TranscriptPlanning Board Meeting ~ December 6, 2023

[Music] we've determined the Quorum the next thing is amendments to the agenda so what I propose if no one has any objections that we move item 4 B which is uh information Exchange with residents uh to aead of fora so it' be residents Town officials and nonresident non-residents under of the informational exchange any objections to that see none

uh acceptance of the minutes I actually have an amendment or proposed thought um could we no it's okay could we add a discussion of our I don't know what to say here like the proposed mitigation for folks impacted by our resource protection ordinance could that just come under the issue of draft amendments yeah absolutely because that was part of it oh okay yeah absolutely yep yep if we can if we can make it last because we got a bunch of stuff to to get through in a reasonable time today yes so we'll do um the completement

review and then we'll do discussion of draft amendments starting with housing density and then if there's time remaining we'll try to make make sure there's time at least to start the discussion we can hit it next time too it's not really I yes I'd like to do it so yeah okay any other comments so we're going to include that as part of the item six okay I don't think that needs a vote so we will just do it so uh Lois if you

would care to step up don't go back to minutes oh minutes yes than so excited do we have a motion on minutes I'll make that motion to accept the minutes from November 1st second moved and seconded any comments seeing none please raise a hand if you approve I'm GNA stand just because I was there okay uh 401 they are now thank you and again I appreciate the fact that you switched it around a little bit to do

you I'll talk fast like you did when you came to art committee 16 not that I was counting um my name is Lois kby Chesley I don't know that I've met some of you but some of you I do know I'm a resident of Methodist corners and run around Pawn Road I'm here this evening because I watched with interest as my neighbors have tried to find a solution to the miscalculation of the durm resource protection map I've been part of a meeting and feel strongly that the map is based on Incorrect and incomplete information in fact Jerry Douglas when I was meeting on another matter stated that the map is a 30,000 F foot approximation of the area I know for a fact that there may be seasonal water in spots in the fields in the area but they are not sustainable year round following an a freedom of access

act request to the main inland fisheries and wildlife I also received from Becky or a an email of which I'm just going to take a few minutes and just do parts of it but I will give a copy to Mr talet and Mr theurge for your files if anyone wants to read the whole letter starts off with dear Lois quote an adult Blanding turtle was

found crossing the road back in May of 2000 in Durham that has puzzled us for years given the the location is just far enough outside of what we generally consider to be this species range in Maine after 23 years without any additional reports I'm and this is biologist Derek Yorks I'm not incredibly optimistic about the possibility of an outlying population there and yet everything we've heard is that the reason that the resource protection was put into place was because of Blanding turtle inland fisheries and wildlife says there's not a population perhaps someone picked a turtle up on the road in Cumberland in New York maybe they brought it to Durham but there's not according to the state biologist any population that's

beyond the inability of anyone to confirm a Blanding turtle population in Durham Beyond one specimen 23 years ago my concern goes to the heart of a parliamentary procedure in our planning board meetings as an advocate for my neighbors an email from our town planner George the barge was shared with me in the email George stated

quote at our February excuse me at our November 1st meeting the majority of the planning board voted against pursuing that concept of granting landowner relief as a warrant article for the April 2 should say 24 sorry printing error town meeting this was regarding the discussion related to the runaround Pond area so the quote again at our at their November 1st meeting the majority of the planning board voted against pursuing that cont concept of granting landowner relief as a warrant article for the April 2024 town

November 1 meeting many times probably at least 10 to ascertain what the committee said and the motion that was voted on what Mr thear reported in the email is not the motion that was made by John talut a at the November 1st meeting the motion that Mr talbat made stated and I

quote George continues to looks into the legality of spot zoning arbitrary speed limit whatever the legal thing may be and if it comes back it is illegal then it kills it and if it is legal we continue to the conservation committee and we can then decide at our December meeting whether we are going to go beyond that

planning committee and failed two in favor three has been taken would require a motion to reconsider if this planning board follows Robert's Rules of Order and would have to be voted upon by the committee in board governance best practices a section entitled board meeting minutes eight things you should never miss the author States for motions

include the exact wording of the statement and the name of the person making the motion some organizations might require the name of the person seconding as well Bowie adds that if the motion is not worded properly it's up to the chair to help the member modify the wording the recording secretary should then record exactly what was said it's not the responsibility of the secretary to edit the motion unquote so once again this was the motion George continues to Li looks into

the legality of spot zoning arbitrary speed limit whatever the legal thing may be and if it comes back it is legal it then kills it and if it is sorry if it comes back it's illegal it then kills it and if it is legal we continue on to conservation committee and we can then decide at our December meeting whether we are going to go beyond that in my experience with parliamentary procedure at no time is it ethical or acceptable for the secretary to report the motion language as anything but what the actual language that was put forth in the motion in this case the planning board voted on Mr Talbot's language as I have transcribed it without passing judgment as a resident I find the actual motion to be more than a little confusing since when I dissect it it has little meaning it certainly does not say what Mr thear said as a and sent as the motion language in his email I caution the planning board

that if I'm confused there are others in the community who will be confused as well I encourage this Committee in the future to be sure that the motion is coherent and easily understandable since you are representing not your personal views but the views of the Comm community community I did not have the draft minutes from the November 1st 2023 meeting available to review since they have not been approved by this committee and had not been publicly posted I would however suggest the planning board amend the minutes to represent the actual wording of the motion if it is anything

hope you take to heart what I say because it was very difficult to understand what that motion meant there's a copy for your file thank you and a copy for m Mr T thank you good luck yourass have nice evening [Music] yeah okay next up on the agenda

is I guess uh let's any other residents since we're on the resident piece of this on things that are not part of tonight's agenda okay sir then the next is Town officials Mr thear uh the only uh thing I have is the update on the amount of development going on in town and you have uh based on the latest code enforcement officer report I believe John you got it as well I think it's 18 as you may recall under the comprehensive plan uh implementation if it ever exceeds 45 in a single year then that would be the cause for calling a special meeting and considering a moratorium and an update to the com supp so that it wasn't close so

yeah 18 is total for the year yes y through October yeah which is a little bit higher than what was going on at the time of the comprehensive Plan update but it's also less than what has happened in the last few years yeah we averaged something around 20 I think 20 21 last year uh jumped up to 32 34 sorry and then this year it's

down back down in the that's on when they crosses 20 but but so what what about the permits that are issued are we having are we keeping our eye on that is it about the same like so the number that you're talking about is the the new housing starts new housing starts and then there's also permits issued right is that kind of well those are all the renovations addition and those sorts of things okay the 18 okay that 18 does not include my refix my upstairs the so for this month it was 22 that number includes any no no I'm sorry previous years it was 22 for the year but the 222 would be the number of permits I think issued for the the Electrical Plumbing all perms I okay so the 18 is within the total number perm issue yes whether they be Electrical Plumbing or new

18 single family building permits for the year but the 22 is the monthly number of permits pulled for the various other yeah sorry yes just per month so there's 22 Electrical Plumbing Etc and 18 single house permits for the whole year I understand okay all right I was I was getting confused into a

first I have two housekeeping things um the first one is our next meeting is scheduled for January 3rd uh it would be good if we get everybody or almost everybody here because of all the stuff we're working on applicants and um

land use stuff is that a good date for it's early but is anybody anybody know they're going to be in the Bahamas that week or visiting Grandma or is that why we're having the meeting is that in the Bahamas yeah I'll check the see this to the budget uh I'm good for that day yeah I am fine it works for me too excellent thank you we may have to depend upon what comes out of solar and other things take a look at another you know we depending on how we move forward housing what happens with solar we still have to have some formal public hearings uh down the road so and I think I read uh the town manager put out something about the budget budget schedule and I think February 13th is the drop dead to get the budget info to the Selectmen to make it for the article the town report excuse me that was one the other thing is uh so that you can make sure you get enough TV ad Time by and stuff we do have elections the first meeting of the

year so just just for everybody's information and with that I think non-residents seeing none isn't is there going to be a presentation tomorrow night with uh oh yeah solar yeah solar is going tomorrow evening uh the Conservation Commission is running the the meeting on the solar

uh which is going to be held at the Eureka Center is that fire station fire station Eureka oh there Eureka pretty sure yeah double check right now it's yeah I think it's your I stand corrected I just you're thinking of the well going forward all public meetings including our at some point in time ours are supposed to be at the fire station because if if the town budget passes to allow this room to be split into offices oh so obviously that can't happen till right April May June something like that but right so we have fire station on mine so if you would George would you find it just let us

should be it is I just made an assumption that all I've been to the fire station for meetings so won't you with does anybody know if that will be streamed or recorded yes uh I do know that for sure that Kim garau will be there with similar to what she did with our uh well housing density thing not streamed but it will be recorded and then broadcast thank you right and it is at Eureka according to the calendar 6 or 6:30 starts at 6:30 6:30 y 6:30 at e

and it will not be live streamed so you can't sit there with your Fe usually takes uh takes half a day to upload it from her camera so it'll probably be sometime late Friday that'll be on that uh oh I know the other thing I was going to say for those of you who are interested the Union Church committee finished our work last week week before

uh and the recommendation to the the uh select board is and the Historical Society dur Historical Society agreed um to sell it to them although their offer was a dollar I think we should get at least two um so uh if the town accepts

