TranscriptPlanning Board Meeting ~ December 7, 2022

to do a determination of a quorum and I see four members we have Mr Wilson and Ms Caplinger Mr Puritan and Mr Talbot so we have a quorum and anyone have amendments to the agenda seeing none we'll move on to item number three acceptance of the minutes of the November 2nd 2022 meeting somebody would move to accept him as presented okay any comments hearing and seeing none uh what I need a second please a second hearing and seeing none all in favor of accepting the minutes or approving the minutes raise a hand approved for zero the next step is informational exchange on the non-agenda items Mr Thomas yes Mr chairman members of the board last night the Conservation Commission held a public informational meeting and I know a few three of the board members were there and it was to review the draft amendments to the zoning map to recalibrate the town's resource protection to reflect the data in the

2018 comprehensive plan about 30 people showed up and I had a very good discussion informational exchange and so that was part of the process that we had discussed back in June of this year in terms of the Conservation Commission taking on that land use policy question in preparation for the town meeting so that was done also I got an update from the consultant who's doing the town's GIS tax maps so digital tax maps for the

first time will be prepared very soon and that information will be put on the town website so that people can access the assessment data and that sort of things like most towns have so that's uh next couple of months oh no next couple of weeks so uh that's that's uh that's pretty much my report okay let the record show Mr Hutchinson so we now have for the first time in a while five members uh so Town officials any residents in the audience who would like to speak about things that are not on our agenda this evening seeing none any non-residents in the audience who would like to speak on things that are not on the agenda this evening

continuing business the completeness review of the final plan application for the Deer Creek Crossing Subdivision map 7 lot 32A and just as a note public comment will not be taken and so then the this step is to decide whether everything that is required to be submitted has been submitted and before we move on to a substantive review of the final plan application so would you like to lead the discussion I'll uh kind of frame the question before you tonight which is the determination of completeness of the dear Deer Creek Crossing subdivision and the application was found to be incomplete at the November 2nd meeting and the issues that were identified were the dep approval of the new stream Crossing and removal of the existing one the Army Corps of Engineers approval of the new stream crossing the MDOT road entrance permit and the assessor map and lot number that has been added so that last one is is addressed the applicant

submitted copies of their dep and Army Corps permit applications they also submitted a dep storm water permit based on the comments provided by the peer reviewer the Army Corps of Engineers they submitted an email from Heather stukas indicating that permits are required for certain aspects of the construction and they're still waiting as of I think today the DOT permit and

per section 6.8 C of delanious ordinance they have to obtain those outside approval agency from eight outside agencies prior to the submission of the final plan and the planning board does have authority to Grant waivers of those and any other submissions provided that the applicant request such a waiver and no request has been submitted and I did prepare a draft complete and incomplete letters so you can whatever Direction you decide to go in tonight we're prepared to act did you say that an application has been no okay we've not received an application requesting a waiver of the procedural require the submission requirements for the submission of those permits with the final plan application so summary we're still missing three permits and no application to waive them just see where the applicant stands on those issues I don't have them in the packets they have not received them okay we'll start with

that yeah uh those three are still pending um December 19th so that has been put on the back burner for however long I think that Culvert washing out was very unfortunate timing because then they sent it off to their engineer because now they're concerned about every Culvert in Durham um I think my hope for the evening is that these three items I mean um they don't affect are planned per se it's just more of a timeline thing I don't think uh the nerve apartments are pretty generic permit essentially a a construction permit we did add the stormwater element to it um worst case scenario I see is is having to move an underdained soil filter up the bank 20 feet but I think our argument's pretty strong against that seeing as that where I place so the way the way I see this whole project is the site the road the stream Crossing y'all saw the property before we got to it it was in just repair it was neglected there was a

road already in in my designing process I attempted to minimize all the disturbances and that's generally my Approach I mean you'll see Bowie Hill and other products that that the idea is to minimize your impact and so what we did is we located our road on the existing Road I put my pond right where the existing Crossing comes across there so there's that big disturb where we all walked across and there's that big gravel area there that's where I put my pond to minimize additional disturbances yes that is within 75 feet of the pond I mean the stream I've permitted dozens of underdained Saw filters within streams and wetlands and setbacks and the ironies is you want your pawns to collect as much water as possible where that would be is the lowest point which will be closest to the Stream So inherently your ponds do end up encroaching as close you can to the streams um so all in all I feel like what we've

provided is a very solid project I think none of the butter should have much room to complain seeing as we've got substantial buffers all the way around there the access road in we're improving that situation all the butters essentially were complaining that their backyards were flooded currently we've now graded a ditch that should drain their entire backyards um I mean all in all I'm just looking at this project saying it's such an easy win-win for everybody and and I understand like there were other projects in the Durham pipeline that

you know there was some some sight distance things and some red flags that were raised um thus ensuing some peer reviewing uh I've gone back and forth to the peer reviewer a couple times now I I think again what we provide is a very good project I've used every dep sizing standard that I've ever used in my career for the last 10 12 years and uh I do I think these these the Army Corps permit again it's now it's any time you touch a wetland you're going to the Army Corps which is a newer development um she kind of waffled on it a little bit but then she's like yeah I mean I guess if you're gonna touch some Wetlands send us and it's a generic permit it's nothing that that has huge red flags to it and that they're overly concerned about um so my hope is that we can agree that this is a good project it's well designed the intention is met for the entire area and and the the once these approvals

roll through that we could almost just condition a final approval that says once you have your dep your D.O.T and your D Army Corps permits it's done I mean I don't I don't know what else I mean to come back in and talk about to say yep here are the permits it seems just like another hurdle to jump over and there's been a lot of them so that's my my Spiel on the project as a whole and I'm just really hoping to be done with it okay so that's you don't have the three permits where's the request to waive that well I don't I don't think you can waive them really I can't wave an army corperman I can't wave those are required by law that I have no no not to I'm asking my question if correct me if I'm wrong is you're not requesting the requirement or way requesting a waiver for the requirement to submit them you're just asking us to to do that there's a formal request program no I ask a question sure John would we

I would I would suggest we not to go through like a waiver process on that the what I suggest maybe we do uh would be to do a conditional approval that these three items are going to be submitted in if those three items get submitted satisfactorily then it would get its approval hold on so first I want to understand like do we know where it says in here that we we need these before we can proceed like what is the language in there it would be section six point

page 40 of the ordinance 6.8 C reads as follows Outside Agency approval and comments prior to submittal of the final plan application the following approvals shall be obtained in writing where applicable main dep under site location development act that's not applicable main dep under nrpa or storm water that is the case uh U.S Army Corps of Engineers if a permit under Section 404 the Clean Water Act that's also Karen present here and then MDOT for Highway access management permit that is also here and then they're also required to submit review comments from Inland Fishers and Wildlife and a main historic preservation commission they have uh put those in it goes on to say if the board is unsure whether a permit or license from a state or federal agency is necessary and you may recall back at the preliminary plan stage we had that discussion and the applicant indicated he did not believe that those permits

were necessary and that's why they went forward with the process as they did they may be required to obtain a written opinion from the appropriate agency as to the applicability of their regulations and they could have done that back in September right so that's that's the length we've got the language as to what is required to complete the application now what can we waive okay so that is a requirement for the final

