Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Motion to approve the minutes from April 28.

Yeah, I'll second.

Sorry, there are no public comments So we'll move right on to resuming petition r2601 1 2 3 1 1 airspeed Drive this request would revise the approved plan to expand parking and seek clarity on entitlements for future development

uh... good evening brian richards for the planning staff uh... as mister henson pointed out this is a resigning for the twenty three eleven ratio up down on uh... u s twenty one uh... conditional district condition uh... corporate business conditional district to corporate business conditional district really to some simple site plan changes uh... they had the community meeting late last year uh... mr homan was in attendance with myself uh... very lightly attended uh... got no could poor community feedback against this great asset to have in huntersville Some recollection back in the old rezoning was taken care of during COVID. They had multiple, kind of a multiple choice scenario depending on who came in in this area. The race shop ultimately won the bid for this. So this is really just some cleanup, late cleanup work for this. They're going to increase the building size on the plan from 95,000 to the 117,800. No effect on the TIA, no effect on stormwater, no effect on tree save. Keep it in a nutshell here. Along the 21 corridor there was a label for a 60 foot buffer but it was actually measured at 50 feet. So we're not really changing anything. The applicant has offered to plant at the same rate in the 50 foot area. Originally there was a small building up front. They are going to exceed all of our parking requirements. Fits in the character area according to the 2040 community plan. You can see some policies there that are on your screen that supports this. against that is in favor of this uh... as long as the applicant is willing to plant the uh... fifty foot buffer at the sixty foot rate i'm here if you guys have any questions and that can as well as as well thank you questions for staff

Mr. Richards, so would this allow a potential expansion of the buildings as we're going from, I forget, maybe back one more slide? Sure. 95 to 117?

No, any additional expansions would require an amendment to the rezoning plan. Okay.

So that existing race shop is what you're referring to in the $117,000? Correct. And there's no building B anymore? Correct. That's going away.

Yep, and then, like I said, where that parking lot's going to be over there, more than adequate screening along 21.

Any other questions? Lee?

And the impervious surface didn't change at all? It looks like the parking lot's gotten bigger from what was on the other plan. It did.

The BMP doesn't need that? BMPs, they oversized it just in case.

all right yep that was all built into the plan lee so that was one of my questions from the community meeting the other one was the uh any change to the tree save or none not tree save effective and then storm water no effect no effect what's correct okay thank you and the only modification was was the buffer correct yeah correct okay

If there's no other questions, if there's a petitioner here that would like to say anything.

They're just here to answer any questions that you may have.

If you all have questions for the petitioner.

I think you're going to find that to be the case for all of the cases this evening since these are very light. A lot of cleanup work this month.

If no other questions, we can entertain a motion. Lee.

In considering the proposed rezoning R2601-2311 race shop, The Planning Board recommends approval of the application with conditions. With conditions, the application is consistent with policies LU 1.1, LU 5.1, EV 1.2 of the Huntersville 2040 plan. It is reasonable in the public interest to amend the zoning ordinance because the proposed rezoning is consistent with the envisioned uses and development patterns set forth in the 2040 community plan. Second.

Motion and a second. Any discussion? Okay, all those in favor? Those opposed? Okay. Great, thanks. Next item, resuming petition R2606, 17155, Old Statesville Road. This request would revise the approved plans to permit the removal of a portion of a brick screen wall. Mr. Pete.

David Pete from the Planning Department here. This is a procedural revision to an overlay that was from 1999 when the Caldwell Station neighborhood, including the single-family homes and the apartments, was originally created. The properties along the far right edge of the development or along 115 were all individual single family homes that were not part of the project. And as such, the town board, as a condition of approval, stipulated that an approximately thousand foot long masonry wall was to be built before the apartments were to be put into place and so fast forward to uh... i'm gonna say less than ten years ago uh... when the northern part of the apartment complex was being constructed that almost borders cornelius they built that wall and it is there today uh... you can see the aerial photography uh... on the screen uh... it is there but what has changed since that original building of that wall is that the and and by the way i should mention the apartments were split by the developer into two parts or two phases the one that is currently constructed although tried to dig its way out of some neglect and what have you don't need to belabor that point but then you have the southern part of this phase two which started out as apartments closer to the single-family homes in the back, away from 115, and then they acquired all of the properties along 115, with the exception of one single-family home, and you can see that in the grayed-out area in the image to your right, And the developers who own the property put town homes in there. And then their goal was always to bring these two pieces together under one umbrella as their project. And they have done that. And as they were approved, the wall stayed and they sort of straddled it, if you will. But they have had a change of heart, and they would like to take out, you see the area in the yellow highlight on the image to the right, they would like to take 222 feet of wall out of the middle of the project, leaving the north and the south pieces to remain. The one on the south really doesn't matter either, but they're just not asking to take that one away. The one in the north, we're recommending should stay because that is where the one home that still is an outlier is located. So it would serve as a buffer. I will say during the community meeting and at the public hearing, no one attended and no one spoke. So the request is that simple and straightforward. Because it was a town board condition of approval, it can only be undone by the town board. So we're moving it through the major revision process. Got a number of images here that show you the walls in its current existence, if you'd like to see more. And the recommendation is that the 222 feet in the middle, shown there in the yellow highlight, be allowed to be removed and the remainder of the wall to stay. I'll be happy to answer any questions, and the applicants are also represented if you have any questions of them.