that if well select water accepts it and puts it in an article off the town accepts it but that's the latest and greatest on that new business so we're talking if you folks would come on [Music] up ah just for everyone's reminder Juliet

is a neighbor and is recusing herself from the discussion than to do that okay uh new business completel less review of the site plan review application for expansion of the leasher campground for 40 RV sites map 2 lot 13

there will be no uh public comment and so just as a reminder you were in October September I forgotten but you've gotten your uh conditional use conditional use thank you so now we're here for and tonight is the first step is do we believe that their submission is complete and so Mr tar would you like to do an introduction yeah I will just uh summarize quickly the agenda notes which indicated that on September 6th of this year you did give the conditional use approval for the addition of 40 new RV sites and the of approval and the approval conditions are in your packet the under the land use ordinance as we discussed during that process it's a two-step process versus to look at the use to see whether that is appropriate given the conditional use criteria and then if it is then it moves into the design review phase which is the site plan review application that you have before you tonight and I did indicate

what is in the packet you had that electronically I do have hard copies here if you'd like to receive those uh so we receive the existing conditions plan uh with an indication on there of some of the improvements that we we made as part of the campground expansion uh the applicant also submitted a uh review fee and and an escrow and as we discussed U the calculation of site plan review fees and escros are typically based on either the square footage of a commercial building or the square footage of a parking lot that's being built this is a little bit usual in terms of so what we I talked with Ken and what we discussed and where he went with it was to say each of those RV sites is a parking area so if you just take the area of those that's how I think you came up with the calculation for for everything so he's paid those fees uh pages and he's also submitted the site plan an application he did with

attach with that some cut sheets for various electrical and water and service features and uh he also included the checklist and he filled out that um I did distribute to the board yesterday and sent uh Ken a copy of u i just looking out through trying to facilitate your process of deciding whether the application is complete or not and I also sent out a draft uh incomplete letter uh indicating what I saw on that checklist which is really for the board to review give the applicant opportunity to question or challenge any of those uh assumptions on my part of what's there and what's not there U and given the nature of the project I think the applicant is looking for some kind of uh direction from the board on how you're going to approach this little bit un out the box application so will you require

complete uh checklist everything uh if not uh or if you are then if he does apply for waivers you know as you've discussed when we originally started the waivers uh Durham has a pretty liberal waiver policy for submissions for uh in procedure and for standard so the board when we started that process was very hesitant and concerned that applicants will just submit applications with 50 waiver requests and so you said you're to discourage that you're going to require separate waiver requests for every individual but I think you should perhaps consider uh on each application the nature of the project and the nature of the waiver requests and then make a decision whether you're willing to consider them as package with proper justification and make one vote on it or if each individual item you have questions about concerns then you could say let's treat all of them as individual applications or some of them

so that's really up to your discretion on how you want to proceed with that you feel about an application you receive so the first uh step in the process is to do a completeness review only the planning board has the authority uh under the ordinance to determine whether an application is complete or incomplete so my checklist and is just simply a staff review and it's up to the board to really decide uh whether you consider the application to be complete or not and you can either use the checklist or the draft completeness letter to discuss and whether you think the application is

quick reminder do you have any other additional comments as the applicants that you would like to make and where we are we just uh so if you look that the plans uh we did move uh some of the sites we had to do a curvature of the uh of the road to uh for the offset for the house at the end for the 400 foot setback also uh with the angle of the big RVs coming through it wasn't describe plan where George is gonna show on the screen and maybe Ken you could go up and just kind of show

and show them what you're talking about so right here we had you're good so we had a road we have a road you know it's a trail coming down through here that we were going to be connecting onto this one here but from here to here we needed we needed to have we had sites coming down through here a couple sites in here but it was too close to the house we needed 400t so we ex this road here and just made this at more of an angle so we can have more sites not SES but more of a radius to be able to

and then I believe this is a curve right here too a little more it's just a little bit same SES same things we had the uh I believe I had the tank here but I actually moved it up to the top over here I don't know if that's on the other one or this one but we move I moved it to there just so the fire department would have a better access at that point instead of coming through here because this is going to be no longer I wasn't going to you know invest the money all the way through put sites on it didn't make

time if you couldn't put sites on it and this may be anything else you guys wanted to add no so this is probably a good time to state that we're doing the completeness review so the question is are the are there engineering plans we can talk about radius and curves and and those other kinds of things what once we get into the actual site plan review after this this initial step correct me if I'm wrong with that so um okay so I guess what the applicants have done thank you for that is uh submitted some information um we have to determine if it's complete um there is I would suggest a

lot of things on our checklist that are were not provided and I just want to make sure na stands for not applicable not applicable okay that's just all the I mean that that is a pretty complete list of stuff and um I didn't I didn't think a lot of the stuff was was you know complied and then I'm coming here wondering you know we've gone to the condition use permitting we've already been through a lot of this stuff already what is actually what actually do you want me to do or provide for the next steps as far as that goes okay well i' I guess I'd like to start the discussion because on this and what is there is that um there is it is a very comprehensive and there that is for a reason UHS are are different so um my

thought is that it is not your call that not you personally but the applicant's call is whether it's applicable or not it is the board's call on that so um I my thought would be that because I think that's really what we're here to discuss tonight to a great extent is um just I will pick the one that when I was looking at it today um was a landscape plan I guess

what I'm I'll get to the get to the chase is what I'd like to see is a waiver for all the things that are on it here whether it's one big waiver or individual without getting too bureaucratic and a simple explanation on why it isn't isn't applicable in this case or you didn't or you didn't provide it so landscape plan is maybe an example and I'm not saying that this would be approved or not but the waiver may say um I'll try to be concise as I've been criticized about my oh the wooded site

the it's a wooded site you've got 100 foot I think it was 100 foot landscape buffer with heavy vegetation uh it is a wooded site therefore we don't this is the reason we didn't we don't think a landscape plan ised yes it exists and so or you know

whatever it may be then the board can say yep we agree it's 100 foot buffer and it's and they may not but I'm just just T's opinion I'm just trying to give an example that may be uh something um I'm just you know trying to uh think of some other stuff but guess what I would and I don't want to make this hard so it doesn't in my opinion we'll get to the probably details later I don't on some of the subject we don't need 40 at there's a is there a fee to waivers no okay uh John I did print out copies of hard copies of the draft that that would be help in the the completing this letter lists all of the items it does and it's also in the email that he sent to us yes if you have that so if anybody would like a hard copy I've got one right here if the others would or the applicant would and the great the great thing about that charge is goes down by item by item which is versus arbitrarily picking things out

uh I mean the first one that comes to my attention when we're looking at the site plan review submissions required for completeness review and the first one that comes to mind is C C3 documentation of legal rights to develop property uh uh and it appears that had that has not been submitted yeah and in my email cover to this I I pointed out to the board that I think it's important for the board to give direction to the applicant on whether you consider this to be a completely separate application because I'm assuming that the applicant is saying oh I already gave you that so if if you are okay with that and and you expect the staff to compile all of the documents for the applicant from the condition additional use application for this application it has to be part of this record so the issue would be if you're okay with just saying oh yeah we've already got that U then that would be one thing if you say look this is a

completely separate process with its own criteria and submission requirements we want a complete package of the application with all supporting document so that when we get to the findings and inclusions like we with with the conditional use I can go down through and for this not the conditional use application and it also point out that for example some of the documents that were provided for the conditional use review like the soils it was a preliminary soils investigation that simply showed where the test pits were and told the applicant here are the sizes of you will be required for a septic system design so that's not a septic system design that this board should be requiring in my opinion under waste facilities that you're supposed to review and approve to make sure they're adequate U so there's some differences and just my view of it is this should be a completely separate application with

all supporting documentation so has that been expressed to the applicant well it's really up to the FL that's why we're up to I'd like to add something here too um you know this is it's it's not a subdivision so there's you know it's a little bit different this is a you know personal property and it's a state license facility so for me to go through this process I I I have to go through the canal use permit you know process which we did now I have to go through this uh whatever this is the site plan review and then I have to go through the the the state to get the public water source so the state comes in and does a public water source and says okay you're all set with the water right so then I have to get a engineered system that I have to get approved by the state as well so they come in and say okay that's all set so that's all approved by the state again before I can get my permit and then the electrical is

