TranscriptPlanning Board Meeting ~ March 4, 2015

Jill. Jill. Borrow two. We borrow 10. Two. Wait, do you need one, too? Three. Oh, three. ones. There we go. Talk about the flowers. Think in that second drawer down in that cabinet is a box of pens. So, if you come in town Yeah. If you come in and you miss one, just grab it.

I wish. Hey, one day. Yeah. Hope you liked it today. That'll last you for another 3 months. That's right. nominate them. Do you want it? Want. Who's willing? Define willing. Willing. Who's willing? That's right. Okay. Willing.

Is that you? Cough into the chair quick. I'll just stay vice. Uh uh. Uh stay. How much political BS do I need to? Zero. Zero. I cannot stand political BS. Okay. Ah, we have a flame. I don't mind running a meeting, but cut it off piece. All right. Cut it off flat at the knees.

I cannot stand it. case had not picked up on that. I bet I got you beat. You might actually. bottom of that ladder. to join us. He would be great. He would be great. I met him at a New Year's party. Oh, you did. And I tried to convince him then we need a little more pushing. So you

you're put to the task and we need a couple more alternates, too, or associate members, whatever you busy. That's what he It's only one day a month for a couple hours a night. He also sort of gave me the impression that he did not like to say no to people. So I feel like very common

if we gang up on him ganging up use your charm that I'm not above where's the tripping people works at he works for he said he does a lot of their planning and appears in front of the Brunswick planning board all the time.

Oh yeah. So he'd be great. it is. Yeah it is. I sometimes moderate my is not showing up. I appoint him to the planning board. There you go. One way to get at it. Unanimously. That's good. There you go. There you go. We have broad attendance.

Yeah. can get a better turnout at that town meeting. Yeah. It's tough. It's really small. Maybe 250 or so people shot. Yeah. It's about the same as soon as the food is served there. 80% of them are gone at that point. Yeah. Well, we don't have we don't enact a school budget. That cuts a lot of attendance. We get about that much at ours and we probably got more. We got close to 4,000 people

in this town. Run about 250 people at the meeting. It's a neat concept though, the sense that people can actually come in and Oh, there's no doubt. Vote one way or the other. Yeah. I've thought for many years that there was going to be a time when another form of government might be better, but

No, I don't think so. No, no, there's nothing more democratic. There's a lot of politics involved. Commissioner is the road. Yes. You mess with him and your post office box will be down. Next time the snow flies. Doesn't matter.

I don't mess with them. And I know anyway. No. For three years I was in the town. I was down all the time and I did the moderating for the meetings. Introduced him a few times and patted him on the back. You got to know your plow plow truck driver personally, you know. So, and you can

just watch out for my mailbox. Shredding. All right. Are we ready to Let's do it. John, are we ready? Like to call this meeting of the planning board to session. Um, I guess we can start with the pledge of allegiance. of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

We have a good quorum tonight. any amendments to the agenda that uh anybody wants to bring? that. I don't know whether you're asking the audience or just I'm asking um generally we should probably appoint officers. So you want to do that first?

That would make that would make good sense. and save the minutes till save the minutes. Y that makes sense. Yep. And then do amendments to the agenda if anybody has any. and a vice chairman. So I will nominate Todd Bowler for chairman. Second. All those in favor

All right. Vice chairman, I'd like to uh nominate. Did you accept that or did you Let me Let me see how this meeting goes. No, no, I accept. Thank you. Um I'd like to nominate Ann to Grosa for vice chairman. Second. All those in favor?

All right. Amendments to agenda. There any do you want to What do we have? Well, I I forwarded a request to the uh to the uh code enforcement officer to see if the town would consider reconsidering the issue of soil seepage

from the garage onto my client's well. The basis for the request was that he first learned about this project. Mr. Feldman, could you please sit up there? People can see you and identify yourself. Well, it's very rare square one.

It's very rare that people don't that asked me to speak up. So, we're on we're on on TV. So, yeah, we need to get it recorded. Sorry. I need to I need to say so. It's not a problem. So, uh, my client learned on Christmas, uh, 2014, Christmas Eve, about this request, and, uh, he just didn't have enough time to get a soils expert involved, do a study, do an evaluation, etc. So, the, uh, and I understand from reading the transcript that the board members said at the at that first hearing, you know, we'd love to have more information if you can bring it forward. So, uh, we have in fact, um, a

soil scientist report that I would like to if if the board will entertain a request to reconsider that decision, I have it with me to to share with the board. Obviously, if you don't entertain that request, and I'm not going to spend your time asking you to read something from a soil scientist, but that's the request. I think we can probably take that up in connection with when we talk about the application itself instead of as an amendment whether we'll consider it or not. We can talk about it at that time.

Yeah, makes sense. That does make sense. That's fine. I have one amendment to the agenda. Ariel clerk will not be here tonight. She withdrew her application for this meeting. Okay. And she may it may be next month. I'm not sure. Okay.

So, there's one less. That's a good thing. Okay. Uh, so we should do Mr. Kandle. Earl Cr on up to the microphone. Who's All right. This will be the hot seat really fast. How many times it's already out of here? proper sizing on the lot. Correct.

old deed, correct? The his deed. Did we Did we get the details? Is that this one you need? Yeah, I thought we got it last time. This is the one that um that identifies the rightway is okay. Which is the one I thought was it?

Yes. Yeah. Yeah. Right. That's you wanted the deed when I sold the two acres out front on the road. Mhm. And uh we have that. the second paragraph after the definitions of beginning, accepting, and reserving is the um the rightway grant that was supposed to be in the u in the deed for the frontage lot.

Yes. Okay, that's what I don't have. deed goes back when I bought the 20 acres. And when I went to the Androskan County of Registry, they they said I should have a deed, but I'd have to go to a lawyer to get it. I guess they take off what you sell.

From what you originally owned, yeah. And you never get a deed unless you go and specifically say, "I want a deed for what's remaining is what I what I understand." That's what they said. Right. I think we just needed to see the pro the deed that you deeded out to make sure that you accepted and reserved that right away. And it sounds like you did.

Yes. That's your original deed would include everything. Yeah. Last. Yeah. But that's that's how they do it, I guess. And Yeah. And typically if you don't want to get a deed done as you sell the pieces of property or the entire parcel a new deed would be would be run to identify the uh boundaries of the parcel.

Anybody had a chance to take a look at the lot size and they're uh proper sizing now. I did the math and it seemed to work this time. Yep. rightway has to be 300 ft in length which this is 560. the front should be at least 200 feet

for at least 300 feet along the right way. That's where we did that little 2 by3 card and laid it along the the um the Krenle's side of the rideway, not on the uh butter's side of the rideway to make sure that it was entirely within the lot parcel as far as the 200 by 300 feet. It seemed to be extra a little bit on both

acres not including any land concentrating the rightway. So this is 5.41. Yeah. square footage of the rideway is indicated on the plan plus the rightway up with dead dead last time. included the rightway. And for some reason he put net in there which means it does not

that's why he wrote that net. Yeah. It it excludes the right away. the description is only the description across the front lot. lot that he might sell, a new description continuing from this one through the lot would then be recorded similar to this one.

Yeah. So, the deed to the middle lot would have to include the right of way over the first lot and accept and reserve the continued Yeah. right away to the for the benefit of and that would be contingent on any building permit that that

Yeah. the deeds that that deed be presented in the back lotus. I'm reading subsection G of the ordinance. So, section 6 A1 G. And I'm not really sure what it says. Yeah, back lot. Yep. Yeah. G Uh six A1 G. This is a paving requirement for the road.

Yeah. things may be constructed on a back lot with planning approval. So I guess we don't even need to get to this right now because he's not asking to construct a dwelling. Right. Right. Okay. And it seems to me that this is basically saying because it's a back lot rather than a subdivision, it excludes the requirement for paving

paving, right? So, it's the um on the plan is a cross-section of a 50 foot wide gravel road uh bed per ordinance. It should it should match up the ordinance. It's a little hard because the one in the ordinance had pavement on it and so they tried to exclude it in the drawing, but it's essentially seemed to be fine. Yeah.

on behalf of the town for sewer purposes for the first I I haven't found one but um so I I I must admit I didn't go looking. Mhm. actually see the be the accepting and reserving language an easement or is it a There's a bunch there. I'm not sure whether that's

it's an easement or right away for all purposes including utility service connections ingress and ingress and right to alienate such rights without restriction. Sir remaining a grant issue created. Yeah. Do we need to have the town included in that?

Yes. On the next on Well, I mean, the problem is that Mr. Crannle can't give us an easement. Can't give the town an easement over that first part because he no longer. Sure, he can. His his assigns he can assign it to whoever he wants,

including utility service connection and gave CMP gives him his assigned. So, he can assign rights to the sewer. Matter of fact, I bet they had to put two poles, right? Cuz that's utility service. Yeah. Is sewer going to be a utility?

