very much.

All right.

Uh Lisa then Bob.

Hi again, Lisa Ford, Boys and Girls Club.

I I have to say I'm struggling a little bit with the definition of social service agency and being compared to what's happening on 69A.

I I'm not really sure.

I I don't know much about it, but is it an organization?

And it sounds like the definition, as Sue said it's very broad, it's very open.

And so I don't know if that needs to be looked at because the boys and girls club have and I think ground a lot of nonprofits that are here, organizations that are here have really clear guidelines, have boards, have safety procedures, have things in place, are accountable, have insurance.

And so are those things that you look for when you say social service agency?

I but it sounds like it isn't.

So is that does that need to be looked up?

Uh commercial businesses, aren't we all under the same guidelines kind of?

I feel like I'm a commercial, I'm a business, like Boys and Girls Club is a business and we're a commercial space, so I don't know why even social services are being separated out with different guidelines.

Well, um, just throwing all those out.

That's kind of what I'm what's going through my head.

Thank you, Lisa.

Okay.

Um let's just discuss um what what is asked of an applicant for a site plan application?

I think that might clarify.

For a site plan application?

Yeah.

So um for for a conditional use.

Oh, for conditional use.

So they're asked to provide a site plan, which is a drawing.

It does not typically it's if it's a new construction, then it's gonna be engineered, but oftentimes it can be kind of hand-drawn to scale.

Um, and then there's criteria that they're asked to respond to.

So there's an application form and um the criteria uh is kind of a narrative form where they and this is what the development review board will be um reviewing it based on.

So it's compatibility with the setting and context, context.

Um let's see.

Uh character of the area.

So that's looking at the purpose statement in the zoning district, and how does it fit with the character of the area?

Compatibility of the site.

So this is about the size, shape, location, topography, drainage patterns, and landscape features of the site.

This is again, this is something, you know, that comes into um account a lot with like a new build.

Um traffic, so generation of traffic.

Um is it going to have an impact on the capacity, safety, and function of the town's transportation infrastructure?

Um, vehicular access and circulation, parking and loading, does it meet our parking standards?

Um is the you know, is it um is the parking lot orderly?

Is there provision for bike storage if that's um a zoning district that requires it?

And so there's there's these criteria, and then there's a set of standards as well.

It's looking at landscaping and screening.

Um it looks at you know, screening of equipment like HVAC equipment and and things like that that might cause noise, um, so they need a little bit of buffer.

Um stormwater and snow storage, uh, you know, where where's the stormwater or sorry, where is the snow being stored?

Um, and where's the stormwater flow?

How is it flowing?

Is it off site?

Is it into the town system?

Is it onto another property where it could cause problems?

It's looking at renewable energy resources.

Um sometimes that's applicable, sometimes it's not.

But is it um is it going to interfere with the use or the access of to somebody else's ability to um use renewable energy resources?

Umservation, if it's applicable, what's being done to make it a high efficiency building?

Again, this is a lot of new construction.

Exterior lighting.

Um, you know, is it meeting our regulations?

Let me let me interrupt to just um summarize.

So the these are really physical attributes of how this space would be operated to make sure that it's not disturbing outside of its location, its neighbors and the neighborhood and the street and the traffic and so forth.

So again, um many comments have been made about um that we're trying to um discourage the use itself, and that's not the case.

It's to make sure that it's being managed appropriately for the way conditional use review works.

Bobby with permission, I had something prepared, I just uh bring it to the bench Bob O's or Bradleboro.

I'm not gonna read this because a lot of the things in here are things that people have already said, so they've stolen my thunder.

Um I will say this the use of emergency in this context to me is at best awkward.

Um the arguments for the use of emergency in this context is that it was used in the past for housing to make building housing easier.

This seems to be the exact opposite of the use of emergency here.

I shared an unbiased statement of what was gonna go on at this public hearing with someone who is away from this country right now, but is looking in on Brattleboro and is concerned about the homeless population.

And he wrote back, and he said, Do I understand you correctly that the prospective setting of zoning conditions relative to social assistance would make it more difficult for private parties to provide services for the homeless?

I didn't coach them on that.

The the other point I think has been made, but I think you should you should underline it is at the December 2nd select board meeting, there was a lot of discussion about what complaints had arisen and where did they come from?

And it came about that it was because of 69A.

So the whole purpose of being here at a public hearing discussing social assistance is really geared to the fact that there was an emphasis on one establishment, one entity.

That's I don't know the law on that one, but oh, Mr.

Fisher's gone.

Um but that seems really inappropriate.

Um we saw a lot of complaints in the backup material, but they've not been vetted.

And they can't be vetted because this is a public hearing.

I have 13 seconds.

Um they can't be vetted here because this is not a quasi-judicial hearing.

So that's why this should go to the Planning Commission to the DRB or whatever in some way that it can be vetted.

Your numbers are going up, Bob.

Well, that's a oh they are going up.

So I get I get more as I continue to talk.

I didn't know it worked that way.

Um bottom line is this interim bylaw should not be based on allegations about one entity.

Thank you very much.

Uh let's see.

Madam Chairwoman quick, could we inquire of Hannah for the legal questions that were asked?

Hannah.

So um I'm sure you heard Bob's question.

I I you know uh what I'm hearing is that we had a situation where there were, you know, 137 complaints, and that informed the town that action needs to be taken, but that this action is not directed at any one use, it's directed at a classification of use.

Would you agree?

Yes.

Yes, that's correct.

This is um uh uh an intra measure to address a um classification of use in and then it but by the nature of it, it's temporary, it would need to be made permanent at some point in the future.

And um it's meant to address the situation in an expedient timely manner, and then so that it can be explored more fully and determined if that you should be an adopted as a permanent change to the bylaws.

Thank you.

Yes, sir.

I'd like to say that I think uh your name, please.

Oh, John King.

I live in Bradleboro for 50 years.

Um to me, this feels so mean-spirited to off the cuff change some laws in order to target one place that in my estimation we should appreciate this uh 69 and a half, 69 and a half Elliott Street, because they're coming to the assistance of our fellow townspeople, which is a a huge crisis in our country.

It's not gonna be, it's not gonna go away.

And I'm really for myself, I appreciate what 69 A is doing to provide for the people who in our community who are greatly in need.

So I just say for a compassionate, supposedly combat compassionate community, this is not meeting the standard of compassion.

It's meeting the standard of small night of small nightedness.

That's what I have to say.

Thank you very much.

Yes.

Uh Nel Mayo District 9.

Uh caucus into district eight, not currently living there anymore.

Sorry.

Um my thoughts just through hearing other people's public comments is um if the concern is whether or not these establishments, this class of use would be permissible to, or sorry, would be harmonious or cohesive to the character stated as in the stated that like is existent in these zoning laws, which if I these zoning districts, which if I remember correctly are urban center, neighborhood center, village center, mixed-use industrial zoning.

Um big map.

I looked at it.

I do not remember where all those are, but that's what I read uh in the backup materials.

At least for the downtown, I think um that might be aspirational of what some people want that character to be.

To me, how I'm hearing this as what we're hoping for is if if organizations that people are feeling are attracting visible poverty essentially because they don't like the impact that has on tourism.

Um they're hoping that those agencies can be influenced to move elsewhere.

Uh it's assuming a level of resources to be able to do stuff like that, and it's assuming that the people that they serve, which I assume are like identified as an undesirable population in this area would follow.

I don't think that's inherently the case.

For all the places I've lived and visited, there are always visibly poor people downtown.

Um unless you're really going to crack down on people asking for assistance, that's always going to be the case.

And I don't think that's the direction we've looked to move in with all the really like progressive implementations that have been made on the police force.

Um I don't really see it as realistic, even if it were passed.

I don't think it's going to stop those people from congregating, and I don't think that you're going to find a place that everyone's happy with groups being.

If you move them out to different areas, especially when there's already areas that uh Marta had mentioned explicitly they're not allowed to be, it's going to make it smaller and smaller, and those people might just not come back.

And if the organizations aren't there, guess who's still going to be downtown?

So thank you.

Libby Good evening.

My name is Libby Bennett.

I'm a resident of Brattleboro, and I'm also the executive director at Groundworks Collaborative, an organization that serves people experiencing homelessness in relatively uh close to the downtown or some would say in the downtown.

Um representing an organization that has in my tenure been three times to the DRB to represent or to present a site plan.

Um and I will say that the preparation for preparing and presenting a site plan to the DRB takes tremendous back office capacity and resources.

We have utilized architects, landscape architects, legal professional services in the preparation of those uh for those presentations in the past.

And you know, in our case, we were presenting for a site for site plans in zones where we had a permitted use.

We were um we had a buy right use uh to utilize those sites.