All State too there's nothing to do with electrical here so the state the plumbing and the water is all done by the state before I can even get in there so I know we're doing a due diligence and stuff like that making sure that we're going through all these processes and stuff like that so I guess my thoughts on this whole thing was you know as far as plans and radiuses of stuff and where are going and as far as you know the town saying okay you have your setbacks you have this you you're meeting the the town Town requirements as far as that fine um but you know by

me saying you know not applicable I'm saying well I don't think it's applicable for for this project if you say it is fine I'll do you know I I'll give you a 100 waivers if you want to try and get through the process but I'm just warning is that what you want me to do you want me to write a waiver for each each thing and submit because I remember what George asked me if I was putting in waivers in and I go well I I don't know I don't i' have to meet with the board to see what you know if the condition us is going to meet or if we're going to have to start the whole process over again which I I mean we can start the whole thing over again if you want but as far as the condition use application and permitting with our findings I already submitted things from that I already got the the legal status I already got all that things that we could check check check check check check but like I said it's up to you

guys whatever you want to do are we aware at least I'm not as to what applications the applicant has already met through state can't file any state requirements or anything until I get through the process of of saying yay or nay you need the town approval correct I need the town approval so okay and I've been waiting for you know we got a substantial amount of money that we've been paying T you know interest on for quite some time now now waiting for this process to go through no no fault of of our own but that's just the way it is and then once I get once I get my my town approval it's still going to be three months for me to go through the state so it's not and then I got to go through construction process so if you look at the construction aspect of it I said projects is going to have to be completed in 2025 that's not this year next year so just to be you know give you the process of the of what what's

going on you're holding the ball for for two years so okay that just item by item which of these we think can carry over from or if anyone feels strongly that they can't from the previous one and what um could be amended by a waiver of

from the lists that George prepared complete items I recognize campgrounds are different but I kind of think that ball kind of should be in the the applicants these this is what I want to do rather than you tell me what I have to do because this this list does that um the other thing is I'm not sure I understand for Deeds is probably as good as any I I consider this a separate application but you've got you gave us the Deeds how hard is it to because we're it's already here all the findings for the for the meeting are already in this you already have everything I got you but what we what I would like to see what we're going to need down the road is 20 years from now 30 years from now somebody's going to want to say well how what do they get approved why was it approved what was the electrical system you have it here yeah system uh but two

different different files so let me finish and you'll get your opportunity we've gone through this drill let me finish uh and so that's that's my feeling about it rather than but I'm I'm gain to do whatever the board would like to do I agree John I'm quite sure the applicant doesn't want anything

years down the road and making sure that this is the process that the planning board went through and we met these requirements and his paperwork to justify all uh the planning board has we have that responsibility to go through these line by line and I think it's already been documented and I just I'm certain that if we went through these then identify the one specifically uh then we can get a a paper trail to

make sure it's all been satisfied so you wanted to go through it line by line this evening is that that based on the checklist yes okay uh I don't want anything to be misunderstood I guess yeah no I agree I I was just post postponing it a step but Brian I agree I mean it's it's an application that has requirements and whether or not it's been submitted in the past that's a separate um application this is a different application and everything should be included in an application if you if the applicant has that information it just should simply have been submitted as part of this then you want to make sure that the ownership hasn't changed since a reason ask and when I not saying that it has I'm just saying right like we're digging digging deep here so um so to to get back what you were saying um you know the town wants to see what's going on with this and that well this is like I said it's a

state permanent facility so the town has nothing to do with electrical over there so for you to figure out what's going for pering and stuff like that it just our guys going to come out there and inspect so it's the we're in the board discussion and we'll call on you for in the future so doesn't do let us finish the board let's not do this again I'm just trying to comment on please let us not do it again so Mr so I think what we're saying is whether we go through that the checklist tonight and help the applicant out on this one and tell them which ones I think that's a good thing to do and when I look at some of these which indicates that we haven't received the paper trail on it I'm quite sure that the applicant already has the information but just hasn't been presented that's my interpretation I'm not arguing that I'm I'm struggling with why how hard was it to put it into the package to give the submit on the original

application it's already there this is all the findings from the condition use is that what that is George yes but there are things on this checklist that are not there such as a signage plan a lighting plan uh there are other things that are not in I understand I understand but they keep saying that the stuff is not not uh submitted from when was submitted the application and here it is right here is that not a true statement let's stop okay it it's not your turn to talk I'm not going to recognize you so if you need a few minutes just to to catch your breath I don't need any time okay then then want to stop so do we want to go through this uh and I'm fine with that we can I you will have to but if we don't see it tonight then you know we're going to you're going to have to come back and I will tell you now now is if we require an electrical thing we're going to want to see an electrical thing we're not or

if you want to if the state will give you an electrical approval first we might consider that we've done that with. approvals but I the paperwork could have should have been submitted with the original one and so I'm we're ready to begin going through those a through P can I just back up yeah sure we start with the checklist getting back to the um application fee um there's been a lot of discussion in theast about fees on fees in general um and some like

George you might have come to an agreement with the applicant on parking and how that was determined do you have any other discussions with the select board or the town a solicitor or the assessment folks about how that fee

should have been calculated the board has has authority over whether the grant approval or not if you think the fees are inadequate based on ordinance then that's something that you can discuss in just side can you explain that one more time how you came to that how I how we came to it is we discussed that each of those you remember was it a th000 square feet per camp Camp it was site a 400 square feet per campsite 400 sare ft per campsite so if you multiply that times 40 those are parking areas which is the language of the ordinance is a certain amount per thousand square ft of parking areas so that was the methodology that was used to determine it that's fine well that's I don't have an issue with that I think this is an unusual situation where and that's why I bring it up right right right where something hasn't been established but we that it's our justification for establishing that fee and I trust that our professional

staff has worked up a solution that I think is is acceptable but any other like General comments before we start going through the the list of items okay well I will start the list and we'll go through there uh I won't read off the section numbers I'll just got 10 copies of full sizee site plan versus eight I said the

missing if I misunderstood this do we think there should be the challenge we often have is reading things like on the screen but if you all are comfortable waving that I guess it's before we go even further I would still think that we would want to have a waiver request and it could just be a handwritten things so that in our or somehow we need a document that we looked at this and we made a DE that 10 weren't required if that's what we're going to do so I don't know how we do that but that refer the waiver or something official that when because people will maybe not on the Leisure Campground but people will and have questioned we' be able to say we followed our rules we made a decision as a board to approve that that waiver request how do we want to I've always struggle with that with especially with today's technology site plans and whatnot um are there's a h usually a hard copy that is made available and that should be

filed with an application granted we've always said more like nine 10 copies for a board but we do so much electronically today I look at things electronically all the time and I'm just saying if there's one on file personally if there's one on file to view whether it be now or in the future it meets the requirement and we have the electronic one yeah I'm not h up on 10 I just want to say that whether it be pick another copy but we we recognized there was we accepted the fact there only two copies that's a minor issue so I'm fine with with waving that if there's a big one up here that we can look at or and as he said the electronic things I can get you 10 copies of that was holding up yeah don't don't volunteer just yet are we good with two copies I am okay I agree

but that is our rule to have 10 so I feel like something needs to happen as stupid as that sounds I think that something there needs to be a paperwork gel having lived in Germany with the number of rules like you just cross the tee and Dot the eyes and it's really annoying and horrible but that's how it goes yeah I again I don't think that this is one that but somebody down the road and not necessarily in this project but somebody came came in and said well you never proved to you they never proved to you that they owned it or they never provided you the paperwork that wasn't Wildlife or whatever so how do we document these kinds of things short of well if you are going to consider waiver request that could just be a line item on a waiver request if you accept the is everybody okay with that just and I don't think we need but it is it it's very important to carry a paper record because what I've learned at planning

conferences and Zoning conferences is that 80% of the cases that are overturned of board decisions are based on procedural errors so that's the type of thing where a lawyer could say oh they didn't follow the ordinance and try to right right I think that's what I'm trying to get to is it just documented proof that you know this is what we did so um so a waiver on to only provide two

is good documentation of legal rights to develop the property could you just give us a copy of that of the latest and greatest deed as a separate application and we can move on from that believe that's right I said is that the same as the copy of the deed and have any incumbrances is the for documentation of legal rights okay so he's the owner we don't need somebody signing off on no no no no but in that documentation from the conditional use which should be part of this application as well you had the uh the f the SEC corporate secretary you had the de and you had the easements for the cell

copy of what he keeps waving around there as the submission you could yeah you could say separate could again we just need a paper trail so the findings for the site say de from the conditional review everybody okay with that I am very okay okay so the mentation of legal rights uh we would just say that provided in it's already provided already provided copy of deed in any incumbrances we're okay with already provided that yes I'm sorry that was the same thing so three and five are really the same okay c3c okay yeah so for example you might have a u a purchase and sale agreement for developer it's not a de so he's he for he is both uh C3

and C5 copy of septic system test pit logs is that in the original not the original book again this is not a the same thing SE copy of septic system test pit logs there was a preliminary soil investigation that is different than an hh2 200 that has the official this is where this and you remember there were multiple septic systems on that thing so we need to see what exactly test whereever the system wherever the tank is going everybody agrees so that we're not ready to we're not willing to wave or he can apply for waer if he wants either right but I don't but eventually it's going to need to be supplied yes so we may be asking for it earlier than the applicant would want to do it but yes so a copy of the test bit logs would be required indication of zoning District it's a simple note on the plan which the consultant should have put on the plan just read the ordinance look at the checklist put it on the plan very

simple so please have them put it on the plan drainage ways and culs thoughts on that given us a a storm water plant so if you have a storm water plan it should show how the drainage is going to be handled where the drainage is going to be discharged and whether or not there are any types of mitigation of storm water runoff that are required this may or may not require a d permit for disturbance under the site uh storm water management law if they're disturbing more than an acre of land then they may need the permit and you remember that was an issue on the hollow where they were saying we didn't need it because we' already got stuff there so you may either want to have the applicant submit a stormm water plan or or get documentation from D to the storm water and is not required and that goes back to the issue of drain ways and colors well let me my my only concern about drainage is we've