plan submissions is my interpretation and so then you can go to section 6.35 I think it is waivers and waivers of certain submission requirements where the board makes written findings the fact that there are special circumstances of a particular track proposed to be subdivided or that the application is simple you can waive portions of the submission requirements unless prohibited by Statute or other law and so I think if you wanted to if you could go in two directions you could go as Ron has said to give a conditional approval saying hold the mylar or they don't call it anymore that the recording plan until those permits are submitted uh you could do that or you could say to the applicant look the ordinance is pretty clear these approvals are supposed to be submitted with the final plan they were not if you don't want to submit them then you should have applied for a waiver so you could go in either

direction I think and have a sustainable decision those permits are submissions we're not asking for we're not asking for it I'm just trying to like see where we are here you're we're kind of going off on a tangent outside of a waiver and in general it wasn't just like a North arrow on a plan these are permits that are from State agencies that do have jurisdiction on this site our peer reviewer mentioned it it's not just the other the other factor is that during the uh preliminary plan review process and it went into the preliminary approval conditions is that the board public concerns were expressed about the environmental impacts the Conservation Commission weighed in and the board relied upon the issuance and review of those State permitting environmental agencies as the basis on which you granted the preliminary approval so that's just a factor to consider so I am not in favor of allowing this to go forward until we

hear back from these agencies and also just just in general well can I just finish Charlie that's enough you don't get to she's talking you've had your chance um does change and we go forward with review we have to go back anyways so and

it would have to come back for an amended plan if that if that was a result and and this isn't There's issues with the covert not being identified correctly on the site plan right now you know so that's just like saying I mean if we Grant a conditional use based on satisfactory acceptance of those reviews

it would be is that you know we wouldn't have to look at this again you know they everything else except for those three things is let's we'll let's just assume we're happy with everything else except for level three and if we did a conditional approval then we'd have to get those things in but once they did then they could move forward right or the other option I think is to say it's not complete come back and we'll look at it all that's the first step so we need to decide whether in fact it's complete or not whether the next thing about whether we'll give them a conditional use is is the part B on this and these are the only three things that are holding the completeness up right the completeness that's correct those three permits Tyler did you have any comments I don't right now I uh I think I'm leaning towards uh agreeing with Ron and Allen that I would be comfortable with saying and if saying that we have a

condition where the permits are granted and obviously if there's a significant change um then amendments would have to be made would that be written up it's a condition of what like we're not doing we're just doing a completeness review what would this be well if you determine that the application is substantially complete it's kind of like remember they requested a waiver of the survey monuments on the corners of the contract and you agreed to let them do that at the time that the other pins are set so you kind of do it the same way you'd say look uh those will be submitted before the final approval becomes effective so that would be a condition of approval uh for the for the final approval that you grant they would say the uh the uh

recording plan shall not be released until the three permits are are submitted so so what we're saying we're Sayer then as then is we might not hear anything back from the agencies until after the final site plan has been until you that's right if you go in that direction that would be the case so what's what's up we're in completeness you're still determining whether you're going to give a substantive into this application if we did do that then the next step would be for them to come back for final no they would you could then proceed tonight with the and your packet contains their application for final approval and depending you've had a peer review done that identified a number of issues with the project design the applicant has responded to those the peer reviewer has submitted a shortened list but the peer reviewer still sees that there are outstanding issues on the design of the project which have not been resolved so

if the board feels that uh that the applicant and again the peer reviewer as I said in my agenda notes is not uh you're not subject to their opinions typically what you have is you have your own independent engineer reviewing this the applicants engineer on the issues that they differ on the applicant can make their case and try to convince you but the burden of proof is always on the applicant to say why the town's peer review engineer who's also a qualified engineer with lots of experience why they are wrong and convinced they can convince you of that then you can accept the applicant's position on whatever the issue is so we could begin the substantive review tonight and make progress on that review or you can say it's not complete and then when it is complete hopefully by that time the peer reviewer and they would be able to come to a point where they're in agreement that the plan meet

all meets all the requirements and then it will be a pretty quick process of just going down through the dry findings you can go either way my my concern is is which is the completeness is that we when we did the preliminary plan approval we granted that based upon them getting the necessary permits we elected not to do a peer review of a couple of things because we're going to get a Core we're going to get a dep exactly and we don't have that I mean that was a major part at least in my opinion of approving the preliminary plan at the time and two things one we don't have the permits and do I guess my question would be do we need a formal waiver request no I think that you could go either say yes you do need a waiver to do this or you could make the position that as long as you do it as a condition of approval I think either route is is okay well now if we if we did a waiver um you suggesting they wave that they

even need to submit them or you're suggesting that way your waive we just don't need to do it at this stage no way I'm not no at the end of the day they have to do it uh in my opinion before they start construct we have to see a permit before right

about a waiver the applicant is not asking for a waiter yeah we've asked for these reports and we're waiting for those reports to come through I I would not be in paper whatsoever of a waiver yeah so but what we just talked about with George is that there

this time potentially getting something down the road that makes all of our time here and we have to go back but why would we but it would be totally dependent on the results of those outstanding reports the permits right yeah yeah that's what I'm saying so why would we go [Music] yeah because we we're pretty much on our end we're confident it's going to come through it's just a timing thing we're not asking for a waiver waiver you're not going to do it we're just asking for a condition of approval just we can move forward it's going to come in as we think and if it doesn't it changes the project we come back to moment when do you think it's coming in two I was hoping this week on the dot thing I've called them I mean that that to me is a big one but also sorry sorry yes dot but these nerpa I understand

we had to resubmit I did this morning okay so but if anything changes with the permit coming back that changes the project we come back to amend the product I know but what I'm saying is our time here like well that's what we're trying to do is save the time because if it comes back as we think it's going to come back it won't change anything on the project then you don't have to see us again

really doubling come back next time or there's a 50 50 Shaw or whatever it is that we got to come back again there's still a chance we don't so we could be saving your time that's all we're trying to do we're not trying to not do anything we have to it's just you know everything's submitted we think it's going to come back

what could be initiated with these three what could be initiated by the applicant these three reports being outstanding what could they physically what could you do what are you participating just lining stuff off now we can go surveyor maybe yeah

to me that's one of the big items is now if we've agreed on the layout we know this like the things that could possibly change at this point are maybe the Culvert size changes right like I change a note on page and that's changed yeah right oh well well it could be better than that but then we have to come back to amend it what would be bigger than that right you could be changing your stormwater calculations yeah we got to come back no changing the size of clover doesn't change my stormwater calculations that Crossing is is what it is it's we've oversized it it's it's that stream is not wider than two feet I put a 60 inch Culvert over top of it which is well above and beyond one and a half times you're not going to why can you interrupt me and I can't interrupt you right

something like that to one of my members one of those other gentlemen be presenting for you that's fine do not do that with my board members that's fine so then the other all the things that could possibly change like I said earlier the underdrained soil filter could move up the hill a little bit but I don't see that being a problem because I do believe that the what I the the reasoning I explained earlier the gravel area is that's where we put our pond that's the Disturbed area that to me is as logical as you can approach a project and I'm assuming and hoping that the reviewing agencies will see it that way as well um but if any of that changed but even still I mean that's what I'm saying and if if we get through all the substantiative review and those are the two items that could move up or down ever so slightly to me that doesn't change our conversation I mean you guys aren't reviewing the storm