Um and I think about the fact that these are criteria where uh we're not talking about just the site plan criteria, we're talking about conditional use, which means meeting every single one, and and um perhaps someone can confirm if that is would be the case in a case study example for for example, uh looking at 69A.

Um but I'm exclusionary zoning for shelters and day shelters is prohibited under Vermont law, and to the extent that municipalities can still regulate the use of particular sites for shelter operations.

If this ordinance is passed, social service agencies will be asked to come and present according to all of the conditional use criteria, which is a very high threshold.

Uh I've I've yet to see, have yet to uh experience trying to achieve that.

I'm just thinking this is a really high bar to meet, and it also makes this sort of uncertain whether these services can be provided in the downtown in the future.

And so um I really am very concerned about the process and the sort of immediacy.

I would like the select board to just with the little bit of time I have left.

Oh, I do not have time left.

Thanks very much.

Uh Libby, while while you're here, if I may, um, you know, I I there's a distinction to be made between the work that you had site plans for, which was new construction, new construction that needed architects and blah blah blah, right, and uh an existing you existing facility, right?

But at the same time, you understood and you are operating under um the standard that you're don't want to cause a disturbance to your neighbors.

That's correct.

And so all we're asking is for everyone to meet that standard of occupying your use and it not being a disturbance to the neighbors.

That's the point.

It's not discouraging the use, it's not prohibiting the use, certainly.

It's making the use um able to be conducted while at the same time not having off-site disturbance.

That's what we're talking about here.

And would continue to be helpful were they to need a site plan application?

I know that interaction and so forth have been trying to advise 69A, were they to require conditional use?

My point was the threshold for making a successful application is a very cumbersome process to go through and takes a lot of time and resources away from the provision of services.

What you went through was much harder than an existing uh building.

Perhaps the zoning administrator or the board could speak to what those conditional use, what does that process look like that's different from new construction?

Perhaps so um yeah, new construction does require professionals, so um engineers site plan, uh you know, we'll do a site plan, architects because it's a new building.

Um so that is all reviewed.

If it's um you know uh use that's going into an existing building, sometimes you might need to have a landscape architect or uh somebody that can add some landscaping um to meet our our requirements.

But generally, you know, the site is as is and so while there is criteria, you're addressing it by saying there is existing lighting, it is down shielded and not spilling over onto the to the property.

So it is um there is still the review process, it's going to take you know anywhere from six weeks to three months, but uh the criteria as you're addressing it is is the site is already existing.

Maybe you have to bring a couple of things into compliance, but you you generally are taking a plot plan from our office and kind of resubmitting that.

Great.

Yeah.

Uh Mr.

Graham.

Well, Graham District 8.

Uh I have a suggestion to make, and that is that uh you folks table this issue for at least 90 days.

And the reason I say that is that uh the organization providing services to these people has moved from 69A to 134 Elliott Street.

I've been to one to 69A several times.

I've been to their new space uh today.

The problem with the old space is it was too small.

They didn't have room to accommodate the people that they were serving.

As a result, people were pushed out onto the sidewalk and the street where they were congregate, hence the complaints.

Uh the new space is probably four times as large, and it's uh down further down the street, away from the commercial businesses that are complaining that were complaining about 69A.

And I predict that there are going to be few, if any, complaints regarding the new location.

And I think you're skating on thin ice if you pass this interim zoning bylaw for an emergency that in fact does not exist.

I think the prudent approach is to wait and see, maybe come back and revisit this issue uh after town meeting.

If you go ahead with this ordinance, I can almost guarantee you that there's going to be a significant backlash, just like there was for your acceptable community cog uh conduct ordinance, which was shut down by RTM.

Man with the turtleneck.

Hi, I'm Elias Burgess.

I'm the executive director of Turning Point of Wyndham County, and I am wearing a turtleneck.

So I would just like to urge the select board to uh once again review the supplemental materials provided by Joshua Davis, who I think uh made a number of points that were very well articulated and speak to the I think taking a step back from the immediate conversation uh speak to some of the procedural difficulties that might arise from uh a measure this broaden valence being passed uh for the sake of transparency, and I should have probably said this up front, but I am a member of the advisory uh group for 69A.

Uh I am not here to speak on their behalf.

I want to make that very clear.

Um, you know, and I'm not here on their urging, uh, but it is in my capacity as a someone who runs a human services agency downtown that's uh I just ask that Josh's uh misgivings be given serious weight when this decision is made.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Yes, Fred?

Is that Fred?

Thanks, Fred Brunig of Town of Brattleboro.

Um I think the select board would be very wise to uh either accept the the advice to table us or vote against this um uh zoning amendment tonight.

If it is not targeted at one organization that has been mentioned a number of times, then it is not an emergency.

I attended the uh special uh uh meeting of the planning commission last Wednesday online, and um I think if if if this needs if this issue wants to be looked at, they should definitely weigh in.

So I urge you to either table or vote against it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Kate.

Hi, I'm Kate Traskis, I'm uh Brattleboro resident.

I'm also the executive director of the downtown Brattleboro Alliance.

And so the district that we have been talking about a bit tonight, the urban center, um I refer to as the downtown improvement district.

That is the district that the state of Vermont downtown um designated downtown program, and through the um town of Brattleboro, we have established a downtown improvement district.

The DBA or the downtown Brattleboro Alliance is the designated nonprofit.

Um our mission is to nurture and support the vitality of downtown through community and economic development.

And a vibrant and vital downtown is one that we feel is clean, is safe, is economically thriving, and is welcoming to the community.

Under the ordinance of Chapter 15, the purpose of the downtown improvement district and its designated nonprofit is created to promote the district as a regional retail, commercial, and service center.

It's to encourage its expansion and to attract new business and investment.

And so the district is roughly from Terrace Street down to canal, but I think that there is also a very um concentrated retail center that's roughly three blocks from high to flat street.

That retail center is meant to generate tax revenue.

I think we've all been um spending lots of time in hours of meetings looking at budget concerns, and we know that these commercial spaces within that retail center need to function as commercial spaces as much as possible.

When we think about the use, you know, it's it's really about we have a limited um amount of resources around that commercial space conversation.

And so we're trying to maximize that use.

We also are an organization that looks at beautification and bringing the community together through events and programming.

We want the downtown to be a place that feels um available to everyone.

And so it's difficult to speak on behalf of um business or tax revenue.

Um, but that is a real thing.

The other real thing is that people need places to go and um to be out of the cold and to receive services.

Both of these are real things.

Um the way that 69A's presence on Elliott Street unfolded, illustrated for us that it might be important to examine the use of available spaces within that district more closely.

Um there were several negative impacts uh to 69A as well as the surrounding businesses.

And if those proposed zoning changes allow for that exploration to think about best location to meet everyone's needs, I would welcome that opportunity for a pause and reflection.

I think that what is also difficult here is that when we talk about this, we move into a polarizing rhetoric that puts us versus them, people say people versus profit, victims versus villains.

And that kind of binary just shuts down any kind of conversation or nuance.

And so I think that we are a community that can hold multiple perspectives and multiple truths.

And I would urge us to work together to find solutions.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is Beth Kindle?

She's gone.

Man with the hand up in the back.

Oh, is that a man?

I don't know.

Hi, my name is Mae Morris.

I live here in downtown Brattleboro.

Um forgive me, I'm a little nervous.

I've never done this before.

Um, but this is really important to me, and so I came out tonight.

Um there's been a lot of talk about disrupt disruption to neighbors.

I am one of these neighbors.

I live here in downtown.

Took me three minutes to walk here, if even I walk downtown all the time.

Um, I'm around 69A all the time.

Um, and I there's been a lot of talk about an emergency.

The only emergency I see as a neighbor to this uh organization is when I'm walking around downtown, I see people who have frostbitten hands.

I see people who are hungry, people who need help and aren't getting it.

Um ever since 69A started working here, um, I have seen these people start getting the help that they need.

Um, and I think that's really important.

There's been a lot of talk also about um, you know, this isn't about one specific organization that's just the trigger, and we're we're trying to look at things going forward to the future.

Well, I would offer that looking at this trigger and looking forward.

Um I have seen nothing but a positive impact on the people in our community, um, these these neighbors.

Um the woman who spoke before we mentioned wanting to uh make downtown Brattleboro somewhere that is uh welcoming towards all.

Um but I question the sincerity of that statement because there are people who are being forgotten and their needs aren't being addressed.

Thank you.

Gemma?

Perhaps you should go to Jackie Reese first.

No.

Gemma Seymour, District 8 representative and member of the Black Brattleboro Planning Commission.

I rise in opposition to the proposed zoning by law amendment.