Yeah. Yeah. Yes, it should. anything else? Okay. No. Good. Nope. So, I move to find that the application is presented this evening meets the standards of the backlot ordinance and uh move to approve Mr. Crandle's application contingent on the eventual transfer complying with the rest of these requirements including um

reserving and accepting an easement along the rightway for both the town as well as both the back lots. Can I get a second for that? Second. I'll second. All those in favor Cranle, I have here um we need to sign the uh actual

kitty for tax might be my line. Just two, I believe. Actually, you know what? This I think this is what I would recommend if I may that he have another one of these cut that include that language in regards to the easement to the town as well as the additional butters on the plan. So that once it's signed and because that will also need to be recorded with the plan, right?

It should. Do we need to do that or or not? Is it normally on there? Well, normally normally any anything that's applied to the application that's down the road in any sense usually needs to be put in the notes on the myar because this is actually what gets recorded. This is what's going to be recorded,

right? Yes. It's your call. It doesn't matter to me either way. I mean, I I'm not going to issue the permit without that particular thing being in the the Yeah, the building permits would be a different issue. And if he transfers it without the easements, it's basically only transfer.

All right. So, we'll just easement to you or to the person. right away. town to the town that your lawyer would draft up an agency and the town would have to vote to accept it right here. Yeah. Uh yep. Go like three or four down.

And the survey will have to put that on the the myo or I think we're just going to sign No, we're going to do it with the we're going to do it with the deed. When the deed's recorded, we'll have it. As long as it's all recorded,

we have just one myar or do we want to do a paper? He gave Yeah, he gave me one paper and one myar. You want to run a paper across? Sure. And we'll put down that he stamped. Yep. I'm sure there's my large stamped and there's one paper one that's stamped with his seal stamp.

Yeah, that's what he he said. I should have one of each. flowers. ordinance any time limitation on recording approved plan. um, the myar's got to go to the hall of records and be recorded. Yeah. And when you come for a building permit, I will need to see the that it's been recorded book and page in the Anders County. Just so you know. All right. It's it's a requirement that it be recorded.

Okay. And this one? Yep. Yep. Yep. This one will stay with me in the office without the easement till I sell. Yeah. Okay. Yep. Yeah. Regardless of what happens between now and the time you get a building permit, that needs to be recorded right away. The easement will also need to be recorded, but that can be handled when you do when you actually get ready to pull a B building permit and start exchanging property and so on.

I sell. Okay. So, I take this. Yeah. Free to come in and talk to me tomorrow about it if there's some confusion. All right. Okay. And we can we can kind of get to an agreed understanding of what you need to do. All right. Wow.

Thanks. You bet. Thank you. Wow. Well, thank you. We did it. Great job. Don't lose that myar. everybody feel okay with uh going through the Burnhams without having this the material We need extra time now to look through your stuff.

Well, I think first we should talk about whether we are going to accept it, can consider it. Well, absolutely. if we can whether we will consider it. This is why I bring it up. So I think typically under Robert's rules, you can only reconsider something at the next session, which would have been our February session. We're now in March. No,

reconsidering a vote that we took. Mhm. The ordinance is fairly clear on the time considerations for the time constraints for reconsideration. So I'm not sure we can consider it. Um I understand Mr. Somberg's position, but we did have the February meeting as well. So you had all of January to get that information to us, too. But it does take quite a bit of time to find someone, a soil scientist, a specialist to write the report to do the information, scientific evaluation.

Sure. But that wasn't even brought up at the February meeting. So there was no request that we hold off reconsider that vote to hold it off. There was there was nothing at the February meeting. Was that the meeting where I was present?

Yes. Because we did ask you to reconsider at that point verbally. Not the soil. Well, you folks, I think, I'm quite sure there was no reconsideration of the the landscaping part. That was that was a set up at this hearing. I'm quite sure

we didn't I didn't file a formal motion. No, but the whole thrust of it was can weird on this. So I I think as I recall the conversation it was can we reconsider sort of the entire thing and there was no new evidence to be presented at that point. I don't recall anyone saying you know we've got a soil scientist on hand he's busy working on it can be here tonight. Um and we had already decided on those. We didn't see any basis for reconsidering the application as a whole and our decisions as a whole. Um, so that's that's where I come down.

It is true that we did not have the experts report ready. It's a three-page report. late in the game to be already voted on. Um we can take a look at her uh their uh landscape plan. Yeah, I think that's the piece that we've left open. Yeah,

say that's what I anticipated that that was the piece that we left open and and we had already um voted on the the uh soil part after quite a bit of discussion. Yeah. And uh you know I wasn't anticipating until I saw the the uh email that Paul sent us that you sent Paul that there was a soil report coming but we had already cleared that issue. But can I can I just add I mean you asked me for documentation. I got you the documentation. You said you know and I'm just not sure how you came to your decision other than common sense.

I mean I have common sense you know I wasn't going to argue with your common sense. I have an expert's opinion now. You know and this is my well you know and I am very concerned and you know for you guys not even look at it, evaluate it for what it's worth.

I mean, that's that doesn't seem right to me. Well, well, what we have complies with u code. If if something happens out beyond, you know, if something happens to your water, it becomes a code issue. you know, he's far he's far enough away from your well, you know, so that it's, you know, if it happen if something happened to happen.

So you're just so the the whole decision here is based on well, nothing's going to happen until it happens and then my well's contaminated, I have cancer and and then we have to, you know, do this kind of thing. I mean, I don't understand.

So, I think two we're talking about two different things. One, um, Todd's right. If he violates any environmental ordinances, our ordinance, any state laws, that's an issue to deal with that we can't deal with here. We approve this application expecting that he will follow all laws and regulations. So, that that's sort of one question. The other question is is whether what we base our decision on. And we base we have to base our decision on we don't go out and investigate. We don't we can go get our own soil scientist but we don't have to. Um so we base it on what what you brought to us. And in the January meeting you were represented by another attorney. True.

And and you didn't have any information and that's well again that was from Christmas Eve to January, right? Yep. So let me finish. So you didn't have any information there. I get it. And we said if if you so we based our decisions on the information that we had in front of us which was what the applicants presented.

And what did they present about time? So they told us um that the water flowed away from the property. They know the water flows away from the property. We didn't we didn't you you know we specifically asked your attorney do you have any different

my attorney know either. I mean that's I mean and you didn't say anything either. So that's so that's January. Okay. Can that's fine. And then February, we still don't have any specific information from you. It's March. I have it now,

which is at least a month too late. And that's the problem. Okay. And if you had, but even if you had said in February, I've hired a soil scientist. He's working on it. We could have I'm not saying we would have, but we at least had the right to reconsider it at that point.

We could have had that discussion. Yes. and we didn't have that information. So, no discussion about whether to delay a final vote on on that piece of it. If that's where you stand, that's where you stand. Well, what they have follows our code, follows all our ordinances.

Okay. Beyond that, you know, there's nothing we can do beyond that. It's our right to be able to have a home occupation. We do have a right. And as long as you follow the code, you're are given by Yep. Okay. to take a look at this plant list.

Spruce and um helock. We removed after talking to a expert on it, the arrivites, so that we wouldn't be replacing them because of the deer in the area. Yeah, we do. But yeah, we, you know, after talking to this gentleman, he highly recommended just sticking with the plants that are already growing there and,

you know, adding to it's a scale drawing so you can see that it's 100 ft and um I think that that's plenty adequate. So the and this is going to block the view of both the house and the garage and just so that there's non, you know, any visual whatsoever. If I have to, we can build a fence if that's what it takes. But I think the landscaping

um is easy enough to do with what Skillins recommended. Well, I hope it doesn't take offense because I don't like fences. fences between neighbors. Um, so the one on the front here, the well beside the garage. Yeah. Just looking at five large trees. Five large reasonably large.

Yeah, those are white spruce. He wanted to use stuff that had fuller branches that wouldn't grow tall and then be sparse on the bottom. So, we stuck with I believe roo. I believe fur and spruce along the front. Fur and spruce. And then between the two properties, he added some hemlock as well as fur and spruce.

of the size of the trees and the spacings and whatnot. Um, look, he didn't put that on here. You did scale the drawing. The drawing is scaled, right? But the we didn't actually um get into that because we were doing it via email and

he came by the house once and looked around and and then um yeah, we didn't discuss whether they were going to be five or six or or seven foot exactly because I think you have to kind of go with what's available like when you're purchasing them. I didn't want to say, "Oh, we're going to get 10 foot trees." And show up and the nursery only has seven foot trees, you know.

So, what's the timing on planting these? As soon as possible, soon. Look at that. So, August, July. Yeah, August. you know we don't want to commit to June because the ground is still cold and wet hard at this point. I thought I saw a sixmonth plan for

um I thought I saw in the ordinance that you had six months to do the buffer and landscape to comply or whatnot. would be definitely done by then. property by then if that's what it takes. article 8 section one right muffer

correct F1. 51 and F is on 53 Oh 53 landscape. Oh yeah. Yes, they are. Yes. G1 also has some this is where the six-month um requirement comes into play. six months of completion of any structure. for an applicant for any use requiring a permit pursuant to this ordinance shall ensure that all buffered vegetation shall remain alive for at least one year from the date of planting and shall guarantee as a condition a removal replacement of any material which may have died before the expiration of the year

for a up and check? Yep. Yeah, I'll be required to to check it. that might be an issue for this is that it's it the ground water's fairly close, but all three species are very tolerant for that. Yeah, they're a little bit.