water anyways right that's something that I now have the D.O.T Army Core dep and a peer reviewer all reviewing all right that's going to be reviewed four times over before it comes back and if any of them change anything then we can we'll have one other meeting right if we have to if I have to amend that make a change to that I come back to that next final meeting and say okay here's the little changes we made if we can get through substantiative review and those four permits come back and they all are all fine then there is no second meeting so to not do substantiative review tonight guarantees an extra meeting if we can make it through substantiative review and say yeah this project is a good project there's there's no big red flags here there's no dangers to the to the environment everything that's been done out there the wetlands are a product of what men have done to that area right like we put a bad Culvert in there we

ditched across a wetland that dammed up the other side of it so we've impacted that area as people already my my proposals saying look we're going to follow the existing Damage Done turn this into to a decent looking residential neighborhood and and and

the question before the board is we want to continue with uh completion excuse me use the right term there so of Transportation permit kind of the Environmental Protection permit stormwater yeah yeah they're all regarding the same

alignment of the neighborhood can I speak to that one you may the dot is actually fine with the alignment as the peer engineer also said their final key alignment okay the dot now is concerned because that Culvert washed out on route 9. they want to review my storm water okay so that has to go off to their Engineers which is an ordeal right like that's just that helps me out a little bit that because if they came back it weren't okay with that a lot and I would say that all we have is somebody's telephone call I mean the peer reviewer waiting on the alignment as well okay whatever said he doesn't have a concern with the alignment and we asked for the dot and the dot is that again the dot the guy on the phone was like no problem and then he was looking carefully he's like uh literally that week is when the Culvert watched I was like actually we have to look at storm water along Route nine I gotta send this off to the engineer I

just don't want to set a president of taking phone calls sure no that's that's peer reviewer said the alignment is not a concerned because it's offset so minorly okay no big deal well we can we can go through the checklist on substantial review and at some point in time we'll run into those issues and I guess take a vote on at that point so we need to do substantial the checklist for some financial review all right wait I'm sorry so are we going through lots of Standards review completeness I Won't Say I'm Sorry for please yeah we're still doing completeness and can I just say one more thing I want to just make it clear that it's not that we're trying to make sure that the project is okay our ordinance says we need these permits to make it complete it's not a someone says oh it looks good our Gore Palmer says it looks good that's not what our ordinance says it says we must have these permits

that's what we're going to say I mean even if we do it conditionally I'm still saying we need it I'm saying 4 it's complete conditional on getting these things is correct yeah it's yeah I hear you okay so right now I think we're ready to start the completeness review and George do you have well again you've already done the completeness review and you identified those three issues so it really is take a vote on whether to accept the application as being complete thank you so that would be I will need a motion on whether yes or no the motion on whether or not the application is complete given the three missing permits I make a motion to find it complete conditional I'm receiving those three permits and can we get into detail about when like when are we saying we need those by like what what part of the process you can actually deal with that when you do your final approval condition assuming

you get to the point of making a decision on Final approval so you're basically saying the application is substantially complete notwithstanding the absence of those three permits have a second we have a motion the second any further discussion if not those who are in favor of um saying it is substantially complete raise a hand

is substantially complete so that that did not pass okay so then you should probably make a motion to determine the application is incomplete can I have a motion to determine I'll make a motion that the application has been deemed

motion to Second any further discussion if not those in favor of determining it to be incomplete raise your hand understand in doing something like that why we even use the term of conditional go that way and not the applicant knows what is outstanding

I mean the way that ordinance is written you shouldn't even accepted my final attention exactly you've accepted we've already blown past that ordinance the fact that I'm here is people no you've had two completeness reviews that's part I can't but it says you shouldn't even accept a final approvement I can't accept or not accept that's the board's uh Authority so I submit it they do a completeness review I do a preliminary review and give them agenda notes and they make the determinants yeah that's not it that's not for discussion I mean it's been voted as incomplete so when you have the permits we'll reconsider

the next thing is new business completeness review of final plan application for Amendment to the Brown Road Subdivision map one lot nine a uh Mr applicants please that I've got to do it last time please announce your name and address for us please both of you who are going to speak sure my name is Kevin Clark from sight lines I'm a agent for the applicant James and Grace Cullum and this is Mr Cullum here beside me

she's going to put something up on the board for us and uh chairman uh this application is requesting amendment of a recorded subdivision known as the brown subdivision and the applicant has requested that the application be considered for a waiver of the procedural requirements to allow given the nature of the project the combination of the preliminary plan approval with the final plan approval process and as I indicated my agenda notes many towns have a mechanism they call minor subdivision if it's less than three lots or three or fewer they have an expedited position that procedure like what we're talking about Durham when we put this together looked at the state model subdivision regulations where they said that look you could have a three lot subdivision that raises issues especially if they're going to build a road or something so rather than doing that they recommended that you look at these on a case-by-case

basis and if it is as simple as it seems then you would Grant a procedural waiver so that's the mechanism that's being available and that's what the applicant is requesting so they have submitted the final plan application for this approval of one lot and with the expectation if the board grants a waiver then you can move right to the substantive review I have included in your packet a complete a draft letter of completeness and incompleteness so if you decide to move forward with the review tonight we can later issue that the completeness review so as I explained I've had and prior quote officers have had discussions with the property owner and pretty much it was it was unclear to them that any subdivision approval was even required for this because generally under main law splitting a lot into two does not require subdivision approval but checking the records we found that there was in fact in 1996 a subdivision plan

for this for the division of two lots that created this lot so that recorded plan this land is part of a approved subdivision and under the ordinance and Main law you can't make a change to that without getting a subsequent playing board approval so there are two ideas for how this came to be approved as a subdivision the first one I pointed out is that that old Grant Road discontinued could have been interpreted to create three lots that little one acre on the corner and then the other two or another thought is that at the time that that division was proposed closed captioning not available

the brown subdivision plan and this is just a second there's two lots it was the first lot here which was 9a1 and 982 a different plan shows in case I'm not sure K1 and K2 so this there's a connector here so this one acre on the opposite side of the old Grant Road and part of that lot 9 A1 and then the 6.4 Acres

highlighted in red is uh 982 which is now the property of the columns and that's the parcel that they're looking to divide yeah that's the lotto that 9a1 there is equivalent to 9A on our tax maps and then the other one um to the right nine a one I guess yeah oh nine eight two I'm sorry is 9A on the tax maps and 9a1 is 9j and then there

are some more all the other nine three more the next Parts there's about 10 Lots so all the other nines are not part of a subdivision I guess requests I think this division here was the reason they had this go for approval for the two lots is when they divided this from that whole piece of Peace it's best I can tell it was 1996 um and I it's just unclear that we're really no notes on the plan to explain

why they had to do a subdivision based on everything I'm seeing is Cumberland County the Brown Road is the divider between Cumberland County and the southern County correct well yes as best we can tell in this area it's actually the north side of the the side of the road the Brown Road is actually in Paloma but the reason the reason I'm asking that is in 1996 that was filed that subdivision was filed when under the uh Cumberland County registered Deeds which kind of surprised me because it's actually in Androscoggin County no I think the plan is recorded it may have been another book that I read it said it was filed in Cumberland County it's my concern or something like that research thinking that this is actually in Androscoggin County they're not going to find that 1996 filed within his Coggin registered Deeds yeah it is it's one of Andrews goggin book 39 page 31. well maybe there's a yeah