This amendment, without good cause, changes a long-standing land use policy in our town that designates social assistance and charitable service as a permitted land use in the central business districts of our town, the very places where such services ought to be located.

I would point out to the select board and the public that social assistance and charitable service is not a permitted or conditional use in the residential districts of our town, and rightly so.

But if you do not want it permitted by right in the districts where it is most appropriate, then consequently you do not want it permitted by right in this entire town.

And I believe this is a clear signal that these services are not welcome in our town at all.

The classification of this use as conditional in the very places where such uses are most appropriately located, risks subjecting necessary and beneficial services to arbitrary disapproval.

At a time when the need for such services is obviously heightened and likely to become even more so in the current economic and political climate.

I see no sufficient cause to make this bylaw change.

And it is also my opinion that it is being driven by consternation over one particular organization without due consideration for other more specific avenues of action that could mitigate public complaint.

I would also like to point out that the organization in question, whatever else it might be, is a public accommodation.

And as such, like all other public accommodations in Vermont is subject to Vermont anti-discrimination statutes with which it must comply.

It must have a proper reason for turning an individual away.

Holding the number of calls to emergency services against them is as as illogical as it would be to hold them against any other business or organization, and it certainly is not responsible for the conduct of people off its property.

Once made such a change to the zoning bylaws will be an undue hindrance and roadblock to the development of sorely needed social assistance and charitable services in our town, exacerbating rather than alleviating the difficulties of those in need, as well as the consternation of those who would prefer not to see the evidence of need in our town.

This need will not mere go away merely because it discomfits us, and we as a community, as the occupants of this land have a moral responsibility to address it with compassion, dignity, and equity.

I see no evidence to suggest that any conditional use applications are likely to be regarded impartially or fairly, and passing this amendment would knowingly subject those who can ill afford it to a costly and lengthy appellate process, perhaps discouraging them altogether.

Furthermore, as a currently appointed member of the planning commission whose task it is to review proposals to amend zoning bylaws, proper procedures have not been followed in bringing this proposal to the floor.

Unless there is a clear historical pattern of currently permitted uses resulting in formal land use complaints that have been duly adjudicated in favor of the complainants, there exists no sufficient cause to consider this change to the zoning bylaws.

And if there are specific complaints which are valid, they should be addressed with more specific remedies.

Given these facts, I believe that the select board should not move forward with this unwise proposal, and I urge all members of the select board to vote it down.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Right.

Let's let's uh well I don't know what happened to Jackie Reese, but how about Beth Kindle?

Thank you.

Um start my video.

Really?

All right.

Good luck.

Hi.

Um yeah, uh one of my concerns is I I was reading the application for for conditional use permitting.

And it seems that, and and thank you for going over the whole thing and for basically clarifying, Elizabeth, that most of it is physical use.

But it seems that that B, that the second condition, which is character, is probably the most substantial in terms of what we're talking about for the use of social and whatever.

Um and my question is, and you don't have to answer it, because I know I'm not here to I'm not to be asking you questions necessarily, but what it says is when you look at character of the applicant, it it needs to be consistent, obviously, with character of the zoning district as defined by the purpose of the applicable zoning district.

I couldn't find anywhere um where is listed the purpose of these zoning districts, and it concerns me that that could end up being awfully arbitrary and difficult to prove or disprove.

Thank you.

Do you know is it it uh are those listed anywhere?

Does anyone let's let's ask our planner.

Thank you.

So with the land use um regulations, um chapter 220 has the zoning 220 and 230 have the zoning districts.

Um there's sections, each section A, like the the first, so like two tw section two twenty-one is the urban center zoning district, two twenty-one A is the purpose of it.

So then if you go to 222, it's the village center.

22A is the purpose.

So it's all right there.

Well, and you know, um this doesn't pass, which I would support it not passing, and if this goes forward, I think it might be important to look at those, to look at those conditions and really see how you know if if what has been left open as possible permittable conditional spaces would actually um jive with the character of the organizations we're talking about.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Madam Chair, could we inquire of our legal team on this question as well?

Hannah, do you have a comment to make about the purpose?

I mean I mean, I think that the point is that that um the character of the area and in making uh conditional use, you have um it's it's not the character, it's the overall functioning of that district that is in question.

And so the question is can, as I've said before, can this use, this social service use um uh operate in a way that does not disturb the character of the area.

That that's a question.

I I don't really know that there's a legal question.

I I don't really know what the the legal question is.

Um if you if you can if if people can ask me a question, I can try and respond to it.

The reason I was an arbitrary question is because when Beth was talking, I saw your face, Hannah, thinking over it seriously, and that there might be something you wanted to offer about.

They're watching you pretty closely, Hannah.

But no.

Okay, no, I'm not sure.

Look, I'm just thinking about how cold it is.

I'm glad we're breaking the tension there.

Okay.

And I will say I think it is the most subjective of the character.

It comes from state law for conditional use criteria, and there is case law about it.

And I think that the case law has been tightening it up like over the years.

It used to be character of the area, and it was kind of this free-for-all.

Now it's you have to have, you know, it you're judging it against the purpose statement in the town plan or those the zoning bylaw.

So yes, it is the most subjective of them.

But it it it it does kind of fall to the fact that um the operation of the facility um, you know, has to not disturb and all the harmony things that you talked about before.

I mean, yes, like conditional use.

I mean, by listing it as a conditional use, we have a bunch of different conditional uses in all the zoning districts.

We're saying, yeah, these can be compatible.

We're not it's not being ruled out, it's just getting extra review.

Additional review, thank you.

All right.

Uh yes, uh Alex Fisher.

Alex Fisher.

Hello, Select Board and everyone else.

This is Alex Fisher.

I am a member of RTM and also on the board of Groundworks, a longtime resident of Brattleboro, and also a co-founder of the Root Social Justice Center.

Um, I'm gonna keep my comment short because I believe that y'all know what I'm here to say coming to these meetings.

Um, which is I'm I'm sad to hear that a process that the town has around this has been ignored.

There is a process.

I'm still very confused why this emergency session was called, who exactly called it and why it was called today.

Um if we're here to support the businesses in downtown, we have only heard from one business owner tonight who was resentful of this meeting being called tonight.

I'm very unclear what having this meeting this week as an emergency outside of the town process is helping move forward.

Um as well as why the decision making is being moved from the planning commission to the select board.

Again, I'm not clear from the presentation at the beginning of this meeting or from responses by Select Board and staff.

Um thank you to town staff that have to be here tonight.

I'm sorry that your time is being used for this, that our taxpayer dollars are being used for this emergency session.

I very much urge and expect the select board to not approve any interterm zoning plans at this moment, and in fact, hope it will go back to the pre-approved correct process that is already stated.

This feels very outside of what you are elected to do as select board members.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Yes, it is cold in here.

Hi everyone.

Is that working?

Um Jessica Dolan, District 8.

So folks have spoken to more of the socio-political and legal analysis of this, and I'm gonna speak a little bit to the emotional impact that it has.

Um I have mentioned before I grew up in Brattleboro in the 80s and 90s and moved back here to raise a child.

And speaking of character, um, I feel that uh zoning bylaws or behavior ordinances are not good ways to build relationships with this town.

This is not a city, it's a rural town, and it's a working class town.

And we need solutions to deal with and help our neighbors who are actually our family members, not to zone them out of here.

Brave Little State just did a great piece on what happened to all the halfway houses in Vermont.

And in that piece, they talked about the businesses in Burlington at one point, had this uh little fundraiser called Westward Ho, where they bought homeless people tickets, one-way tickets west, and that got shot down pretty quick, and then they decided to open up some more halfway houses, and that actually helped to address the the situation.

This zoning bylaws um behavior ordinances in a rural place where people can't barely afford to live is just insulting.

It is not a good way to build relationships with people in this community.

Um, and if you want to build better relationships so that people can work together better, it wouldn't be through planning emergency sessions to restrict behavior or to add bureaucratic processes or financial constraints to helping other people out.

Okay, thanks very much for hearing my comment.

I now have to bring my kid home.

Good night.

Happy holidays.

There we go.

Um you know, uh the the comment was made quite a while ago that um, you know, 69A is being referenced uh a lot, and and uh it seems to me that it's being referenced because it's kind of the only entity uh downtown that was created as I understand it as a space for artists' creativity and display, but it has turned into something else.

I never made it into the space because on the day that it was open to open that they had the grand opening, so to speak, and they opened it to the public.

When I went down there, there was an ambulance in front of it, and they were apparently dealing with somebody who had overdosed.

I went back a little later on, and there was uh another um intervention about um uh a fight that broke out there.

