TranscriptPlanning Board Meeting ~ September 7, 2022

and first thing i will do is do we need to accept tyler as a for tonight a voting member so we'll vote on that into disappointment i was just blessing tyler you were blessed as a voting member for the evening thank you uh for coming uh so we have a quorum there are five folks here and that's we only need three and so uh the next step is amendments to the agenda and i would like to make one if we could we have request requests before us to table the uh application for celebration tree farm they've asked to go at the october meeting and so if we would do two things one vote to continue it and then also confirm what date do we want to do their sidewalk and our intent was to do the site walk to the same time as the regular meeting it's still late at five o'clock on the i think that's the fifth of october and so uh that's a possibility we could just go ahead and do the site walk at five pm on the fifth

uh come on in the passport continue celebration tree farm item 5b uh to the fifth of october meeting so moved second i will not be here that day so i feel like i should not vote okay second second second as we lost our other person uh i will wait just for a second that juliet returns so that's that's our next that's that's our that's our next regular meeting yeah i'm sorry that's our next and while we're talking about it um it's five o'clock work for a sidewalk it does for me so we do cyborg and then come right to the comments come right here so it gets dark at 603 or 602 or something that day so move quickly to october october 5th is our next meeting man

to [Music] post continue the celebration tree farm to um october 5th do it all in favor raise your right hand and 5 p.m all right well the regular meeting and then do we vote for them sorry she's keeping me straight yes this would be the same walk at 5 pm so that is 4-0 one extension and then to have the heaven here in a public hearing if they're ready to go with all their paperwork in time to do the public hearing as well at 6 30 or at our 6 30 meeting on the 5th even even if they weren't ready to go and on that meeting would still have a site walk is that correct yeah i think so yeah makes sense well yeah because we're gonna have a meeting anyway um so got a motion to continue to the um 5th of october for their regular hearing and public hearing yeah i'll make that motion motion by juliette seconded by ron all in favor raise your right hand or is it one abstention

meetings so i think we have the minutes for our last meeting if everybody's had a chance to read them i will entertain a motion to accept them i'll move that we accept them as presented seconded second by tyler all in favor right hand left hand whatever raise a hand uh five zero this time

non-agenda items mr tom planner um everything is pretty much covered by the agenda so i'm good okay um i think everybody was at the top doing another thing i'd say has everybody's been at the town meeting and know that all four articles passed i think there was maybe one or two negative votes on one or two of the items so a residence any these would be comments that you have on something other than what's on the agenda tonight

non-residents i don't see any so continuing a business so this tyler would you hey charlie sir i think we've reached you i heard continuing business yep your partner can join you there if you want we're getting crowded okay so uh tonight we last meeting we

approval and tonight we need we need to make a decision on yes no on this particular project yes no on any of the conditions of approval and also the petitioner requested a waiver on not putting the monuments in the lot corner monuments in until they uh survey and stake everything else so that would require a waiver so mr the barge if you'd like to bring us up today yes and as indicating the agenda notes i just kind of cataloged your actions on this application so far with completion determined on july 13th that gives you 60 days to make a decision which is today and then you did a public hearing on the 13th as well and started the substantive review you received written since that meeting you received written comments from the town engineer and the school superintendent which were included in your packets and based on the review of the application and the public process input i did draft conditions of approval

and on august 3rd you went down through each of those and determined whether they would indicate that the project meets the standards with those conditions and i did incorporate into the draft that's in your packet the changes that were made i do have a couple of questions on a couple of them just for clarification which i'll get to in a minute um at the august 3rd meeting the applicant indicated that they would be submitting a certified survey which was one of the issues that was addressed by the conditions of approval they have uh provided that survey uh the day that we posted the packet and i sent it out and put it on the website as a supplement the uh if the board decides that they've met their standards for preliminary approval and you grant the primary approval i will then uh prepare findings of fact for the final approval of the subdivision based on uh the compliance with the standards

as well as what it will be added during that final stage process so uh to move this you would make a motion to grant preliminary approval with the stated conditions of approval if that motion fails then you have two courses one would be to review again the conditions of approval and make changes if you think that with the changes they could meet the standards if they're falling short on any of them and if you determine as a majority that still can't for whatever reason on even one of the standards of the ordinance or requirements then you would make a motion to deny the application because you must make a decision tonight unless the applicant indicates a willingness to extend the process so i will just quickly summarize the survey documents that were sent out in that supplemental package it included a letter from the surveyor addressing the points that were raised in the review by the planning board as

well as some of the public comments in there apparently the the fragments of fencing that are different than what is the measured boundary line the total area amounts to 1145 square feet and the surveyor indicated that if it ever went into a dispute probably be transfers on both sides so it might even be a move issue however that that was the surveyor's assessment uh as far as the timber oaks corner discrepancy he calculated that it was one foot off from what is shown on the timber oaks plan and does not consider that to affect the project in in any way there is an undefined cmp easement that apparently serves the utility service to the budding law that goes up that right away or access and that is now shown uh indicated on the plan they did provide a copy of that so on this issue of the survey accuracy as i've indicated in past you're not in court with jurisdiction to adjudicate boundary disputes

but you do have the responsibility and the authority to make a determination on whether they have met the submission requirements number one the sir registered survey was an issue for that number two have they demonstrated sufficient right title or interest to the land that they are proposing for subdivision to to indicate they have a right to be here requesting what they're requesting and then finally have they demonstrated that the open space notwithstanding that discrepancy of 1145 feet still meets the required 50 open space so um if not if if on the waiver of the

of the putting in the pipes now instead of when they do the individual lot monumentation if you if you decline that waiver and the application as i said for waiver has the criteria in a draft motion if that fails to be granted then you could just keep condition number four which says that when they come for final approval those monuments have to be in before the rest of it's monumented so the two uh areas that i wanted to call to your attention on the draft revised draft of the conditions of approval is it wasn't clear to me on item 1b this

is on page 11 of the agenda packet whether or not you agreed that if the app it seemed to me that you were saying that if the applicant has the mdot engineer specifically addressed the offset of patriot way with this new intersection you'd be satisfied without getting the town's peer review engineer to to weigh in on that that's where i thought you came out if that is the case then you could draw one b and you would revise number nine which addresses that same issue to say ask the applica ask the mdot to address the offset offset with patriot way so the applicant has to specifically point that out to mdot and get mdot to address it in their permit that's what i understood you left it but i just wanted to make sure that we would hear that before at the final plan stage so when they come back with their mdot permit for the final play on the stage you would look to see if that's been addressed in the mdot i

think that's what we were saying that's what i was thinking so if that's the case then you could drop 1b but i just wanted to make sure and then uh the other one was the waiver and as i just said if you decide not to grant the waiver on the corner pins then uh you would just let item four and keep it in so can i there you go so i i believe that we needed formal motion on eliminating one b and i will make that a motion second