I know I remember seeing it and filed in Auburn no I said my letter says Andrew stoggin you know where I got my Deed from with auburn yeah but I could have said Cumberland somewhere else okay um okay so the general request here is just to split this look in the red right yeah that's the existing lot and we want to split that can you change that plan yep I will

and so our here's the six point Defenders yeah put it up there's full screen 2.07 and then remaining 4.33 okay Mr Mrs Coleman we're gonna maintain and then convey and again the only reason you guys are here going through this is because back in the day for some reason there was some sort of subdivision or something it was it was a subdivision it was signed by the plan anymore uh and then your ordinance says that anything that was approved inside by the plan board has to come back for a reapproval uh other towns are allowing if five years have passed they're not requiring that Topsham actually wrote that into their code recently so if it's been more than five years and you can get two lots that meet the standards that you can divide it without going for an amendment so the question before us is I don't want to use the wrong terms here but is this a minor enough simple enough process to go straight to price uh final

plan versus preliminary plan and you know so that's their waiver is to jump over preliminary plan sidewalk and just go straight to final to file tonight that yes and start working on the final if it's substantially complete but yeah so that's I think our first vote is on a waiver correct so I'm still stuck up and the waiver the waiver form the waiver form on page uh starting on page 40 of the packet uh right prior to that the one thing that I had talked about was the Cumberland County Registrar it's actually under 6.11 it's on the third page yeah and I don't

know I apologize that is my typo that should say interesting okay and just kind of I just wanted I found a couple other typos when I regret it this afternoon and I did second time around okay so let's get back to the waiver request if you're okay yes um yeah that's on page 40 and this is the request for the uh waiver of sketch plan preliminary and go right to final plan uh the uh justification for that is provided uh in item D of the application and we've already discussed that and then if you decide to go forward then vote on the waiver you would use page 42 in the packet three of the uh waiver request form and you would basically it would be Item B which is waiver procedural requirements and then there is a uh there's facts there in terms of what is the basis of it and then you would move uh and then vote on that

waiver for procedure requirements for the four things that are on page something other 63 of the ordinance we can do that and so that quickly the four things that have to be met for the waiver no new streets are proposed this is off of Brown Road no approval and an engineer in his submission cover though so no approvals required for Maine deaf Department enviral protection under the site location of development act stormwater law or natural resource and protection act of the permit by rule the board agrees to approve a waiver from the requirements to submit a storm water management plan and sedimentation erosion control plan and the application contains all the other applicable submissions required for both the preliminary and final steps except for those ideas for which a waiver of a required submission has been requested and granted by the planning board and you have waivers when we get into the

substance two other waivers yes okay guess a tweak to that that Mr DeBarge and I were talking about prior to the meeting is that the verbiage requires a storm water management plan which may or may not make sense depending upon the Boar's decision for this particular project so we would have to do add that waiver to one of the other waivers that you've requested and we did that is one of the other waivers that were used okay I didn't I didn't read that okay good point that out to you so that is a question that those four criteria are met um then we can approve the waiver is there any other discussion

waiver to proceed to the final plan the sub the completeness review of the final plan I will motion to wave that we move to the completeness thank you second I will second that motion okay any further discussion hearing seeing none please raise a hand if you approve 5-0 okay so we can then move to the completement complete yeah completeness review okay Mr chairman the applicant has submitted and in their application and their cover letter they've gone through uh all of the submission requirements and they've noted that on many of these again we're dealing with a one law and many of these things deal with much larger projects and so you will see in their completed checklist on page starting on page 46 of the packet in the

first three pages of the uh checklist are the final plan submission requirements and they've indicated which ones they have submitted and which ones that they are indicating like letter of commitment from a bank for the infrastructure costs they're they're indicating those would not be applicable so okay

everybody's had a chance to read the completeness checklist submission by the applicant are there any questions want to go through them individually sold yeah just as you checked a block about um on b19 of the checklist any flood areas and flood boundaries are shown on plans you said yes I didn't see anything about plants well that was that is sort of a paraphrase of the section in the ordinance and we did provide a flood map flood shows that it's in the area it's in zone X so you're talking about Zone X which is not a flood Hazard I got you okay that was that confused me all right do we have I think I questioned whether I should say yes or no there myself you explained it well do we have a uh motion or any other comments discussion on completeness if not a motion to accept this is complete

um no there's none on the site and you're not anywhere near RP or anything like that so nope there's a tiny little is it a fire pond but it's awful more it's down or I should say it's towards the northwest of the property but it's on the next lot okay I don't know if it's I don't know if there's a pipe there or not but there's a small not on the property oh yeah I see it yep Kevin don't I mean um little thing yeah um any other comments or questions on completeness

this as complete so I won't make a motion to accept this application as complete second motion by Mr Hutchinson second by Mr Puritan all those in favor of accepting it as complete raise a hand 5-0 okay now we go into substantive review

and back to my notes on that many towns consider to be a uh a minor subdivision and uh we we go this route of treating it as uh the same process as a final subdivision so the main issues for a project like this are making sure that the proposed lot

requirements of 90 000 square feet and the minimum Road Furniture requirements for both Lots which those are met so it makes meets the basic design zoning standards excuse me there were site constraints on the lot such as Wetlands we've discussed as well as steep topography and generally our slope topography with no severe steepness of slopes that would cause erosion problems so challenges and then making sure that the lot has a test pit for a septic system that will pass the main State Plumbing code which they have submitted the groundwater restrictive layer is 18 inches from the surface which is well within the state plumbing code requirements um there is a requirement in the ordinance that we've been focusing on more recently with the on-site water source for fire protection it sounds like there's a pond right within a short distance of this property and the applicant is requesting a waiver of the

requirement for an on-site cistern with 30 000 gallons worth of water which is what you would require in a sub multiple lot subdivision per the ordinance and they have indicated their willingness to accept a requirement that the house that's built on that lot be protected with a residential sprinkler system the fire chief is fine with that uh the other waiver that they're asking is for the well exclusion Zone uh under the

main plumbing code as well as the draw well drilling standards uh you can't have a well within 100 feet of a septic system so most subdivisions in Maine now require most planning boards requires they put a well exclusion zone so that you don't have somebody drill a while on one lot and that's then in violation of the setback requirement of the body lot and it's particularly important when you get into cluster subdivisions if you look at the subdivision down the road here you'll see the weld exclusion zones pretty much cover almost all of those lots and the wells have to be located in the corners outside of those radii so when you get a two acre lot with you know this density then that's that's not as much of an issue so they're asking they not be required to put a well exclusion Zone on that on that map and they'll still have to meet the state plumbing code separation feet and then as John picked up the ordinance

technically says you have to have a waiver on the stormwad they have submitted an erosion and sedimentation control plan which is very appropriate for this uh for the lot in terms of the same the construction of the new home on it in the future we're not sure what the plans are for eventual construction and then basically the storm water you wouldn't typically require a storm water management plan for this anyway because they're not going to have detention basins and DEP filter beds and those

sorts of things anyway so they which which application form did you use for that waiver request I've not seen it on the Storm have not no I'm not you've got one for the fire water system and one for uh cell test bit and the uh you know think of me may have said uh

that on page 78 where they are requesting waiver of uh the performance standards for the exclusion Zone you could include a waiver of that storm water management requirement plan requirements so yeah I'm trying to see where I put the justification