It should grow well. Yep. They should do all right on the site. on the board? the planting? We do. If I may. Could we use that easel? Maybe because I think he's got some we brought a gentleman here who has some expertise and it might visually easier to see.

Sure. Sure. Ready. noises, I'll introduce him and and then talk to you about Yeah. Why don't you tell these folks what your name is and what you do professionally and what your qualifications are? Well, I am a main licensed landscape architect. My name is David Truisell. Um, I work uh with Terry Dwan, Terry Dwan Associates in Yama. Um, and I put together a quick plan. I don't know if you guys can see this. want.

Um, are you licensed in any particular way? Yeah, I'm a I'm a professional main licensed uh landscape. So, what are we looking at here? So, we're looking at a couple of things. Um, we'll break it into two sections maybe. So, we've talked about the skills proposal and I think you're right. Obviously, it's, you know, they're all evergreens. They're all fine choices for the for the location. Um the fact that the sizes aren't on there yet is a question we have to you know there's obviously quite a range of what you could actually specify and purchase and buy. Um so what I had put together uh is on the left side we'll talk a little bit about kind of the site itself kind of existing conditions through uh kind of history over the last few years based on some uh you know publicly available Google Earth imagery of the site.

Why don't you do that now? Why don't you start with the first picture which shows the pre-cutting? Well, so basically um and I have smaller copies of these I can pass around as well, but I'll go over it first. That would be good.

These um this is a Google aerial from May 18th of 2012. This one is September 2013 and this one is uh September of 2014. This these are just what anybody any of us would see if you go to Google and look through the images. Um, basically what what we're pointing out here, uh, you can see the dash lines for the the Sunberg and the Burnham property. You can see Sunberg residence, uh, Burnham residence, the garage, um, and the the full full site. So this green line represents roughly uh the the clearing

um for the residential piece of the burning property in 2012, May of 2012, which was roughly two two acres to scale. Um this is the the photo that was taken September 2013, you know, a year and a half after this one. You can roughly see um closer to eightish acres of clearing.

Can I ask a question? Was there was there wooded area between the two properties in 2012? Well, you can see it if you look closely. Um this the dash line is clearly the property line between the existing uh tree cover. And can you describe what that was from your knowledge of 10 photographs? Well, a green tree cover. It's a mix of mixed evergreen forest essentially.

Was it thickly covered with trees? Well, you it's it's thickly covered uh in the aerial and you can see from also these are also Google Google images as well. This is a the call it Google Street View. You may have heard of the Google Street View. This was a street view in in 2012 essentially around within a month of when this area was taken. And so yes, you can see you can see the the residence and the garage and kind of the the full uh kind of forest on this side which which is represented here.

So once the garage was put up, did something happen to the trees between the two properties? Well, I can't say for sure. The you know, the only I know just like any, you know, these images all came from Google. If we're talking about that building there, which is, I believe, the garage. Oops.

There it is again. Sorry. tree color between What's the difference? What happened? Well, there was a about 2 acres of clearing at that point. And at this point, it was eight. And you can kind of see the the edge of where you can see a few trees left within that that big green blob there. that um you can see that most of that was was cleared out.

So, is it fair to say that after the garage was put up, somebody clearcut the area around between the two properties? Sure. Yeah. I mean, I wouldn't you can't say clearcut. There there a couple of trees left in there in the middle, but yeah, it's there's quite a few trees that were taken out.

Dave, would you say the trees between my property and their property in 2012, were those living trees or were they dead trees? It's probably living. I mean, they're green in the in the in the I would say. Yeah. So, can I ask a question? Photo 1A that looks like fall. It looks like a lot of hardwoods. Is that Yeah.

Yeah. This is literally It's just It was taken from Google. I mean, it just happens to be when it was taken when the Google car drove by. Right. But I guess my question is those trees, it looks like they're bare, so they're not evergreens, right?

That's correct. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. The trees are seen right here. Sorry. It's not the best easel. So, the bottom photograph actually indicates a sort of mix of hardwood and softwood pretty reasonably because this hardwood has started to color.

Mhm. And can I add that all of the image shows that we stayed well away from our property line and that we did not cut any of Mr. Songberg's trees? Well, and I don't think that's what we're Yeah. talking about tonight not not our issue.

So what are your thoughts about um what their proposal is and what you think would be required under the ordinance to adequately buffer from ground floor and second story uh the properties well um according I think it's the article you're mentioning it was paragraph

the buffer area B I copied some of that language on here just because just so it was could be in one place. But um essentially in the I think 1B and maybe the second paragraph down starts with the word screening shall be

screening shall be defined as eliminating any view to humans standing at ground level of residential use. I don't I don't think I have to read the rest of that but that's pretty clear. you know anybody any human standing at the ground level of this residence should not be able to see any of the commercial use.

So what's required to accomplish that? So what's required what I did here um I took the skills proposal that we looked at which was um submitted about a week ago week and a half ago and it is to scale. That's right. Um the only thing it doesn't show uh is what's happening on the other side. It shows the building, the Burnham garage. Um, it shows trees spaced 12 feet on center, um, roughly 100 foot length of trees. Um, but it doesn't show how that necessarily relates to the the the Sunbury property. And so what I did was I I literally I took what's represented in green here. These green dots are that exact plane

to scale. Um, and essentially I kind of drew this shed corridor. Um this is a this is a 50s scale drawing. So from the Sunberg residence basically took the corner of each you know the corner of the building itself drew a view shed to where the um commercial garage building is including

according to the ordinance any use which which it would be parking and unloading and all those things. So yeah, basically you can see the kind of angle of of viewshed dropped in to scale those nine trees. And the first thing you can begin to see is uh there's a little bit of a gap showing where these orange dots happen. So, uh, tree height aside, even if these trees were, you know, 50 feet tall to kind of totally cover the view, you'd still have a a sort of a sliver of uh 20 or 30 feet on this left hand side that would potentially have a view of that that edge of the building. Um, and so

diagram is. If we can jump quickly to this section diagram. You can see this section A A1. It's a scale basically showing Sunbury residence, Burnham garage. Sunberg residence, Burnham garage. The top section um kind of coincides with the the 2012 image. So basically showing the property line, showing the exist at that point existing trees. Um, and uh, the one

below is basically where we are today. Same scale. You can see the Sunberg residence. You can see the trees on the Sunberg property. Then you hit the line and as you said, you hadn't pushed into the Sunberg property, but you know, quite close to the edge. And uh

this little green viewshed here is essentially showing okay according to the the language in the ordinance any human viewing that building um you know roughly a 20 to 25 foot height would be needed to essentially fill that gap within the trees that's that's been left over. Um and and so for reference, what I've shown here is, you know, an 8 to 10 foot tall evergreen. Just for reference, just to say, hey, if we bought an 8ft tall um

tree, you know, it clearly wouldn't wouldn't uh So, what is what's required in order to meet the standards of the ordinance for a planting? Well, there's a little bit more work that would need to be done to truly confirm that. I think it would be as simple as as going out and using um

you know one of those surveyors rods. You probably see those things all the time. It's you know the guys doing a survey. It's like a red and white sort of steak stick. And you know for someone to stand here on on on the Sunberg's porch a surveyor stand there with a rod literally see how tall it is. I mean it's it's it's it's the next step. It would have to be confirmed. This 20 to 25 foot is a is a is a range. But to

before, you know, plants were purchased and finalized and whether I I showed this orange sort of burm there, whether a burm is potentially needed to help get a little bit more height to to get those trees planted. Um, can I ask a question?

Yeah. Um, how tall does a normal eastern hemlock get? Oh, uh, 50 to 70. And how long does it take to grow? Fast. Well, so if you start with a 10 foot tree, yeah. How many years till it's 20 feet? I mean, you could you could you could roughly say 12 to 18 inches a year.

12 foot a year. Yeah. On a hemlock, on a ball. Yeah. Really very similar. But you know, the the the the larger you go when you start out, of course, the slower they the slower the growth rate. You know, you start with a 6 to 8 foot tree. It'll grow a little bit faster, but of course, you're only starting with a 6 to 8ft tree, and that's it's not going to do much here. So, yeah, you start with a 10, it'll grow a little slower, but still it's, you know, a foot a year is another 10 years before a 10ft tree becomes 20 feet, which may still not even cover the view.

