Planning Board - Regular Meeting

Good evening, everyone Before we get started, I did send a message to the board about process. I was a bit frustrated with myself at the last meeting for not having run a more efficient meeting and kept us moving along. So tonight, if you can just kind of make eye contact with me if you want to speak and take our turns and try not to talk over one another. It may not be an issue tonight. All right.

So quick question. So is Bruce going to be here tonight?

No.

OK. Do we know which alternate is up? Or actually, maybe the better question is, did we have an alternate for the greasy? Yes.

Do either any of you remember if you were both of you? OK. OK. Do you want to flip for it?

All right.

I will make a motion that we set Liz free this evening as a voting member. Second. No.

All in favor?

Aye. Aye.

Aye. All right. Thank you, Doug.

Lock the doors.

OK. Anything else before we get started with the agenda? OK. Oh, OK. All right. So first item, and we have a continued public hearing for the site plan review at 444 Route 125. Peter Greasy we've had a couple of hearings on this or continued hearing a couple meetings on this and a few items to wrap up Can you reintroduce yourself for the record?

I'm Nick Lorenz with Jones & Beach engineers representing the applicant Peter Greasy who's here with me as well and The intent of this project is to construct a building addition as well as expand upon the existing gravel lay down area. Since we've last met, we received and submitted to you in a butter acknowledgement letter to construct the gravel access road to the rear of the sites. We've also submitted existing building photos to show you what the style of the proposed building addition will look like. And we've also received a variance from the Brentwood Zoning Board to construct the proposed stormwater pond in accordance with state requirements. And with that, I'll be happy to answer any remaining questions or comments that you may have.

Did we have a copy of the abutter? You got a letter from the abutter? We did.

We got a signed letter from the abutter. I believe, is that part of the package, Mark? I think I sent it over. I didn't see the abutter. I have a copy of it that I can pass around.

And that was for the road going to the back.

Exactly, yes.

Thank you.

You want to just read it out? It's not very long.

Oh, I didn't see it. No, you just brought it. Oh, OK. Yes. Do you want me to read it? Go for it.

OK, it says, dear Mr. Bartholomew, I don't know.

That's the abutter.

Oh, that's who it is. Please be advised that an application has been filed on behalf of our client, Peter Gerisi, with the Brentwood Planning Board for the above reference property. The project proposes a 6,000 square foot building addition and expansion of the existing gravel storage yard. It has been requested that you review and sign off on the proximity of the proposed gravel pathway to your property line in the northwest section of the subject parcel. By signing below, you are providing your support for Peter Garussi to complete this work on Map 201, Lot 7. There will be no impacts on your property as part of this project. If you have questions or comments in regards to the work, please feel free to call me at blah, blah, blah, or email me. Thank you for your cooperation. Very truly yours, Nick Lorenz Jones and Beach Engineers. But does this have his, did he have, did he send a letter first?

We sent the letter to him.

He signed it and sent it back to us.

Yeah, and just for the record, that Mr. Bartholomew's signature is there, yes. It does not appear to be certified, no.

Mark?

You did not send that to me electronically. If you could send that to me and I can get that as part of the electronic file, I'd truly appreciate it. because I don't want it with a big line through the middle. Glenn, does that suffice for what is the intent of that letter? Because we're not supposed to put roadways within 10 feet?

Correct. So it would be the abutter saying that they're okay with that occurring.

Right. But would that require a variance as well?

No, because it's not a structure.

Right.

It's a roadway.

Right. But it's the roadway, the 10 feet distance that we've...

It is in our driveway regulation.

Okay, so is there a waiver that this board needs to grant?

Yes, that would probably be it.

Thank you.

Yeah, I think we talked about it before and said we would feel more comfortable if a butter weighed in.

Had given comment.

Yeah. Yeah. Okay, anything else before we go through the comments? Nope, nothing. Okay, so Glenn, your comments are in here, but are they all addressed in the SFC comments?

Everything was addressed as completed except for the one regarding the setback, the buffering, which is toward the last of my comments. And so that's something that the board should speak with with the applicant.

that waiver was a loose piece of paper not included in your packet.

So it's the, it's my comment 16. So if you look at their response, my comment is that regulations require landscaping in the 25 foot side and rear property setbacks. The proposal does not address this requirement and their response is although there is a proposed disturbance in the 25, Side in rear property setbacks in order to limit the disturbance within the wetland buffer We believe that the existing vegetation that will remain in these areas are sufficient to provide the required amount of trees for the site plan regulation buffer yard figures No, I did not go on the site walk so I don't really have any direct understanding of how much vegetation is there

If I recall, in the back there's quite a bit, but it's a matter of how far back you're clearing.

We also, when I thought that I submitted that abutter letter to you, I've got a photo log of all the existing vegetation surrounding the property. From that, you can see there's plenty of trees surrounding the whole property. The only area where it will get thin is that area where the gravel roadway is going in. And for our last meeting, with the discussion with the abutter, we think it's more beneficial to construct the roadway where we have it proposed versus going into the wetland buffer and impacting that resource.

Did you send him an electronic version of this?

Yes, he did this evening.

I printed out five copies and I kind of put them on the table for you to pass around.

That's a different photologue. I thought I had sent you one with that letter and then with this photologue of the vegetation. I think it was.

Here's what you sent me today.

Yeah, I think it was a couple weeks ago. After the zoning board meeting, maybe a day or two after that.

Yeah, the one we have is the existing building one. Yeah, that's what was on the table.

Oops, there's the vegetation.

So there's existing vegetation. In the 25-foot buffer everywhere except for where the driveway is going back.

And we'll be trimming that area to construct that gravel roadway.

And the tradeoff is then you're not going through the wetlands. Exactly.

I apologize, Nick. You did send that to me.

Yeah, no worries.

An existing vegetation exhibit as well.

And I believe in your regulations, the landscaping requirement is that there's X amount of trees per 100 linear feet, something along that language. And I think by these photos, you can see that we will meet that requirement.

Those are the only two pages. Yeah, that's pretty...

Yeah, I think the only question I might have mentioned this when we were out there is that if you have a lot of invasive stuff, like I've seen places where now something's wooded, but you've got bittersweet along the edge, and it winds up pulling the trees down in a few years anyway. So if you have that cleaned up.