tried over the year you know the science or the whatever the right term is moving away from you know moving water across the site as much as poss when possible and this is a natural Campground site my only concern with that is anything that is leaving their proper handr that's going either into a ditch along 136 or into a neighbor's property and how are we going how are you all is the applicant going to control that stuff that's my thoughts on what is needed anybody else and that but that speaks to erosion and sedimentation are you looping that into no I'm I'm well yes you'd have to have an erosion plan wherever you're moving dirt and all that other stuff but but also if you one as water is going to leave the site clean you know clean through a s fence or not is whatever the receiving stream neighbors yard whatever capable of taking

location with size of existing and proposed cits and drainage ways shown just making sure it's documented where it is it's not not necessar I don't think it's it's addressed elsewhere about effect of that runoff that's that's in that would be right it you would think that the storm water plan would indicate where all those culps are this is a perious area it's not imp pervious area so that means you're not going to have sheet flow you're not going to have any of that stuff going across anything anything like that you're not going to have it going across driveways it's not running off of big roofs and houses and stuff like that this that's would be a sedentary plan but well my concern is that again inside the camping area because it is a natural site unless concerned that is you accumulate water or you do start getting flow from the swimming pool office area on to 136 is should

there be a storm plan for that is that and again this gets back to the issue the applic the application under the ordinance requires a storm water plan to be submitted if the applicant that it's Overkill then he can file a rer request and make the arguments of why it's not necessary right we good with that that's an option right all right waiver on so that would be C12 and c29 if I'm not mistaken George so we don't have to go back over those only main traffic entrance site distances um hold on are we agreeing to a waiver on C2 no no that he has to submit a waiver that we would approve got no I think my feeling is that we're not I'm not ready to say it's not needed exactly but you have the right to submit a waiver uh and that's probably something we'd have the road commissioner take a look at see what impact is is going forward so thank you for that clarification so a waiver is required that we may or may not you know there's

no guarantee it would be entrance site distances I do know that there was a letter from M do or an emails uh saying it was grandfathered but that does not speak to uh I don't think he said anything about sight distances and having just lived that a couple months ago with Union Church um the M OT guy said if you're going to do this you you got this is yet to Def this entrance and I don't remember the distance but it was 300 ft 260 ft from either direction so I think you need to show on your drawing with your engineer that says um this whatever the state requirement is there's at least that 300 ft 260 whatever it is so that's something your engineer should say you have it in both directions and I would I would have thought that the state would have already approved that from the original development I don't think there was any approval I think it was they did it 1970s 60s whatever it was there wasn't a

requirement then they probably was but I don't know that I think it was the correct me if I'm wrong the only thing that was in the original submission was a letter from Mr Terell not pick it on him and said it was grandfathered he didn't say there was x a number it's like Union Church but it's it's also not changing conditional use so you can't I thought that meant the grandfather stayed since the additional use is not changing that be a good question for the if he comes back and says I don't need it to know the the whatever I I struggle

to not have it again the trouble we've had on 136 with other other issues and it made me very easy to come up with that you know stand here 11 and a half fet each way and then Tyler I don't remember what it was the church 260 or whatever it was that you've got that site distance so please either provideed or a waiver is I think what I'm saying waste disposal types and Facilities septic and

going to say look there's two ways looking at it the applicant is looking at this is just a seate system I'm looking at it from the standpoint this is a public public they have a public water system under main law uh this is a semi-public sewer system in that you're going to be servicing 40 RV sites uh all

of these are going to be connected to water they're going to be connected to sewer and so it's more than just this traditional single family home septic system so the board really needs to give an indication to the applicant are you comfortable with just treating it like a standard home septic system and the piping all goes where it goes because that's you know pretty simple or are you saying look no this is a semiu sewer system and we need to see an engineering design for the whole thing does everybody know here that I'm getting an engineered system for the sewer system I have to get it it's anything over 2,000 gallons you need an engineered system it's 5,000 gallons a day yes and thank you for saying that because my thought was you have to do that anyway so just give it to us I have to do that anyway and it's it's got to go through the State state's got to Department that's what my original just

going to come to us first and then so yes so I don't think we're asking you anything that you're not I don't see that as an additional cost I do am concerned although it's not the number one concern about additional cost so please just do that and get it to us or request a waiver or yes or request you always have the right to request a

one to okay so everybody okay with they'll submit that or waiver the plan or okay moving on to detailed S C 17 detailed plan for campsites and pedestrian [Music] little I don't really UND is this primarily for safety equipment to understand flow of traffic or is this or is this just another thing that we're like it's a campsite just put in writing why this is not important and we can move that's that is an option I think it it's there because you know we want to know which way what you have on the site plan right now is ovals little ovals there's really no detail about how much of those going to be cleared the applicant has given you a square footage but that doesn't show you on the ground where those are going to be um and as far as pedestrian is concerned depending on the nature of the campground I went went up in scyan this past summer and you had kids on little and I know that's not your type of Campground but you have

kids on little those little electric cars going in the same roadway as as cars and so you should look at what is The Pedestrian usage that's going to be anticipated and should they have separate pedestrian facilities you know perhaps a trail to the woods like you were discussing for pedestrians to be segregated from the traffic not saying saying you should or you shouldn't just saying that's why it requires uh indication of those circulation patterns so that you can make a

campsites is that I don't want to put words that I'm assuming that the applicant would lay out the campsite to protect as many trees and other things so it may be real hard like a house lot you can boom boom boom boom like I clear these trees I'm just wondering if on a campsite if there's not if a general circle oval square is

not sufficient in this case and where they're going to be now should be really close to what we see on that screen there and you've already made some tweaks based upon iterations of plans well I'm thinking it says a spe speed limit I mean I would think that the speed limit wouldn't be any higher than 15 miles hour I'm thinking of like in front of a school and even this school here there are no sidewalks here but the when kids are walking on the road whether it be in a campsite or in school setting the speed limit is lowered specifically for those reasons and I would think that if a speed limit is posted within the

posted at 5 miles an hour okay obviously it's ridiculous you know you're not going to go 5 miles an hour but you're not going to be going 15 either right which gets back to signage plan uh and it also relates to when we do the findings one of the criteria is this applicant is the board is make a finding that there is pedestrian and vehicular safety so what you would do is take from their application or the waiver request or both and put into their findings on the basis say you made the determination that there will not be any pedestrian or vehicular hazards it's all about how do we document your decisions okay well when we get when we get to that that's a good point so let's sticking with campsites are we just kind of good with with what's shown on the map in terms of

the I'm talking the campsite location now not the another option would be to just have a typical one of these is a typical site so here's what every site will be how much area will be CLE so we have a detail of just one and then that'll be the pattern I'm not needing okay I'm not needing that but I I'm one of I guess four tonight so you know a second do can we just

circumvent this whole list and say except for what we already talked about with we already have the Deeds for C3 and C5 just something there a waiver in writing that says why it's not needed or just provide information on it ask where I started but I think we're we're halfway through I think they're asking for guidance we're halfway through providing them guidance uh Tyler okay I just I don't know how much guidance we're providing other than repeating ourselves to say it could be waved or we should have information given the type of application I'm satisfied with this level of detail okay just so I think you know we talk signage in a second about I'm not I guess I am always worried about kids getting hit but it's it is a campground it is people

should not should be you're going to put up some signs by the you know and we just when we get to that we'll probably say you have to put up the signage so propose landscaping and buffering if any um I don't see the need for additional Landscaping anywhere I would be fine with a waiver that just kind of says this is a heavily wooded area and we have 100 whatever they are whatever your buffers are with heavy vegetation so it one sentence I would agree I I just I'm just telling you that that I think that waiver would stand a good

chance locations of and details of signage thoughts on that there gentlemen I think we've talked about it I think he knows exactly are you good with what we're looking you know speed limit size yes it's already up there I mean as far as signage is that the campground sign there what are you talking about signage limit a speed limit sign oh yes yes your your advertising side just me me another issue is the fire department being able to find out where campsites are if they get emergency calls yeah that's another thing is we did we did uh you know mod we did modify that a little bit so we will have to come back and there's you know because these sites will going this way we have to move those four sites back on the other side so I I'll update the fire department with that new list for that and I think what George just say do you have a sign is and maybe you do just how do I know to go to campsite