What do your orange dots represent? The orange dots represent uh one potential option. Um, these four orange dots here just simply say if you get the if these trees were tall enough off the bat, we'd still need another four trees in addition to those nine to

Yep. build the view. These are just saying, you know, with a little bit more work and confirming actual final grades and getting a surveyor out there to actually see is there a need to actually have more trees up um in this location to help even kind of close the gap between the rest of the tree that's as they're started on the edge there. It

is is it your belief that the nine trees proposed there would not be sufficient to meet the ordinance standards? Yes, that's yeah. No, I I do not think that they would. The the the ordinance is very very uh specific. And are you also saying that without doing the surveyor's work, uh you can't give an opinion right now as to roughly what would satisfy the ordinance?

Well, no. I I I do think roughly we could say 20 to 25 ft, but I can't I can't confirm that. 20 to 25 20 to 25 ft. You would need how many how many trees? Oh, what are you talking about? Yeah. 9 10 11 12 13 trees at 20 to 25 ft.

Um could could probably do the job, but it would need to be surveyed and finalized and whether it burn, you know, two, three, four, five more feet needed to to give it a little bit more additional. So a minimum total of how many trees would you think at that height?

14. No, I'm sorry. 13. Nine. 11 12 13 9 + at a height of what? 20 to 25 ft. So there's there's no buffer there now. Yeah, there's a natural buffer there as the Lord as the ordering says where no natural vegetation can be maintained or due to varying site conditions. This is all treed on his property. And then there's some

It shows right here in his description that there's at least 10 to 20 ft of our natural vegetation that's there existing. And I have to add that the same view because they're big old trees. We have the same exact view of his property that we did before the property was cut.

And the ordinance also says at ground level, not standing on Mr. Songberg's porch. Okay. Well, it actually says or from the windows of a twotory building. Yeah. which you know I didn't need to get. But then also his trees there

his drawing doesn't even depict the ground. Um was your question about the whether there's a buffer there now? Yeah, I was wondering if there was a natural buffer there now. Yeah, there is there is a natural there are trees within a buffer that do not eliminate a view from humans the building.

That's what I asked. We thought the smaller trees would fill in because the there's huge trees there now that would fill in the second story. There's 50, 75 foot, whatever huge trees. There's so many evergreens there now. That the lower trees, that's why I wanted fur and spruce stuff to stay smaller. The pines would be nice because they're full when they're little, but I was told as they get bigger, they drop their lower branches. We'd be in the same predicament that we are right now looking at

is lights. Well, you know, I mean, and him working. We wouldn't be having this problem if we had all those trees that were cut down between your garage and my house. Well, that's um it's on their land. That's fine. But, you know,

they have Yeah, they have a right to do it, but now they have a right. never to put it back. So the the section drawings at the top you're showing kind of around the property line it looks like a dip. Yeah. And is that is that how did you confirm that based on aerial?

This is there's information there's there are 10 foot contours available with the main GIS you know with with only uh since the 23rd to review this. We didn't have enough time to get a surveyor out there and really confirm the final, you know, one foot contours,

but that's based on images or data that's not accurate on not on here, right? Not in these not depicted in these pictures. Put the dip in there. Yeah. The dip is the dip is an interpolation of what of what we know is, you know, on the site. It's not a final. This is what I This is why I said it's a it's about 20 to 25 ft. We need to get a survey out there to confirm that. This is

so this isn't a site survey. This is just a Google survey, right? Yes. Yeah. Okay. trees at the end there buffer there, ft high? How do you know there's not already natural buffer there that's going to take care of that? I mean um as far as a photo of the existing would that help to

well is it basically the but there's a buff there are trees and but I I guess what's your definition definition of a buffer? I mean that you can see through the trees. You can see through the bottom of the trees and is it is it 20 to 25?

Well, you know what I'm saying? Yeah. Yeah. But yeah, it's a long ways through there too. Can you see the garage for my for my house? Yes. Can you see the bottom of the garage or the top of the garage? You can see from the bottom to the roof.

Okay. why we that the standards of the ordinance would be met if the plantings were increased that were 20 to 25 ft high and approximately 14 of them? Yeah. And that what they've offered is not 20. Well, maybe they could burm up some. definitely plant more and build a burn.

So, um, do you have an opinion on the appropriateness of the species they've chosen? Yes, I think they're fine. It's a fine selection. I like that there's a variety and they're all Low branching pattern like you said. I mean, it's all Yeah, it's it's

all indigenous. Yeah, they're the right tree location. Yeah, definitely. So if you planted trees that were say five feet tall, how long would it take to block the view? How many years would it take? Well, if we go by, you know, by the foot a year to get to 20 ft, 15 years.

to what height. So you're saying if you stand on the ground level, you can see the top of the garage and the bottom. Yeah, you can see. You can see you can see. So, let me ask you, if they planted trees that are 8 ft in height,

they What would you still be able to see? Assuming they planted the 14 trees you're proposing 8 feet in height, what would you be able to see from Mr. Sberg's ground floor? It's hard to explain. Just Well, so I mean, you're looking at the garage. Are you seeing 10 feet up the garage? Are you seeing only the top of the roof? for you. What are you What are you seeing?

I I think that's what we need to confirm by just literally it's getting a survey out there with a rod and you know if someone's standing there with a rod and says okay this is where 8t is and you can kind of you know look above that and you know it's

I wish I could say I mean you don't have a guess for me. Is it 10 feet? Is it I mean how high is the garage? 30. Certainly the second from the second floor of his house, you'd be able to see the garage. Well, just from the ground level, you it's like eye level to the foundation. So, um, and in between my house and their garage, it's like a valley. That's why

I know, you know, in order to obstruct that view, you know, I mean, at least 20 feet is like I don't know if that's even going to block it, but it certainly is a lot better than 8 feet. Well, but that doesn't quite answer my question. And maybe the answer is you can't answer my question. That's fine. No, I wouldn't be able without going out there with you and

getting rot out there and saying that's how much the the the buffering shall be sufficient to minimize the impacts of any kind of potential use such as loading and unloading, outdoor storage, vehicle parking, mineral extraction, waste collection and disposal area. That doesn't mean you can't see his roof.

if you expect not to see the roof of this garage, you know, I I just if if it's going to minimize the impact of loading and unloading operations and outdoor storage areas, it doesn't say that you have to screen the roof. Well,

this I would say the foundation of that house is at eye level to where I live. According to Google Maps, the foundation of his of his garage is 11 ft lower than the foundation of yours. Well, when I look, I mean, it's eye level. Appears to be eye level.

Yep. I understand. Well, by his but by his layout there, you're trying to screen everything, including the roof of this garage. I think that's goes a little so why don't we goes a little too far. Why don't we if there are any more factual questions we have for these folks and and the applicants, why don't we do that and then we can because it's our job to interpret the ordinance. So maybe then we can talk about what

you think needs to happen. I just have one sort of closing comment and it seems to me under the ordinance two things. Number one, you have to not be able to see it from the second floor of his house. Um, and two, it's their

burden to come before you and demonstrate that what they've provided, which is nine trees of no height that they've stipulated to will actually do the job. Mhm. And perhaps your, you know, one possible decision you might have is to wait until we can all get a surveyor out there and get the kind of scientific evidence that you're going to need to actually know what it's going to take. right now. If they've satisfied your burden by saying there'll be nine trees and we're not guaranteeing what height they'll be, but there they are, I I think that's not going to meet the burden of proof that they have to demonstrate that when he's upstairs in his house, he won't be able to see this thing. So, that's all we have.

Okay. Thank you. whatever you have? How how tall is your house in your house? How tall is it? It's a twotory house. I mean, I don't cape. I'm not sure if it's a cape or just Okay. Thank you. Yes, please. Why? Why don't you come up front?

what can we do? How tall are the trees going to be that you're going to plant? I think that's that's the missing piece that we need to decide. This is um we do need to know how tall they are that you guys are willing to purchase.

The largest ones that we can get. When I um hired this man to make the the map, he, you know, was happy to do it and didn't he scaled it. I don't know why he didn't set a height. I think it was because of availability and so um we're happy to add four more

trees and plant them, you know, purchase whatever is available. If we need 8 foot trees or 10ft trees, we will get those. Okay. So, um you'll add the four trees at the end and commit to 10ft trees. Sure. or 10 foot high trees whether they're on a burm or

well or not. Right. That's what I was going to I was going to suggest putting in a 4 foot burm or so and then planting the smaller trees that are going to grow faster opposed to buying older trees that are going to sit there.

is that adequate? Four feet do you think? I'm just threw that out. Well, you know, the question is, I mean, like it's been already said that my shop is the bottom of the foundation is 11 feet below already. So, that's 11 + 8, that's 18t. I mean,

21 ft should be should be adequate. So, and at this point, I just want to know what you're committing to or proposing to plant. Sure. Here. So if you're telling us four foot burm and six foot trees, then that's what we'll base our decision on. If you're telling us, you know,

if it's 10 feet to the top of the tree, however, that's accomplished. That's correct. arborite, like five foot arborite for the screening. and was recommended not to do that and to do the larger more indigenous, is that the right word? Species that would be survivors in that area.