Yeah, can we make that?

It's to your benefit, too, to get rid of any of that. It's not pretty when it pulls a tree down. It makes a big old mess.

All right.

Board questions? Doug?

Oh, sorry. Oh, okay. Pick your Doug. So, Glenn, you kind of said it already, but in terms of the vegetation, you think that that is sufficient in terms of

That what exists there now exceeds what we require for planted vegetation. Gotcha, okay. So if it's clear that they don't intend to take out that vegetation, then that does exceed what we would require.

Could we put a note on the plan that retain existing vegetation after some point?

Absolutely, yeah.

Yes.

The space where the proposed trailers are going, is that covered with vegetation right now? Will that be taken out?

It's not vegetated like in those pictures. There might be some small bushes and stuff like that that will be taken out. Just small brush?

Okay. Doug?

Just make sure you turn it, yeah. You hit the button.

There was an email, if I'm not mistaken, by a board member sent by Bruce Stevens.

Oh, about the pond? The clearing around the pond?

No. A removing of a stake and putting a stake in?

I think you sent it to me. So was his point to put something there so that they don't creep out into the right-of-way? Because it varies.

It might need new batteries, buddy. Depending on that. I'm sorry.

Hear me.

Yes, I believe that's exactly it and I didn't just make note.

Oh It's not Yeah, have we I know this has come up before we required that before I know we've required things like don't put snow, you know Here's the wetland don't put snow here have we required them to mark the Not very frequently

I mean, it's acknowledged they have to do their stuff on their own property. And if there is bleed over, the town can either address it or the state on very limited and with great periods in between do inspections and will contact property owners. But that does not happen very frequently.

Yeah. And there's some grandfathered in things. Mark?

This area here out front where the display area is gonna be taking place, this gravel has not been removed. The display area has creeped out right up in here into the corner. I would like this board to address that. to A, have this removed, and B, put up some sort of delineator of display area. That can be a split rail fence, that can be whatever the board really decides is fitting of the site. But this has not been removed yet. And I'd like to see that addressed.

Okay. Did we look at that? We did look at that, right?

Because that is the state right-of-way, I believe, the dotted line, or the setback. Is that the 125-foot setback? Right, the property line. Right, is the dark line with the two dashes.

Okay.

And it's supposed to be seated. The gravel is supposed to be removed. This is supposed to be a seated area. Area to be replanted with New England roadside matrix upland seed mix.

Is that addressed in here anywhere?

It's on the plan.

It's on the plan. Okay. But not in the comments. OK. Other board questions?

Just correct me if I'm wrong. It looks like the SFC's comments have all been addressed.

Except for we have a waiver request still on the table. That's the separate sheet that you have next to your packet.

you'll have to decide whether the photo log meets the standards that you wanna see for building depictions. If you do, then the waiver is null and void.

And we have historically accepted photographs in place of building elevations.

That's this other packet here. So the point is you're going to, the addition is going to look very similar to what's there right now? Correct. Is that the idea?

Yep.

Similar in height?

Yes. Yes, that's, I don't have any proposed plan for the building, but I'll probably be using the same manufacturer.

Okay.

And even up in the front with Mark was just talking about

OK. Other comments or questions?

So just from a procedure standpoint, would we be approving the waiver first and then the conditional approval with the various conditions that we discussed?

If you feel that the photo log meets the standard, the ordinance, then there's no waiver needed. And we can just simply ignore the waiver. We don't need to vote on that.

But if the board is comfortable with where that driveway is, then you should grant a waiver to the requirement in the driveway regs that it has to be 10 feet off the property line.

How many feet is it? Yeah, I was going to say how many feet off the property line.

It looks like it's only a couple of feet, right?

without getting a scale out. Like five feet, I'd be guessing.

I don't think it's five feet because that setback line is 25 feet, and that is not a fifth of the.

But this is woods. This is what this is depicting here is a wooded area.

Yeah, I'd say like five feet. And then that's snow storage on the side too. So there's tree lines, snow storage, and then the gravel pathway.

It's hard to see it.

The next sheet might be easier to see too, Mark.

Is there another drawing?

The next one will just get rid of all the snow storage, so it's a little better.

There it is.

So is it just that?

area where it's where the x is really yeah well it's really it's really where the little gray dotted the little dotted line the little dots are in between those dashed lines correct that's correct yep how wide is the driveway itself 12 feet i think yep 12 feet i mean if you compare the distance to the driveway it looks like it's maybe eight to ten feet yeah eyeballing it yeah

But it's just that- That shows it much better.

That area where it's- Yeah, that's the only- Exactly.

The rest of it is- Yep, just the apex of that curve.

Okay. Yeah, it's a small area.

It is, but you should still vote to grant that allowance.

I make a motion to grant that allowance.

Second.

Do we need to specify that the waiver is only for a specific section? I don't know how we maybe describe it. Yes.

That would be a good thing to say.

Yes. No, well, you'd say we would grant a waiver from site plan. It's a driveway, so it's in our site plan.

No, it's in our driveway regulations in there. They're found actually in the subdivision regs.

The blue pages, yes. I was trying to, yeah, that's where I was going. So if it's in our subdivision.

But what I'm saying is that we're only granting that waiver from X to Y.

You could textually say you're granting it for the area where you're avoiding the wetland buffer.

At the rear of the property.

On the north side. west side of the property, yeah.

OK. So the motion would be to grant a waiver from the driveway requirement for a 10-foot setback, specifically the northwest side of the property to avoid the wetland as depicted on the plan.

Correct.

Does that work?

Agreed.

Any discussion? Yeah, I just had a question. Is this the one that applies to the letter that? Yes. Okay, then he's fine with it.

Yeah, you asked the neighbor on that side, right? Okay, any discussion?

I would like the actual regulation put in the way, whatever it's all. Just give me one second, I'll find it.

Yeah, well, he's doing that conditions, so... Vegetation.

It's right there, A1. Or the trees, rather.

Yeah, so a note on the plan to retain existing vegetation in the 25-foot buffer.

Well, that's really on newly created lots. This is the newly created lot.

It's a newly created driveway.