in a second to eliminate one b from uh possible conditions of approval uh all in favor raise a hand can a quick question on that sure though so there's a chance that they'll they'll flag that to d.o.t yeah the d.o.t might come back and say no we can't sign off on this then they wouldn't issue the permit yeah okay yeah you'd have to modify your plant your plants to do whatever the dot says is correct okay any other discussion

if quick sure um i guess i just wonder can we wave this item you're talking about the waiver for the monuments for the monuments yeah so there's you know we talked about this before there's the list of things that we can wave right and that is not i don't think part of that list but we're not like waving that they are going to do it we're just waving the timeline or the timing of when they do it yeah yeah and that could be our our decision here it's just it's not too clear in our ordinance you know this is the list of waiving during the prelim plan phase right so it's not in the prelim plan able to wave list well the survey itself is not waveable but the topography is the foot contours yeah but the question is whether or not the corner pins within that could be waved i think you have authority to do that okay that was just a ques i just wanted a good question i am i am okay with waiting as long as they're in for the

final plan stage i'm okay with that i don't know okay well the waiver is to say they don't have to do it until they pin the money that's not after final plan right so i am i thought we were saying that we would have these in for the final plain stage

they you know they got there's a lot of work that has to be done when they you know set up the lots and pin the lots and all of that in my understanding we were going to allow them to put those monuments in when they do all that other work instead of going out now and doing it what do normal subdivisions do is this stuff specifies that those corner pins should be in and typically they are in when you're doing you know because the survey's already been done just to show that they have full right title and interest and that you could go out in the on a site walk and determine where that corner is if it was a question and i think it could have leave the survey question that you also brought up a little bit yeah so for example that had been put there you could have gone out you could have seen where timber oaks as it is and where they say it is and that would help see it on the ground so how come they haven't been fine to

ask the applicant questions or any member of the public yeah let me let's do them around here first and then we'll get to so what's the reasoning for i mean why didn't the serve surveyor put them in when they did the survey or not put them in everything was pinned so he was essentially just confirming the boundary rather than going out and setting things up the two pins that are missing are the ones along the the property that johnny snell now owns who's part of the project so the lower one okay kind of parallel to the right away yeah the only two pins that i'm missing are

this one and this one okay which had to set measurement of 50 foot but because these were owned by the same property owner the surveyor just never put those two i say yeah the rest of the corners is it a big deal to put them in it was just timing factor really the locations are set in stone the only reason it would ever change if i disputed it obviously i'm not going to dispute it so are those the only two you're asking for a waiver for yes all the recipient and he labeled it right there and no it's that one in that one yeah it's the back corners it's the actual dividing it's the dividing points yeah has it labeled in his key here

the bad dot with the circle means to be said so this one yeah yeah this one and that one yep okay and that one was in the middle of where remember that foundation that they had to backfill and all that sight work had been uh yeah that was right in the middle of that

uh no maybe come back to before i ask a dumb question no dumb questions so what would you do why wouldn't we acquire it like it's not it's not that much work it is ahead of the final plan the only the only reason that i would say it's a lot of work is because getting a surveyor out there that's a process like well everyone has to do it no i know and they've done it watching so i know and and right you guys have the total authority on the board what is like what is our issue with getting that done ahead of the final well my take on it is that there's not i mean they we don't really dispute where that line's going to be it's true i think the line is well pretend right here right no that's not the line i know i know what i'm saying is that it's right where the question is this is the question here yeah that's those people and we know that we have had that property and we transferred to the big property

uh to jack yeah and jack is different than john similar names humans different okay who is the applicant for the subdivision which is stonex still next brother yes yes okay so anyway my my thoughts are that we don't have a question where that is it's kind of an internal line if you will because john has property on one side and subdivision's on the other so i don't see that there's really a need to have them make a survey or go outside those two pins now when they need a surveyor to go out later and set all the bins of all the properties so i don't see why we wouldn't just let them wait and do it then i mean i don't really want to see it i'm not going to go look at them it's something about precedence for me with this like it says it in here that it's

at least in the prelim stage and we're not even allowing it for final plan stage the that they're marked by monuments i just don't i don't understand why we wouldn't well i don't think there's a dispute that it's in there and that's why we were voting on waving it the whole for the whole the whole application until they're done until they're building is what they're well until they get their final once they get their final approval then they're gonna have a survey go out there and put all the pins in because they can't do construction until that's done anyway right okay

do we need to change the waiver to reflect just those two i mean i don't think we do say just those two the others are all in i think i said just the two in the waiver application and i i think i said that it was the two that were involved with the butter

approve the waiver or anything i'm sorry the waiver is to wave it completely right not to wave those two pins the two pins okay until the final plan until final well until till the end until it's there we've approved everything after the final plan approved

is there can we have them do we have a motion do we have any other discussion first i think like i can totally see juliet's point that it is maybe a weird precedence and i think i'd feel more uncomfortable if those two particular lines were more relevant to the actual building lots but in this case i'm feeling comfortable with it okay any other discussion

those two pins until after the final plane approval and they set the other pins second approve raise a hand please if you approve raise your hand okay i think are there any other discussions on any of the other conditions

that specific statement about that the applicant is to uh seek input from mdot on the offset of the intersection uh i quote two three red nine is okay as is but well i think you wanted to make sure that the applicant gets that information from mdot if they understand that from the record that's fine i read it as the applicant shall ask mdot to address the safety the intersection offset from patriot way should i say can i add that in there oh you know what i did i'm sorry i hand wrote it on here yeah i thought that i had amended in your background

well this is an important deal because of the concerns about another subdivision so i i appreciate it so i don't know that we do need a minute here are there any other comments questions concerns for the other what about the fire pond where did we land there i'm going to make a big old fire pond for you that is addressed in we said we'd do the full 120 000 gallon um but we all when you since you're talking about that on sheet c 101 no a talks about all residential structures shall have sprinklers so when we were in this discussion we were talking about the fire pond if it's the 120 000 gallons i'll scratch that would it it would potentially eliminate that requirement but it's on it but it's on that right so when i swap the pond on there i'll scratch the other one off for final there okay but i just yeah is everybody in agreement with that what does that what is um what do we if it's on basically

right clarifying so the applicant originally proposed to not have any on-site water but going with what has been traditionally done on prior subdivisions of just having sprinklers in the individual homes i pointed out that that is really what the ordinance calls for it calls for a water source of a base of 36 000 gallons which can be in cisterns

or in a fire pond but if it's a fire pond it has to have at least 120 000 gallons and you know with the drought and everything else that's part of the reason for the difference in the capacity and the applicant initially said they were willing to put in a 36 000 gallon fire pond if they could uh forgo putting in the sprinklers so finally the final analysis was they indicated they're willing to put in a fire pond with a hundred and twenty thousand gallons as the only fire protection uh measure so the note as you as you all correctly point out still says on the plan but the applicant tonight is saying that they will remove that note if you approve it with 120 000 gallons i guess the one concern i would have in drought situation like we've had this year would we be able to we have the resource that's going to maintain that 120 000 gallons the fire chief has raised that concern and one of the ways to address it is to