40 right for the for the uh for the tank itself yeah so when the fire department shows up one through 20 this way two whatever 21 so that helps your campers as well so that that's the kind of signage that we'd like to see on the on the I think and it doesn't have to be fancy it could just be a directional sign with sign and a DOT that works for me um lighting location and something

type of area ordinance criteria standards is to have adequate lighting for safety purposes but not to create glare or Sky glow those are kind of the goals of the and criteria plan with you when you get there so if you have no lighting plan then you can't make a determination of whether it does or doesn't cause those problem I think a lot of the the glare

on most places is when someone is exiting a if we're creating a a driveway it's clear that when someone comes out of a campsite that then are glaring into the neighbors across the road and I don't think that's a situ I don't think there's a neighbor across the road so this what lighting do you plan to have or have now once I'm inside the camp we have lighting at the parking lot we have lighting around the exterior buildings we're we're more of a night sky Campground which is you can see the night sky type deal um so you're not going to have lighting because that that is a possible and what I say obviously if I got my kerosene Lane going back to my boy scout days kerosene lantern or something but you're not going to have L posts no you know or any kind of inside the campground kind of lighting no they again basis for labor request yeah no unless unless it's required by the town I'm not we can a wire a waiver

for it yeah well yita just we will have no we talk about it next time what's up we got to talk about it next time right yeah we'll go you got the waivers in we'll go through them well write them up and hopefully we can approve them or or you'll know disapproval right the way so when you're ready to come back in if you've got all these written up and submitted to George two weeks in advance right uh we'll be able to and then so yeah so that's area lighting so are we good on lighting yes and they're good on like Okay so let's move on to whatever main fish Inland Fishers fisheries and waterways whatever that is why life uh did you get one of those I can't remember for your your uh conforming non-conforming use no that's not part of the condition I don't know what that is so I guess you just write the ordinance requires that the board make sure determines that there's no there's no presence of uh critical wildlife habitat

based on state inventories the typical process developers use is to contact the main fishes in wildli saying we're doing this project here's a location do you have any recorded incidents so then that part of the record on which the board makes its decision that there's no that there's no wildli in that same thing with historical resources this is just a standard procedure it's a legal requirement and if you don't do it then your paper your decision may be Challenge and so I think it is well those two are just a letter email from those two or three departments you know that there are no Blanding rare blending Turtles there okay so that's c26 27 seven or request a waiver but I don't know how we would go on that one erosion and sedimentation and I guess storm water sort of the same things and I will start with a question how much you're going to disturb some more Earth because you are expanding or

cutting new uh drives correct yes and so erosion control is is a town requirement and I would imagine the state requirement as well depending on the size of theet the area of disturbance whether it is town it's a requirement under site plan review that they have an erosion sentation control uh the board has discretion over whether to require a storm water plan uh and unless they hit an over an acre of disturbance then they would not necessarily need a DP okay permit

ordinance says specifically might be helpful the board May wave submission of the erosion and sedimentation control plan only if the project site is not in the Watershed of runaround Pond and upon finding that the proposed project will not involve construction or grading which changes drainage patterns and if impervious surfaces such as roofs parking lots and driveways are less than 5% of the area of the lot being developed obviously it's zero calculations establishing the impervious surfaces limitations shall be submitted with the waiver request and the maximum impervious surfaces shall be not the plan so there are so waiver that just says you don't have that you're not going to violate those or if you do the plan or ask us not to allow the plan or require the plan is that am I concise and clear enough on that one yes okay I'm trying to do better um and that then in storm water Tyler since you're so

kind to be reading course it's I mean it's it's very similar uh they may wave the board May wave uh submission of the storm Water Management plan only if the project site is not in the Watershed of runaround Pond and upon finding that the proposed development will not involve construction or grading of exactly the same text as we just said for erion and segmentation okay so am I allowed to talk I think we have finished it so yes you may ask a question so um the original Campground is that have we still in the original Campground so we did the commissional use permit we did we had to go through the whole thing oh we have to you know basically get permitting for all the stuff that's already been done for the past 20 years you know are we doing the same thing now as far as that goes just for the new just for the expansion just for the expansion now New Roads cut new campsites cut those are already grown in

because we already did erosions we already cin plans we got level spreader over there that's all done I didn't know if we had to go back and do all that stuff all over again okay do new disturbance okay appreciate that I think primarily we talked about the old stuff just so we could clear it up on the record for the future cuz there's a lot of confusion about like what was what wagon yeah I understand yep okay are there any other do you see any other waivers that you're going to need for anything is there anything so so what I will do is I will take the input that you decided tonight on how you're going to look at it I will revise the draft in complete letter per these comments and I'll circulate it to the board give you an opport to comment and then I'll forward it on to the applicant okay sounds good and so if you got it all done we'll make a decision on site plan the site plan review is different

than this Step One is you're complete you still have to make a formal determination completeness once you yes that but if everything is there's a possibility we might be able to knock that out at our move right on to the so any changes you made please get them past the same thing the chief uh Road commissioner uh the various people that we've listed here and we'll see you again on the 3D of January any other questions for the appli uh should we make a formal motion to consider it incomplete do we have to do that tonight yes should that subject to the drafting of the final document um I would like to make a motion that we are finding the ex

site plan review for 24 leisure lane at this time in complete um pending waivers or submissions um as noted in the document notice of incomplete application prepared by George thear second any further discussion did we alter anything that George sent us we did not no I think tonight you've discussed changes to this and I've taken notes on all of those individual items some of which are going to to accept and I'll just know that's accepted oh correct that's what I interpreted you okay so want to make sure that that

uh because nobody flies by their pants more than me so are we clear on what we're voting on um sorry so what are the only changes we made are we said for C3 and C5 that we are accepting the copies we had during the conditional use and all the other items and so for signage you indicated

you want to see that on the plane correct uh for inland fisheries and wildlife you've indicated you want to see a letter correct so uh erosion and sedimentation you said the waer would be considered the same thing on storm water Landscaping so all of those ones where you said the board I'll just put in parentheses waiver that's what I'll do I'll circulate that you all get a chance to look at it and you again you cannot go around among yourselves but if you provide me with comments I'll check those and then circulate autograph get everything to be addressed in some way as denoted by as discussed by the board yeah and the only thing we have to do tonight is find it incomplete so right stop there yeah sto

there we found it incomplete and you've got guidance on how to make it complete in our opinion try at least and nothing we said tonight guarantees that we'll do it next time but hopefully you've got a great amount of information to get there yeah all right thank you for your time thank you we still have to vote on the has not been amended or changed or seconded it has been seconded so any further discussion we've had some any other discussion that we need to have on this topic everybody understands what we're voting on we're voting on the incom application with our discussion Incorporated yeah all in favor please raise your hand raise a hand 4 Z thank you okay we're officially done with them right thank you for this moment jul if you would like to rejoin us so next topic is housing

Destiny couple weeks ago and so we want to you know talk about where we are that input George I think has a couple of more questions from a some email did you hand those out not yet is part of our discussion you want me to just summarize was was in the packet on this where sure okay so um as you as I indicated in the notes on November 15th you had your public information meeting uh and I prepared a memo that uh summarized the com the questions that were posed because that was one of the issues you want you asked for me to look at U and so the P I'll just quickly go through those for you if you that would be helpful and then at the end of the meeting some board members indicated a potential in in revisiting the lot size part of this so you discussing you should make a a decision on excuse me go back to that or just continue with the proposal that you presented at the public meeting based on the input uh if

you do that I'm prepared to present again what was done back in August where it had the uh the a little bit more complicated Alternatives uh so you should discuss how you want to proceed on that if we want to proceed on that and then I did uh and Juliet you mentioned the possibility of discussing again at some level tonight the issue of the uh mitigation or relief for property owners in the RP zoning um I did indicate that my

understanding of the board decision was that you were not going to pursue that in this round so I did communicate that to the uh board and the town manager um and so as far and I did indicate um that so the questions uh based on the memo page 35 of the packet as I heard them excuse me the uh questions about how driveway and addressing would work um how uh uh whether eligibility for non-conforming Lots if someone had a one a lot how would that be affected uh another question was the allowance for whether uh accessory Apartments can be in subdivisions and then finally the fourth question I'm sorry then there was the issue of uh Reed quite a bit input on lot sizes so you want me to just go through and summarize those answers or are you pretty much all good with the the memo and you processed it and we can just answer questions if you have any on those I'm good with the memo um how about um maybe we discuss any items that

we do want to kind of red discuss out of you know would you be moving on from the memo yeah like including the memo but you know we is there anything that we do want to discuss further is there is the information that's provided to discuss it um and then there's three more issues George is probably as good a time as any that were raised by someone outside subsequent to the meeting you received somebody sent me an email basically uh and some of them were already I think covered in there uh there were some ideas um I guess what the one thing I'd like you to in my mind go make sure I'm understanding correctly is the issue of condomini so we can take that as as part of the the discussion of individual items so do we want to go over um any individual parts of this for instance how will driveways are we okay with the answer on addressing and driveways do we want to discuss that far further hold on one second

one yes Does this answer the question on page 35 35 of pack okay excuse [Music] I guess the question is do we think that the or the proposed ordinance answer you know does it address these issues that were raised and are we happy you know with we want to make any changes after the issues were raised does that make sense so as an example so so so it sounds like we we have the driveway issue already addressed in our ordinance is that what I'm hearing yes yeah right so so is if we're we're happy that it is with that no no for so for example right now as I explained in the notes if somebody's going to do the three housing units they're going to they're going to have to have a common driveway that's going to have to meet the street classifications so if you're sympathetic to the affordable housing issue you might say well no we don't want to have to have to them to go through that process let's just just just put in a a

driveway standard and not have to have it dedicated right away and everything in there so you you could based on the public input and the or your review of the ordinance uh provisions and requirements that I've provided uh you could say that's kind of somewhat defeating the purpose of three units so let's let's consider a 16ft driveway for those and they can all be on the same driveway right because in our ordinance currently it says a driveway pretty much can serve no more than two dwellings right so if there's three then it would be considered a road now theoretically if they have the three units they can put two on one driveway and one on the other you have two two driveways do not have to get a private road how does our the