Thank you. Do we have questions for Mr. Pete?

The only one I have is on the southern portion of the wall that they're not removing. They own both sides of that wall as well, but they don't feel like they want to take that one down just to kind of...

I'll let them speak to that if you want to know. Oh, yeah.

If you could state your name, please, for the record.

Yes, Eric Williams, Charter Properties. We are not asking to remove that part of the wall. That is actually integrated into part of our amenity package there. And so we have pool and clubhouse on this side and some additional amenity and open space on the other side. So it actually works pretty well for us there. The middle wall that we are asking to remove opens up into an open space that we worked with staff on when we were doing the site plan and creates kind of an open field to those trees that were left there as part of that open space.

Yeah, I didn't look close enough to see that you were using that wall as more of a privacy barrier there for the pool.

So that's why we were just asking for that middle section of 222 feet. Sounds good. Any other questions for...

Any further questions for staff or the applicant? Okay. We can entertain a motion if somebody has one prepared. Chris? I got it. Sure.

I'll go. In considering the proposed rezoning revision petition R26-06, Charter Caldwell Station, the Planning Board recommends approval with the condition that the only that only the middle portion of the six foot tall brick wall as shown on page five of the report be removed as it no longer buffers different property owners. The proposal is consistent with Huntersville 2040 community plan policies LU 1.1. It is reasonable in the public interest to revise the plan as described above as it is consistent with the envisioned use and development patterns set forth in the community plan.

Good motion. I'm second. Second. Thank you. Any discussion?

Could you go back to the aerial? I just want to see the aerial. I don't really have a question. I just want to...

The home that remains is in the grassed area to the...grassed. The treed area. Yeah, there you go. Okay.

Okay. Anybody else? all right we'll take a vote all those in favor those opposed unanimous thank you item 4c returning petition r25-18 13729 eastfield road this request would allow a buffer disturbance in in the installation of a public park mr richardson thank you again uh the applicant is mecklenburg county as you can see this is for the eastfield road park there's been a number of public input sessions over the last several years to get uh

A lot of input as to what is to be built on there. Now the county is going through that process. Through the construction document discovery, a buffer was identified that could not be mitigated administratively. If this were to have been a public street, we could have done this administratively, but because this is a private drive, the ordinance requires a modification through the rezoning process. um straightforward park as a use use allowed by right again the private drive is what's causing the impact to that that small buffer area um so it's going to mean heavily what to do the topography there will be some limited active areas with trails bikes those types of things mountain biking it's going to be a fantastic facility uh hoping to get constructed i believe next year or get started next year We are working with the applicant and their design team to get some additional information on tree save. Obviously they're gonna meet that. We just need to get some numbers on the construction documents to tighten those up. They will be constructing the 10 foot side path along Eastfield Road as part of this. Something that is pointed out is there is a Potential for a Verhof Drive extension, this would need to go through a full public process if we were to identify this at some point in the future. We just bring this up as background information. There are no plans from the town nor CRTPO to go through that process at this time. So that road, Verhof, would stop over at Prosperity Church when that's extended. But just something so folks know, county's well aware of it. They've made some design decisions that could accommodate that if and when the public chose to extend that. odds are probably won't happen, but just keeping that in everybody's knowledge. Again, rough context, Matt, you can see the parking lot's gonna be out front towards the street, so we limit the impacts to the property. They're gonna install some trails, and a majority of this site will remain natural, which is fantastic. Again, 2040 Community Plan calls this set to be a park. There it is. And here are some items that support the modification request we have before us this evening. and I'm here if you guys have any questions, and so is the county.

Thank you.

Yes, sir.

Questions for staff at the moment?

What you got, Lee?

hone in on what modification we're reviewing here. Sure. Not a problem. Not a whole park.

You can see it right there. Okay. There's a small buffer that was identified out in the field as part of their environmental assessment for the construction documents.