make sure wherever they put that fire pond uh there is an adequate ground water supply to it so that it does not go dry and that can be analyzed by a hydrologist so that could be part of the peer review to make sure wherever they put it is wet enough and there are some wetland areas there obviously that are indicative of of of wet hydra soils and high groundwater tables so that should be part of their analysis and the fire chief has also provided me and i can provide it with the applicants of a design split standards for fire ponds so all of the uh the intake and outlet there's specific specifications for getting the intake from the pipe up above the bottom so the sediment doesn't clog it there's free board for ice forming on the top they have to make sure that whatever piping they use will connect to the fire department so all of that will be worked out in terms of the review process do we want to add that then to

the engineering the peer review or did we already think it is okay there's words in there to the effect of recognition of the engineering designs for road construction utilities storm water management erosion sedimentation controls and the proposed fire pond awesome okay one quick question for clarification when we had originally proposed sprinklers part of the the reasoning was because it didn't it waved the requirement for a pawn but then you said that it doesn't we can reduce it but you can't reduce it down to zero that's right so i guess where does that where does just so i have all the fill requests and get the fire chief input on whether or not a reduced capacity of the pond with sprinklers might be a better solution for both sides yeah yeah i just want to make sure that when we get back together with a preliminary approval you're basically saying if they put the 120 000 gallons in they need the

standard of the ordinance that doesn't prevent them from coming in and that final approval you making changes like that so i just wanted to clarify what a preliminary approval is it doesn't lock in everything you still have the authority to make changes when they come back for final approval and we haven't gotten any indication yet where that is or at the end of the hammer had the pond i think i'd roughed it in the first time as a 36 and then i haven't changed shown the bigger one and part of the engineering review will say that's the right place because we were concerned about inside resource protection there's already going to be a storm water or something right there right yeah i have a level spreader right here horse and buffer so you could modify that yeah have we gotten comments from the fire department yet or no the fire specifically on this yeah the fire chief just expressed concern with drug

conditions like that okay okay for a fire pond he's been wonderfully responsive he's you know i've gone back and forth a couple times so make sure you've got the chief yeah he's great when you come back with final plans yeah he's great i think one of the reasons he expressed that concern was that they're in another subdivision around town there is a dry hydrant on a dry pond yeah so like i say it all depends on the source of that water

i've got a couple other things the right of way we talked about the road extending to the west and i think we were going to add in a condition did we i'm i'm sorry i haven't looked it did yes is that in there one in there is what you're asking it's very okay to a right away she'll be extended from turnaround to the uh we talked about how it is going to have to cross stream wetlands properly not sure if we need to put anything in there but it's super super wet remember talking about this there's a drainage that goes down through there that would have to be crosstalk but it's at the time that whoever comes whether it's the town or another developer to extend that they'd have to go through the permitting process just like okay so there's no no need to add anything additional okay all they're doing is extending it right away okay i'm gonna send it just straight out the end there so there's no extra curves in

it and just gonna um right away yeah and another question the cmp corridor um i saw it mentioned in the letter from the surveyor but where is did did he put it on here the new note i think was it serving your problem no can you show her where those poles are right here yeah it's right there

the pole okay and this is one of my property that has a meter okay so there's like about a 50 foot buffer right away the letter was included it's not defined yes just they they can get to it okay so that's where you guys are connecting to right here

i don't think we've even talked about it it is on pickup of solid waste and whether this is the time to bring it up if it isn't then we will bring it up eventually i will is i've noticed on any subdivision size wise whether it be six houses or twelve houses if we don't have a collection area because all those twelve houses are gonna be bringing there their recyclables waste to the curb and being on a main thorough bear here there needs to be a pull off and an area to actually accommodate 12 houses

i think we included in the hoa the same stipulations we did out on bowie hill where they have to get a private and that person they won't have a an on-road drop off on hollow road there won't be a yeah my concern about that is these people are all going to be taxpayers in town and they already have uh solid waste pickup within their tax bill and i don't think it is fair to being charging them an additional cost to have a private entity going

i don't think you would either you'd say well you would want a abatement probably on your taxes saying okay can you abate me for what's in my taxes because it's not being picked up by the town sure you know there's a couple of different ways to address that now i know it's it's certainly a challenge to have a pull off right on the main drag just with the 50-foot right-of-way

can i pull off that road instead of off of route 9 i don't think the predator our car the town's contractor is probably like if you're asking will they turn into your street you have to turn in the how does the timber oaks and those guys do it right now well i know i i live right i live on day road and they're still working on its 12 house subdivision uh truman day estates and they put six houses in and they bring all of their recyclables and waste to the curb yeah but there's only six houses they're doing i can just wait and then it's a lot but casella comes down and they did basically it's a dead end roll for one thing it's easy for them yep they basically pack in the middle of the road right and then they back into the subdivision road so excel is your private contractor for the town for the town yes so they do they pull i could do something off the side of the road there on like essentially

in between johnny's driveway and theirs is it possible to get to get some a little bit of property along the road is i think he put a road in right there his driveway comes in oh okay you just got to realize in doing something like that you have to prepare for the winter and you want to have a stable base underneath it for plowing sure yeah we need to pave an apron what i have my personal experience on seeing this on another subdivision is that you probably have to look at at least two large containers for each household yeah so you're looking at 24 potentially 24 containers that would be within that area just planning ahead is for size yeah

maybe another option is and i don't i remember it came up on bowie hill about having a private contractor and the concern is how does the town not get screwed later can we do the same thing we do with private roads and snow plowing put it in the in the covenants and we say something officially that the town will not pick up responsibility for the election i think that's what they did with bowie hill that's what we did with bowie hill but actually i agree with what ellen saying it kind of sucks for but i guess i guess my question is on on route 9 there which is obviously i think part of the problem is it's a busy big road does patriot weigh in timber oak both all they all drop their cans right off along the road i think patriot waves are public i mean it's a town road you accepted that yeah right if you did to the standards you took it yeah yeah

you when we talked about an hoa well i was only looking at the waste disposal on that but you also have to look through an hoa for a private road they realize right up front that they're going to have to have the upfront cost of plowing during the winter so how is that any different than right solid waste i guess that's my thought it's just both arguments you're on notice when you whether anybody ever reads the hoa documents well yeah right but you know we would make a comment to the if we could and i don't know if it would work or not but one year on notice because of hoa and two we put a statement in there that like we do with public private roads tom's not going to pick it up unless they accept the road town meeting approves it or something like that yeah and again if that right-of-way ever popped through and you guys did loop it and take it then sure that part of the hoa would become kind