changes how do they address that they don't address that issue okay so we need to address the ordinance addresses it so the question is are we okay with summary that I've given you what is going to happen because that's what people were just asking what is going to happen with driveways you got three houses on one lot what's going to happen with the driveways this is how the is going to what the ordinance requirements are going to be all right well I mean let's discuss that there's three three dwellings how do we feel about either allowing a driveway to serve three dwellings period stop there like how do we feel about that well I think the the main require when you get up to three dwellings you're looking at multiple access by apparatus from the fire department and you got to be able to pass that's why our roads are as big as they are as wide as they are and if you reduce that then you have a

potential of a safety problem y so I I certainly would not recommend reducing it you would use the town standards as exist yes that's correct that's what do you mission um but I I think it you know depends on the layout also if you have three houses on one side or two houses in one house you know sight conditions could

dictate us smaller or or or how benefit from having a smaller driveway size than a road depending on the on the site I think the so three houses if three houses were served by one driveway like what is the what's the worry where too much traffic would be so they each get like if it's a single like family complex like sure it's fine they can like work it out amongst themselves as a single driveway if it's like the house and minium approach then they need to have some sort of HOA like how like agreement which says how the driveway can be used already so what is what is not what is

not allowing it to be smaller saving this so it's only allowing two dwellings for a driveway period so if there's three you need a road or another driveway so what's the what like from an ordinance perspective what's the problem with reducing it like like it's a through Affair like why do we need to follow the ordinance and make it a road I'm saying what if you you would just had mentioned that okay if you have three houses in there usually it's a family situation what happens if it is not a family initially it was a family situation but you sold one of the Lots now it's no longer a family situation and are we talking about selling a lot or selling a house for the house of Minion think either way either either way okay could be just there's a house with two apartments you know and and the other thing to think about is could be 600 ft back from the road in a 12T driveway in your point of you know

in a fire emergency the fire trucks have to go back and forth to bring water can they get by each other and you know it's wooded site and so somebody has to back all the way out to the main road those are the types of issues that how close can the driveways be 50 ft 50 ft

ordinance States for what we just talked about especially when potential selling of lots or dwellings or Condominiums comes into [Music] play yeah and recognize I'm not weighting in one way or another at this point when we do require rows it add to the cost and there is a chipping away of the trying to make it you know more affordable I'm not saying as we're going through this we just got to keep that in mind that what are we doing to the ultimate goal of making housing more available so is there a consensus that we go stick with just use the ordinance for the [Music] road seems like there are cases in which it could be made smaller but given time and concern I don't think it makes sense to go through all the variations that would make sense to make it the cases when you could make it smaller so I think the ordinates just a reminder we've we've gone on that treadmill three times now nailed every

time my legs are getting tired treadmill like compated it's just the roads are just a yeah they are um by limited Tim but I guess eventually not just for this case I'd really like to see a way where some kind of review could apply maybe common sense and say you know we're not going 600 ft back through a Woods where it's they're really right on top of the stack bow or whatever Road it may be but I think at this stage we don't have that thing that say you go to the codes enforcement person or you come to the planning board and they can make an exception could be if I'm wrong there is no way to appeal the road standard so

it's either either or here so consensus we don't make a change there or we don't not think you said that we could have a line that's like defines an appeals process but I don't know if we want to well that's probably another change to the ordinance yeah kind of like oh no no that's what I'm saying like this would be part of the change to the I guess I'd like to see something where there was a s specific but I may be but that not tonight not this year I guess let's discuss that that down the road I would agree that then you get into people that want to put in a subdivision and I would like to make an appeal I don't want to put in a road that why y i three or three lot subdivision why do I need to why do I need a road because I'm no different than than a house so I guess the consensus is I don't think we need a vote on that George I think we just leave it as is yep correct yeah unless you want to do something otherwise you

don't think you need to make a decision okay these are just answers to the questions that were raised I just want yeah make sure um so if this becomes a contentious issue and it fails because people aren't happy with the driveway part I just want to be sure that the public understands again you know gets back to our previous conversations that if if this doesn't pass because we're giving them option A and option b right so if it doesn't pass then you're we're going with the state mandated yep and the state is silence on the ordinance would apply the ordinance would apply app to you either way the road so that's a really good point right yep yeah and it probably will be it's been brought up every time you know this year last year what about roads and they're good questions to ask now so there's no surprise down the road but I think at this point we we just say the ordinance supplies uh we could uh on the website

post the answers to these questions that were raised at the public meeting so that'll be helpful sure I think that would be good to show that we we paid attent we heard them and Y we got answers and we we did what we did we're doing okay so that covers um e either number driveways

construction of driveways and addresses that's all uh sorry one question on addresses I maybe I just missed it so I I understand the three if there's three units what it happens with the dressing but what if there's two units I'm sure it's in there I just so if there's two units it'd be a andb okay if there's one driveway if there's one driveway there's two if there's three on one driveway they have to have three mail Bo well then it's got to be a private way basically what most towns call it with a dedicated RightWay with a maintenance agreement and then each of the units on that get a street address based on that new Street

reasons now better with the the road because I I think it would a whole bunch of reasons that come up so are we good on those an sticking with with the answers George provided can individual dwelling units be sold separately and how will they be

they can so I think in general if we can sum it up by saying yes yeah there's no you cannot you cannot restrict the sale of these Lots if they are sold with a just one lot if they're not if they're and this goes to the Jill King way um you know they have to have 300 feet of Frontage to create separate lots for each lot so if they do that then

obviously there's no question they meet the zoning if they do it within the same law then they can sell each individual unit as a condominium their ownership ends at the walls like a typical condo and then the LW is owned in common by all three and that's just governed under Main's condominium laws and there's nothing that the town can do to say you cannot do that according to that and this is what I think the devil is in going to be in the details this is where you know the great loophole finders of the world will but I don't know how to address it every potential question and Jill I think she brought it up so what is she saying though here she's saying that if the Lots were smaller then it would prevent the split somehow yeah what she's saying is on the duplexes we go two four six for the three units so if you went two I don't know what she's got but I part of the confusion there she's assuming that I

said at the meeting which I didn't that the 300 will no long Frontage will no longer be there it will be yes but that is not something that you can change you cannot require more Frontage you can require more lot area but you cannot require uh 600 feet or 900 feet of Frontage if they do three houses right if you did then they they would do the SE individual Lots each with their 300 ft of Frontage the idea of this is you don't require that and the state says you cannot require that so that's the answer to C first question is no and then I think her second one about the reducing lot sizes and everything is under the assumption that the 300 ft Frontage no longer applies okay okay so it does still apply yeah and they cannot split up this land six acres unless they have 300 feet Road FR well and that's part of it but what I think she's also saying is that if you go 2 four six and you're on 900 ft of

Frontage you could uh it could be divided up what she's saying is if you want two one and a half one and a half you couldn't because each lot is not two acres that's correct oh I see what she's saying so still require two acres for a lot that's right right but we in in the uh this plan we could we could say you could only like one and a half does that make sense yeah see in a lot of a lot of what happens on these things because we've had people come in wanting to do this they don't want to build a road so they say we've got a family and we'd like to put three houses on the same lot we're just going to have individual driveways and that's been done in various places but they have to create separate Lots now which requires the road under the main law they will be allowed to do those three houses on the same lot but they they will not be able to sell individual Lots with those houses unless they do the road right but I see

what she's saying do you guys see what she's saying now like that that kind of yeah what she's saying is you got the 300 foot Frontage is one potential block for sale but if you made them two plus one and a half plus one and A2 you couldn't split and sell one and a half and one and a half because they're not two let's just say had 900 feet of Frontage there is that the case can we it require a lesser for the additional units can you cannot reduce the road Frontage I mean you could not Road Frontage I'm talking about lot acreage yeah you can if you want to revisit if you want to revisit the lot size issue then certainly you can discuss smaller Lots we just can't make we can't make the first one's two and then every additional one is four because it can be bigger but it could be smaller okay that's what I thought so that is a that is a a potential question question but I don't know what I don't know that suddenly you go

to one and a half if I guess if they had 900 linear fee they could do it because it's 300 300 and they had three different driveways and whole bunch of other stuff I don't see this as in my opinion I don't see a big de you know it's another block of selling them but what's the difference I mean I

guess you see what I'm saying rental lost there yeah well if it's a rental or I'm watching my own mind if if it's a rental or a sale what's why are we concerned about a sale versus there's still a family living in there well no if you sell it it who knows who's G to well it doesn't be a family I'm sorry that back up it could be okay that's actually another good I guess my interpretation of her is to facilitate the sale of individual sale of these and do it as separate Lots so that's not really what we're talking about she's saying the opposite she's saying a way to it prevent sale of small Lots I think

is what she's like work in the spirit of the law but or what she considers the spirit of the law which is to allow um affordable presented is two acres you can do a single family with two accessory Apartments full size units two AC per 12

unit on with 300 feet of Frontage you're going to need six acres if they want to sell individual units on that they have to they have to do a condominium or create a road with 300 ft of Frontage for each of the two acre LS but when she said if you did all of that you could you could when she said okay had 900 ft you add individual drives whatever it may be but you could still sell there would be a you could create a lot sell it at one and a half acres right she's saying reduce the LW sizes I guess and that's something the Board needs to discuss that's what I think driving I I don't see you sell it at two you can sell it at 1.75 what's the difference if they've already got the road Frontage and all that other stuff I think these are the but that's my thought but if you have one lot one let's say we allow two separate

single family homes and a on three acres instead of four because right now we're saying you can have two dwelling units on four acres because you need two for the first and two for the second right but instead we said we only need one for the second and one for the third so on a 3 acre lot you could have a single family home and another single family home and then if you wanted to split the Lots apart to sell both of them off you couldn't do that because our minimum lot size is 2

buch a way to block splitting is uh but she's also saying that what I forget the guy's name what he he was trying to get to in the spirit of the law get as many you know reduce the acreage as much as you can to get those those units on and I

think that the way we've been going is two two and two and quite truthly if you're if you're worried about selling it you I don't I just don't see that as the biggest issue out there agree one issue that Deon has is when you keep moving away from the mic sorry sorry there Deon that was I really after I told everybody to talking about we should have little he told me my voice project he was kissing up to me anyway uh do we want to do we want to change it to something different I don't know what we would change like I don't know I think the to me the big lot size