So it seems to me that the whoever it is who's running this space, um, I don't know if it's one person, I'm not blaming any one person, but it seems that the space doesn't have the kind of oversight for um safety concerns, you know, it's um you know, that there has to be adequate safety oversight.

Um, and you need to have the the capability of that.

So I think that that would be addressed by um this these conditions.

Uh without proper safety oversight, if you if you don't, I mean, we know that these kinds of incidents have led to people getting really hurt in this kind of a space and and where there was had much more adequate uh oversight for safety.

So I I think that the conditions that that would be uh that are being proposed, um, would they the same kind of con it's every business downtown, every entity downtown is subject to conditions for for their business to survive there.

And and and those conditions include things that affect the neighbors.

I mean, you can't build any kind of a kitchen downtown for your restaurant unless you have uh a you know, the um exhaust system lets the smells, you know, uh go out up over the top of the building.

And so there are a lot of restrictions.

Um, you know, the restaurant in the latches uh basement has never reopened because of those restrictions.

It can't follow it.

Uh and I know of a couple of other businesses.

So I mean, there are other restrictions that you know they can't put uh uh chairs and tables out on the sidewalk because it would restrict other people passing by.

So it oh, okay.

All righty.

Um I don't know where I'm at, but if I'm over three, then I'm fine.

Okay, thank you.

Uh Christina Allen.

Okay, Christine.

Hi, um, thanks for allowing me to speak.

Um I just wanted to note I'm I hear a lot about folks stating that uh there's not enough resources and that this is an emergency.

We need to when folks are walking up and down Bratterboro, they see people frostbitten, and how you know we need to care for these individuals.

I just want to remind folks that there are a tremendous number of nonprofits in Brattleboro that provide an enormous amount of support for the unhoused and those that are suffering with substance use addiction.

And on a personal note, I believe as somebody who has a business on Elliott, and my partner owns a building on Elliott.

That the reason why there are so many individuals utilizing the services of 69A is because there is a lack of accountability.

And I'm sorry that my my opinion may not be popular to a lot of individuals in this room.

But when you're dealing with substance use addiction, of course they're going to go to the path of least resistance.

Of course they're going to go to an environment where they are able to get free food, free socks, a place to sleep during the day.

They're going to get go to a place where everything is handed to them.

It's called ableism.

It's called enabling.

It's textbook enabling.

You can laugh all you want, folks, but you know, this is it's really devastating, and it's really it's it's really harmful to the other folks that aren't on neighbors.

And I personally have asked 69A dozens of time to have a meeting to in good faith to set up some sort of ground rules so that we can all coexist.

Those were met with deaf ears dozens and dozens of times.

It's not fair to the neighbors.

It's just it it's ridiculous.

And we and I'm worried now for the other neighbors that are going to have to face what we faced.

That's all I have to say.

Thank you.

Right.

Um I see you in the back, but I I we should go on break.

Um so I'll we'll resume in five minutes.

It's 807.

Let's come back at 8 um 15.

Okay, everybody, let's resume.

Um, there were people sitting in that spot before who had their hands raised, but you get the okay.

So Tom, you go ahead and then uh for it.

Thank you.

Tom Os uh Tom Mossakowski.

I'm the chair of the planning commission.

Um it's been alluded to by several people that the planning commission met um last Wednesday.

We called a special meeting just not to discuss the merits of this vote at all that you may make um or this topic, but just about the process.

And I sent by email right after the meeting uh last Wednesday, um, and a letter by email um just stating our motion, which was which we voted six in favor of, and one person was absent, one commissioner was absent.

The motion was to send a letter to the select board requesting that they defer action, meaning a vote on the proposed interim zoning amendment until the planning commission, which has the responsibility of preparing amendments to the zoning and subdivision ordinance, has a chance to review and comment on it at the regularly scheduled January 2026 meeting, which is January 5th.

Um, like I said, we didn't talk about merits.

We did, you know, people are busy and we didn't have time to convene a full meeting and um ask staff for supporting documents and research things.

So some things we touched upon though were that uh it feels like the process process is rushed.

Um the planning commission, you know, the reason we're there and volunteering our time in that role is to be tasked specifically with looking at land use regs, and uh we offer experience and knowledge.

I've been on the commission seven years.

Um I don't have you know tallies of all the years that other commissioners have been on there, but one other one I think's been at least on there five years.

We have another commissioner who's a professional or was a professional planner or has a college degree in that at the minimum.

Um we we bring that.

Um I will say I've learned just in the last few days, and I haven't heard it mentioned that from the date of publication of the first public hearing on an interim zoning bylaw.

Um I will say I've learned just in the last few days, and I haven't heard it mentioned that from the date of publication of the first public hearing on an interim zoning bylaw, the the proposed bylaw is in effect for 150 days.

So if anyone applies within 150 days from December 5th, it's already in effect.

There isn't such a rush to hold the hearing within 17 days from when you alerted the public that this hearing would happen.

Um maybe that 150 days can still still carry on if you delay a vote to say February or March and give us the planning commission a chance to discuss it and report back to you.

One maybe preview of things we might talk about is that a little bit's been discussed here about the definition of a social assistance and charitable service, and um it's been read from our land use regs the definition, it's a very brief definition.

Um the definition we have is pulled from the land-based classification standards, LBCS, it's number um number 6,560.

And there's eight subtypes of that.

Tom, you're already over your time.

Wow, time flies.

Okay.

One of them is child and youth services, another is disaster relief services, another is veterans' affairs.

All of that is a subset of this.

So all those things and more would become part of what you're thinking making conditional.

So we could potentially discuss and break that down at a meeting and bring it back to you.

Sorry for going way over time.

Bob, would you and your and Hannah like to opine about the um legal right that the select board has to act?

Because it's been questioned, so we'll do it.

Select board has the legal right to adopt interim zoning under 24 Vermont statute, Section 4415.

Uh it's up to you.

Uh it can be adopted to regulate development in all or a part of the town in order to protect public health, safety, general welfare, and provide for orderly physical and economic growth.

So the statute goes on to state uh that if you adopt this it is in effect for two years, it can be extended uh by you.

Uh much of these types of interim zoning or stopgap measures to get things in place and uh and move forward while you a see how it works and b how you can look at uh either improving upon it or uh seeing how things go over the next uh year or so.

Thank you very much.

Frick Rick's Bright, extract nine rep.

Um first of all, I want to say that uh I don't envy any of you.

Uh we're trying to deal with the consequences of a uh national abdication or worse of responsibility for dealing with these issues.

Um fact that uh we have condoned drug company pharmaceutical drug dealing and uh sacklers are not in jail, and uh now we have uh you know even more explicit uh uh condoning of uh drug dealing with the recent pardons.

Um no signs that the current administration has any interest in dealing with any of the social uh issues that uh facing us.

Um that being said, uh I think there's been some wise counsel here about delaying this decision at a minimum uh since 69A is not 69A anymore.

Um and it's possibly in a more appropriate uh place.

I would suspect from my familiarity with the neighborhood that there's a good chance that between its new location and the attention that's been brought to it that uh the uh quote unquote emergency uh is probably over for the moment.

Uh my expectation is that a lot of the complaints are generated by behavior that would have happened whether they were there or not.

Um my experience of being someone downtown on a daily basis is that uh there is unpleasant things that we all face downtown um with or without 69A, and there is a chance as Diane pointed out earlier that they might do some good.

Um, and to pretend that calling us an emergency and saying that it's not focused on 69A is um kind of hard to wow square.

So anyway, uh urge you to postpone.

Thank you.

Uh is there anyone on online?

Um, Marta, you've spoken and can you've spoken, but I'll let you start.

Not on this.

Okay.

Sorry, I didn't say my name before.

Marta Gossage Brattle Bro.

I'll be short.

I just want to plead with the select board, please not to make a decision tonight.

And if you do that it be negative.

Um my concern is that if you pass this, it's really likely that someone will get 5% of signatures on a petition to overturn it.

We'll end up with a whole cycle of blame accusations and yelling at each other, and then potentially it will be overturned at a great cost.

I know the budget as well as you do.

I mean, I've read it every year for five years and been out a lot of the hearings, and it's gonna be great, not only really divisive in town, but a big cost to the town as far as staff and other things, and it's just so divisive and negative to live in a place that's always having these conversations and arguments, and I suspect that is what will happen.

Please don't put us through that.

Ken.

Can they district eight?

Um I was going through the backup material.

I saw the uh list of uh incidents and then the cost of those uh uh call-outs, I guess.

And what I thought was um, you know, and then somebody mentioned uh that it's a third place.

And another third place in town that can't turn anyone away is the library, one of my favorite places and a place I think does a great job here.

And I wondered how many times the library got uh incidence calls, and they actually have uh city resources.