I don't mind feeding deer, but not just with trees. I buy $100. Yeah. Feeding the deer. $100 snack per tree gets expensive. Yeah. adding four uh the trees you're going to buy are 10 ft. The trees that will be planted will be 10 ft and then 10 ft tall.

Okay. Whether there's a sixft burm or 4ft burm, they'll be 10 ft tall from Okay. the top of the tree. And that was four more trees along the 100 ft. Okay. I want to add them on this map to see what I'm agreeing to. So I I wrote down 10 ft to the top of trees, whether it's tree or berm that gets you to 10 ft. That's what I'm understanding you're proposing.

Is that correct? Okay. Yeah. That's what Well, let's um discuss. Yeah. First, I want to talk about what we think the ordinance actually requires. So, as I read the ordinance, it says, "No industrial or commercial buildings or uses shall be established in or about a residential use unless a landscape buffer strip is provided to visually screen the building or uses."

I think that means the building exists, so it's not being established. It's the use that's being established. Mhm. So, as I read the ordinance, and you guys can disagree with me, I think we need to screen the use, not the entire building.

Mhm. Great. coming in to the garage, that would be the use part of it? and the whole distance of the trucks coming in with towing or hauling the broken down vehicles would have to be screened. That's the use. Yep. So, we talked about and I think you're

Can we have your map? Oh, yeah. And unloading operation. Do you want small ones pass? That's even easier. Thank you. thing? I talked to him and any size tree can be purchased just there I've got an extra one here if needs one. You want one? Thank you.

24 ft. 24. I quote me, but I think so is like 17 plus 10 foot trusses. So 27. Yeah, 27. I think I put 27. It's been a while since I built. Yeah, it's been a while. use and not the whole building. So what that order says is that the usage is what needs to be buffered, not the

Well, what the ordinance what the what they're interpreting and is is trying to interpret the ordinance to say, which I would agree with, is that what's being established at this time under this permit is what needs to be screened. If you were building the building now,

that would be different. That would be different. This building's existed for several years according to the evidence provided um by Mr. Sunsburg expert there's a three-year period there that the building is already there. So, according to the ordinance um and I would agree with Ann's interpretation because the building is pre-existing that the activity is what the screening actually needs to um to cover.

Sure. So therefore, they added four trees on the end wouldn't be necessary. No, it would. According to the drawing, I would agree that the four trees would be required. You're still using it using that area. But the first 50 ft wouldn't be necessary because that's to buffer our home,

not the garage. Well, if you look at the at the angle, so you're going to have to buffer. This is basically the area you're going to be using. So that's going to have to be buffered. So that's still a pretty good, right? So that makes sense.

Yeah. So just doing math which uh we bisect that angle in half that we have on the f on the top piece. Uh 20 to 25 ft tree will screen 27 ft. And I know these are all approximate. I get it. Um, then a 10 to 12 1/2 ft tree should screen 13

and 1/2 ft up the side of the garage. Nice. She does math, too. I like the idea of the barn with the planting on this map here. It'll probably help the trees grow, too. Yeah. Get them out of the clay. Yeah. I don't know. Dirt can be expensive, too.

Oh, you get plenty of that. Yeah, cuz made every day. 1/2 ft being uh Yeah. So, if if 20 to 25 would screen to the top of the garage, which is 27, 10 to 12 and a half would screen 13 and 1/2 ft up. screen screen the use provided that the both places were at ground level like

yeah I mean according to his drawing we all understand there's fuzziness built into that sure um I get that um and I'm guessing well a typical flatbed is 7 ft to the top of the cab plus the car sitting in the back. If the bed is at 3 ft and the car is at five, that's eight or nine feet. I think that would be reasonable.

Right. Most stuff isn't done by truck anymore. It's all done by flat. Okay. So, that might be maybe 10 feet maybe. garage. Yeah. Below the sophetia garage. Yeah. For the use. Yeah. in your door. That's right. And you guys um you're not the parking will occur Basically, if you look at this cone that he's drawn.

Yeah. Um the parking is not going to occur outside of that. So, this this area is a riding ring. Is that right? Yeah. Yeah. That's all personal use over there. Yeah. Okay. The crooked riding ring. I told you that we needed one more post there and you didn't believe me.

It proves it right there. I know. You look at it from our out of our house. It's straight as perfectly straight. It does. But aerial view just It's cuz the driveway's bent. You wonder why your horse always drifts left. They do. I have

horses lean towards a green bag. That's true, too. I have this left problem when I So you think it's not the building, but the use of the building that has to be screened. Well, the language of screening shall be defined as eliminating any views to humans standing at ground level of the residence.

Open any window of a twostory building within such location. Doesn't say right below that says first burger does think about what you're talking about. You know, you all live in a rural area. The purpose of this is so that when you go upstairs or something, you don't see a business operation right next to you.

Well, but the purpose of this is that when a business operation is established, you're screening whatever that new whatever's coming on your property. So that garage has existed as a so the new thing is the business use of it. So the commercial vehicle, you know, the vehicles coming in for commercial service.

That's right. And it does include buildings or uses, not buildings and uses. The language is fairly specific in either or as determining the impact in my opinion. When I when I chatted with him just a second ago, he said that the 14 trees would suffice if they were the right size. If they're not of the right size, then 14 trees is

So what's the right size? Well, that yeah, that that's what needs to be confirmed. 20 or 25 ft based on based on my initial analysis of but that was to screen to the top of the garage and right now we're at the place where that's not required. What's required is screening the vehicles coming in and out

activity that's going on on the property. So your math is better than mine. Sure. But you know I bicted that angle. Yeah. And so if you cut down the trees or you Yeah. have the trees and you have the height. Half the size of the trees that you propose, the 20 25 feet should screen up to 13 and a half ft on the barn on the garage. Right.

I'm sorry. I didn't I didn't follow that. So, I just drew I just drew a line up the middle of your your angle here. Right. So, if 20 to 25 foot trees take you here, half of that angle should be 12 and 1/2 ft. Right. 12 and a half foot trees, 10 to 12 and a half foot trees.

So if the 20 to 25 foot trees took you to the top and we know the top is 27 feet, then half of that should take you to 13 and a half, right? Yeah. Although I the whole purpose of that and I would call it a diagram because it's it's definitely not is to that that needs to be confirmed. Just you know I you would want to go out there and just confirm what that height really is. It's it it'd be a quick thing. I mean, it's not You'd hate to sit here today, say 10 feet, and then realize, man, you're missing four feet and four feet can be a big big deal.

You're missing 10 feet or 10 feet or 15 feet or whatever it is. information to decide whether 10 foot whatever um is sufficient to screen the use? pretty well. "How does the snow have to all melt before you could actually get the information to you folks?" And he says, "You can go out there right now and do it."

Well, you know what I was explaining with, we could take a surveyor's rod if we have in our office, go out there, stand there, see where the 25 foot mark is and see if it would do. You know, you'd have to have you'd have to have a 14oot tow truck in in the use to sort of make sure that you cover that. But It's all

So what if we what if we made the application conditional on Paul going out and confirming that a 10-ft tree will screen because we don't honestly the 13 and 12 feet I don't think needs I don't think we need that much screening even

I think we need to, you know, if a tow truck is 7 feet, I think we need seven or eight or nine ft scraping. Well, besides the fact the majority of the activities taking place on the two sides of the garage that don't face the butter's property,

right? Yeah. True. But we do we have, you know, if cars are parked in front, we have an obligation to make sure that those are screened. I'm with you on that. Um, that a condition? Would you be okay with that? Yeah. I mean, if that's what you want me to do, that's what I'll do. I'll do it to the best I can. Um, as long as we're clear about what it is I'm supposed to do.

Yeah. Yeah. No, we'll need to make this so it's what our standards are clear. Um I'd say that it'd be nice if the property owners got together and agreed, but I'm guessing that's not going to happen. We've already said that. I think we've had that conversation.

We did. It didn't go far. Um can I ask a couple of questions of the landscape architect? Yes. And what what what do you estimate the cost would be to go to Mr. your son to Birchard and do a shot to the barn to the garage at that 12t height and then do a shot at the location of the trees to determine how high they need to be. What What would you give me a ballpark idea? You're going to spend a couple hours out there doing that?

Oh, if if I were to do that if you were doing it. Yeah, if I were to do that in a couple hours, sure. It would be a couple hundred dollars. Okay. or you'd get it, you know, you could also get a professional surveyor to do it even faster than I could and and I can't confirm how much

Well, but you're the expert here and this is what you were saying would be the would be, you know, the determinant option. Um, so I mean my my the only reason I'm hesitating before the board here is because I'm not sure that I have the proper material to make

to do to shoot the site and feel sufficient in in what I would have to stand on as far as that's concerned. Yeah. Um, well, I'm thinking you'll mostly be a referee. Okay. I'm guessing that's the case, too. So, I'm going to go out with padding on both sides. Um,

I think the client would be willing to pay for that cost to get that done to present to the board and I would like to be um I would like a requisite to that to be that I be present for that too. I will go out and meet them when they do that.