On an existing site plan.

We don't have anything about driveways on site plan. Oh, there you go. Maybe we don't even need to vote.

That specifically says driveway shall be placed no closer than 10 feet from property land for newly created lots, so I think there isn't one required.

There's nothing in those.

The location of the driveway as it exists in 2010 on existing law.

Should there be? Otherwise you.

We really haven't seen the case for it, so.

Yeah, it's always the unique cases. Okay, well, we can put a condition, a note saying that we've assessed the location of the driveway and.

To conform with the plan. Sure. It could be part of the minutes.

Okay. So for conditions, we have a note on the plan to retain existing vegetation in the 25-foot buffer, to remove the display area in the state right-of-way. I don't know if these are necessary because they're in the plan, but remove the gravel and reseed at the

No, that is in the plan.

Okay. About the driveway, what else?

And Bruce's note, incorporate Bruce's note in there.

Yeah, so, so he's gonna take that out and reseed it. So do we want there to be a marker so that doesn't happen again?

Works for me.

Okay. All right. So we move display area and state right-of-way and place Fieldstone.

No Jersey here.

to indicate natural place, natural field stone to indicate right of way.

I was trying to be aesthetically pleasing. Okay.

Okay. and do we want a note that says um in lieu of building depiction that um you know the building will conform to the yeah the design of the existing building exterior materials yeah you don't really need to put that in he's met the standard so it doesn't need to be noted but if you'd like okay Are we missing anything? All right.

So with Steph you're withdrawing your original motion.

Yeah.

Okay. Thank you.

Do you want a motion as for the conditions that were just listed? Yeah.

I'll go with that motion for that. Second.

Any additional discussion questions and public comment? All right. All in favor? Aye.

And that's for 90 days.

For 90 days, yes.

Thank you.

If anything comes up, you can.

Good deal. So run before we come back.

Thank you. Thank you for coming in again. All right.

Make sure you don't, you give me that.

What's that?

You wrote the conditions down. I just want to make sure you don't walk out with them.

Okay, you have the recording too, I know. Yes, I will, okay. All right. Then, sorry.

For who knows how long, but anyway.

The... continued board discussion on our fire inspectors recommendations to change site plan review regulations he was not able to make it tonight so we can. i'd like to hear glenn's thoughts after reviewing it you provided us comments if you know we can talk more or if you guys want to wait until he's able to come back and we can do that so. But let's start there with your comments.

Yeah, I mean, my comments are basically, we definitely need to do one thing. We need to cite the actual codes that they use in the zoning ordinance, because we don't. We only cite one of like the four or five that he lists repeatedly. And that probably is not good. But that reference that is in there was given to us by the fire department several years ago when we made the amendment. But we need to do that one because that one then says all building needs to meet these codes. So if he ever feels like someone argues with him, that becomes the law of Brentwood. Now the state fire code is already the law for the state. We can't do anything about that anyway. But it seems he's concerned with people arguing about it. And I would be concerned if I had to tell them to look at the building code as it stands right now.

Yeah.

Because it just doesn't seem to be clear that all of those codes are what they have to comply with.

Mm-hmm.

and he asks us repeatedly to make those parts of the site plan review regs, and I really don't want to do that. I don't want to have 15 pages of fire code in our site plan review. They need to be where they should be, which is the building code. And then there are places where I think there are two examples that I thought it did make sense to make it clear that we could add those to site plan review. There's never an excuse, and we always give the plans to the fire department for their review. So during the site plan review process, if they think they need us to say something more stringently, write that as a comment to us. We ask all our department heads to give us comments on these projects. And he can simply say, as required by the building code, And so but that's it that's been his concern is that If he makes a comment There's not enough to back him up to you know, so they there's I just don't understand how that is the case I mean the you you can't you can't say that something if that is required by zoning it is clearly referenced as those that hold the language for all of the different things and How do they fight that? You can't fight that.

Yeah, I don't totally understand the controversies that we've had.

So if the issue is he doesn't feel like it happens early enough in our process, well, we always ask for comments. They can absolutely say at that point, our comment is this is going to require the... fire alarm system that is required in the building code. And it could even become a condition of our approval if we wanted it to be. But those are codes that exist separate from us.

They're all, yeah, we're referencing other codes that already apply.

That already apply. I mean, anything, any time in his discussion with us where he references this is found in the state fire code, the state fire code is state law. Even if we said, oh, we don't like the state fire code, it doesn't make a rat-tiny difference. That's what overrides everything.

You can say as of a certain date, or as it stands currently, or something. So if the state were to, for some reason, make it less stringent, ours would still be where they are.

Correct. My problem with putting a lot of language in our regulations is if those codes do change, and they don't change without the fire community actively engaged in those changes. If those changed and we have something different, first off, we're not going to know. And second off, that could create a conflict that then works against the fire department. And I don't want to be wondering every time there's a code change at the national level whether or not we're still in compliance in our town regs.

On every plan set it says shall adhere to all applicable fire codes So I have two questions one is he was concerned about Site plans that don't specify what the uses in the building And that he wanted you know sort of the highest level of protection in case of something were to move in later, but. He can just say that during our site plan review process.

Because a person can say, I have no idea who my renters are. And they have every right to say that when they determine one, the water, the safety water flow capability is this. And if you don't like that, you better look for a different tenant. but that's already all legal. It's not.

So in the past when they've had a disagreement, is it that whoever was trying to defend our position didn't understand that, that they had those things to fall back on?

I think they just didn't want to do it.

They just didn't want to have conflict?

Yeah, I don't know how they dealt with conflict.

Yeah. And the situation where he was talking about if you don't have, I know there's been a difference of opinion about how big your cistern needs to be.

Even as it stands now, we say that our 30,000 gallon requirement is a minimum. And that the fire department is required to agree to anything if it's other than that.

Yeah, declare your use.

Yeah.

That's where this all comes down to. It really does.

If you don't want to, they're going to get stuck. They're going to get fireworks factory. I suppose we can say we could make that clearer during our site plan process. We could simply say, you should be aware if you're coming to us for a multi-tenant building and you don't have them declared, you may find yourself responsible for 120,000 gallons of reserve water.