applicable and I should have said uh you did but that did say that it doesn't pass for a waiver okay I apologize for that one that was assuming it's approved yes and I'd be happy to answer any questions on that exclusion Zone that requirement is the intention of that is like for like use it for smaller or close lots of that are close you want to make sure people don't put a well in such an area that makes it or that they create a lot where they can put a well because it's within you know all of those uh well exclusion zones yeah so you want to make sure every lot has a place they can put their septic system and a place where they can put their well those well exclusion Zone does a couple of things it during your review it verifies that that's not going to be a problem and then number two when they go out and start building the subdivision that's on the subdivision plan everybody's going to be aware of

those those well exclusion zones yeah yeah so it's that multi-purpose thing yep another record you're doing going to do no improvements to these Lots so you're not adding storm drains ponds any of that because there's there's questions and you've got not applicable I just want to sure no there's no construction proposed on that okay simply going to sell it okay so no buyer made build a home on it but I think that's all that would be allowed in that zone anyway yeah

yeah the sprinkler system is that required for mobiles and modern homes too you agree if your question is do you have to put one in your home as grandfathered I wouldn't believe I believe well I think he's talking about the people they'll say they want to put on a mobile home or a dog with Calvin over here and he mentioned that it might be um not and you don't have to do it I don't know Calvin would be the wrong guy

come out the wrong way but the fire chief whoever is going to build in there that's what he told me to talk with and so before he interrupt you again concerns about any of the performance standards okay but before we do this we need to approve three waivers right correct so individually or maybe we combined one of those so we've approved one waiver so far no which was a procedural waiver yeah the proceed to the final plan step so then we have in your packets there should be uh paperwork for two waivers two waiver requests and one of those will need to add verbies to cover the storm water management a waiver on the storm water management you would go to page 78 of the packet

be under 6.35 a waiver of the um is this the well exclusion one first yes oh no no this is for the uh that's right for the uh on-site water you go to the other one and put it on either one is fine and that would be under the performance standard C

questions I guess if we're on waivers then the first waiver as it exists now is the fire fresh facilities and this would commit you to whoever buys that lot and build something to putting a residential sprinkler system on there and so we need to make it the

prove it on the waiver if that's what we do uh a waiver of performance standards um and that's on page 79 George with those four criteria there uh which I'll let you read if you got in front of you but basically he's provided a factual basis for granting it um because it nullify the intent substantially met the performance standards and are they noted I guess I'm not sure I noticed that are they noted on the recorded subdivision plan so you'd have to record them on the plan yeah and I'm sure between George writes up the findings and I'll take the conditions and the waivers and add those to the plan before we record it the only ones you need to put on the plan are standards not procedures just so you know yep

the subdivision plan if you grant the waiver of the well exclusion Zone and the on-site water so if we're comfortable that he's provided us the factual basis are we I guess that would be a question any problems with that for granting the waiver they don't have the effect of nullifying the intent purpose of the zoning relation regulations or subdivision any problems with any concerns about that rather they're they're all kind of related um it seems like the the intent of this section of the zoning ordinance is applies to a subdivision you know like what we just were reviewing previously was you know going to be multiple new houses and the town wants to ensure that there's adequate water supply to you know fight fires for you know exactly new houses unfortunately it is so yeah it is a subdivision so we we just kind of have to waive those those particular requirements yeah so if there's no concerns about any of

those four uh items then do I have a motion uh to approve a waiver to waive the requirements of 6.16 c and I forgot the other number that for the storm water 6.35 B 6.35 B3 that's George you got everything yep if not uh raise your hand if you approve the waiver passes 5-0 and we still have one more waiver to uh review

which is the waiver for the um well exclusion Zone waiver of performance standards comments don't need to okay we'll just you know board have any questions or concerns it seems excessive to require these assessments to provide the well occlusion zone so I don't have an issue yeah and like the uh you know lots to either side of this are already developed so it's a

limiting factor on where they can put a well or accepting they're not going to be able to locate a well in such an area that it's going to make someone else not be able to put in the septic system and when they correct me if I'm wrong George is if when they come in with a site plan to build on either parcel the code enforcement person would take a look at the location of the Well versus house and other things not necessarily because they don't give permits for that they give permits for the septic systems and that's they would be looking to make sure that the septic system is not within 100 feet of a well but the site plan doesn't include the house site plan doesn't include the resulting location of course yeah okay okay no dusting the thing there are we ready to make a motion on this one the same four criteria apply because whether we the waiver is acceptable yes okay uh we're ready yes we are would

you make one please yes I will make a motion to accept this waiver is it 6.35 and in the actual standard is being waived is 6.9 point B 0.6 performance standard rate yep you said that's what I'm sorry yep that's the requirement for well exclusion okay we have a second we have motion thank you for moving it along all those in favor raise your hand it looks like 5-0 and so the waivers are approved and then I guess the next step is to approve the final plan yeah I have provided for you a set of findings of fact that go down through all of the uh criteria for review uh in there I have noted the submissions that the applicant has submitted as well as uh basically I copied and pasted from there submittal the justification for their meeting each of the standards and so those are contained on the draft findings which are Pages 92 through 97 of your packet and we need to vote on each of those separately it would be good to just make

a motion and a vote on each one of them you don't necessarily need to go down through all the discussion assuming that you've all read the packet and understand the justification okay um my my uh so number one uh the title has

been cut off on my copy do you have page 92 of the packet if not it's probably on your computer screen if you've printed it out where you've seen the 92 meter well if you're looking at the PDF on the screen it's 92 of 98. so it's right after uh right after this whole thing yeah keep going it's a subdivision approval decision findings these are always like yeah it's not here yeah I don't have it it's okay I'll look over here okay I can bring it up on the screen if you like yeah that'll be good yeah that's a good idea thank you give me a moment

um let's do it this way right yeah yeah yeah I just wanted to make sure I did it yeah they're on there you did I know yeah I was in the packet online yeah it's this is number one and what the title is on mine is all almost there

speed through it won't read through it does anybody have it because of what we can if there's a concern about uh pollution anyone else if not I'll take a motion on number one uh to approve or disapprove motion to approve the pollution on the review criteria second uh

those in favor raise a hand five zero next one is sufficient water any concerns about sufficient water include the granting of the waiver and the condition for the residential sprinkler system of number one that's that suit number two yeah number two well it's in there so it's already in there okay so number one uh sufficient water uh and with the presidential sprinkler option requirement not an option requirement

can can I say something this isn't about your maybe we could get this on our town warrant not this year but next year the following has sufficient water available for the reasonably foreseeable needs of the subdivision like how do we know you know like we can't we should be saying more like has um appears to have or something so many gallons per minute yeah well that's just that's in the state statute really really yeah like we've talked about this is not about your project but how are you supposed to figure that well if there were where this comes in is that if you have an area where the dwells are dry because you know it's an area that has very deep groundwater aquifer or a Bedrock aquifers and that's not sufficient um and then secondly if they were proposing a very high density subdivision or a commercial where they're going to be doing groundwater withdrawals it's going to be affecting

other groundwater that would be it doesn't have sufficient that's for supply and then also for um uh water fire safety water protection that's the other issue so if it meets those there's no well problems in the areas and they're addressing the fire protection then it has sufficiently okay and if we had a concern not to be just of course too bad but if we had a concern about whether down the road 100 years from now then they can require a hydrologic survey or something they'd be in the board we could I wouldn't look a hundred years I look at when the subdivision gets built is there going to be enough water for it but I guess I'm trying to figure out if there's a quantitative standard to apply yeah hydrological studies can be shown that there's not enough water recharge in this area to those Wells are going to go dry yeah that's a future we included was there's a map from the state that shows it

doesn't have all of them what is it should is that gallons per minute and that's gallons per minute and so those were in the area we're all okay all pretty well that's more of the lotus was Louis was maybe three or something like that and that's something crazy um

three and a half at his house yeah and even that's somewhat the most are up yeah but yeah you're far away yeah second all in favor of approving it raise your hand 5-0 moving on to number three erosion and they have submitted erosion control plans part of the record

are questions on number three motion motion Tyler and Juliet I have Motion in a second all or any other comments please raise your hands it passes five zero the next one is traffic it's just going to be adding one driveway on Brown Road I motion to we accept traffic okay seconds written second discussion seeing none a favor raise your hand please number five sewage disposal they have submitted a Soil Test Meeting the main plumbing code requirements so the motion would include the waiver that we approved I I is this the one this is no this is just that they have uh adequate sewage waste disposal okay they can put a septic system on there okay gotcha okay uh an emotion I moved it we accept number five second