Well, and I think the challenge here is we want we want your screening and we want it to be adequate for how we've interpreted the ordinance, but we've already held this application up for three months now. This is our third time back here. So, that's our um

that's why I I'm not sure how we craft it, but that's why I'd like to make it a condition of the permit rather than requiring it to come back here. Absolutely. Yeah, that makes sense. I was hoping to do that last month. So if we were to make the condition of approval that I meet the butters representative out there at the time they're going to shoot the elevations and the visual elevations between what would be the proposed screened activity and Mr. Sunberg's um yard and make a determination from that the extent of the height of the buffering that's necessary and can we give that a plus or minus? I mean they the ordinance allows this

tree will grow the trees to grow in in a year or two and if it's 18 inches a year can we be within two or three feet of that with what they're able to get or um it's a little hard to know too if Skillins has availability of I mean you can certainly go to a landscape uh provider and buy trees that are 60 feet tall at $30,000 a shot I don't think that

but I don't think that that's the Yeah. So, so crafting that in that in that way then I Yes, I would feel comfortable in overseeing that for the board. So, here's move to find that the buffer and landscaping plan is presented on the condition on the condition that 14 trees are planted. The trees the tops of the trees are no lower than 10 feet. So that's a minimum. Even if it's

with a four, even if you only need six feet to screen it, I want you to plant 10 feet. So that's a minimum. That's what you proposed. Um and that those trees are sufficient to screen the area of the garage to a height of 10 ft. Um

the area of the garage would be at 10 ft at 10t from the ground level of the garage. From the at the garage that that just wanted to know where that need 10 ft need to be measured. That's all at the side. Yeah. at the garage and and over you know in this parking lot area more in the parking lot.

Yeah, actually it is going to be more in the parking lot but and that sits so low or thing is so the 10 foot is a minimum if Paul and everyone decides you need 12 ft trees and you're unhappy with that you can come back if you want to just plant the 12oot trees as far as I'm concerned you have your conditional use permit.

Sure. Or buffer or or burm it up. Yeah. If Paul says two feet high or lower, that's what we'll do. Well, the determination will come from having a Yeah. All right. So, clear as mud. Yes. Yeah. So, what that says is that regardless of what the gentleman that comes out to

survey it, you know, if he says there's a three only a three-ft tree needs to be planted or whatnot, it still has to be in condition 10 ft. 10 ft. Yeah. You guys propose this 10 ft. So the top of the tree with the BM. Yep. Top of the tree has

whatever it takes to get to the top of that tree 10 ft. You can do a 9 foot BM and a one foot tree if you want. We can do it. All right. Hang them in. But they're going to have to be full enough to do the approximate what we've got here.

Um so no sticks. Can I get a second on that? Second. Wait, let me make sure that Jill read it back. Well, the other thing is I just want to be sure. So I would have to get on I'd have to get on the site. I'd have to put a rod up right up next to the garage to show a 10 foot height, you know, doing the simple trigonome.

Yeah. So you'll need to plan and get however the magic works. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. 10 ft on the garage has to be screened. Whatever that tree height is, minimum of 10 ft. We all promise to act like adults that day. Definitely.

And that's condition. Your motion's conditional on them going out to see what it would actually take. The motion's conditional on the on the buffering meet a certain height above the ground level at the garage. That's what it's not conditional on anybody shooting anything. It's just a matter of as a verification to what that might need on their behalf. I think that you guys working together in that way is a great idea. Um, it ensures that your client gets as much as possible in buffering and it ensures that the Burnhams have a pretty good idea about how to try to achieve that without telling them they have to buy a $30,000 tree or fill in three acres of land.

I I think it's a great solution. All right. Okay, Jill, do you need help? I think I'm I think Okay, so that's my motion as clear as it was. So, we got a second or a second. Show hands. I'm going to abstain because I wasn't here for the other two meetings.

Right. Motion carries. Do we need a final vote on whether this application passes? Yes. Okay. But we should. I move to find Wait, wait. New piece of paper. All right. New piece of paper. I move to find that the application

be approved subject to the conditions that we've discussed over all three meetings. Second. Show of hands. I will againain. Approve. Thank you. Thank you. move. Thank you all very much. I appreciate it very much. Sorry. Yeah.

I'm just going to be quiet cuz we're still on TV. I know. Well, it's you know, I I get it and I understand and I tried to talk to him. You're still on TV. I don't care. No. I you know I I do similar stuff for a living. I'm an attorney. I represent municipalities and handwrites. Just neighbor fights neighbor fights and family fights.

Yeah. Yeah. Same with every reasonable. So you did well. Good. It is what it is. It was hard to bite the time the whole time. I know. And it's hard to believe. I've seen worse. That is hard to believe, but I believe it. Also bad that guy had a heart attack and driveway and died.

Nuhuh. Here He was so upset over the Yeah, I got sick like the last two times got my hand before. It's stressful just because you feel like you've done everything and you get in here and it's like what? We've already gone over all of that.

And I thank you for reminding him. We're still on TV. One of you for everyone. It is hard for everyone. We need one of you to come and see me tomorrow. I will take the day off tomorrow. What time? Well, I'm in at 1:00 until 6:00.

He'll be here. Deal. Thank you. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Thank you. What is it recently with Three times is like the charm. This one Earl came in three times. Ariel is gonna have to come back in. Yeah. Ariel's just going to run a while, I think, too, cuz she's got an abutter that is just adamant about it not happening.

Honestly, Ariel's got to do a better job with her application. Yeah. Yeah, that was really hazy. That was I understand. I've done the best I can to try. There's nothing else I can do. At some point it just she gets to throw herself at the mercy of the board and that's my job is over.

Yep. Yeah. N I'll just work out a email back and forth time. Yeah, that would be fine and we'll try to figure something out that works well for you and we'll get it taken care of. Great. Thank you. Thank you. Just be able to find it.

Is there any new business? Budget discussion. I have a couple of things. One, um, and I and I had talked to Todd a little bit about this. I I really was short on time when it came to presenting some budget ideas to the selectman, um, because of Mr. Tom's departure and Todd coming on and stuff. So, at the last meeting to make sure it made it to the budget committee, I requested of the select board that they include $5,000 in the planning board's budget for um ordinance work.

I'm on the budget committee. You are. How much of it made it? It made it. All right. So, so what will that get us? Who will that get us? Well, there's we have there are two options that I'm pursuing on behalf of the board. Um the one is um Nicole Briant who is the code enforcement and town planner for Bowdenham uh who after eight years or might be 10 now her and I have worked together. She's taken an ordinance that looked much like ours and reduced it to about it's about that thick. It's very comprehensive. It's very easy to work with. Um, I have spoken also with Ruth in regards to that that it might be uh financially the best advantage because we could hire her as an employee with a uh an agreement with the town of Bodenham. Um, she would be able to offer about five hours a week or so. Um, not exactly certain how much, but we would essentially looking at the ordinance in three separate phases. Uh the first

phase would be to just try to condense the ordinance, get the overlap out of it, get the inconsistencies out of it, all of that sort of stuff, which would probably take away in my mind close to a third of what's there already. Um and and so essentially when it comes to bringing that and this would be for the um the 2015 2016,

not this year's meeting, but next year's town meeting. Um if so if there's any kind of push back on that basically we we're just kind of rearranging it and cleaning it up. Make it a little more workable document that's a little easier to understand by both the board and the applicants because there's a lot of it in here that gets a little bit confusing.

Well, I think there's a recognition by the select and the bud budget committee that the ordinances are in dire shape. Yeah, they really need help and the committee can't continue to nickel and dime it months on end trying to fix it. We need to bring in an outside consultant.

Yeah. And it's right. You only got a couple hours a month here to try to work on something and you just can't get much done in a year. So, you really need someone that and I I trust Nicole, but just to to be on the safe side, I also have gotten a hold of this woman, Stephanie Carver, who's working for GPCOG. Um, she's also going to put together a proposal. She was supposed to have it for this meeting and apologized yesterday to me via email that she didn't get it here. So, at least we'll have a couple of options to look at. So, she's trying to put together Stephanie's trying to put together a sort of an outline and a and a cost estimate. There used to be some money provided by the state to sort of help the towns with this, but um the most recent couple of years work up there has evaporated almost all of that. Um, so the the the

second part of that being is if it makes it through the town meeting, what I'd like to do is arrange for Nicole to come over and do an interview with you guys and sort of allow her to show you what it is that she was able to do with our ordinance and some of her perspective. She's really bright. Um, and she's good and I uh I appreciate her work. So, that's would be my first preference, but I just thought it was fair we get a look around at what's what's out there and what it would run.

Yeah. Well, we're hooked up with GPC COG now. Yeah. Well, GPCOG was not very encouraging about the dollar figure. So, because they're going to be considerably more expensive for an hour's time. Well, and AVCOG was not useful.