Yeah, or make it clear to say the use will determine the fire load.

Yeah, and it could be a lot of expense for you.

But I think some of this is going to be mitigated through better communication.

I think so.

Because when I send these plans out to the fire department now, I try to do so in a speedy manner, and they're very proactive of getting to the applicant and saying, hey, this is your fire codes, and this is what you're going to need, and And that during the process will help adjust that. Maybe they'll adjust. Maybe they'll declare a use instead of having to supply that type of fire load. I think a lot of this is just better communication.

Yeah. It's hard because if people change then, you know, 20 years from now, I wouldn't be opposed to having a note somewhere in our site plan regs that calls that out more clearly if it's not right now. We absolutely could do that. Just descriptive. It's not a requirement. It just says the use determines the fire-related requirements.

In accordance with our building code and give the reference to our building code that references all the fire codes. We could certainly have that be one of the requirements for site plan review.

That might help with his concerns. And Doug?

Yeah, just a question about the communication on the communication front. And Mark may be able to speak to this more in terms of our current process, in terms of soliciting feedback from the fire department on projects. I guess I would I'm curious sort of like how formalized that process is because I could see a scenario where if there's you know Like considerable turnover in the department or here You know that those communication structures naturally could break down if it's not like that formalized of a thing so I'm just kind of curious what what that kind of looks like on the back end right now in terms of getting their feedback and

The email address is fire inspector. So that email address should follow through with whoever the fire inspector is. I receive the plan. I start processing it. It takes me, depending on the application, either a half a day to almost a full day just to process one between everything that I'm typing in and the financial and the abutter's notices and then taking to the post. Like, it's a pretty extensive process. So somewhere in there, I will end up sending it to you guys within the next day, and then I'll look at it and I'll say, gee, does this have any wetlands involved in it? Should I get conservation involved? And I'll throw it at Rob, I'll throw it at the fire department, something that I think is gonna be a lot of traffic generated, I'll throw it to the police department. Now, I don't chase these people for comment letters. If you would like to submit a comment letter, please do so. And I put that right in the email. And I may even group them all up at one time. So I'm just sending out one email. But I'm not chasing them for comment letters. You know what I mean? But if they would like to supply one, I am more than happy to add it to the file where it's accessible to you guys.

And that makes perfect sense. I mean, it's not your job to hunt people down. No.

It's hard enough for me to keep up with the time frames of all this stuff happening. I mean, honestly, one just landed on my desk at 4.30 today, an application.

I was going to say, if we tasked you with hunting people down, you'd be hunting a lot, a lot.

I have a hard enough time hunting down applicants after they've been approved for MILRs and all my escrow accounts of hunting money from people. I think... The departments within the town of Brentwood can be responsible enough to submit comment letters if they seem fit to do so.

And sometimes we do have a requirement. It's one of the comments. Get the letter.

Yeah. And no matter what happens on our end, they have to meet NFP codes. They have to. They can't get an occupancy permit if they don't. But by including them as early in the process as humanly possible, it becomes very clear to the applicant of what they need to do to meet the standards. I know Mr. Gersey has left, but we've identified problems within his sprinkler system. So the Brentwood Fire Department is actively getting that fixed, or we actively are fixing the fire pond. who were actively fixing the pump which services his facility and the propane facility. So the process works. It's just getting everybody, getting that information out, getting them involved and starting that conversation.

So what this brings to mind is the process that you created with the engineering firm where they have like a cover sheet. It's like a transmittal letter, right?

Yeah, and it works great with her. I create the folder within the file. She uploads them right into that file and just sends me a quick email. Hey, I updated this file, so I'm aware of that. Um, our relationship with that and that end works fantastically. Um, but she can also, and she said she doesn't read guns comments before she reviews things, but that whole, I never read.

Yeah.

So you're, that whole file is available for her to, to read, to look at and to read. Um, so that relationship works really well. Um, I think we're local enough to where if they do have a comment letter, they can just send it to me via email, and I can be more than happy to drop it in the folder.

We've talked a bunch on and off about having a checklist for ourselves to make sure we've hit everything. Other discussion on Glenn's comments? Did he want to come back?

like next meeting or? I hope not.

No, I told him, I just talked to him on the phone at like six o'clock or six. I said, it'll have to be October 15th or the 17th, whatever it is there.

I said, the first is going to, he's like, no, no, no, I'm not coming the first.

I'm avoiding that like the plague. He understands. Yes.

There's something going on. Um, Maybe for transparency and better communication, we should wait to make a decision until he's here. That's completely up to you guys.

So in the meantime, could we have a proposed language for the update zoning?

Yeah, yeah. I think I... It's probably already... In any event, yes, I will. And what I'll do is... I will, next Wednesday, I'll ask for he and I to be able to sit down.

Okay.

That'd be wonderful. And then maybe. We'll do that before he comes back to the planning board.

Okay. And then maybe a brief statement in the site plan review. Yeah, I'll come up with something about that. That says something about use.

Yep.

So it's really clear up front. Because it seems like a lot of the problem has been. people design something, they miss that, or they don't think they have to do that, they get surprised later, and then you have conflict.

Yeah, as soon as we can tighten this up and you agree to the language that Glenn has created, Glenn's gonna be pretty busy for the next few weeks. I've got a lot of backlog on him. but we can schedule that public, I think everything we want to do, we can do through a public hearing process, Mr. Greenwood? Or is there one zoning?

I think that I suggest there were two places that we could do amendments to site plan, and then there's the one that's zoning, and so that we have to do in advance of that.

We've got a little bit of time.

Yeah, that December time.

For the sake of not letting things fall through the cracks, I think we should create that language now.

Yeah.

While we're hot on this topic.

I think that I already did it. I think it's in there. It's in there? The exact language? Yeah, the exact language.

And then he's welcome to have like a fire inspector guide and have the 20 pages in there.

Yeah, and if you wanted to make that something we hand out when somebody asks for an application.

Happy to.

Happy to do that. Okay. That's actually a really good suggestion.

Thank you.

And because it will happen, it means they're getting something immediately upon coming to the planning board.

Yeah.

Like, brilliant. There's a little light bulb above your head right now.

When does that packet get handed out? I have to determine whether it needs to be given a packet or not.