I think when they had the Bratt team, and they had a couple uh people stationed there, or not stationed, but a security guard uh uh that's gone away, but uh that's what I was thinking.

So um, and and also I mean the people uh trying to help people is a good thing in my book and 69A and social service places, try to help people, and uh that would be all.

Thank you.

All right.

I have here pardon me to close the hearing.

No, I want to read oh Caitlin's name.

All right, I have a statement from uh Caitlin Baumcom that I will read uh because she asked us to my name is Caitlin Bacombe.

I've been working at 69A since June.

There have been a lot of recent public talk about what 69A is and isn't by some town and elected officials, and most of it based on misinformation and hearsay.

Here are the facts.

We are not a social assistance or charity organization, nor a 501c3.

We were founded as and continue to be an LLC art space and third space.

A concept I will define below.

We have fiscal sponsorship from the creative sector.

We do not receive town, state, or federal funding.

We are not invited to meetings with service organizations.

We openly collaborate with many agencies and individuals in town, but are not any of them.

I will lay out my qualifications for participating in and evaluating 69A as an art space within the social practice relational tradition.

Social practice is a major contemporary art form evolving through the 80s and becoming institutionalized in 2005 with its first fully credentialized degree.

The core exploration of social practice is humans and our relationship to each other and the world.

From the social practice Wikipedia, artists working in social practice co-create their work with a specific audience, inspired debate, or catalyze social exchange.

Although projects may incorporate traditional studio media, they are realized in a variety of visual or social forms, such as performance, social activism, or mobilizing communities towards a goal.

I have an MFA in performance art from the School of the Art Institute of Chicago.

My work has been featured in hyperallergic, vogue, curbed, cultured mag, bad at sports, The Guardian, and Democracy Now.

I have completed projects and residencies at numerous venues in the U.S.

and Europe.

In Chicago, I co-taught and completed classes on social practice and worked with a well-known South Side third space called SHOP.

In 2013, the Museum of Modern Art in New York City hired me as a performer for retrospectives on of multiple artists, including Yoko Ono and Lydia Clark, whose relational works were direct precursors to social practice.

In 2016, I founded a community music, art and organizing space called Trevor Schoss in Brooklyn.

We offered shows, workshop, free meals, and experimental choir and meeting space.

In 2017, I was invited to curate an event for the Museum of Modern Arts Contemporary Art Museum, MoMA PS1, highlighting collaboration and sustainable community partnerships.

In 2020, Trevor Schuss expanded our direct redistribution, our direct distribution of material resources and became a daily third space with events, workshops, daily meals, free clothes, supplies, and conversations.

We also organized with our homeless neighbors, lawyers, and home homelessness prevention organizations, OA operating as an art space.

There are spaces like this worldwide.

Select board members and town officials can dislike or disagree with how I or 69A practice art making, but are simply wrong to say things like everyone knows 69A wasn't an art space on the public record.

It is in fact a community art space.

We have art supplies and daily use, workshops are for sale and a collaboration with Wonki Press.

Third space is essential to social practice, urban planning, and community life worldwide are places where people come together outside of the home or workplace.

About half the people who come to 69A regularly are housed and half homeless.

Because people build relationships over time, this leads to the kinds of cooperation and care that neighbors and friendly typical and friends typically share.

Acts of cooperation and kindness are bound at 69A, it is true.

If, for example, a friend without a phone needs to use a phone to stay on hold for three to five hours with a 211 to maybe get inside a hotel room that night, a friend with a phone will help with that.

If a friend needs help filling out an application for something, a friend will do that.

If a friend needs a guitar because they haven't had a place to keep a guitar for years, a friend will bring a guitar and then those friends will play music together.

If a friend needs a place to make and then sell art because there's nowhere to store art materials at groundworks and no public lockers in town, what better place to keep materials and make and sell art than a community art space?

If a friend needs to use the bathroom because there is no public bathrooms in town, we have carefully monitored bathrooms during open hours.

If a friend wants coffee or a meal to get warm or to have a conversation or to be in the company of other people, isn't that their right to quiet enjoyment?

The select board spoke about.

We truly welcome anyone with questions, fears, curiosities to come spend time with and to talk to us.

Thank you very much for your time.

All right.

Anyone else want to speak?

I will close the public hearing.

And let's see, if someone on the select board would like to uh raise a motion.

I would be open to hearing that motion.

If someone would like to have say a motion and needs the motion that's been drafted, I think about that.

Great.

Unless Isaac's on Isaac's over there.

I don't think Isaac wants to make the motion.

He's quiet.

All right.

Um happy to make a motion, but it's not the one that's written there.

I'll start I move to adopt an interim zoning bylaw under 24 Vermont VSA.

Section 4415 to reclassify the land use, quote, social services or charitable assistance, unquote, from a permitted use to a conditional use.

For the I'm gonna leave that out of the motion.

Is that okay?

Uh or is it necessary?

I think legally I'm sure this motion has been overseen by town attorney.

I don't think that's if you want to leave that out, that's that's fine.

That's your I'd like to end there.

So it ends after zoning district.

Amanda, did you wish to speak to the motion?

I'd be happy to be the first one to speak to the motion.

First of all, I appreciate everyone coming out and appreciate your feedback.

Um decisions like this are very challenging.

Um a conditional use is not a no.

And a conditional use doesn't mean um that it's not for us to apply conditional use does not say that we don't think that the work of charitable and social service organizations are important work.

They are vital work.

We all agree they are vital work.

Having conditions creates a conversation with the community with our town that I think is important to have.

Anecdotally, when I was looking at all the conditional uses for all the zones within our town, greenhouses have conditional uses.

I'm a farmer.

I was like picking on greenhouses here.

Not picking on greenhouses.

I'm trying to be a little light here.

Basically, let's have a conversation with the with the um development and review board.

Um it provides I'm going back to the social um social service and charitable assistance organizations.

You have the opportunity to engage with the town with the development and review board, meet criteria that is when I look at this is not incredibly complex and not incredibly cumbersome.

I do understand what Libby was saying about construction is another matter.

But um this starts it it starts a productive conversation so that the organization organizations themselves are serving the people they e they aim to meet better.

And that we also as a community get to have more open and transparent conversations.

Um it's about relationship.

It's about a relationship, for example, with our downtown improvement district.

It's it's a relationship and you have communications in a relationship, and I think this provides the opportunity for that.

Um I want to reiterate this is not saying organizations should go elsewhere.

It is also um not saying no.

It's saying it's part of a process.

And that's my take.

Thank you.

Oscar, do you have a comment?

Not not much more to add from what I said before.

Um I do want to pick out one thing and say what what Kate said before is right, that the answer to government is not you always favor one group.

We have to balance what businesses need and what everyone needs.

So there will be times where we decide in the business friendly direction.

There will be times when we decide in the other direction, but that is that is true.

That's the thing that makes it difficult is having to balance those things.

In this case, I I continue to feel that we are painting with far, far too broad a brush.

Um listening to this conversation, I realize that for me this one is not particularly close.

I think that this may just be an error and one that we regret.

I don't think the intent is to discourage or or chase away social service organizations, but it's it's taking an active urgent um quasi emergent and emergency step to ratchet the difficulty of doing this work up a full notch.

I think that's it's a it's a message.

It's it's one that won't be missed.

And I think despite the concerns which are valid, uh I think this is the wrong move.

So thank you.

Isaac, would you like to speak?

I would.

I'd like and I'd like to introduce a substitute motion.

Um I move that the select board defer action on the proposed interim zoning amendment until the planning commission, which has a responsibility of preparing amendments to the zoning and subdivision ordinance has a chance to review and comment on it at the regularly scheduled January 2026 meeting, and that this conversation be postponed with the select board until after town meeting.

Uh I need a second in order for this to move uh for us to be able to consider these two motions together side by side of the And you wish to uh amend your motion.

So is there a second for this motion?

So does that happen first?

Like without a second.

Well, If I may, the mo the the motion to postpone is really a motion to table.

So Isaac has not couched it as that, but if indeed it's to lay on the table this for a period of time, then that's a motion to table.

That's not debatable.

That that just gets voted on.

Okay.

All right.

Is anyone uh is that a point of order?

Some research on this in Barber School.

Excuse me.

I feel like there's not really Robert's rules.

Point of order.

I have I have asked the attorney to opine, and he has, and now we will conduct the vote as he directed.

Madam Chair, I'd like to speak to my motion, if I may.

Um which is I I appreciate the 28 people who have spoken this evening.

Is that the proper procedure?

It if it's a motion to table what what Isaac has said is a motion to postpone, which is essentially a motion to table.

If it's a motion to table, then that's not debatable.