Chang comes for the back to the duplex part is like which I know we went we like talked about and went back to like 2 46 much simpler but if we want to go instead of two and a half we go down to two acres for a duplex I think that bears [Music] for so as in if you have two attached dwellings no I got you

guess is this is good well what do we want to do because let's finish these questions and then get to the the duplex I think is the question about others raised they wanted to go back and and talk about something else um so are we good

the time to talk about duplexes uh just again if you're good with all the answers on the rest of it for accessory apartments and subdivisions that was another question that came up and then and I gave her an explanation of that and then same similarly for the idea of what about non-conforming lots and I gave an answer to that so the only comment I had on a subdivision is a cluster subdivision that is a 1acre lot they could unless the covenants we say no the covenants don't speak to that issue which they may not because it's new if if the covenants don't say anything or res restrict it somebody could put an apartment on a one acre LW again that there's legal there's a probably two different legal potential approaches to that one would say look they told the planning board these are all going to be single family homes didn't mention anything about doubling the amount of traffic and other impacts so therefore if they want

to do that they'd have to go back for an amendment two different lawyers might give you two different answers on that yeah I'm not sure that's a safe safe to bet on you know I don't think we we iron class said you can not do an apartment in in the well sometimes you review the draft bylaws and Covenants and they say single family own so well if it's in there then then the covenants speak to it yeah but if the Covenant I guess my point is if the covenants don't speak to it in any way shape or form they could put in apartment potentially and if the subdivision didn't want to in there the best thing for them to do is amend their covenants to say no accessory un and the new law expressly says this does not Trump private coven that's that was the answer okay

is there any more what was it for the question are we good on Provisions from multiple dwelling units to apply for to non-conforming whats that answer there's nothing nothing we need to do a change on oh was it actually uh on Accessory Apartments there is a needed change I'm sorry on nonconforming laws there is a need to change and that in your packet there is uh let's see what pag section 16.3 p.3

as I looked at that I did see that right now it says uh basically area so it could be confusing in terms of this now requires two acres per dwelling unit and but that's area this ordinance says they can be grandfathered for that so I'm good with George the intent of the ordinance is to say look if you get a 1acre lot you can put a single family uh on it you can put an accessory apartment on it can't put three houses on it and you're not grandfathered from the new law requirements so that just clarifies that I changed the terminology to minimum law size y Okay so added that to the packet

to talk more about what we're were just talking about the lot sizes so if you want to go back there I'll bring up what I just but we had in August okay so here proposal that you present at uh the comprehensive on the left and

the simplified uh ld03 requirements on the right I didn't put in the illustration for four acres this is the maximum with three okay so back in uh August um so this is LD requirements if the town takes no action then they'll be able to do it on two acres and two and a half acres um and then back in August you were talking about having a special treatment for duplexes uh and the comprehensive plan talked about reducing the lot size from 2 and a half acres down to two acres so you could either do uh the proposal that you had back in August was either do a single family with two accessory apartments or a duplex with one accessory apartment and we had the language in there to show that and allow that and then you had the LD proposal LD 2003 on the right with the 4 acre version and the 6 acre version so it would go from basically two variations to three if you put in special dispensation for duplexes and argument for it is that's

the way it's always been although it did require a larger lot size it was only half an acre so that argues for it argue against it is that was before LD 2003 and now the town is looking at the comprehensive plan to protect neighborhood in rural character with the apartments that we've talked about and the full-size units which look like multiple houses then then that would be uh requiring a larger lot size so you went through that whole process and discussion so the question is as a result of the public input on November 15th do you want to go back and reconsider going back to the August

person was spoke again spoke in favor of um not increasing the lot size for d several other it was there were only 10 people so it's hard to but also the survey from a year ago and so on and so forth um was to in fact not to control I won't say limit or eliminate to control growth or or housing units and

so in a couple people really didn't speak either way at that meeting quite truthfully um so it was sort of like a wash was it was like it was last year in the survey in some ways so I I didn't come out of there with any strong uh if there was a leaning it was leaning towards more land per unit larger rre per unit minimal as the grouping was but meting did have a the same feeling as our survey as it was a small subsection there just happened to be one very loud opinion and and there's people that I mean there I suspect that person is not the Long Ranger there are other you know were 40 something 48% of the people that you know favored more houses were higher density so on the survey so um your I guess your

idea on the affordable housing is is what is that these houses these dwellings are going to be rented out right is that the idea well whether they're rented or they're sold one of the factors that drives up the price of housing in Maine is the land requirements because there's not a lot of land available and so if you require larger lot sizes that increases the cost of housing so that's where the state legislature saw that this is one way to address the housing crisis is to stop towns from requiring uh you know these all of these lots and Roads and everything else that has to go into it let people put multiple housing units on the same lot and historically they've been doing that with accessory apartments or what they call Accessory dwelling units you know just put another unit right on the either attached to or tiny home out back and now they're going a step further to say let's just allow two or three

housing units on individual lot without any they're saying you don't have to increase lot sizes but they're allowing towns and and I think the particularly if you think about some of the more dense communities Urban site type situations you put two or three houses on the same lot when you got 10,000 foot Lots that's going to be an issue for the urban communities not so much for the rural and so if we think that um they split these Lots sell them are the house the prices of those houses and lots going to be well cheaper than let's just say that you're not increasing lot sizes let's just say you had uh back to the August proposal is that what I uh oh just go with ld2 2003 um so if they were to sell the 2

half acre of lot with a duplex and a single family and condominium that okay so now each of the three unit owners only has to buy two acres of land or onethird of that as opposed to buying two acres of land they can have a condominium they can share the costs of the driveway plowing the the mowing every all of the maintenance costs can be shared among the three so there are cost savings to it and but the main thing is the land yeah and it's not just I think it's price is a part of it but it's just cram as many yeah that's wrong term let's see how many houses we can get into the existing land you know let's let's try to get you know let's and that's you know there's there's a whole school of development that is uh don't go with Big Lots go with as small of lots as you can uh you know get some new urbanist things where there's maybe 15 feet between houses what we try to do

and and it's tough is make turn maintain the rural character lots of open space our comp plan also talks about diversity in housing to you know we're talking duplexes triplexes quad plexes in the comprehensive plan so those those two things are are not necessarily compatible so I guess the question is what do we want to do on duplexes I think yeah getting into the laws intent is kind of impossible because then we'd have to I don't know get into what supply and demand economics too much exactly I mean that's ridiculous you don't lose money in real estate you just don't not here you're not 2007 2008 maybe but yeah I mean but

that's um yeah I the the challenge is and it's important to maintain the rural character and um at the same token you know we do have or gentleman I got a call the codes guy today I think he talked to George as well but in my age or older with a 40y old son who

um is Con is concern you know if you read the ordinance now he can't do like a two house deal now a if it passes April whatever it is he can and if it doesn't pass July 1 he can so that that was the intent was that guy couldn't do what he wants to do in Durham today maybe if you read if depending upon how you looked at the orti but maybe you could but that's what it's really trying to do is help those people who want to have either for their you know there's some who want to do it for their kids or their grandparents or their or their family there's some and you know God bless them who want to make money on the deal uh you know there's nothing wrong with that I mean if they've got the space that they want to you know do that run it out and the whole travel nurse um business is is he you the campground right talked to that's where a lot of his business is going um to go back to duplexes the

reason I still not really sure where I lie but at least they're in because duplex by definition are two attach single family dwellings yes is that right right okay for non legal summ they have equal they have equal floor area okay and they're attached and they're attached so they're not a single family equal okay equal floor area dwellings that are attached yep so because I think a lot of our worry is you have you know basically

three dwelling units that the Lots get sold off and then those all can get later get three dwelling units on them eventually and then you have growth of density but at least like the duplex can never I assume you can never divide a lot line right down the middle of a duplex you do that's where that's the condominium does that basically right right but you have you can't split the lot so you can never deivide the lot because together backs they would not me set back so you couldn't do it some some communities have zero lot line okay where you can do that like town houses and town and that's that's the devil in the details because down the road somebody's able to figure out that well the condo is this box of these two two houses in it and everybody owns all the land in common so I'll go get the common to sell me more land that's going to be a challenge you know if it's on whatever number of Acres