Yeah, it would hand it out maybe just for site plan reviews, for new construction even. not a change of use, but if someone's building a new building, give them that whole thing, whatever they come up with.

I would love to have it electronically. Yeah, of course. People would rather that, too. Yeah. Paper's dead.

Clearly not.

Except for these people, yes.

No, no. These are the lovers of dead trees.

I just plant bittersweet and let them take all the trees down. That's all I do. Every day I plant a little more. Because it's beautiful in the fall.

Are you serious? This stuff is horrible. Can I get some... Back up here? You would get horrible.

Very bad.

If anybody has Japanese knotweed, just drop it off on your glass.

Oh, goodness. Can I have a hallelujah? And you gave for a while.

I'm pretty sure there's tree of heaven on our road, too. And I don't know how to, like, can you just, like, knock on somebody's door? Anyways.

So is it my understanding, Glenn, this was way over my head. This was overwhelming to me to read the fire department.

You could say we're tricked from a fire hose.

So, yeah. But it seemed with your comments, because I did read them before I came, and it did seem like you're saying in a way a lot of what he is saying is redundant because it already exists.

Yes, exactly.

And you're also going to do this, cite the actual codes, you said. Correct. Okay. Because I think, you know, that would be helpful because I was like, oh, phew, this doesn't sound, when I read Glenn's stuff, it makes a lot more sense. Because this was, I just found this.

It was a lot.

It was really a lot. And if you don't really know what they're talking about, it's really hard.

I appreciate that a lot, Glenn. It was very helpful. Go to engineers who are working on projects and they can get moves.

You guys just put it like you're saying. I think it's just put like one sentence. Yeah. It says please defer to that and that.

But that it is a requirement. Don't think you're going to argue your way out of this. It's a code.

Yeah. You just list the code. Just like an RSA. You want someone to apply to an RSA, just list the RSA. They change.

You're just hunting them to go look at that versus them coming back and say, well, the planning board told me I didn't have to do this. Exactly. I don't have to do this for you. You're saying you might have to do your due diligence on figuring this out.

Yeah. There's no need to make our book 20 pages thicker.

Agreed.

How do we do that with the multiple, you know, you don't know what's going into the rental units and then they have to do the highest. They have to do higher.

Fireworks factory. Whatever the standard is that theirs requires, that's what they have to plan for.

Even if they're all different.

Yep, if you don't declare use. And I'll give you an example. The... plan that we approved where they did the wetlands mitigation on 125 down the hill.

The old Rulo site?

The old Rulo site that was up on the hill on 125.

Where the dumpsters were for a long time?

Yes. And they cleared it. Yeah, and they didn't declare use, so they had to put in 180,000 gallon cistern. And that, I think,

So we do 130,000 gallons, so they did.

180,000 gallons. And you can't even buy a cistern that large, so what you have to do is connect. A series. A series.

That didn't motivate them to narrow down their.

Who they wanted to have be there, exactly.

Yeah, so that is how extreme the fire load can vary between uses.

And then it becomes a question of, they're supposed to, there's supposed to be some kind of registry of businesses, and we're supposed to know when things change, and then the fire inspector has the authority to go check things, so.

Yeah, once a year.

If you said you were gonna have X, and you put in Y, and those have different requirements, then they can go in and.

Yeah.

But does that happen?

The problem is.

It's like we're, it's happening more now with a new fire inspector.

One of the issues is manpower.

Yeah.

We don't really have the manpower to be visiting every business yearly. That's a lot of man hours. Just think about how long it took to do the taxation, the audit. Right. It took a long time. And that's a couple, that was two guys going door to door, appraising houses.

So imagine having... You've got Wayne... If you go up and down 115, there's not many businesses. I'm arguing with you on that one. It's nothing like the homes that are spread all through town. We have two corridors, and there's, what, 70 businesses?

And a lot of them are, like, they are what they are. They are what they are, yeah. It's more of these, it's the contractor garages.

I'm surprised that they feel like they can't do that annually.

I'm just echoing one of the issues Mr. Tuttle brought to light.

Well, let's move on to our next topic. He doesn't work that much either, right?

He's two days a week, I think. I believe.

Is he the only one that expects those things?

Yes.

Yeah, so.

All right, driveway permits. So it's my understanding, so at our last meeting we had a discussion about the driveway permit process and the fees. This all came about because our former engineering firm, we had some issues with things not being thoroughly vetted and inspected, which created problems down the line. So we tried to address that by looking at what actually needs to be done. One of the things that they said was they weren't doing certain things because the fee wasn't high enough to cover those things. But those are things that need to be done. So we asked our new engineering firm what it actually costs to do a pre-inspection support through the process and a final inspection. And they came back with $1,000. And we had a discussion about, you know, is there any way to make that cheaper? What are the different options? Ultimately voted in favor of that with the caveat that we would ask the engineering firm, you know, if they have more experience, particularly in Brentwood, with the process, if there are ways to trim that, we would be grateful. And the main concern that we have is the integrity of the roadways, that things are installed properly. drainage. And that's why we felt too like having that pre-inspection was really important to see what was going in, where it was going in. We had some discussion about, it's a big jump. I don't know when they set the $300 fee, but it's obviously a big jump from 300 to 1,000. But also, we, ran into extra costs because the process wasn't working. It is what it appears to cost. And we talked a little bit about existing driveways and sort of what's the criteria for when you're actually sort of triggering this. And we talked about, you know, if you're installing a, culverts or otherwise changing things around the right-of-way, changing the way water is moving that could affect the road and the right-of-way. But that normal maintenance wouldn't count. Is that a good summary before we? OK.

So if they're reclaiming their driveway or putting a top coat on it, is there a permit?

Not my.

I guess that would be the one thing I'd want to know. Yeah. Because I think when we had the discussion with the select board, it was like, replacing new and altering, you're going to hit for a $1,000 permit. And I think that's an unnecessarily burden on people that are reclaiming their driveway and just kind of, or putting another top on top of it, or just kind of putting back what's already there. It's already been approved. It's already been. Already there. And I think that was our I know when I redid mine, the end of my driveway, because my bell housing came separated. Wayne came out and took a look at it and was like, yeah, you can use that. OK, great. And we went ahead and did it. And we did it. And that was maybe 12 years ago.