Um we will meet one uh uh uh I mean with regard to you can always appeal to yourselves if you think I'm wrong with regard to uh uh an issue of order, by all means overturn me.

But but if it's the same thing of moving to postpone and laying on the table, then uh that's a straight up vote as to whether to do that.

It's not debatable.

So in terms of speaking to it, that's debate.

So very good.

All right.

Isaac, do you consider your act to postpone an act to table as one and the same?

I was thinking of it as a substitute motion.

Um but um and and I'd like to be able to speak to the you know, if it's preferable, I'd like to be able to speak to the initial motion, and then um we could vote on your motion to essentially table, and then whatever comes of that, we'll see who speaks to the vote.

Okay.

No, actually, until after the planning commission has had a chance to review and comment at its meeting in January, and that this conversation be proposed until after town meeting.

That the select board revisit this after town meeting.

Okay.

Isaac has made the the motion.

Select board members.

Um favor of Isaac's motion, please raise your hand.

Aye.

All right.

Members voting in the negative for Isaac's motion, please raise your hand.

Aye.

I'm three to two.

So now back to you, Isaac.

Would you care to speak on the Amanda's motion on the table?

Yeah.

So I what I heard from Amanda was the interest in incorporating a chance for conditions and for public input.

And we have heard from the public from 28 members of the public this evening, the vast majority who have asked us to either postpone this to respect the planning commit commission and their normal process, who have expressed concerns about the way this particular hearing was rushed, that it was scheduled for the week of Christmas during Hanukkah, that this has concerns about divisiveness, concerns about the use of emergency, which was something we heard about quite a bit at representative town meeting uh this year when the uh the proposed budget was overturned.

We also heard concern about the targeting of a particular establishment, the timing the way this was introduced.

Um for all these reasons, I would urge us to vote against the motion.

And I appreciate the and respect the the vulnerability of the people who shared.

Everybody who spoke this evening, I heard respect.

I heard people speaking from their own experience.

Um I heard people speaking for the first time at one of our meetings.

We heard people speaking from um their own personal experience and sharing a vision of addressing multiple needs.

Everybody who I heard speak was wanting to meet one need or another, and I believe that our community can address these needs.

And I now I want to remind folks that when somebody since 69A Elliott has been brought up a number of times.

When Kate or Katie from 69A spoke at a select board meeting, I believe it was this past summer.

Um Madam Chair, you had some questions for her and were asking that during when she was making her public comment.

And I suggested that if we want to interrogate her and folks from 69A, we invite them to a select board meeting and that we'd be able to have that conversation.

And we had a conversation like that with folks from groundworks, and questions were asked, and there was a discussion about their practices and OSHA requirements and um safety, and there was there was quite a bit of back and forth.

We actually haven't done that with 69A, and I think that that would be an appropriate response to the concerns that have been raised by members of the public um at some at this meeting tonight, and and um that you can also see in the backup materials for this meeting.

I do think that it's worthwhile having a conversation.

Um I'm glad the planning commission is planning on discussing this at their January meeting, but I think it's premature for the select board to do this.

And I would say, you know, I heard um Peter, you had said at our December 2nd meeting when we discussed this.

This isn't targeting 69A.

But if it's not targeting 69A, what I'm trying to understand is why the rush to have this um meeting, this public hearing tonight on December 22nd during the the holidays.

Why are we talking about an emergency if it's about a broader um a broader broader concern?

So that's that's why I am um opposing this particular uh motion.

Thank you.

Peter?

Yeah.

Um so I had the count at 25, so I'll I'll stand to um um Isaac's 28 and say that we heard from 28 people out there, um, majority of whom are in opposed to what we are presenting tonight.

Um I will suggest that that number of 28 people pales in comparison to those who have come to me personally, texted me personally, things I've witnessed firsthand.

Um such a way that has really sort of made this a little bit of an emergent situation for me.

And here's the thing.

We've gotten a few letters.

We've even gotten a few letters by people who will be impacted who are now closer to the new location.

Again, I'm not here to discuss 69A.

I am here to discuss the proper use of our downtown spaces and our land.

But I will tell you this: that if there was a bar uh in our downtown that had incidences that spilled out onto the street five and six times a week with zero oversight, that establishment would be fined, their license would be revoked, and they would eventually be closed.

That is just the way it and I think using a bar as an example paints a paints the picture.

We've talked a lot about polarizing language.

Um that's been used tonight.

Um, you know, I would even go so far as to say some some things have been weaponized.

Um those of the unhoused.

Um I'm gonna back this all up in saying our unhoused and our people who are homeless are are not our problem.

They um and they are not a point of this conversation.

They are, of course, indeed our problem.

Quiet.

Yep.

See, what here's the problem.

Here's the problem with being, you know, polarized.

You can sit down.

Being polarized, right?

Please sit down.

You take my words, you twist around the meetings.

I am talking about this.

All right.

As somebody who has served the unhoused population for a better part of 35 years, you don't know me.

So you don't get to judge me in that manner.

So then if we're going to talk about decorum, let's talk about your laughing outburst while somebody else was speaking.

So don't talk to me about decorum.

Okay.

Silence from the audience, please let this member continue with his statement.

I will correct my sentence in saying that I recognize that homelessness is a problem.

And it is indeed all of our problems.

What is bringing us to this table to this discussion tonight is not an issue of homelessness.

And that those words keep coming up and and being weaponized.

I've said this before, I'll say it again.

There's nobody in this room, I believe, in my heart that doesn't believe somebody needs a warm spot to lay down at night.

I firmly believe that.

I believe what's bringing us here is that we were shown that that's that's not the case.

The people who have suffered that are the people who are most likely to be afraid to come here and talk in fear of being canceled or having some sort of um vendetta put out against them as a result.

All right.

These are the people who have come and talked to me in private.

These are the people who have asked me to convey these messages.

These are the people who are concerned about this effort moving forward, which is why we are here tonight to make sure that we have guidelines.

Unfortunately, this stuff has to be done.

I don't appreciate having to do it.

I've heard the word resent a few times.

I resent being here.

I have a I have a house full of family right now that I'd rather be spending my time with.

No offense.

But here I am, because we have to set some guidelines and some rules and some standards moving forward.

It's when Irene hit a hundred-year flood, we immediately went into action after that was cleaned up, and we did flood mitigation, we did all the necessary things.

This to me is a far less of an emergent situation, but still a situation that needs to be addressed, and I think that's what we're trying to do here tonight.

So I do I do apologize.

I did not mean to say that the homeless are not our problem.

That was not my intention.

I hope that's clear now.

So I will um just I'll just close by saying I'm going to vote in favor of this tonight because I feel as though we need to have some guidelines set.

And as Amanda said earlier, this is not a situation where it's some sort of a of a of a final answer to everything, but we do have to start somewhere.

Thank you.

Okay, so I have a few comments, and then of course I'll open it up to the public again.

So the interim bylaws are by no means denigrating social assistance.

We are requiring that any such use demonstrate that they can operate within the bounds of public safety and good neighborliness.

And all social service agencies will now receive that equal treatment.

What this town is is really working hard to do is to coordinate social services and town and state government.

And we've been quite successful.

And there have been many instances where a conversation was requested with 69A and there was no conversation.

Over and over again.

And it's commonly done.

There's nothing inherently evil about zoning.

And over and over again, people have said what's the problem.

And the town staff have told us about a hundred and thirty-six contacts, 92 police calls, 18 fire EMS calls, and many, many, many complaints.

I've received many, many, many complaints about the disruptive nature of the way that this social service use is being run.

And therefore the town is compelled to act.

We are compelled to act to assure the order and uh public safety of our downtown.

We are required to do this.

It is our responsibility, and it would be a dereliction of our duty if we did not act.

And therefore I am in favor of this.

And many, many uses do this.

Certainly any group who requires help with that application can find that help.

And we need this to have orderly physical and economic growth, to have good neighbors, to have a collaborative community spirit.

And to benefit the town as a whole.

And I'll hear public comments.

Do we have time for additional select board comments or no?

Um after we hear the public, then we'll have wrap-up comments before we vote.

Okay.

I think at this point, I'm sorry to be a pain, but I think it would be helpful to list some of the conditional uses that we that we have existing.

And I think it will make it a little bit more understandable.

May I list some of them?

If you'd like, if you'd like if you'd like Sue to read them, she um sure.

So conditional uses that we currently have just in our urban center use table are a single unit attached dwelling.

So conditional uses that we currently have just in our urban center use table are a single unit attached dwelling, a duplex, a shop or store with a drive-through, or uh uh 25,000 square feet or more, open market or market shop, lawn garden or farm supply sales, bank with a drive-thru, rental or leasing, no outdoor storage, veterinary services, light industrial, wear house or storage, mini warehouse with a portion of multi-use dwelling, beverage products manufacturing, miscellaneous manufacturing, sports arena, to name a few, hospital, um, air transportation facility.