Wilson all in favor raise your hand number six Municipal solid waste disposal and they have uh well within the capacity of the town's system they're right on the public the driveway is on the public road and just just so you know this got put in there back when they were doing landfill closures uh and some towns had their dep determined that their landfill was not in compliance and it wouldn't allow any development in the town until they get their landfill situation resolved so but it's still in the law so it doesn't really matter well it's been a strike that from the record please

they won't go down a private road which obviously doesn't apply here so um do I have a motion motion to accept number six I'll second by Mr Wilson second by Miss kaplinger raise your hand in your favor five zero we're moving on to study cultural and natural values and they will maintain a 50-foot vegetative buffer along the roadway and I reviewed all of the state inventories and there weren't any sensitive resources item seven I have a motion to accept second okay we have a motion from Miss Puritan a second from Mr Hutchinson and all in favor five zero Conformity with local ordinances and plans as I indicated my opening comments I have the minimum lot size and Road Frontage meet the zoning requirements okay uh motion I'll make a motion I'll make a motion that we approve number eight Conformity with local ordinances and plans motion by Mr Talent second by Mr Puritan all in favor raise your hands

number nine financial and Technical capacity and that is demonstrated by their having professional preparation of the plans there's really no infrastructure or other Financial requirements for the project okay emotion I'll make that motion second second motion by Miss cavanger uh

second by Mr Wilson all in favor raise your hands number 10 surface waters and it's not located with any Watershed of running around Pond or any area subject to mandatory Shoreline zoning no wetlands no wetlands second we have a motion in a second by Mr Pennington and Mr Hutchinson all in favor please raise your hands 5-0 groundwater again they've said if you guys keep doing that I just keep saying motion a second by the same guys I was just thinking can I say is my left hand yeah groundwater number 11 please yeah they have indicated the passing soil tests and there are no documented problems of wells in the area any discussion if not a motion to approve so hold number 11. I will second it so number 11 uh motion by Mr Perryton seconded by Mr Talbot and I'll raise your hands if in favor number 12 flood areas and as the applicants indicated in their flood maps this is not a float prone area

any discussion hope to accept item 12. second motion by Mr Pearson the second by Miss keplinger in favor raise your hands please 5-0 freshwater wetlands and the applicant has testified that there are no freshwater wetlands within the proposed lot ion set 13. and I will second motion by Miss Puritan I could say just the same two people but by Mr Puritan and the second by Miss uh Caplinger our favorite please raise your hands five I guess five should at least look five zero River stream or Brook

yeah the applicant has indicated there are no active farmlands nor Farmland soils on the site all in favor please raise your hand 5-0 now River streamer Brooke and again the applicant has testified that there are no regulated streams within the property

by Ms Caplinger all favorite please raise a hand five zero uh what are we on stormwater yeah and I had drafted this with the under the presumption that this was exempt from stormwater management requirements which I still think it is but we did Grant a waiver on the requirement for a submission of a stormwater plan which we can add um if I may make a motion then the project has received a waiver from storm water management requirements which is changing from exempt has received a waiver yeah okay I'll make oh

I've made a second okay we have a motion by Mr Talbot at second by Miss Cavender no Mr Puritan and all in favor please raise your hands spaghetti Lots prohibited there are no spaghetti or manicotti Lots in the summer George Zinger

after that touch of humor uh a motion please I'll make that motion second uh motion by Miss kaplings you're a second by Mr Wilson uh uh all in favor of that motion please raise your hand 5-0 Great Pond phosphorus concentration the only great pond in Durham is run around Pond and it's not within that watershed a motion for the is the devotion as

written a second second motion by Mr Puritan second by Ms Caplinger that the project is not located within uh if in favor raise your hands 5-0 number 19 impact on adjoining municipalities and again the addition of one house on Brown Road shouldn't have an unreasonable traffic congestion in Durham or any other municipality

motion by Mr Puritan second by Mr Hutchinson all those in favor raise a hand 5-0 and last but not least land subject to liquidation harvesting there has been no Timber harvesting on the property within the last five years oh second a motion by Mr Puritan second by Miss Caplinger all in favor raise your hands 5-0 so now we have to do what here to approve the final we have one more motion to make yes and the conditions of approval are listed on the bottom of page six and they're on the screen and we would add that requirement that the waivers of performance standards be added to the subdivision plan all three okay all three are okay all right so a motion uh that would include the um what do you call those things at the bottom thousands of approval conditions of approval uh as written plus the one performance waivers that we approved second motioned by Mr Puritan seconded by Miss Caplinger all those in

favor please raise your hands 5-0 and congratulations thank you very much thank you for doing a good job on the application by the way yeah I definitely like to compliment but it was very well done yes thank you George George talked about um Conservation Commission um and uh that they still if it goes before the town meeting it has come to us so Conservation Commission or our resource protection still at work good night it's still a work in process but our the work we've been doing on affordable housing uh is up for discussion and I think at some point just kind of why it's there is at some point in time we have to come up with you know healthy recommendations uh recommendations for the selection what we'd like to do or or not just send it to them with comments and then we we've done our information hearing we've had the survey we've talked to them at the local election so I think we've done a

good job of getting their signs up getting going I think we've done a good job of getting the word out on this and so um what we need to do and I I think by the January meeting January 3rd meeting we want to be able to put together a recommendation on what the warrant should be you know George would write it but what we'd like to recommend of the options or tweak the option or whatever it may be um because I kind of lost it last night the selectman said that we cannot hold the public hearing more than 30 days before which which puts the public Hearing in the early lunch early my first week of March why there's nothing that says you can't hold more than one public hearing so the Iran says we have to hold one yes fine thank you uh the idea would be if you wanted to take public input and make changes then that would give you more time to do that a lot of surveys already taken the public interest yep I think we've yes I

mean I feel comfortable that way and yeah we get better one of those I I feel like we've had um we've done a good job of getting the public input to it and it's not final I mean the survey is still out there we can just kind of say Hey you know if you got any last-minute comments get them out but I'm not sure what we accomplished but yet another another meeting but that's I'm one guy well we're just shy of 200 uh respondents on that so far yeah 195. um I to me the data looks kind of just like a mess in most regards um so I I think a lot of it's going to come down to how we want to word it and present it which means I think the more time the better with getting more public input since the data essentially says very little then we have to kind of go with our best guess as to what majority of people say and put that before people again to to make sure people would be on board like okay well this is the best we could do with