of i think you're better off putting in the covenants yeah that the property owners will not place waste receptacles that's where we landed on bowie because i don't think we can bind the town to pick up trash or not pick up trash anywhere right so i and then it's a it's an enforcement matter within the hoa but i don't think we can put something in there that the town will or will not do anything okay sure okay i think you've sold it so you've already addressed it there you go thanks for the discussion you had it with yourself mostly that's right that's a good question yeah um because i would imagine buses and everything else the kids are opening it up to the street they can walk to school from there which is what i told my kids when they wanted me to bring my new car you're gonna have 13 cars at the end of the road yeah yeah they got a nice queueing space though because there's not a house for

okay uh keeping it good discussion so are there any other discussions on uh anything else on the conditions of approval did we get a firm number on that um based on your updated plan i haven't changed it based on the 11 but i know we were i'm pretty sure we were way good i think we had 1100 square feet to spare okay if that were to swing one way or another okay and we'll look at that on the final plan and tweak lot lines and other things and then also i'm wondering about these two lots here six and seven so there's a big wetland in between the buildable areas right so are we okay as a board they're only going to be able to build in this small area right they're not no one's going to build in here same with well maybe this one's a big one right so this area is i don't know if you know what 18 000 at least okay which is a big area and condition of approval number 20 addresses that which is they have to

have a detailed grading plan for the building sites of lots 6 and 7 which becomes part of the final subdivision approval that can be amended so they're going to have to show the grading of those lots to make sure that it does not intrude on the wetlands and that they if they want to do a different grading plan they would just come back to the board and get approval of the alternate sure okay and that's their submission and final plan is it is that clear that was like that's 20 it's 20. but i mean they shall provide detailed grading plans for those building sites which shall become part of the final subdivision approval conditions okay that covers it i'm good okay and all of the lots meet number four under clustering right net residential acreage that calculation including those two new ones okay

what it says all right that when you come back with your final plan that if you tweak any of the lot lines or any of that stuff yeah don't know if we should talk about that after this like the schedule of that and we've gotten that kicked off it's pretty much ready to roll ready to go okay when do we get that going right after we need your approval okay all right i moved it we accept the preliminary approval as we have amended tonight

the approval of the preliminary plan are there any comments before we raise our hands complications in particular two or two approved uh five five zero approved for your appreciation guys thank you okay so we've moved from that to where already from that to the plan the outreach plan for our two parts of the ordinance changes the articles for the next town meeting which are affordable housing and tweaks to the road uh ordinance or parts of the road ordinance so george i'll let you you put a lot of george and i appreciate it's put a lot of work into uh thinking through this as is everybody so george if you'll yeah i'll just summarize the notes again uh so on june 8th at that workshop you decided that you're gonna limit your focus on land you sort amendments to those issues that you just mentioned john and since then what's happened is the or actually this the state just what precipitated that was a new law saying

that every town must allow up to three lots on certain uh lots in every town wherever you allow a certain units on every units and then uh two units on vacant lots so that has to be in place by next july so also at the same time running on parallel tracks with this is the conservation commission review of the zoning map for the resource protection district and then also the historic district commission is looking at the historic preservation so we've talked about all three groups really want to have a public outreach this fall so that you can take public input get the discussion get some input before the amendments are drafted and presented as warrants to the to the and public hearings are held in in late winter so um you also did indicate you want to try to fix the backlot access and the private way standards and on the affordable housing issue mma did supply towns with guidelines they said in there that these dacf

uh were going in or in the main municipal association we're going to be providing guidance to towns by this summer it didn't happen uh i'm not necessarily expecting it anytime soon um so does that mean that the july timeframe may move no no just the administrative the law won't change it'll just be that they won't be providing assistance to the towns like they indicated within the time frame that they indicated i'm sure at some point mma will be talking to you know the i know the main association planners and other groups so they may provide some guidance everybody's trying to figure out what the law means and how to interpret it so what do you think on that george are we do we feel prepared to go forward with well we have to go forward because you have a town meeting in april yeah yeah so you can in the last july you can't wait until you know other towns have different they have council government forms council town

council so they can do it at any time with a town meeting for them you're locked in you can't wait so and again if the if it changes by the time you get to the point of a public hearing in the spring you can you can consider that okay yeah but as well as the public hearing input yeah so at the last meeting i did present one auction uh just an interpretation of the laws and you expressed some concern with that's going farther than the law requires you to so i went back and just rethought it and said well there are at least three different approaches to this and so i drafted three different versions one that i'm calling which kind of lines up with with what i gave you which is uh what i'm calling uh implementation of the 2018 comprehensive plan recommendations and if you look in your packet on page [Music] 24 of your packet you'll see right from the comprehensive plan recommendations which were adopted

by the town unanimously at the 2019 town meeting 2.1 says within the elimination of the southwest bend growth district which was the only place that multi-family was allowed consider allowing three unit and four-unit multi-family housing in addition to duplexes in the rural residential district with design standards to make them compatible with typical durham housing example duplex with an accessory apartment or a farmhouse four plex 2.2 explore options for allowing tiny homes as accessory dwelling units or starter homes the state legislature has passed a law that says you must do that and the town attorney has given the code officer uh direction that he should issue permits for either of those and that's already in effect at the time lars in effect yeah i find is up to 400 square feet yep and then thirdly uh 3.1 amended lane used ordinance to allow duplexes on its standard two-acre lot unless there is an

objective basis for requiring a larger lot such as requirements for on-site waste water disposal or aquarium for protection so i think the comprehensive plan is pretty well in alignment with that new law and so certainly if you were to adopt amendments in option one you'd be in some could argue you're not in compliance because you're not giving as much flexibility on the types of units but i'll explain that in a minute but i think you'd be in full compliance and it would be consistent with the comprehensive plan now notwithstanding that there is a different approach which is to say look we don't have to get into all of that just put in what the absolutely what the law is requiring so all you would do in option two is take the language from the legislation and put it into the ordinance and so it would basically allow up to three dwelling units on properties that currently have one or two and they could be in any combination of

accessory or full units uh it would limit vacant properties to a maximum of two which again could be in any combination and uh the minimum lot size would stay at two acres for single family and and the current 2.5 acres which would allow a duplex or the three units and that would simply add the language from the law it would partially follow the recommendations of the comprehensive plan but it would give different landowners different treatments so if you had an existing house you could get two more if you got a vacant lot you only get two uh and then option three there has been some concern expressed in workshops and stuff of you gotta limit growth in town more than you're doing and so option three is what i'm calling the maximum restriction and i did check with another planner that responded to the broadcast that i did i was interpreting it the new law to say like right now you require two acres for

one house if it's a duplex you require two and a half acres the new law says you can require increased lot sizes for more units as long as that increase is not larger than what you require for the single family so theoretically you could require two acres for a duplex and six acres so you could require two acres for each unit and some would interpret that if you did that that would offset the increases that are being forced upon the town by this law so you could do that so my suggestion is in terms of going forward with the public participation process like we did with the comprehensive plan because there are going to be certain people groups in the community that are going to say you should make housing more diverse other people are going to say you should the priority should be limiting growth and the comprehensive plan you know is clearly what is adult who has been adopted so if you went forward at this upcoming