So I wanted to read just a part of that list, and greenhouse of course.

Um not to say these conditional uses don't mean don't come here, don't mean we're gonna make it harder.

It just means you have to meet some of the conditions.

I personally um think that a conditional use opportunity creates the opportunity to show intention, organization, and commitment to the mission.

And I see it, and I I hope that people who are very against this might pivot their thinking into this is an opportunity.

It's a two-year opportunity.

This is not forever, folks.

Please be open, mind it.

Thank you.

Okay.

So I'm I'm going to um ask for public comment, not about the whole topic as we've heard in the public hearing, but about the motion that is on the table.

So uh I I would ask not to have a repeat of your same comments and that it be narrowly focused.

Gemma, would you like to begin?

Notwithstanding the fact that it is the select board's responsibility to vote on an interim bylaw or a bylaw.

Uh 24 VSA 4441 is very, very clear about the process for doing this.

It does not provide for the select board to bypass the planning commission.

I'm not going to read the entire article here because it's in print where everyone can find it, and I'm sure you will want to consult the town attorney on this.

But I feel very confident in this that the language is very clear.

While the select board may propose an interim bylaw amendment, it must then be submitted to the planning commission who then conducts the meetings.

So this is entirely out of order, all of this.

Thank you.

Bob, would you care to opine?

That is not the case under 4415.

The board has the authority itself to adopt the interim bylaw.

Thank you.

Uh Andy.

Andy Davis, I'm an RTM member, and I've done a lot of trainings on Robert's rules.

As a point of information, and I spent time with my Robert Trules this week.

A motion to table is different than a motion to postpone to a date specific.

A motion to postpone to a date specific needs a second and is fully debatable.

A motion to table is not, because it's a temporary motion that would be interrupted in a meeting and need to put something down to pick up on a temporary basis.

But you can look in that later.

That's my point of information.

I'm sort of wondering, we're using this term social agency.

Um, but the organization that seems to be not the subject of this hearing and completely the subject of this hearing, um, is in the process of moving, setting up in a new location is the purpose of this meeting tonight to prevent them from doing business.

They're an LLC, they are not an agency, and I'm just, I feel like I'm a little bit in Alice, Alice in Wonderland here.

What social agency are we focused on here?

No social agency, just I mean, it could be Bridget's Kitchen, might want to move across the street, and they would then be a conditional.

What what are we talking about here?

We've got a I've stopped in twice this week, so I would have some you know immediate contact and sort of not just be making stuff up.

And I feel like I'd love to ask the board how many of you have stopped in and had an extended conversation there.

Seeing the people, seeing how a problem is dealt with there.

I'm not gonna ask that, but I that's something I'm very curious about.

I might let me finish my time.

I go to the right.

Let's talk about the motion itself.

The motion I think first off is been tainted by not following Robert's rules, and I would encourage you to vote against this motion.

Bob, did you have a comment?

Bob Oser?

I think no.

I'll go in.

Uh you had your hand up before I'd like to go in the order that I saw the question.

Rattleboro.

I'm going to attempt to speak to the motion.

But I think there's a bit of a sham going on.

And I think I need to call that out.

Said before that a large part of the December 2nd meeting was all focused on 69A.

And that's your emergent situation.

And now it's changed to the social assistance conditional use.

It's a form of bureaucracy that's covering over what's not being dealt with.

The question that was just asked, how many of you have actually been there is a good question.

Last time I was there.

And a lot of this I probably shouldn't talk about.

Are you talking about the motion, Bob?

I am talking from the heart.

Last time I was there, someone who I know from the street, who was a problem on the street, was in there and offered food to someone.

We know that the solution to addiction is connection.

This is a way of people making a connection.

And you're going to put a bureaucracy over that for a lot of other institutions, a lot of other agencies, for a lot of other reasons, because you're just focused on an issue that you can't deal with.

Isaac was right.

He said, let's invite them.

Let's talk.

That hasn't happened.

There are issues buried in the backup material that look like allegations, but they've not been vetted.

They've not been investigated.

Thank you.

No.

Nell Mayo Brattleboro.

I think my concern in regards to the motion and probably what many other people have voiced today.

And something that came up for me talking to people in the in the meeting break here is understanding the depth of it.

And that's something that was flagged for me by Libby's comments and by the I think executive director of Turning Point as well.

And I understand that Libby's were somewhat kind of cast off as well, that's new construction.

I don't believe that's not how I inferred her point, and that's not how I received the um point from the director of Turning Point.

And so again, the the whole thing we're dancing around here, um, needs are people are popping up to respond to a need because as larger entities, we don't have the resources to respond to this.

The town has so much on its plate, it doesn't have the resources to more fully respond to it beyond all like the myriad of ways it already is.

And so people pop up and try to do something, people without very many resources.

And so while it may not be a lot, if Amnesty International wanted to propose, you know, a conditional use permit.

That's not the same when it's an affinity-driven community group.

That's something that's fresh on my mind, um, given that it was brought up in the discussion here after the motion, um, the emergency calls.

I don't feel we would be holding emergency calls against any other business in the downtown area if uh somebody misled them as to the reason why they wanted to use their bathroom.

If somebody came in after consuming and then suffered an overdose, if somebody outside said they were going to kill themselves and requested for the police to be called or the EMS.

Uh so to me that gets into a tricky middle ground because I've if if we're holding it against businesses, then of course they're not going to want to help because it could be held against them.

And but if they're going to help, it will be.

So my concern, and I think a lot of white people are asking, we're asking for the deferment, is because not everyone quite understands the full spectrum of what it means, and we've been debating that here.

Uh, and it doesn't have to be inherently oppositional to it to just make sure that the the consequences of it would be fully understood.

Thank you.

Mr.

Faye.

Uh thank you, Ken Faye.

Uh I have a question that perhaps I can ask the town attorney, or maybe I'll ask you.

Ask me.

Yes.

Is uh uh announced or uh publicized at the DRB uh committee is what I understand from Mr.

Mo.

Um but it's not the the select board doesn't have to uh give ex parte any incidents of ex parte communication.

Is there a reason why a board has that requirement?

Uh uh a secondary board has that acquirement, but the larger select board doesn't have that requirement.

Ken, I'll I'll ask the attorney because my high school Latin is quite some time ago.

The the the reason for that is the DRB is a quasi judicial uh body, so they are making a decision on an application before them.

So they have a duty to report any ex parte communications to any of the board members, just like a judge would have to uh report that or disclose that.

The select board, this is not a quasi-judicial proceeding, this is policy setting.

So there's no rules with regard to that uh at this point.

Is that talking to the motion because um of some of the things said about why the for the motion?

Alaska, you know, co council has to declare, you know, and then policy making.

We're not talking about Alaska here.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Uh, there's a hand in the back.

Hello.

Um I'm May Morris.

I live here in Braddleboro.

Um there's been a lot of talk of like wanting to put this forward so that we can open up more discussion.

I'm guessing I'm wondering like, could you help me understand what your reasoning is for like bypassing the planning commission, who seems to want to delay this to talk about it further?

Like that seems sort of against help me help me understand because it it doesn't feel at all clear to me.

Is that the extent of your comment?

And I'll respond.

Yeah, I guess it just doesn't make much sense.

It seems counterintuitive.

Very good.

Uh we are proposing this action because of the myriad of complaints uh about the operation of a charitable institution.

And so going forward, we've learned that we need to be careful uh uh and to make sure that new or newly located charitable uses are consistent with uh their operation and their their um ability to operate while still upholding the integrity of the zone.

But but why are you bypassing the the plane?

Because you haven't spoken to the remote.

We have that authority and we have the need as expressed by the myriad of complaints and uh all the attempts that the town and the neighbors had to have a conversation with this one entity.

We've learned that we need to make a standard to have that conversation at the beginning of the operation so that we can have uh a community that lives together and works together.

To me, it seems you're talking around the point, but that's my time.

Thank you.

All right.

Oh, we have one more person who left the room and joined us by Zoom.

Fred?

Please speak to the motion.

Thank you.

Um chair, but I believe you just admitted that.

This is about one organization 69A.

Said we learned from the experience of uh what happened at 69A that we need to be careful in few in the future to make it.

Right.

Which is can operate safely.

Safety and within the Okay, which is a great reason to have this the planning commission have hearings on this and discuss it as well.

Thank you.

All right.

Can I ask one question?

Yes.

Will if this motion is passed tonight, will this affect what uh the folks at 69A are setting up at the corner of Elliott and Elm.