what we were doing would you see that as I'd pick an option option four draft up say this is what option four is this that the other thing and then you're recommending it wouldn't have to be a public hearing it'd be just another informational meeting right I mean like we did in October or it could be either one I guess yeah I mean I'm I'm not sure that we need to do that but if we went wasn't at option three option three was uh higher favorability if we went with that wouldn't we have to increase the lot size yes yes we'd have to we'd we'd also have to change there'd be more ordinance changes required and that that's the big thing I don't know whether the Public Act actually knows that for sure who knows do they if we had a public hearing I would be posing the question to the public at that hearing do you really realize that it would actually have to increase the lot size is that really what they

wanted was that yeah because that would be part of an ordinance changes exactly now it's 100 acre lot or a three acre lot or whatever whatever we'd want to do that was stated in the survey now whether they read the fine print or not that's an issue yeah I think the other thing the other thing to consider is that it would only be required for the additional units so it wouldn't necessarily you would need to change the basic lot size it'd just be if you did multiple units you could add that they have to have more okay now I am a little confused because I thought the law said that you could not make changes if two

ours is two acres for a single family we could not increase it because they want to do additional units because no actually the law does allow that doesn't allow you to increase it allows you to increase doesn't require it but it does allow it as long as it's not more than the standard lot size so for example you couldn't require allow a single family on two acres and then require uh the the second and third

units to have two acres each to make it six acres you could only add re or excuse me you couldn't think you could have the lot size per unit the same as for the standard single family so if you re you could require two acres for each additional unit for a total of six for three under the law okay totally misunderstood that I thought it has been put if it's ours is two acres for a single family lot if you wanted to have additional units you couldn't change that the law requires you to allow additional units but the law specifically allows towns to increase the lot sizes for those units as long as it's not more than the single family requirement so so if you had per unit per like if you went along that route yeah someone had a six acre lot they could get three units on it but if someone only had like a three acre lot then well if they have if they have two acres under the if you don't address

this by increasing density or or lot size requirements so under the new law that goes into effect next July if you don't increase lot sizes they will be able to put three units on any lot where you allow a single family if there's if there's a single family there they will have to allow two more units on that two acres because I took your drive just for me I took your drawings to say it with a picture of a house on it yep and they said okay you can put an addition on that house but that same size lot with option two you can option three option three is then you say well the state's making us do that therefore we're going to increase lot sizes to offset that that was option three so that's a

increase we'd increase lot size is 10 wide for extra units okay you wouldn't necessarily need to increase it for one unit right so you could say okay the state's making us put three units on this two acre lot we're going to say you have to have two acres per unit you could add that so you'd have to have a six eight yeah so you've already got two acres for the existing single family yeah or if you had like a four acre lot you would be able to put on two units yeah or an additional one additional unit I certainly don't think the townspeople want to be able to add additional and you have a house lot with two acres and have the option of putting two more houses on the same two acres without increasing the lot size I just

it's like having a subdivision and keep on reducing and reducing the lot well we're all we already allow uh perhaps an accessory you're already allowed duplexes two units on one lock tweak or two that's actually two and a half 1800 figures and you allow accessory units on any two acres but it could only be 50 of the main house so what's our our responsibility here regarding decision with the select board are they are we supposed to be working in tandem with them well I think we kind of make a recommendation we will we've done the information meeting we've gotten feedback we then digest that feedback and say okay the planning board recommend we don't have to make a recommendation at all we could just say you know we have this meeting here's the here's the video of it here's the survey results here's the public hearing results

verbiage of the article yeah I'm sorry but I misspoke so the the final public hearing has to be the verbiage of the article which I think there would be a little bit of room to tweak it uh but not a lot of room to tweak in but we can make

just give them and let them let them just like they the recommendation is a recommendation they may or may not absolutely but we can but I don't think we should I don't think we should not make a recommendation uh we'd love to make limits on the size of additional units on the same lot yeah because like so say someone has a normal size let's say single family home and like we already allow an accessory apartment that's 50 could we say that okay you can now have two accessory departments that are or a accessory apartment that's 50 in a tiny home that's 30 that's what option A or option one was intended to do to say look allow because the comprehensive plan supports allowing more units yeah okay so but to

try to control the to make them fit in you could say that those cannot for a single family can only can now have two accessory units but they have to be accessory they can't be full-sized units yeah uh that's what option A and a duplex could add an accessory unit where they can't now but it would have to be accessory half the size of one of the units so that was the intent of a is to provide more housing options but try to keep it within the character of the town and not increase lot sizes because then that defeats the purpose of making more housing availability yeah that's what I would say I mean I think Mike got feelings that it any fear of this is that you know all of a sudden people can now have three single family homes on two acre lot you know that are 2 000 square foot each if something they fit you may still have to meet all the setbacks and yeah but I mean but if we could go with something like option A I

think that kind of addresses the intent of the law and you know put some limits makes it you know like you know our my Lots six acres but you know half of its Wetlands but um you know you know I could have a accessory apartment above the garage and then maybe a tiny home on there and it's not kind of over building that lot but I couldn't put three single-family homes on that lot and and it doesn't state law say that you can limit it to no more than 50 percent of the existing again that's that's all up in the air because there's no clear definition and dec-d was trying to come up with some rules but they haven't really come up with a map so George in your opinion which auction best supports a comprehensive plan option A So based on everything that we all the public hearings whenever we have one that seems to be reinforcing

ordinances they should be reinforcing that and I would that's what I would be supporting the verb the term is consistent with the comprehensive correct and if we did go with option A what changes to ordinances have to be made

results because I think that might influence or at least should be considered because it's one thing for the planning board select board or anybody else to propose something it's another thing to have it pass that town and so part of the survey indication is to say look you know and Tyler I thank you for doing that detailed analysis of the correlations but basically if there is strong sentiment in the town that you know they should not the town should not follow the comprehensive plan on this issue unlike other issues and those people show up at the town meeting and they're the ones that vote then but then in this case the fallback position is then the state just you do what the state says you have to do

look practically speaking this is what the comprehensive plan says but we've tested the political Waters and we think that you might as well just put up the uh this minimum State requirement and that's probably what's going to pass because the state's going to enforce it anyway so ideally you would follow the comprehensive plan but politically it just may not fly and I kind of look at when I look at the data I guess Tyler thank you very much for doing that you really have two um in my mind you've got the make it as restrictive as possible group which is 51 or some number like that then you've got the other half which is yeah we want to do this some which is is just do the state plan which does ex you know doesn't increase lot sizes or whatever it meant it you know and then other ones that yes do is as much as you can is the wrong term so it's 50 50 between people who want to expand the options yeah without making

it harder versus 50 who uh think we should make it harder and um so the other thought in kind of following the pattern that was taken from last night's meeting you could put option A up for the first vote which is to say follow the comprehensive plan if that fails then add the language in that will put put you in compliance with the state as a fallback option sorry to be really sickler and annoying but option A is option one we have it okay sorry I don't know I just wanted to make sure I didn't have a chance to note yeah

have we probably need I mean this is good and we can my wife's out of town and I have no life anyway so I'm happy to continue doing this but we probably have the January third meeting uh we probably ought to kind of start thinking about how do we want to which one do we want to use or how do we tweak it as George said do we do we take one and say okay for two straight single family two uh two acres or maybe a straight single family with a accessible above the garage second floor you're not increasing a footprint you're not adding another house or whatever do we stick with the earnest as it says but if you want to get a Standalone unit or a third unit in there you add two acres how do you you know what do we want to do uh that's I guess those thoughts would be wonderful what if we