public input you could ask people to give their input on all three options or offer a fourth option which might be a modification of one of these so it's for instance putting in those increased lot sizes on one or two so i think it's important to go into the public participation process with options rather than saying this is what we should do what do you think so really a big difference between these options especially two and three is the amount of acres needed right and so for two you're saying two and a half acres for a duplex for three it would be four acres right two duplex would that be no actually option two as currently drafted and you could modify this it would keep the same lot sizes that you have now but it would allow the three units as specified by the law in any combination for a house for one that's currently occupied and two in any combination but there wouldn't be any change in law

sizes but it's just the minimum you don't have to change you don't have to change lot sizes so that's the minimum change that you'd have to do to be in compliance with got it and then the option three though for duplex yeah that that one you would say okay we want to offset the increases that the state is requiring so that we don't end up with as much housing in town for rural character or whatever reasons so you would say we're going to change the current policy on a duplex from 2.5 acres up to 4 acres and if they do a third unit they're going to need six acres that would that would dampen the impacts in terms of the total number of units would option one sorry one more thing would option one follow our comp plan yes option one is the complex that is the comp plan option two is more moving in that direction but not completely right and option three is definitely not the option number three

is probably going in the opposite direction yeah i was just gonna say i think i like i kind of like option one in the comp plan because i think it's you know more the second and third uh units are more accessory units so it

seems to me it's more in line with the comp plan and what follows what the state's asking us or forcing us to do that might be the one point that someone would take issue with in terms of it not being in compliance with the law so the law says you can do any combination this says it and this would be most in keeping with the character of what you have now it will be the least amount of change because right now you allow a single family with one accessory yeah you allow it on but apart from the lot sizes just the physical structures right now you allow a single family with an accessory apartment which can either be over a garage or attached to the house this change would just say you can do two instead of one so you could have it attached to your house and over the garage wouldn't have a lot of character change that what from what they do now uh similarly right now you can do a duplex and under this proposal option one you

would you could only do another accessory apartment you couldn't do a stand-alone separate so a duplex plus a single family on that same lot you could do the duplex and you could have a garage with an apartment over it or in addition to one side of the duplex so but that will be limited in the size to 50 percent of the main unit one of the main units so that would be most in keeping with the policies that you have but again someone who's really forcing trying to force the issue could say oh no no you're going to allow them to have a duplex and another unit and someone could say full-size units this doesn't follow yeah we're more restrictive than what it was but i think between technically the number of units as well as the fact that it's inconsistent with your approved comprehensive plan you'd have a pretty good case to try to defend it i wonder about the size of lots i mean that's quite a big change right

we're saying two acres no you're only changing it from 2a 2.5 acres for a duplex down to two acres for three years which is recommended which is recommended in the comprehensive plan yeah that's that's surprising it is in there what is it what is the rational basis for saying do you need two and do you need another half acre yeah no you're right i don't know i just um i don't know it's just good not to stop discussion but kind of our goal tonight is to say are these options three one two one we won't change them tonight unless we see something really wrong but these are the options we present to the town for that public comment and then we just kind of need to talk about when you know if george has got an idea when we would do that uh kind of deal but if there's something grossly wrong like one of these would be dead on arrival with the state or whatever the expectation would be that in the public workshops in october

workshop in october people would tweak the uh somebody may come in and say i want 10 acres per unit or something like that yeah maybe option four in parentheses you say on option two you say it's called uh minimum compliance can you describe why you well all it would do is just take the language right from the law and put it into the ordinance so it's the least amount of change or compliance action that you need to take that's why i'm calling it that may not be the best idea in terms of terms yeah we'll probably come up with a different name for that but that's probably a good idea so yeah i like them i think um when we get to the workshop visuals will be really important like showing what this would look like what this would look like and what this would look like and like the option three so is that is that a volume

restriction i think that's good because yeah what you're saying is that's your interpretation of the maximum maybe we could call it restrictions compliance or minimum restriction yeah simple conveyor yeah simple symbol when we're saying take the language directly out of the law and putting it in the comp plan putting it in the ordinance putting in the ordinance um [Music] so that basically would open it up for interpretation in the future if as people's interpretation of this very wordy complicated law changes but we'd be in compliance so well i guess you would risk someone could what you would do i'm sorry go ahead i was just gonna say you think you would risk someone could at some point say okay you really didn't follow the letter of the law well once they come out with more guidance we might have to change this or or if they come out like usually what happens with the stuff like with the dep

and other agencies and uh the state state housing like some of this law relates to affordable housing projects so if uh decd or dacf whoever they assign it to comes out with guidelines or dep does guidelines for shoreline zoning so if you put this into the law into your local land use ordinance and whatever guidelines that they promulgate you would say that's how we apply it yeah you wouldn't have to necessarily change ordinance although it's always good to have your ordinance spell it out rather than somebody has to go check some state agency that's what most of these ordinance changes have been at least with like dep and you know yeah resource protection yeah i like it i think i don't i don't have any changes to any of these options are we good with kind of using this as the basis for the october discussion then these three uh three options as george presented then the next question is and

i think we need to vote on that then the next question would be uh our next regular meeting is october 5th but i think between sidewalk and celebration and whatever else may or may not come in between now and then that would be kind of a busy night so what are we celebrating

have anything else on the horizon right now okay so on timing this is an issue and i didn't indicate in the agenda notes there's kind of like two windows here that was a no yeah okay sorry i didn't i just was something you didn't know well i can't say that because it is

the vote on the change to the map that next top meeting i said what do you think i am so anyway i'm sorry no you're not talking too right actually i was pretty good in the comprehensive land right those recommendations is what came out in the law a couple years later that's pretty prophetic uh okay so two windows of time uh the gubernatorial election is like the first tuesday in november in the two or three weeks before that those folks over there are going to be going crazy because this is the first time that they've done it and so they can't be bothered with any of this uh so it's either early like second week of october after the week after your regular meeting to do your meeting then we get the other two public uh input meetings in as well for the conservation commission and the uh historic district committee and we does not include this board i mean no historical there but we yeah

then then the other window so it's either like the first or second week of october or the first or the second week of november after the election but you want to get it before the holidays before thanksgiving i actually wonder if we could use the election to help us here um i know that when we did the comp plan we had people staged during the election or um you know at tables and stuff we had a lot of people coming by and that was like more survey but i wonder probably not a workshop i was just wondering could we schedule a workshop and people are coming anyways would they stop by but in any case you could put up some displays yes yeah and i also wanted to talk to you about the possibility of survey uh because i did talk to devin tonight about and we've been trying to get gp cog to do a survey monkey like we did for the comprehensive plan and they just they're just not responding but i talked