Yeah. I mean there are instances around town where maybe that did happen and maybe it still wasn't right because.

I wanted to go with the plastic PVC.

if there are cases of that. So we're just trying to fix the process. I think maybe we can define that better, like what triggers a permit. To me, is it going to affect the road differently than it currently does? Plus, once you get beyond the right of way, if you're not changing where the water's going, on your property, but if you're messing with the Culverts the interface with the road in a new way That should trigger some kind of process And that that 300 was is relatively recent it was 50 for decades It was it was

It was decades. Wasn't the 300 just in the last year? Correct.

Yeah. So what was the old engineering firm? They weren't even getting?

They were never using an engineering firm. In your packet, I've provided you the actual verbiage from the ordinance book.

But our expectation on a development had been that they were...

I'm going to propose something, and it may fly and it may not, but I would like you to actually read what's in your book, and then we'll move from there.

It's in your packet. It's page 52 of our driveway.

When permit's required?

Mm-hmm. Yeah. You can read it right from the top where authority and purpose.

So I think, so there's two issues too, right?

I'm sorry?

Our authority is in subdivisions and new.

Correct. What you could do is stay within your purview, which would be subdivisions.

You could easily add $1,000 to an escrow, okay? Okay. on new subdivisions, and that $1,000 in escrow would go to our town engineer going out and doing the proper inspections on the installation of these new driveways. As far as the rest of the town goes, it's not within your authority and purpose.

That's why I lied.

I think I said that.

You could simply turn this into we've identified a problem on a new subdivision. Yeah, you have identified, and I see them all the time, improperly installed driveways on already approved subdivided land. The select board has taken the stance that they do not want You have spent months and months and months. We have talked about this, talked about this, talked about this. And you have come up.

And researched it.

And researched it.

Don't make it sound like it was blah, blah, blah.

No. It was research. You're absolutely right, Mr. Greenwood.

This is also.

And site walks and engineering.

This is the root cause of letting our last engineering firm go.

Yes, you have identified what I consider to be a very serious problem within the town of Brentwood. And through hard work and diligence, you have come up with a way to mitigate that. but they seem to have a different idea. So what I think you should do is use your authority to fix the things that you have authority over and let them figure it out.

Yes.

Have we thought about maybe having the engineering firm on the private residence, the one lotters that you're saying you don't do anything on for the engineering company, have them do the pre- work on it, but let the building inspector be the one that does the final. So you have the regs, you have everything that goes into it. He just has to make sure that it's done. He's on site four or five times anyway for different inspections.

I think that's a great thing for the police to think about.

Exactly. You may make that suggestion to them, sir.

Yeah.

I think we have a representative here.

The clearest way for us to go forward is to just make a decision about what we're in charge of. And we require an escrow account for many things having to do with subdivision. On subdivisions, that includes roads, us saying there's $1,000 on every lot for the proper installation and inspection of driveways is expensive doing business on the roads in Brentwood.

And I can easily, all the driveway permits come to me anyway. The only really things that would have to be done is that the existing driveway permit would have a box that you check, is this a new subdivision? And you check it and There's no fee involved in that because you've already paid that within your escrow. When you submit your plans to me, you would have to submit a driveway plan so the engineering's already done. I send all of that right off to Tara and we'd have to put a fee line of $1,000 for the driveway. We'd have to obviously change our permits, which I I'm in the midst of changing at the moment as soon as I finish redoing the book. In that way, we as a board have established a very professional process to which there is accountability and driveways will be, we can ensure that driveways were installed and inspected to great quality. And if the select board doesn't want that, And they can come up with their own system that they are satisfied with.

Well, there are reasons why they don't think that's as important. And I think that there's legitimate concerns when you're talking about every driveway out there that already exists and how you're going to deal with corrections to those. That's different from what we're trying to accomplish. And if we do it this way, one other thing we can accomplish is that bait and switch when the developer says, oh, we're not, this is a landowner thing now. If they're charged up front a thousand bucks for a driveway, they're gonna put a driveway in. They're gonna put the culvert work in. They're not gonna say, oh, we're waiting for the property owner.

Yeah, that was the other issue, yeah.

And those one ofs that, came to light were subdivisions that we did. It was those two lot subdivisions where you get the 1L driveway. So we could already handle that within our process.

I totally get all of this. We should act within our powers. We should do this within the site plan subdivision authority. Since we have a representative from the select board here, I will give my personal opinion on this, which is that I understand when the select board says we don't want to put extra costs on individual property owners and that this is a lot of money. I just also want them to think about how it can affect other property owners and how it can affect taxpayers if the road degrades. And there are definitely examples of that around town. And I think that things have been done in the past with a handshake, you know? Sure, that's okay, you can put a second driveway in with 400 feet, or 200 feet, and no sight line. No snickering. So.

That frightens me that you said that out loud. You walked right into it.

At least we have something else to tease me about. But I just think that it, and I don't know what the full discussion is, but I think sometimes there's this, you know, we want to keep costs down for individuals. But thinking about the big picture, it could cost, when things go wrong, it costs all taxpayers. We have legal fees, or we have road repairs, and it costs everybody. So we just want to do things right.

I think what the concern was during the select board meeting, the concern is not the new construction happening and somebody putting in a new driveway. I think it was the alterations. And reclaiming the driveway. And to me, it was kind of like, I already have a driveway there. If I'm not altering anything, and I'm just reclaiming it, or putting a top coat on it, I shouldn't be charging anything. Or I should be doing minimal and looking at the surrounding communities. Like I think one town was like 10 bucks, one was 25, some are 50. I'm fine with that, charging a fee for that to have somebody, if they wanna come by and take a look at it, great, we pull a permit, they do it. I can tell you when I did my deck, no one ever came out and looked at it when I pulled the permit. They just, okay, it's Bob, he's doing his deck.

And that's why some decks were put within the wetlands buffer. And if you want professional results, you have to pay professionals. Now, if you look at some of those fees that some other towns charge, and I'll give you an example, like the state of New Hampshire, they don't charge you a dime. Any state road that you put a driveway permit in for, they don't charge you because they're paid by the state, but the state pays professional personnel to review those. Those towns may have professional staff on hand to review those and inspect them. If you wanted to, I'm just saying.