that it is right so the but since the in like you can always sell Parcels of your land to get redeveloped but the actual those two equal floor area buildings could never become their own independent enti which could then get more houses put on them yeah the duplex could never be split right right which is why maybe there is a reason to have to have special dispensation back in similar to what we were or what we were talking about in August is my only reason why I cons would consider it separately even though I think it complicates everything I'm not sure you couldn't I'm really not sure you couldn't sell off the lane and if if all

the other factors are met set back it it's a big lot you got a duplex and you split it down the middle and so and you have maybe you almost have to have a condo because you've got a somebody's got to take care of that common wall what you could draw you take that line and extend it out past the walls well you'd have to meet you have to meet set back there's no setback units would not meet the setbacks the individual units so unless we change their setback got you sorry no you're right but you could sell it on the but you could keep the condo and sell the excess land cor but you can always do that yeah right yeah so it's really the same proposal it's just the eliminate requiring the two acres per uh

dwelling unit with duplexes anything more than that then you got to add the Jo 2 and2 Acres that by our current ordinance yep and under the comprehensive plan not considering impacts on Rural character and they wanted to go to and the new LD 2003 it said you know what's the point of having an extra half acre with a duplex just put it two acres yeah where would you put the I get that so where would you put you have two and a half acres duplex how do you take care of that uh accessory unit is with if you went with that you'd have two and a half acres are you saying we go back to to putting an accessory unit on the two and a half acres that's what we were doing in August you could have a total of three units under any of these scenarios and if it's uh if it's a single family with two accessory Apartments it has two acres if it's a duplex with one accessory apartment it has two acres if it's full sizee units

and you have three you have to have six AC my thought is I'm sorry four acres you would never you would not require the I don't think you'd require the two acres for that third variation so anything more than a duplex you go to the bigger log size so my feeling is we we spent a lot of time doing that we've talked about it not not a lot of impact but the feedback has been more rural character bigger Lots than it has been you know shrink size and put another one in there is what what I've heard but other again it's like 4951 or you know two versus

four that spoke at the last meeting so it's it's not a overwhelming support one way just thoughts does anyone feel strongly that we should keep it the way it is which is the 246 or go back to August with the duplex modification I don't see any reason to change it to change it back to August right yeah I think I think George's addressed all the comments that were brought up that are either in our ordinance or covered somewhere else um Sidetrack a little bit um somebody brought up puds during that meeting so

how does that I explained that was Todd Boer he raised the question well why not just do puds well we already doing puds PUD again sorry p a plan unit development and and just understand that's typically like if you go to Arizona and you see this housing project that has a you know convenience store and a daycare and they just pack in the houses that's a plan unit development and so they approv they don't do it by zoning they just do it by a master plan that's a plan that's that's what the original generally Z classification yeah that's sort of plan but in Maine when they started doing cluster subdivisions reducing the size of the Lots they a lot of towns call them puds but it's really a cluster development as really what you're doing is clusters you're already doing that the big puds might have apartment complexes it would have you know seniors it would have a big house it have shopping it' have you know live

work play kind of stuff uh let's not go down that road tonight yeah it's getting back it's getting back to the issue of smaller lot sizes if you want to go in that direction which is kind of the trend outside of durh so I guess I'm kind of looking for a consensus if I I agree too let's just keep it how it is that one I'm going clockwise I agree

uh you know we we talk about maintaining rural character and I don't think we maintain that by urbanizing everything okay so just to make sure I don't get criticized for misrepresenting what the board is deciding tonight it would be good to make a motion uh clearly expressing that uh you have reviewed the public input and whatever you decide then vote on that and then that'll be the official decision of the board tonight so the only change if I understand that we've made tonight is on uh is the one you talk nonconforming uses nonconforming uses everything else so the motion would hopefully with great clarity lay that let's get some text to this basically move forward with the proposal with the with the one only change being a clause that clarifies non-conforming laws and that's per you're you're right up on page 37 section 16.3 right

uh I make a motion that the planning board votes or the planning board supports the ld2 2003 implementation as presented on November 15th with the modification outlined um under question four in our agenda packet will the provisions for multiple dwelling units apply to non-conforming Lots um as the only change to that presented proposal

second it's been moved seconded do I have or do we have further discussion do you want to get on the treadmill again please raise your hand if you agree uh 5 Z this time so that was Tyler moved and who seconded Alan and so uh the next step with this then is to I don't think we need to have another information meeting because when nothing's changed from but I think that's a minor change yeah so I don't think we need to have another public information meeting on this one uh so sometime after the first year of the year as soon as there before submit it to the select well I think what's going to happen now is you're going to get whatever the uh Conservation Commission proposes on the solar you can now spend your time on the January meeting reviewing that and deciding you know is that okay I'm talking about this particular but what I'm saying is this one I think is now ready to roll yes that's what I'm saying

this is ready to go yeah this that's is getting ready to go to this this can go to the selectman anytime or you do you want to do that or do you want to wait and get actually is there any harm in doing it early like why wait right like I think it's I I'm ready to send it I mean in my opinion I think we're we' we've rolled on this one for a while so George's convenience to so all the language is right what's in your packet with that additional one okay George you had mentioned uh putting some of these answers on the website yes yep did we I

guess thank you but did we answer um because she was kind of to send it to me um the four guess there four questions from Miss Gaston gay we talked about the top two um would the proposed changes remove the 50% Max size of the initial dwelling I don't think so well that's yeah I mean we're still doing that ex by accessory Apartments so the answer is no it does not change remove it no and then if the proposal which is our

recommendation and then would the option at the bottom of the page two be approved I don't that that's question the state if you if this if your proposal fails at town meeting then the state law goes into effect on July 1st 20 there but there's not voters are not approving that because in know right so the only warrant article will be your proposal y y can I ask a hypothetical

our motion but yes oh that's right okay it's on for discussion okay um so if our proposal is rejected would we later just add into our ordinance our best description next meeting next town meeting that just look what the state law requires that's what where our ordinance doesn't align with it so we have a changes c c yep that's all or we could yeah we could I guess we yeah we could do it reg election but yes probably wait another year but it's it's in effect and George changes from red to Black Brent I know I noticed that thank you and that was fair that was a fair criticism it was but I never knew that there was a survey out there that that swayed people whether there actually is I haven't done my verify on that well I we'll just move on to I think I've got a motion a second and I need people to raise their hands if that's what we want to do we have not yet voted so we are

[Music] was hypothetical yes you're all you're all to on the M all right so was hypothetical all right so just just remember elections January 3rd andy2 Cena L be president so uh anyway before we go down that Juliet wanted to discuss something so yeah the resource protection but honestly yeah we don't have to we don't really have to get into it tonight if we don't to um it's definitely off the table for this year right but I think we should start thinking about what to do for next year um but we've got a lot of time so you know we don't really need to get into it t so so I do you know we we should I

think we all agree that we should be providing some sort of like support mitigation helped to people that were negatively impacted certain people by our relatively recent resource protection um ordinance change right those people that their current um houses and driveways are now in resource protection but what George had um proposed to us last time was KN down right we didn't agree with that process

there but I do think we should continue to talk about what we could do so that was all that was just generally Talking part of it was the the original thought was to have us do the board of zoning appeals approvals which we decided was questionable whether that was legal to do a conflict right I think

yeah we were going to look more into that you know and I had an idea of I mean we've got some people especially in the consom that that understand wetlands and I don't know if it would be something that we could you know they might be interested in offering their service to some people to go out there and look at their lot and you know I their I think I mean that was a concern addressed in the resident's comment was how do how do we Define do we Define that right um and so um I

certainly would like to those people who woke up on the first Sunday in April and found out they were in resource protection can we help them out somehow I think the formal process is still going to be go through unfortunately go through the BCA you know so and they're not it's not like they're in comp they just they have to meet that's the it may not be the easiest process but I know George George correct me wrong you're getting lots of you and this codes guy are getting lots of inquiries about what can I do I don't think we should have been surprised um but maybe we we you know we pi back up after the solar thing is through possibly February or we're going to have well just very quickly because

there is a budget request going forward from the town for something called codification of the land used ordinance you're familiar with that and a quick overview so that will then def show us the you know put it all in hopefully in 20 or 30 pages of what needs to be fixed but then we would prioritize what next uh you know so that alleviation of the the that issue certainly worth in discussing with cos you know so I guess my point is we're going to have to go through this process again um next year with some things my

comment to the town budget committee and others is the let's set reasonable expectations for what's going to get accomplished you're going to get a list of literally probably 20 pages of things that need to could should be some of them will be easy this is does violate state law here's what it should say that may be easy back Lots private roads

they're not going to get any easier because we went to codification so and all they're going to get is that list that was that's my comment there I'll make a motion to adjourn I'll second I'll we're get a vote once we have motion a second any discussion no vote we're out of here thank you all thank you George thank you thank all of you and Mery I guess you're welcome to come tomorrow if you have the opportunity it will be broadcast sometime Friday morning afternoon over the weekend if you're bored I'll be out town but I will watch the video it is a whole lot more fun to watch the video because you can fast forward through it exactly people