to devin tonight and they it can put up a survey monkey on the town website and all we would have to do is provide them with questions we'd have to get approval to get these uh 25 a month for surveymonkey to be able to do more than their minimum and so i'll talk to jerry about that but so theoretically you could have a display at the town at the town at the election if they allow you to do that i think they do them yeah they did then i mean it was yeah so you could have informational handouts or you know sample examples of the survey you could do that to try to to expand that outreach but we want to have a formal uh workshop too right that's what okay and i think probably two of three have to happen the three being historical conservation does have to happen before the election but certainly i think yours is a good idea and say here's the original input do any of you other voters want to want to weigh in on it and it's yet

another opportunity to get before them so that they can't come into the town meeting and say that's the first i've heard of it we could do it after too but it would just bolster our you know our whatever not agenda but you know our goal here if we go to the town meeting and say you know we met with people during the election we had the workshop we you know it doesn't really matter where those like if the workshop is before the election or after i don't think that really matters i agree yeah so then the question is for ours because historical and conservation have to figure out their timing and georgia work with them is is that second week the 12th and the old the selectmen are tuesday somebody's thursday so the kind of the night where there are no other meetings wednesday the 12th is that a potential to have this workshop that's uh october october yes i'm sorry

obviously this room isn't big enough so i did check with devin and the uh he can do a recording at the eureka with later putting it on the website he can do streaming and recording at the fire station so those are the limitations of

you know can get i'm not sure how big their space is if they're talking about the bays you have alarms going off and yeah there's a meeting room that's involved at least twice the size of this pretty good size yeah not quite as big as eureka but you can fit 34 people in yeah

the thing i don't like about the eureka center is no internet so yeah i was going to say that too should we lean towards the fire station okay george if you would check check to see if we can get it that night yep i would good on the 12th i guess that'd be the first question yeah uh and our role there would we certainly would participate along with everybody else uh on our thoughts on it and then after that we prepare something and i like the idea of using the election uh as a place to get in front of people as they're coming in out and voting and then um so my thought on the survey would be to process the input that you get on october 12th and use that to formulate and reformulate the questions that we might ask about these options and the affordable housing law and then the other question is do we combine on that survey or do we have separate ones for the resource protection and the historic

district do we put them all all in the services i almost would say put them all together i mean i don't know if everyone's going to open up three you know if they do one versus opening three before and my only modification of that is they all three have to be ready when we're ready to go i mean obviously two of them gonna happen after us more likely yeah but we're not gonna hold up waiting because somebody didn't have it until they could be added after yeah that's separate i agree with it have one big one one big one it's okay if we get everybody else to be ready to go which hopefully they will be so what time do we want to do it 5 30 6 00 uh is 5 30 too early i mean it'd probably be a six 6 30 6 30 to 8 30 6

you to 8. whenever it finishes what's up i like six eight i will say my monthly statement i'm retired it doesn't matter to me so uh but some of you are still working for a living yeah and everyone else too right we want people to come yeah five five thirty maybe top two so let's start at six yeah i wouldn't do it before six okay six o'clock on wednesday the 12th i believe that's the date for us

planning your 2023 we'd probably be welcome to sit in on the public workshops for history and historical and conservation but we do have to hold their public hearings come january february so we would need to plan to you know three nights of public hearings depending upon how busy we think we are or given that you know you've had these workshops you may just want to have one big one big public hearing on all the proposals i think we probably feel that that'd be nice if we feel it out but we make sure that uh yeah but i mean if you've got 100 people at each of these all clamoring for different things then you may probably want to break it yeah the other thing we still if that's it on um yeah whatever affordable housing we still need to talk about roads probably better on the the backlot stuff george is going to get so the the couple of changes we've made uh one is in response to this uh uh affordable housing law because

the amendments we did last time last round for the backlots limited to one single family and so i've struck that language out this is on um let's see page yep 32 so you see it struck out single or one single family so it's a single back line other than that this is the same language as we talked about before still pulls out this parts for the multi road

which mix both together before it was very confusing so that pulls the private way stuff out of there and puts it into 5.23 which is the next article and this again you had decided back last winter that you didn't want to just approve maintenance agreements for private ways and if you didn't have the same discretionary authority that you had over subdivisions you didn't want to bring people in to no good purpose so you said let's just have the staff approve this these private roads like they're doing now so that's that's what we'd be putting up again other than that it's pretty much the same what was the thing and i exactly remember at the town meeting why this fell off the rails was that uh one of the select board members pointed out that the draft originally had uh the same standards as subdivisions which required paving after the third law and uh so they requested that we put it to gravel

like it is now and that went to town meeting and then some people objected to allowing the gravel and not requiring to be paved and there was a debate and so that kind of just the the controversy over whether these roads should be paved or not just kind of and the other confusion was was this saying that the town would take over roads so i did and kevin the select board chair asked specifically that we add language in here to clarify that issue of public acceptance so uh that is now in here somewhere which requires a town meeting vote yeah c c one on the bottom of page 34 of the packet i added the statement acceptance of any road for public maintenance requires a voted town meeting so on the backlog stuff we you can only do one you only have one back one lot on a 16 foot driveway

three increase it if you go with option one for the affordable housing if you go with options two or three you'd only have a duplex okay yeah so that kind of so so actually how are we gonna do that we do have to wait for one for the other like

16-foot driveway they could have three units back on that one lot oh right okay so it doesn't matter which could be a duplex with an accessory or a single family with two accessories and you can't you can do it like a three lot subdivision pretty simply right does that matter well if you get into some legal subdivision you can do a three lot private way pretty simply because you just go to the town engineer or road commissioner and the code officer meet the standards and do the maintenance agreement and that's all you need if you if you create a legal subdivision then the road the road has to meet the requirements you've got to go through the whole process that dear creatures went through so the big difference between that and the backlog is that the road requirements are not as strict that's it yeah but we now haven't thought about this before but as i look at my property i could put three houses

on the the front lot i can have a backlog i put another three houses back there units whatever you want three units which which is access which is only 16 feet you that's why you'd have if you're going to have all six using the road the access then you'd have to have the 20-foot road so you would have where does it say that i guess because only the backlog languages says you can only have one one single law the back law is accessible by a legal forceful right away it may be used to create required rule footage for one single back lot if the following conditions are met and i guess my question maybe i start with the question is does it backlot by the state law must it allow multiple units on it because it is a lot yeah because if you allow a single family on it under the new law you're gonna allow uh if it's vacant you could allow two oh so that's all you could have is you could only have two on that if it's

vacant well not if somebody built something and then well the this would add in there the language which was as of july 1st 2023 i think oh okay that's option two right or option no option one would allow three yeah i think it would option one would allow through yeah which is again the argument the only the only question on that would be should they have to have a wider driveway for the three than for the one yeah but again i think that my thought and we can talk talk about this the solution to that would be to say if it's serving one unit 16 if it's serving two or three 20. yeah yeah that's that would be my quote and then we could have that same discussion about does it get paid you know when the october meeting to have a discussion about what else is going to does it have to have do you think with an accessory dwelling unit in a single family and an accessory dwelling unit you still need