Yeah, that's another issue we have sometimes. We don't have necessarily people here.

Right, but it's a little disingenuous when DOT says they don't charge a driveway permit. What they do do is if they determine you have an impact and they want you to make an improvement, they just tell you you have to do it. And that may be $10,000. But they're saying there's no cost for the driveway permit. But if you want to access our road, there's a play fee. And that play fee can be a lot of money.

Yeah, but if you're putting a driveway into a town road, do you want the road to be secure?

You do.

And that you should be told as a homeowner the same thing. You need to put a culvert in and install a culvert and put headwalls in and do it correctly. So there's no difference between the DOT and the town of Brentwood. It's just the scale that we're talking about. The scale is much massively different. I brought it up as a point of they have paid personnel and staff that do that.

So just going back to your question, I think. So this is obviously what we have in front of us is it only applies to what the planning board has authority over. but might be a good definition for the select board. And the sort of cutoff is substantially affects the size or grade of any driveway entrance, exit, or approach within the limits of the right-of-way. So it's, you know, are you doing something in the right-of-way that changes the makeup of the driveway?

So if somebody's putting in a regular, just reclaiming their driveway, wouldn't need $1,000. And I think that was our big sticking point. The other thing, too, and not for anything, going from the bell housings that they have when they put those concrete, they have the bell housings that come separated from the frost heating up and down and moving. And I think that's what happened in Robinson and Mohawk, that whole development over there with some meadows or whatever it is off of Haig. I think you're still required to put in concrete.

Correct.

Why wouldn't you guys change over to the one blank, big, huge PVC pipes?

There are disadvantages and advantages to both. We have chosen to keep reinforced concrete. I think one of the major reasons why is cover material. You need far less cover material over reinforced concrete pipe than you do plastic. Okay, and this is one of the things that we've seen on a subdivision that has become a real problem. I mean, those are brand new driveways and they're already cracked. because they used plastic pipe and they didn't use the proper amount of cover material. They were not inspected and installed correctly. And that's what kicked this whole football off of why did we go on this mission to begin with, is because someone used plastic pipe and didn't install it correctly. And if you don't have professionals review, that's what's going to happen.

I think the other thing, and maybe this has changed, but that you want something that can withstand a snowplow and that if you have metal, it can get pinched closed. I've had that happen. Plastic can get damaged easily. But I don't know. I'm open to, I know you looked at it quite a bit.

One thing that I think I look at and it concerns me, I'm all on board with what you say. If someone's having their driveway resurfaced, shouldn't trigger a $1,000 fee. But I have seen the companies dig out a culvert and then fill it back in and then pave it, which then in turn mitigates the flow going down that street. So how do you catch that? It usually happens after the fact that they discover it. So again, I'm not in favor of $1,000 for reclaiming the driveway either.

But that's what you guys should be doing.

Yeah, that's a you problem.

For me, I would say $50 permit to reclaim it. I don't know when it changed to $300, but I think if they're altering it, then I would probably say $300 would work. And then if you're putting in something completely different, then I'd be fine with $1,000. I think you need a tiered. a tiered permitting fee for that. That's what you guys should exactly do.

Yeah, I think that's the bottom line is that the planning board's just gonna stick with the subdivisions. Yes, yes. Select board and go at it.

So when they're, so like we just looked at that stuff for Route 125, he's putting it in the driveway. Do you guys charge $1,000 for that?

We don't charge anything for any state highway.

So because it's coming up to the state highway, You're out. There's no permits for you guys.

It's basically new roads. No.

New subject.

We don't have any authority there.

Yep.

Any access to 125. Or.

Yep. If it was onto a town road. Well, what project are we talking about? If it's.

This one. Greasy. Oh, okay. We were looking at the draw.

But he didn't change the use at all, really. So we wouldn't require that at all. It's not a change of use. There's no traffic, no increase in traffic. That's really kind of what would trigger a driveway permit or review or traffic study would be an increase in traffic.

All right.

Yes.

So we're not putting on the, whatever it was, 50, 300, 1,000, we're just doing 1,000.

We'll do us.

We'll put together language for changes to the subdivision regs.

That's a you, it's an issue, not an ish me. I will update our permitting, our permits to reflect that, and we will have a public, hearing about it, Mr. Greenwood, and we will make those changes.

Are we, so we're not touching the other? Nope.

Nope. Nope. If it's not in a subdivision.

What does someone do now? They want to read?

We don't know and we don't care.

There's a driveway permit and it's done through the Board of Selectmen.

Correct.

That's the way it's always been. That's the way it'll continue to be.

We were just trying to fix something.

I will continue to process them, and they will tell me. I will know where our permits need to go to Tara, and they will tell me, or they will come up with some sort of system and let me know where their permit needs to go.

So somebody currently that's resurfacing their driveway, what does it cost them?

I don't think resurfacing.

We don't know. We don't care. Really? When you see it on the select board agenda, you may attend that meeting and make comment.

Yeah, I think right now, my understanding is they changed it to $300, but I'm not, I think, to me, it's not defined well enough. I think it's $300 for any driveway permit right now. I'm not sure if it's defined to be if I'm just reclaiming or putting a top coat on top of something. I don't think it's defined.

I mean, ours was substantially affects the size or grade at the entrance to a road. But I wouldn't think top coating wouldn't.

Mark even said if it's permit is basically for where they're cutting into the roadway, right?

Okay, we're gonna move on. Compliance and enforcement, One Smith Road. I believe we have a brief update, and we don't need to spend a lot of time on this.

Yes, so you want me to take it?

Sure. Does everybody have this? Yeah, do you have your email?

Your email, so there's a... Well, that's, I believe, a different, that's a totally different subject. So let's deal with the compliance one first that's in your packet.

Oh, this sign.

Yeah, the compliance one, the form that I filled out's in your packet. So I didn't get that till today, so I couldn't include it in your packet.

Toward the back, yes.

Yes.

Well, I think to cut to the chase, he agreed to take it down.