go through in July we're going to have to follow it the code officer will follow the state law and that is number two two correct okay so two just says put it into the ordinance so that the ordinance is consistent with the state law but also

question will be will Rules promulgated by the dec-d be adopted by this legislature that will then narrow those so for example they might say to you can't limit the size of a unit those sorts of things but the legislature I think would have to prove that if it's going to have the force of law what if we I'm just thinking about

what we were talking about sorry do we need to have do we need to put this off until January or can we make that decision tonight I can how about the consensus I think it's more clear it'd be easier to understand and we can talk more about it now when you say if we have two options I mean the two options would go on the or no right now or no right oh yeah I think that is what you're saying yeah okay but no I are saying put it on put it before the Smart Board as that like you said the comp plan first and then yeah we could do that but also I was thinking we could have another public hearing and with two options see where people land there and just again if the overwhelming input of the public hearing is you know increase lot sizes then you could reconsider that public meeting is either way I mean I just call our public information what we did last time but this is where you came out less formal and all that other stuff

so yeah yeah okay we could do rag Choice voting [Laughter] that's kind of what Kevin was recommending last night was almost right you know you don't like this and then here's the other pieces which would probably work okay so I'm not sure where we are then do we want to be okay yeah before we would make a decision well we could make a decision then present it to the public or you could also report back to the select board here's what we're thinking before you go out to that I like that kind of getting there by you too you'll be there next Tuesday night right I'll be there if what I'm here you know do whatever you get consensus from us yeah I mean I yes I mean I want to I'm happy to go in there and say yeah the other four don't know their butts from all on the ground but uh okay well Mike my consensus is going with option one with a call back to if that doesn't pass then having the auction and having another article that

would go in the state requirement just say okay put it into our ordinance so that we've got that yes rather than have code officer and people are confused well wait a minute state law says this says this what do I do we have we have the option to goes on in Durham let's do that versus

State time is what we have to do I would like to think that the state would say Okay Durham you you honestly thought through this and you've got a good plan and we're not going to you know micromanage it but good luck with that maybe and it really would have come down to if someone wanted to challenge that they'd have to take it to court and then the question would be would the would somebody number one think it's worth it to go like I'm limited to a 800 square foot apartment and I'm going to take that to court to allow two 1500 on a single family or not be limited by the accessory apartment

um like right now could I say I'm gonna is there limits on how big a duplex units can be no so theoretically I could you know if I met setbacks and stuff I could double the size of my house right now and turn it into a duplex yeah oh and the other thing is is that under Durham's ordinance on Accessory Apartments if they meet the limitations of 50 of the main floor area the code officer can approve it but if it exceeds it they can apply to the planning board for conditional use approval oh so you could have an accessory Department that was like 60 the size yeah yeah and sometimes that may make sense like I put an accessory apartment in my house in Falmouth okay yeah and they changed the zoning to do what we're talking about and the downstairs is a daylight finished basement it's actually a split and it's uh it was 1200 square feet and their 50 percent would make it required to be 800 square feet so I was trying to figure

out how can I cut out 400 feet of floor area and add it to the garage make it a store you know it's just it's 400 square feet yeah so yeah and you go by there you wouldn't know it driving by it looks like it looks just like a single family and that's kind of the idea of what this is trying to accomplish there was there was a really interesting comment guy that was let's say he was brought to tears about the election who has if I remember the count right like 20 acres up front 30 acres in the back and our Backlot rules Private Road 80 100 000

dollars to build the road his so he can't afford to bring his son back right option two would let him build a house uh on his 20 acres for his son without going through all the other you know Back Road issues or anything because you'd have two two separate units you'd have two separate units which size units I mean there weren't a lot of people saying that but but there were a lot of people who were very interested in uh the accessory unit Apartments grandfathers flat above the garage whatever it may be so yeah well and we already allow that but what I find kind of intriguing is you could have that and you could also add like a tiny house and not you know overwhelm your site let's say um but but now right now you'd have to get conditional approval or something to be able to also at a time you'd have to create a separate lot actually although the code officer has gone by the town attorney to say they have to be allowed

to put them on as accessory units they because they had to approved tiny house because there's a separate law that was approved last year or the year before it says you have to allow tiny homes as accessory units but they can only be 400 square feet just kind of what it counts as well that's tiny micro house yeah yeah about 800 or so well okay so that I know what I'm gonna sell on Tuesday uh do you yeah that's what I'm going to ask and don't tell me uh no so number two I understand I get that yeah the option too so number one are we what exactly we're talking about two accessory units about what size lot so basically you would uh you would keep the two acre minimum lot size you would allow on that either a single family with two accessory units or a duplex with one accessory unit on two acres and accessory units are 50

they can either be part of the house or they can be in a in an out building so it could be either one it could be more than 50. it could be both no uh well again technically under the ordinance if you go to the planning board you can get approved unconditional use to be larger we would apply the same standards that are now in the organ so 200 do I get that's that's just follow the state law yep um number one is um follow the comprehensive plan follow the comprehensive plan would be the starting point but allow up to two accessory units and one could be an apartment two could be a part apartment above the second floor in the garage uh uh or it could be an apartment and a standalone house and we would use the same criteria no more than 50 percent of the you know basically the same criteria was more than 50 percent you had to go to the planning board I guess yep correct is that conditional use and so

what's the plan with those two options that those are our options that we're bringing forward to the public yeah that's I would just say this is what we are thinking about taking forward to the public we just you know it's out there would like your feedback now and what I've been saying all along is if you guys are just going to tell me it's dead on the water you know we'll we'll not do that because at the end of the day they write the uh you know we can make them they're going to write the article thank you are we going with one and two purely based on the comprehensive plan because it seems like two and three would be the logical ones to pitch based on our survey if the data means anything I I know I keep referring back to the comprehensive plan because with going to public presentations people are saying well why aren't we following the comprehensive plan that and if there isn't like a clear divide

in our survey responses then which I don't agree with but that the comprehensive plan as a Bible you lost follow ing I agree with you that lady said it right it's a tool right and it's a tool that we spend especially and we did but there are those who would say it is you must follow yeah

no I agree and but I just by just saying that makes one you just say this we're following I agree I think there's a good a lot of work going into the conference before time but I've done I've been on a couple of boards that did them but it's really I thought pretty good it was clearly you all did a great job five six years whatever it is now four years ago do you think it was more work than a month of having a survey I've been getting 200 random people to respond to it because I can't imagine that would be possible really I'm being very sarcastic well I'm sure you had a whole bunch of them meetings and so what what's options three in a nutshell it's most restrictive so as you add more dwellings you increase the lot requirements as it's right behind you the bottom one uh the third one on the right at the lower level increase the lot sizes for the extra units okay you'd still be fine if you didn't have Wetlands on your

six acres because it would be two acres per your other accessory buildings interesting give you feedback and an email to say this is this is what they said and then January 3rd I think I've got January 3rd right January 3rd is I know a couple three of them you said we're good to go so we can have a quorum so uh yeah and uh we'll see the combination of Charlie oh January 4th or did we say third I'm sorry Tuesday yeah did I get the wrong day is it fourth is a Wednesday January 4th I'm sorry yes January 4th okay and what's that that's our next question that's our next regular meeting and we also need to elect officers there so [Music] yeah what's that besides chairman and vice chair in Vice chair okay okay go ahead there uh Devin you can cut it off thank you you boy