Yeah. And I'm kind of irritated that we spent all that money to start with. But I do I think we need to talk to at least two. Yeah. And see what their approach will be, what their quotes will be, and decide yes, we want one of them or we want to keep looking and see what else is out there.

Yeah. So that's basically what I would get get you guys some information, get you guys some ideas about some kind of presentation. Yeah. And you know, and um and then you have a copy of Bowden's ordinance? I do. It's actually in the office. I can Let me grab it real quick.

just spin through and see how much easier this actually is. I think if we had an set of ordinances that were easier for people to read, it wouldn't be so irritated when they get here. Just so you know, well, but also for us

the subdivision like that freaking backlot ordinance, what does it say? That ordinance. Well, and Nicole and I both looked at that and essentially that language can be done in about two or three paragraphs and just inserted into the land use ordinance and abandon all the other parts about it.

Exactly. What I've been saying for 10 years. Yeah. And just and and still essentially protect the town in the same way. Um this is far more comprehensive than Durham's ordinance. Mhm. But that's the land use, flood zone, subdivision,

and uh shoreline zone. So, this is online. You can go on to the I'm pretty sure it's online site and Yeah, it should be there. Go on and spin through it. Yeah. Oh, feel free to one of you if you'd like one of you to take it and go through it. I can I can try to get you more copies. That's my

That's You should keep you a copy, but I have I have another one. It's online. I think we can handle and I'm going to get a new one in about a month anyway because we've made revisions for this year's amended every year pretty much. Yeah, we go through it. Our planning board is pretty good about going through the or regularly going through the ordinance.

So would we have a goal in terms of a time frame for doing this? Like would we say calendar year or Yeah. would the idea would be that the whatever the first phase is outlined to be would be prepared for next year's town meeting to be voted on. Yeah. Um, so that that would that that's what I'm representing the idea to be if the board agrees that that's where they want to go with it. I'm not trying to get in your way here, but I just

a discreet time frame, you know, so it's not just kind of constantly rolling. Well, yeah, I think goals and times are important and that's going to be your discussion with whoever sits before you in the in the interviews is we need to we need to feel confident that we can get to this point by this time,

right? Yeah. Unfortunately, it's not their fault or but we've been spinning our wheels for a long time on this and and well, you just you can't do this as a committee. You can't. No, you can't. It's No, you can't. You can't sit down here and decide what the meaning of what is. It takes you three months.

20 minutes to talk through a definition. Yeah, exactly. We haven't gotten out of the definition section, right? Yeah. So, and it's not our fault. It's not what we're doing. You can't do this work as I think it's actually structurally inappropriate to try to do this work in committee.

And the reality is is John Maloney was supposed to give us something to work with and he didn't give us enough to work with. No, sometimes I think that that in in John's defense, sometimes I think it's a little hard for them to get a sense of I'm going to give you a document and this is what I would pass. Now do what you want with it versus try to figure out how to sort of just keep sneaking things in. Well, if you don't want to do this, do this. And they kind of just wander around in circles after a while. a little bit difficult. So

productive. Yeah. My interpretation would be to put a document together and say if this were my choice, this is what I would do, then you guys can go through it and then amend it. Stick to the principles of our current ordinance while cleaning it up significantly. And if there are places where we take you know this principle doesn't work like tonight we were talking about if a new commercial building is built it has to be screened from the second floor of a residential building

within a th000 ft. Do we do we really need do we really need that? Yeah that's a good question. So there are some substantive conversations we need to have but a lot of it is just organizational. Well, see, but and that's the reason why this sort of facing with the first part just just getting the garbage out

if you get rid of the inconsistencies and because the discussions we can have those much larger discussions come into play when people start saying you're going to let somebody put a Walmart next to my house and not have to sc you know so the the at least the initial cleanup part if there's no essential significant changes to the focus or scope of the ordinance most folks are probably not going to get in the way of it at meeting and at least we wind up with a cleaner document. And through the cleaner document and using it, a lot of these things like these buffers and so on, we we're going to be hitting our heads on them and we're going to just start making bullet notes, okay, for next year. And the other approach to that is that in the following years as you decide to amend the ordinances, I would recommend if you think that it's going to be a fight to do your amendments one at a time. Yeah,

it makes a long meeting, but at least some of it will get put through. And then you, you know, you move the ball and chain another three feet and the next year you just keep going because sometimes what happens that people dig their heels and if you hand them an ordinance with a lot of changes and it's an up or down vote, you're going to get a down vote on it most of the time because people don't understand what they're reading very much. Um, so it's a decision that you guys will want to make as to just how encumbered you want to be in regards to the town meeting and and recommendations for ordinance changes, but um we and check out their backload ordinance.

I like it. It does. And it does everything you want to do. It says a backlot shall. Yes. Not, you know, the planning board may have to consider this if the definition I got there from the definition on the front in less than five minutes

and that's all and done. There you go. How nice would that be? So, definition calls for no furniture. Yeah. Um, all right. Do we do we need to address shoreland at some point? We have to. Yeah, we are we are under shore. No, we do we are under state um imposition,

but we don't have an ordinance, right? We do not have an ordinance, but anyone in the shoreline zone still has to comply with the state shoreline zone standards. So, I'm required as a CEO to see that they comply even though it's not in our ordinance. It makes it very confusing for folks that are trying to do work.

Yeah. So, how would that work on enforcement? Could we enforce? Yeah. um you're required to enforce quite a bit of it by state law, right? But we don't have an ordinance. So, you have to use the state statute. You have to use the state guidelines in here and a shoreline zone permit. And you're going to get one coming this spring. And I've got a copy of the guidelines.

Um but that is something that between the shoreline zone and the forestry issues, those sorts of things, and the new FEMA maps in regards to the flood zone locations, all of that stuff has got to get inputed into this thing in the next year. And so we're all going to have a lot of work to do on it in that regard. Um but yeah, I I'm the shoreline zone has got to go in there and Nicole did a nice job in setting it up in there because there's a lot of shoreline zone in Bingham, both title and non-title. Unfortunately for Durham, you don't have any title,

right? Which makes it a lot cleaner to just try to go about it. you're into, you know, significant river se segments, great ponds and aquifers and swamps and, you know, wetlands and stuff, which is a lot easier to try to sort of understand. But, but yeah, so, you know, as soon as I know a little more about the any of the permitting coming up in that regard, I'm going to I'll try to get you guys some information and in dealing with the shoreline stuff because you're going to have to hear it

and it Yeah. So, so this binder I have has things that say like waste facilities, electrical, plumbing. Is all of that in here or they have separate the plumbing stuff of course is the state statute. Okay. The electrical statute in ours is is really nothing in it and it actually could be eliminated because in in when in here it requires that they comply with the NEC and the most current state adopted version of the NEC it's already covered. So short of getting a permit, the only thing we need is the town of Durham has a blurb in the land use ordinance. Now Bowdenham doesn't have an electrical ordinance.

So this is fairly comprehensive then in terms of it's really comprehensive. Yeah, it covers pretty it covers almost everything. Of course we're the same as Bowdenham and plumbing that it's all state. Um so that's the same. Um, so the only thing we do different here in Durham versus Bowenham, in Bowenham, you want to do electrical work, you get a state permit from the state inspector. In Bowdenham, you come to me and get it. And but other than that, it's all the same rules. They're all following the same book as to the NEC up here. There's nothing in the ordinance that outlines much of that.

I think the cable stuff and things along that line that are in there, a bunch of that's on in sort of doesn't even need to be for us. That's sort of John's baby, you know, that the communication stuff and so on. Yeah. And that's just exactly the kind of sort of stuff the waste the solid waste ordinance in there um we've been in violation of for about 14 years because it requires that the town hire a specific individual company to do the solid waste and we haven't been using them forever. There's it's when you really start getting into this thing and start looking at the way it was constructed. It was constructed to deconstruct. Everything fell apart after a short period of time. So the the language in the perspective wants to be that it can carry forward what the current perspective is. You know that you don't call for a specific NEC 2014 and then don't update it for 16 years. You call for whatever the current state

requirements are. Yeah. I mean there's an argument that you can do that. Uh well it's yeah it's it depends and and well with the NEC it's a little easier but um so but those are the kinds of discussions we need to have and to just try to look through as how we want to you know how the board wants to present this to the selectman and um then that's kind of where we're at. The only other thing I had I I did I did throw this together. I might need to re-evaluate um the language. That's not the right one. I'm supposed to have more of these here. Yeah, I do. Okay.

the on the um subdivision ordinance road acceptance uh requirements so that they comply equally with the land use road acceptance requirements. There was just a small change in language, but but I was under the impression we were hoping to present that at this at this meet at this uh upcoming town meeting

town meeting. So just replace the top paragraph 4 with the bottom paragraph 4. It requires that the uh it go to town vote, which it needs to anyway because that's state law. The subdivision ordinance seemed to indicate that the road committee could accept the road.