to go from 16 foot width to 20 no well so there's potentially three families or three no no no all right good single family as an accessory oh so two well i should have two how do we define accessory accessory cannot be no larger than 50 percent of the main main single family unit so it's much more longer at least 1500 square feet and the accessory can be no more than that no more than 50 percent of that so it could be a couple bedrooms right depending on the size of the existing yeah two bedrooms that's another another car i mean i think that it was just a lot of unintended consequences we're gonna we're gonna go back there and we're suddenly gonna have a back lot that has three potentially three wonder sorry i wonder if we should just because it does sound like what we determine for the affordable housing might have a play in these roads right like 16 foot 20 foot how many lots or units are back there

i wonder if we should just hold off on the road thing until is it that big of a huge concern i mean what the select board or the town is making those decisions now right for the most part to build a 20-foot road and what a lot of them do is say look we're going to build a 20-foot road we need more lots so they go to private roads instead of the single back lot

that if you build a bad back lot you put your one child back there and there's one unit it's 16. but if you now a then statement but if it increases to more than one unit you must widen the road and i don't yeah i'm just thinking that that's okay

another alternative to 5.7 that would add widening for more than one one unit yeah so the the right of ways has to be established at 50 feet right from the get-go right so it'd just be a matter of or for a single one single unit you'd get 16 you think accessories should trip it or just a full duplex i would say a full duplex more than one unit um i don't know an apartment you know you can put yeah i don't know two or three people you know two or three cars rather i mean it's yeah and a couple of snowmobiles and you know a couple of boats and human lives for the fire department to get to exactly right yeah i mean so i would say two or more maybe now is back this kind of backlot language we have is that have you seen that fairly commonly in maine zoning ordinances yeah some towns do that but other towns just do the private way standards so if you're doing any back watch you have to have the private way which is

following this language in there for private ways i could just get rid of backlogs that's what i have where i was going with it i would never apply anything ever i believe you i'm not i'm not planning to have my family live anywhere near me uh well i guess i could the question is dude he totally scratched that if that would never fly would adding in like limits on this is only good for an ex you know single family no accessory dwelling you can't do that in the new law when people kick that out yeah i mean we call it back lot but it's legally i'm talking about the backlog road with any lot where you allow a single family you gotta do this the new law

just says if you allow a single-family home on that lot you gotta allow two if it's vacant i think we just that i think maybe unattended consequence make sure we don't have something that we regret later where it's because ian's right i mean it's 16 is not real big when you're cutting through the woods because then it becomes 12 and uh well the fire department's going to have to resuppose and typically they're going to require a 20-foot clearing going up through there and they're going to require like a certain height of clearing over the road so we have verbiage that says the fire chief has to approve it right yes that's right are we taking a workshop for this too are we yes this would be the part of our workshop did you list out options or no no not for this one right no so the intent of it right now even if you're doing just a back lot you have put in a 20 foot wide drive right and so we're trying to make it so you

can have a back lot with only a 16 foot wide drive unless you have more than one unit yeah well with that it doesn't say anything about that right yeah but what i'm saying is that i think now would be the time to add that stuff in because you know if people really want to get have a back lot with only 16 feet

voting on and if they don't want to accept the you know some of this other language then it's gonna stay at 20 feet anyway can we go back to the gravel uh and paved so what's what is what is the law now what's our standard now the standard now is that if it's a multi-lot back lot access under 5.7

they can do it with a gravel road okay talks about how many inches of stuff or do we just leave it at 20 feet i mean what's the pressure to change it to 16 it's just if somebody's building one house back there and you're talking they get to go back in five six hundred feet yeah 20 foot road 600 feet long you're talking 60 thousand dollars just for the road i would go with this but that is some of the incremental costs for sixteen versus twenty well it's quite a i mean that's like a twenty five percent well it's like fifty percent more well or twenty two linear though because twelve yeah that's a third more sixteen versus twenty yeah like you've a third of twelve is four why are you talking about 12. well right oh 16 to 20. yeah so it's about a quarter more 25 so if it's a 60 000 roadway you're talking about seven is dedicated to this extra four feet yeah but i mean you might be talking about more of that to build the road

depending on how far you're going yeah i mean i think this could be an option right we're gonna have options at the workshop right do anything well and the thing is if it doesn't doesn't get voted it's going to stay at 20 anyway yep right which it did last year right so just unders i'm sorry i mean is this something we i mean we were asked to we were asked to address this you know people that you know specifically asked when we had that workshop yeah here's what happens everybody that comes in for back lot and the court officer tells them they're going to build a 20-foot road they say say what yeah every single one says this is crazy yeah why do i have to build a road to my house if they're really just building a one single family house no accessory drilling it is kind of except crazy hands point about you got it ready to safety first yeah but it's like you've got a long driveway you don't

have to build a 20 feet long it doesn't necessarily need to be 16 it only needs to be 16 because we're trying to help the fire department like people have those people put in 12-foot driveways people have really big lots that have driveways longer than a backlogged road they're not going to put in a 20-foot wide driveway or 16. but even the 16. in my mind they have enough road frontage and they're only putting one house back there right there not enough room i mean if the driveway is that long who cares how much road furniture you got you're not gonna get a fire truck down there if it's not wide enough

my argument is you put a different potentially different family and stuff like that but these are good arguments to have on the 12th of october and so and i think we do want to have something that's not dead on arrival mike if you don't mind writing up a little if it's more than one you got to have 20. and people could blow that out of the water and say you know 16 and and as long as the snowmobile can get back they were good with fire equipment i don't think that's changed is the new state law what's that i think what's changed is the new state law that's what's changed well that's why i think you we kind of go with what we got here but add in that it's for a single year and if it goes more than that because i could see people wanting to do that i could see people wanting to put a duplex back there or you know not everybody sells it to their kid a lot of people maybe we're okay with that if we do keep

it to single because if we just kept that language in there we could i'm just trying to think through be able to say to them oh you can do more units you just have to do a private way for access yeah i'm a little bit concerned that statute's really terribly written but it talks about not having different dimensional standards or setbacks i mean i think setbacks are easy but i have no idea what the hell dimensional standards dimensional standards is is it is it dwelling size right because right now adus have to be 50 percent can we no longer enforce that they did make some driveway is it they had some uh specific legislation on the adus too and i don't know if i put that in here um yeah so there's also some amendments that i had at the last time we did this on the accessory dwelling units that uh the law the state law i do think you can have size differences you can't have setback differences but i think you