So they will be required to uh get a conditional use permit.

They've already been informed of that.

They opened there without a permit.

We have requested they come in for a permit.

They have.

It will be ongoing.

It will not, you know, we won't take action to shut them down.

They in good faith come forward to get their permit.

Um you mentioned earlier um that there's a process if you feel like your operation, your uh your concern, your business, if you will, has been miscategorized by um the uh zoning uh powers that be.

So um I know that they both the reading that was done uh by the chair from a member of their staff there, um they do not believe they are a social service agency.

So is that another course of action for them to question that?

Yes.

Yes.

Uh Sue, would you like to that is an appeal of the zoning administrators decision that was issued today, and that will go before the development review board at this point, it will be the February meeting.

Because there's statutory timelines of warnings, so I would just like to add, and Sue, can you confirm that the Planning Commission will have time to study this should we pass this interim bylaw that they can comment on it and study it as they choose.

I can't really speak for them.

I I don't feel comfortable speaking for them.

If they want to study it, they could be able to do that.

If they want to study it, they may.

Yeah.

Very good.

All right.

Are you ready to vote?

Oscar?

Two brief comments.

Um, just things that have been growing on my mind as we're talking that I just sort of want to have as part of the meeting.

One is um I I almost feel like we've been talking past each other a bit, just to go back to Peter, your example of if we had a bar, and this has been an example I have used in this conversation in discussions with the public, and they were causing problems, we would question their license.

We would, you know, probably if they didn't comply, we would move to shut them down.

We wouldn't rezone bars.

We wouldn't switch bars to conditional use.

We would take specific actions against the specific place.

And because there's a licensing procedure in place.

If I could just speak to that a little bit more.

Um probably the piece I left out is we're assuming that that bar had already gone through the proper zoning and the proper permitting, and then have failed to ignore it.

Right now, the what seems to be on the table is if something untethered to any zoning or even knowledge of rules for zoning pops up, then this gives us a tool in which to say, hey, you've got to go through the proper channels.

Any business opens up in town, they pretty much have to.

I had to change my sign.

I had to go through the zoning department.

Size of the sign didn't change, just the lettering on the front.

I had to file a permit, and I had to go through my proper channels to do that.

Again, like nuisance fees, but uh but necessary.

Sure.

I mean, what I flag there is that 69A, even if they had gotten permitted as a social service organization, they did go through the proper channels.

It was a permitted use in that zone.

They went through the proper channels, and then there's behavior there we don't like, so we're changing how that works for every agency of that class in reaction to that.

And I'm I'm not trying to open up the argument and I'm not trying to like drag out the moments until the vote.

This is just a point I wanted to make.

Um the other point is just I think over the course of these couple hours we've really seen this board twisting itself into knots, trying to talk around 69A, and then for the middle section, it was sort of no, it was the trigger and it's not about 69A, and then bringing it back to select board comments at the end.

Liz, when you were reviewing the complaints and the numbers, that was all 69A again.

And I just really feel I just want to put on the record that I don't feel good about this.

I'm gonna also vote, but I I think we're we're twisting and and and tearing at something here, and it doesn't feel that's all.

I think it might have felt a little better if you've had the amount of conversations that I've had.

Sure.

And and well, let's just be fair.

You you talked about you know what I said, and let me just say that the facts are that there were so many complaints and so much um off-site disturbance and disturbance in the in the downtown that that triggered a learning process of what we need to do in the future so that all these uses can coexist together.

And that begins with the conversation, the conversation that uh people in this town, people in the downtown tried to have with this organization over and over and over again that they refuse to have a discussion about the way the project was being orchestrated.

And we need as a consequence of that to change the zoning law so that we have the ability to have this conversation with how any social service agency is run now because of the degree of disturbance that that organization caused in the downtown that made us have to act to control the uses together in the zone.

And it's not damning a social service agency, it's just saying let's make sure that all these uses operate safely and within the orderliness of the zoning district.

And that's all we're doing, and I think it's it's a must do.

If in that case, I would have I would have really benefited from seeing evidence and an argument developed that social service service agencies are more likely than these other classifications to cause these problems because all we have here is evidence that 69A was really troubled, and I agree.

But the action we are taking affects every future so uh social service agency in these districts, and we're doing it.

We just I feel like we haven't developed that and we're taking a big step.

Well, I disagree.

I think it's high time we did this.

I think uh, you know, that one social service agency brought to our attention that this is a possibility, that actually everyone was shocked.

But there it is, and we need to learn and we need to move forward so that we can have a thriving downtown with thriving social service agencies and thriving businesses, and everything else that this town needs.

This is a basic tenant of town government that we have orderly and compatible land uses, especially in the downtown.

And that's what we're doing here tonight.

I think it's worth mentioning also that this is not impacting any current social service agency.

It's not it's it's controlling how they they do open moving forward, and that they will have to follow permits, they will have to understand their rules, they will have to be good neighbors.

That's all.

Anyone else in the select board like to comment before we vote?

Isaac.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

No, we've been seeing in this country a real disconnect between the people and our government, between public opinion and what our federal administration is doing.

And um, I heard something that you spoke about was collaborative spirit.

I um you know I don't actually think it's collaborative to bypass and disregard the planning commission that voted six to zero um to urging us to let them discuss this in January.

I don't think it's collaborative that we're bypassing and disregarding the social service organizations that are most directly impacted by this decision and which have spoken this evening.

And I I don't think it's collaborative to bypass and disregard the vast majority of the people, the members of our community who have spoken this evening.

And while I am well, I heard what you said, Peter, about there are some folks who didn't feel comfortable speaking this evening or coming here.

And if we're gonna ask people to have a public hearing, and the vast majority of people say no, this is a bad idea, or we'd really like for you to to wait for this other this other process.

Um it it's that does not come across as collaborative.

So I my hope is that moving forward we can have a you know, regardless of the the result of this vote that we take right now, that moving forward we really can work for collaborative process.

Um and you know uh on I can think of three occasions when I suggested or requested that someone from 69A be invited to this to the Select Board meeting um during the summer and then um a couple times more recently.

And and those three times on those three occasions that request was was done or the suggestion was done declined or disregarded as far as I could tell.

Um so uh and in terms of the planning commission, you know, just I think in the future we could maybe maybe you can correct me.

Maybe there's a a conversation with the chair of the planning commission and the the commission prior to this being um put on the December 2nd agenda.

But you know, uh in the future future that would probably be you know would build some goodwill and trust and um I think work to bridge the gap between government and the public to have a process where we really respect the the different commissions and committees and the people who are most affected by the decisions that we make.

Thank you.

Okay, folks, are we ready to vote?

Um let's see.

Amanda made a motion.

You had one more public.

I do have a motion.

Madam Chair, I'm gonna have to open my second time after you vote.

After you vote, absolutely.

Okay.

Amanda's motion was she moved to adopt an interim zoning bylaw under 24 VSA section 4415 to reclassify the land use, social services, or charitable assistance from a permitted use to a conditional use in the urban center, village center, neighborhood center, mixed use, and institutional zoning district.

All right.

All select board members in favor of that motion, please raise your hand and say aye.

I all select board members not in favor of the motion, please raise your hand and say nay.

Nay.

Nay.

Okay, that's three, two.

The motion has passed.

Mr.

DeGray, would you like to speak?

I want to say what an embarrassment it is to be sitting in this room.

Not about the conversation, about the condition of this room.

I am absolutely frozen.

And we should not hold any more meetings in here until we can get the climate adjusted where it's uh acceptable for people to sit here.

We should be if you can't fix this and you're not gonna be able to fix it because it's been like this for a long time, then we should be moving these meetings where it's not uncomfortable to sit here and listen to the conversation.

So we should either move these to the library, the rec department, wherever you have to do, but holding a meeting in these conditions is inappropriate for the people that come.

And I watch you sitting up there, take off your coats and put them on, and uh you probably have uh heaters below, and we don't have them out here.

So I I hope that you change where you hold these meetings if you can't change the condition in the room.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

All right, I want to thank Seth and BCTV.

Oh, I need one more motion.

Manda, you up for one more.

We have a motion, but I have one comment that there's no such thing as bad weather just for clothing.

I've got my long jones on over here.

All right, um, I move to adjoin.

Um who are we talking about here that doesn't have clothing that has to be out in the cold?

All right, it's an it's a Vermont admin.

It's just a Vermont.

Yeah, Amanda.

I apologize.

Amanda.

I I did move to a journal.

Oh, did you all in favor of adjournment?

Please raise your hand and say aye.

All right, five zero.

I'm at the stake.

It's just in the middle of thanking you, Seth.

And thanking VCTV.

And I hope everyone knows home again.