Oh, that's right. That's right. the written unanimous approval of the road acceptance committee? Um, there's a need to evaluate the private road is actually meeting the um the allowable standard in the growth district um and has been built to that standard and they all need to agree in order to send it off to town meeting. I'm

so the the road commissioner and the code enforcement officer are the ones who are to make the the majority of the determination about the standard that needs to be met. The road committee is to make the determination that the standard has been met and then agree together to send it forward. So if somebody on the road commission decides they don't want it going to town meeting, it doesn't go.

That's the new language. Is that No, one of them one of actually the the bottom p bottom number four is actually language verbatim out of the land use ordinance. the the top paragraph is verbatim model of the subdivision ordinance and they're not the same and they need to be the same.

So the bottom number four you're just pulling out of the land use ordinance to make them consistent exactly to bring them into into um Okay. So they're the same that they don't make sense is they're just going to make sense in the same way or not sense in the same way both documents. So the question is, my question is, do we want them to actually make sense or do we just want them to be nonsensical but consistently nonsensical?

I think at this point for this year, just make them consist. Yeah, make them the same. Nonsensical is good at this point. And that's one of those things that will be low bar. It's one of those things for the next year that we'll, you know, you guys are going to want to start to look into and and get some ideas on and

Okay. Then do you need um do we need to recommend make a recommendation on this to the board of selectmen? Yes, I think that would be appropriate. Okay. So I move to recommend the changes to the subdivision ordinances summarized in this sheet.

Can I hear a second? Second. All those in favor? And then this will probably go to Jack for review before it it does read better. Yeah, it's a little more at least be the same. I mean, do we think it needs to go to Jack if we know a it doesn't make sense?

Well, the select the select board will probably send all of the warrant articles to Jack. So, as an article for town meeting, I think they'll probably just it will just go the standard route as far as I know. I could be wrong in that, but I believe that's the sort of standard protocol in case he sees something in there, he can flag it or stuff. So,

planning board should um make a point of coming to the public hearings for the warrant article in case there's any questions or things that need to be brought up on this. It's one of the discussions I had with with Todd. I'm not from Durham. So, in regards to the ordinance, you guys are the ones that have to sell the program.

So, that's something you guys can figure figure that part out. So, try to remember that caveat that I put on being vice president. Can't come to town meeting. Yeah. N one of the FEMAs. What is this? It's a FEMA CD. I've got the new ones issued by FEMA, but is this the old one? Oh, yeah. That's not even relevant anymore.

You should can keep it for file it. Yeah. File. Filed. I have one thing. All right. Yeah, we covered everything. Uh, we need to do the minutes. Yeah. Oh. Oh, that's right. Sweet. minutes. The way we do minutes, um I'm used to minutes being not as explicit as our minutes. Is it typical for this committee to have

that? We've had pretty explicit minutes because always a question. Can it end up in court? Yeah. Well, it's generally accepted the minutes are supposed to be sort of a brief outline of the meetings with with the with the important things like votes and stuff are supposed to be very specific.

Seven, eight, nine pages. Um I have cut back quite a bit. Mhm. Um and when there is um actual action on a um application, then there really isn't much need for um explaining why things aren't going forward or who didn't bring everything in

or what they're supposed to bring the next time. when we run through them, the criteria and then the approval, it's zip, zip, zip, um, four pages isn't really a whole lot. No, considering one page essentially is your um,

yeah, agenda. Agenda, I'm fine with that. I'm trying to get a sense of what the history has been committed about making them as easy as possible. We should not tonight, but at some point when we're quiet, we should have a conversation about how we want to document our decisions.

That's that's sort of my point. Um especially on contentious issues, should we be issuing findings of fact and conclusions of law? Yes, we just want to rely on our minutes. um which is what we've been doing. But we should we should have a real conversation about who drafts those, how they get done, how we document our decision because right now we're just relying on the minutes.

Yeah. And as it stands right now, if anything goes to appeal, it will be sent back here to complete a finding of fact and conclusionary statements. Well, it dep there are some types of applications that require them. Yeah. some it just requires written documentation of it and it's not clear whether that would get kicked back but either way we should talk about what we want our best practices to be

um and I miss the conversation with Jack so I don't know if that came up but it was that was what most of that meeting was about was that conclusionary statements and finding of facts are critical to the board's decision-making process and need to be need to be done

without any documented about clearly documented statements as clear as possible. Findings of fact and conclusionary statements need to be specific to the application and not general. So in some measure somehow what's happening has to actually get brought into the wording that the ordinance outlays as far as finding what this I find this particular condition to be met because in this particular case so so and so's project

in this particular circumstance represents this environment and that's why therefore it I agree that it meets the requirements of the ordinance. So there's a sort of specificity that's that's um that's usually looked for.

Right. And that's a little different than what I was saying is the question I'm raising is how do we document it? Right now we just document it with Jill's notes. if she's doing if if she's doing well enough in representing what you know pretty much word for word what the conclusionary statements were and the findings are um and you know the votes as long as that's documented cleanly and clearly and they should be actually set as a separate set of documents that go into the file with the condition approval. um a copy of the of the findings and conclusions should be in the file.

So if we had a clear set of minutes for each month that for say Bernhams were here in the file with the Burnhams would that be good enough for Yeah. Well, I would had been I've been given Jill a copy of the um the both the application checklist and the approval criteria. And in the approval criteria, I've been I' I hope I did it more than once. I've been trying to leave her enough room to write in underneath each one exactly what's said.

And then that should actually be typed up and mimicked line for line, particular item for item. you know what the what the um the what it is that needs to be met and how the board found that had been met and then that's exactly what should go in the file.

So it's a little bit more it should be that should also be in the minutes but the there should be a copy outside of the minutes that's included in the application. So, I think we should have a conversation later about because you're right, our minutes are because we've got a full public record through the videotape.

We've got very detailed minutes, but they're not easy to pick out because they're so detailed. They're not easy to pick out. Okay, criteria A was met because X B. So maybe we should talk about whether we want the minutes to be very high level.

Mhm. And we just have this detailed findings that we make whether we want to keep them in all in the minutes which is what we have now. We should just we should have that conversation at some point. Yeah. As long as we've got a clear set of we go here, here, and here and then

and frankly that review checklist is going to have to be amended, edited because it doesn't address the general standard. So like when Mr. Somberg's first attorney came in, she pointed out the buffer and the issues and that's not in our checklist.

So the checklist for the conditional use application are particular to the application. The as far as as I understand it, the um general performance standards have to be met by everybody, right? But we're not looking at them because they're not on our checklist. We just march through the checklist.

Yeah. Um when we do ours on in Bodenham, we don't our our our ordinance is structured really differently. So we wind up covering all the bases in that regard. Um the other thing that what that you guys should discuss and and it seems to become um general practice among boards is that the minutes are um signed and dated as they're accepted and put into the record by all the members of the board that were at the meeting. Um so

so it's not just a matter of just accepting them and then going on now. Well, we could take a a copy of this. I'll sign it. Right. You take a copy, you you know, you mention and mark the amendments and then when it's when it's updated because of what you wanted updated, you know, so and so said so and so now that I think that this went this way and you recommend changes, then at the next meeting, the minutes would be represented with the changes that you required has as you approved them and there would be a signature page on there that you would all sign.

In essence, that happens. Now, um, rewrite these after they get done ma making changes. Yes, I do. Yeah. Good. Good. Yeah. So, they just we just need a title page when signature page. If you go online, if Ann has made changes,

which you have a propensity to do, um, what do you say? you will see um the the original the first set of minutes they are not advertised until they're approved and I put amended minutes of let's say January 1st amended February 1.

signature page on that goes on the website. And additionally, um once the minutes are approved by you, I have an original. It gets filed in the meetings minutes book for the planning board as required by the town. And um

so I also send them to John for posting. So that's done within two or three days after the meeting, the actual meeting. I'm not sure we need I'm not sure why we need to sign minutes, but if we are going to be keeping a separate document that's going to be our findings of fact and conclusions of law, if that's what we decide to do, those are typically signed. But if we vote to accept the minutes, I'm not sure why we need to sign them.

No, they're my they're my minutes. I'm the one that's signing them. Um that this is becoming standard practice now either, but I can talk to Leah or look into it a little bit, but it seems to be the way that the program is going. Well, I think this is a conversation. You know, maybe we add that onto our conversation, but I do think we need to have a conversation about how we document our decisions.

I I'm okay. I would um anybody see anything that needed to be changed in the minutes? Um I mailed them out to you all last week. Yeah, look to me. Hoping to get some feedback so they would slide through nicely tonight because of the Sunberg and Burnham issue.

said that. Stop waiting. I'm going to move to approve the minutes. Yeah. As presented. As presented. I'll second it. All right. Get a vote. Boy, you made me sweat there. All those in favor. enough of a pain tonight. I abstained since I wasn't present.

Yeah. Well, all right. Can I hear a motion to uh close? So moved. Motion to adjourn. Second. All done, John.