can have side size differences of units well as we're going through this is it possible to go to is there somebody at the state that would review this and say yes is there somebody at mma that would well i've already asked them and they said we don't know any more than you do well but by the time we get to drafting something up we're talking yeah they're saying they're hoping that the ecd or dacf will provide some guidelines at some point i mean i i guess unless we feel that this backlot issue is really pressing which the voters did not feel it was pressing enough to change last year well they i think they probably just didn't like what the select board person brought up and but i think where there's enough upheaval and uncertainty in the effect of the new law i would rather not touch this if there's not a crisis i don't think there's a crime well there was a work a workshop and i thought we at that

workshop we were specifically asked to put this back on the or the s or you know select board you know i would really like to have a statement that says only the town meeting can approve that's something you know that's come from the selectmen that i know of is is he he just wants to make sure that it is clear that the selectmen have no power to accept public uh privacy private to public so is already in state law so we don't need to be superfluous like there's no emergency to be superfluous then we don't yeah but also things have changed since our strategy meeting right things have changed at the state level since our strategy meeting and so that i would rather not touch this and avoid unintended consequences until we have a better handle on a what direction we're going with this affordable housing and b what the hell it all means i don't agree with that but i for some reason i felt that this was

something we were really someone had asked us to deal with while we get back on the like before i think it was a hot issue last time i don't think it was voted down because it wasn't a hot issue like it was voted down because they didn't like how it was written but i feel like people really want to get this through at the public

there were a lot of people mostly on the zoning map but the ones that came also were really talking about the need to make allowances for backlots access for families there was a lot of comment on that yeah the other way about the safety of roads and what happens when you have right it was really divided on this issue yeah was it unanimous that i want my family i think that's one of those where i had to go count hands right yeah then i think you would have wound up at about 50 50. it was pretty close right and some of them had been applicants here who did not like the process and others understood the bigger impact of changing this so i'm not convinced there is a huge public outcry for this and given the uncertainty that the new state law adds i would not want to move forward with this one this year but that's me well do do you think that if we put in that it's for just one unit that takes that uncertainty away no

why not i don't because you can't allow wherever you allow one unit you have to allow at least two and maybe well we would allow more than one unit but you have to go up and road size there but we can say that the 16 foot wide way is only for one unit

that i would be comfortable taking that chance i don't know what dimensional standards means in that context what you're saying is they may say that the state says you can't increase it to 20 because that's a dimensional change in yep so you can't put an extra restriction on just because you have a second dwelling unit or a third dwelling unit that would be a dimensional change and i have no idea if that's the going to be the interpretation or not yeah it may not be but

to roll the dice on that one other thoughts beginning hold off do you want to put it out at least the informational meeting to get public input on that i think it it'll start a lot of conversation um i don't know i think we should make a decision maybe not tonight but whether we want to go forward with it or not here's something that i'm just thinking out loud here is i usually go after this meeting into the selectmen meeting and i can say however you want me to say it but i can say that we were going to take on more of the backlot road issue except because of a concern with you know where this state law is because i mean we've probably got to eliminate the term backlot and just call it second law whatever you want to call it because i think you know the assumption if it's a backlot it's it's different but and i can raise that and if the selectmen say no we want to want you to take that on

we do it or i could just say we're going to take it on unsure of what the law really means okay so if you go that way well i don't know is it their decision no well ultimately it'll be their decision what to put on on the warranty but is it their decision to say to us go for it or not go for it like my thoughts like i i like your thought but it's like to get on arrival if it's something they don't really want to do i mean it'd be good to get their opinion i think yeah i think like if it's a really hot item for them then that makes our desserts it's gonna be a hot item for at least at least on clarifying whether the town accepts roads or not that they've said we want well that's not that's a that is i think the minute so if you go forward with dropping affordable uh the uh backlot access for this year as ian has recommended then i would at least move the multiple backlot language out of 5.7 over to 5.23 for

private ways and include in that because all that does is that sorts out the mess of road commissioner does this code officer does this what does the planning board do it would sort out that mess plus it would add that language in there that look the town doesn't accept roads except that town meeting and that's what they said they wanted yeah and i yeah that's what the select board said they wanted the issue of backlog access yeah down the road yeah yeah yeah like this i don't know i'm okay with i'll take you whatever you can tell the select board that's what you're doing does that have to get voted on what does one have to give voters that move of the ordinance

change i i get the impression what little i'm not in their hip pocket or their best friend but i think anything can avoid controversy at a town meeting they're perfectly happy to uh not take it it's just hard to get a yes yes vote on anything no matter what it is the yeah i think if the clarification is uh where we i'm happy to have that discussion they're not shy they'll tell me yeah i'm making a note on 16-foot backlot access go with the private way hunt private football season it will come back no oh no it will yeah i'm sorry i wasn't making that but i like the justification is that we don't know you know what what's going to be required for this yep uh with this new law so yeah so per the uncertainty over the impacts of the new law good with that is there any other comments on this or anything else so october 12th uh we will meet again with the general public at the fire station if we can get it i'll check it and at 6

00 p.m and then um our next meeting is 5 p.m at celebration and george you'll let the tree farm folks know and knock that out and then come in and hear what they've got with the public hearing if if you're comfortable that they've got everything we need and write all that stuff up and so i appreciate so i will take can i just um yes one very minor thing can we have on the agenda just specifically noted whether public comment will be taken or will not be taken on each item on each item as opposed to the statement that's at the top i think yeah so i think did you see what's on the agenda she says no now comment will be taken on in on individual applications at the meeting unless the board schedules a formal public hearing with required notice posted comments on applications can be submitted and writing to the talent planner or will be forwarded to the planning board and the applicants so it's on the agenda at the beginning we

could repeat it on every individual item saying no commentators because when we do have a which way i think the way it is right now as long as people are reading it it's fine but i think the difference is that doesn't tell me has there been a public hearing scheduled on x item right so i think it would be really helpful to say so substantive review right so informational exchange that's not right right i guess it's not an individual application yeah but we've got two items here actually i mean even on the other business we've got three items and last time on deer creek or excuse me celebrate no deep creek that's right we did say public hearing on this yeah i think when people get confused so you're saying like ian like on 5a at the end of it you put in parentheses no public comment so if you go in that direction what i do is just scrub the note at the top and i would put on each one no comment

taken comment public comment taken yeah we advertise a public hearing comment take public comment taken every other one we put no public commentary yeah and then if deer creek has public and the other one doesn't people come to celebrate next time people come for a celebration they'll know it's going to be public hearing they show up for whatever else we're talking about at that time i think that would make it really like if someone is going to think about coming to this meeting look through the agenda they're like oh there's really no reason for me to go tonight or just put my comment take it on this one i really want to get to that one yeah that's a good idea so you'd rather do it that way individually individually all right

otherwise adjourn i'll make that motion let's take this in a second okay we have a motion in a second and raise your hand please thank you all for coming thank you for hosting you're welcome and i will get after i talk to the whatever's on tuesday i'll get back to it and so i think when i'm okay the meeting's over