I met with the property owner yesterday, Glenn and I did, And then I met with the renter today. That sign will be taken down off the trailer by the 24th. A new sign will be installed per our site plan, or per the site plan. By a four by eight, says it right on the site plan. I missed it in that form.

So they're resolving it.

It will be resolved. I don't think you need to sign this right now. And let's let the process be the process and the agreement that I have made with this gentleman to remove it and put up a four by eight sign within the signage block on the plan set.

Okay, so there is one. Because it said the applicant shows not to. Yes, I missed it on the site. Okay, so there is a signage block.

Yeah, it definitely shows.

Yep, that was my bad. I apologize.

So they'll install signage in conformance with the plan. Perfect.

And if I could just make one comment. Because during this whole process, I was uncharacteristically a little bit angry at the process. I don't get angry very much. I enjoyed it. I just need the Snickers. You're not you when you're hungry. That's copyrighted. Anyway. What I will say, because throughout this process with them, there were a lot of things that were frustrating and that I felt were not done appropriately. If they are able to address this in a timely manner, I think that that is a really good sign that we're turning over a new leaf of collaboration and understanding. and Kumbaya.

But the adjacent property is the same person, yes, and does not have a site plan?

Yes.

And the trailers under the power lines also go with that?

I did some pretty extensive research and There's no declared use for that property. That was a residential piece of property that was used residentially. There is no laws or rules that say that you can't have a shipping container on your property. We can't mandate something that a legislation doesn't exist to say that you can't do that.

So he has to declare. Is that property being used commercially?

No, it's still a residential use. It was used commercially when he was laying the Michaels truck pack on that property.

But is that the same parcel, though? It's two different parcels. That's what I, yeah, that's what.

I only let your kumbaya hold for like five seconds.

We moved on to the other one. That was one of the things that tripped me up a little bit with this project is that there were multiple parcels, one that was very much commercial and then one that.

But it seemed like they were a little commingled when we did our site walk. Right.

Well, you can't enforce something without a declared use.

Well, is it junk? Abandoned?

Now you're reaching.

Yeah.

Now you're reaching.

Storage containers that are underneath the power line areas, those were, I think, left or abandoned by the prior owner, tenant, whatever it was over there. We went through, you know, building inspector and health officer me I was down there they had people living in travel trailers in there and setting mattresses on fire in the wetlands because they deprecated on them so there was a lot of issues going on out there I know that the storage containers that are still there were there before thank God they get rid of the TVs thank God they got rid of the 42 propane tanks sitting out there So there was a lot of other stuff that was out of cars. They had cars that were stored out there.

The short version of that is the containers that are there are far better than what was there.

And the culvert that goes in between that field was shattered. And I know our fire department had to replace their rim and their tire from going over that culvert to go put up. mattress that was on fire that was in the wetland.

Yeah.

Shredded the tire.

I have the perfect solution.

Bittersweet.

Plant bittersweet around here. You won't be able, five years, you won't be able to see them.

Yeah, but then the electric company is going to come in and mow them. Yeah.

I can't draw a direct line to a regulation that I can legitimately put on the farm.

Okay. And they, I can, I would imagine that at some point those containers will probably It was it was bad I Don't like them being a landmark of Brentwood as much as you don't like them being a landmark in Brentwood Take a left at the storage containers under the power line. I I get it I get it but

I think until a use is declared.

Okay, if we do see commercial activity there, though, we should bring that to the board. Okay, moving on.

No.

No.

Supplemental two pages that I put down.

I mean, this seems also resolved for the moment or not in our purview. It's also in DOT's purview.

Right, because Smith Road goes out to 125.

Well, do you want to deal with the request for a reduction in the bond, or do you want to deal with Smith Road itself first? I say we do reduction in bond.

Sure.

The plantings have already been planted. I never received a bond from them. It was part of the conditions of approval, and we haven't signed the MILR yet. They're looking for us to hold on to 10% of that bond money. And I don't have it, but I know I stapled it to yours. There's the exact bond amount. And they're requesting that. Thank you.

But they're requesting it to be 10% of that?

Correct. The plantings have already been done. Mm-hmm.

So they're looking to only retain 10%?

No, they're only looking to pay us 10% of it. $2,900.

They want to do $2,900.

So just in case one of the trees dies, we can replace it. And they've done the plantings to the planting diagram.

Has anybody seen it?

Well, that was going to be my next suggestion. I'm just going to unplug this just for a second because I want to look at something. I want to look at their financial and I don't want to put it up there.

I would put this in the verify column before we... No. I skipped that word on purpose.

I just want to make sure we have proper funds within the escrow.

While he's doing that, anybody want to make a motion for the minutes?

I'll make a motion that we approve the August 20th minutes. Second.

Any changes? All in favor?

While Mark is pulling up the financials, I can... He's not. When you make motions. I'm sorry. I have an idea. While Mark is taking care of that, maybe I can do an RPC update because Mark doesn't have to make any motion.

I got it. I'm pretty well organized when it comes to such things. I am retaining $1,970 still within the escrow. So there's plenty of money to send Tara out there to inspect the plantings and the planting diagram and get a report on that.

Is that all that needs to be inspected? Would she just be going out for that?

If she's just going out for that, shouldn't we just send Chuck out for that? Ask him to take pictures?

You want me to go out and do it?

I prefer you to go out and do that to Tara. I prefer you to go up to do that to Tara. It just doesn't seem like a legitimate thing to say.

It doesn't. I was afraid, well, you have a very valid.

It's mostly are they there or not. It's not a was this installed correctly.

I mean, I certainly can do that.

Yeah, that's much better.

So you want to make a motion to reduce that bond amount to 10%? You want me to inspect it first?

So it'll be tabled till the next meeting.

Yep, okay. Yeah, we'll just go on to the next one. Now, we have a bit of an issue with Smith Road. It's a class six roadway, and I didn't know that.

Yeah, we changed that in 22? because otherwise Wayne was going to have to maintain the road and we didn't have any activity on it.

It says that it still does.

Yeah, he still plows that little bit of it. But that's a major issue because we approved a site plan on the Class 6 road. Which is subject to gates and bars. Which is illegal. Yeah.

So what we can do is, I guess, talk to Sue, put it on, and we'll just make it.