So the highlighted is that buffer. Correct. And we want to go through it with a side path and an access. Correct. That's why it's nice and tight all through there. Minimize the impacts. Okay. What kind of buffer is it? Is it a stream?

It's a stream. Do you know if it's a... It's a jurisdictional wetland that we have to go through there. Is it perennial? It's intermittent. It's a ditch. Pretty much.

It's a fancy ditch. Okay. All right. and just to click it's going to get field in there will be a culvert there you're it's easy to extend it like it was these are all fun ones tonight that makes better sense thank you

further questions for staff or So I see on the plan here that there's the potential for the bear Hoff extension obviously so if that were to get developed Would that change I mean because it looks like if there's to make use of that that side of the land of the to build of that I guess that part of the property you've made this access drive going in this direction. Correct. If Verhof was to get extended, would you still need that access or would you be able to?

You would still need that from the parking lot. So what happens when you do a thoroughfare study is you will probably come up with four or five different options weighing there. Some will impact the park more than others. And then you go through a whole public process. Everybody gets input. Then we have a staff recommended version, CRTPO recommended version. Ultimately, one of those alignments could get adopted or none could get adopted. Again, highly unlikely that we would actually go through that process. When we did the Eastfield Road plan that was identified back then, everybody knew it was a long shot. There wasn't exactly timing at that point for the park to develop. And again, they've been good neighbors and community members working with us to respect that potential line that goes here. When you look at it, given the topography, the constraints with gas lines and other other utilities that are out there, there may be only one or two really real rural places that that road could happen. And the benefits of that road would deliver a pretty low odds of us ever moving this project forward. It won't be in any of our lifetimes. I can safely say that. Fair enough. Thanks.

Any further questions for staff or the applicant on this? Okay, we'll call for the vote. We need a motion first. You can vote. We're all good. Sorry about that.

In considering the proposed rezoning application R25-18, Eastfield Park, the planning board recommends approval of the rezoning plan with the staff minor outstanding comments addressed. The planning board finds the rezoning request to be consistent with the Huntersville 2040 community plan, including policies LU.1, EOS 1.1, EOS-8, and EOS-10. And then it is reasonable and in the public interest to approve the rezoning because it fulfills the public need for outdoor spaces, protects neighborhoods, and is a benefit for the community green spaces.

Thank you. Is there a motion? Do we have a second?

Oh, do I need to read that?

I have a question. Would you mind adding to that motion that you would include the specimen trees are addressed?

And I would like to add the specimen trees will be addressed. Okay. Thank you.

Now do we have a second? I'll second. Thank you. Discussion? Seeing none, we'll call for a vote. All those in favor? Those opposed? Thank you. All right. Item 4D, the Master Sign Program Petition. S-2601 at 12815 Statesville Road. This request would create a special sign district to add two building signs. Mr. Richardson.

Good evening. This is for the special sign district program for Hall Honda. We rarely do these. They do, just so you guys know for background knowledge, these do follow a rezoning process. So there's community meeting, public hearings. You guys make a recommendation, board approves it. What this does, it allows an applicant to go outside the lines a little bit as far as our sign districts, our sign rules are allowed for the allowances. We take these on a case-by-case basis, so it's really beauty is in the eye of the beholder for this one. In this case, Honda is requesting three signs that in total are larger than what is allowed on the building facade. This particular building facade does not face any streets. It would all be interior facing. Typically, these are on shopping centers or the back sides of buildings, and we allow 32 square feet. They're requesting 171 square feet in this situation. You can see the up top highlighted in red, the service, the Huntersville, and the Honda with their symbol. here's the signs in a little bit more detail and if you can see here from their location there's their view shed so on the bottom of that screen you can see statesville road which is twenty one and of course we know that there's that unique entry and exit off of mount holly huntersville road again these signs would not be visible from the public street especially this time of year There is a significant double row of straight trees, and that canopy provides adequate shielding from these things. Again, this is just something that they feel would add to their business and their experience for their customers while they're shopping and on the car lot side. So this is their request. Staff is in support of this. this request. We've got the land use policies here that support that. A lot of economic development reasons there, as you guys would imagine. So we would consider this a favorable support from the team. And the applicant is here. If you have any questions from them, let me just slide on down to there. They've got a really good slide I should have stole earlier. You can see this is the site. Wrong way. Too many clicks. that's the site in the winter. So those signs you can see are gonna be partly on that facade that's being renovated right now. So even in the wintertime scenario, very low visibility of these signs. So again, that's one of the reasons why we're able to support this. And here if you guys have any questions. Thank you.

Chris?

I might have a couple, I'm still flipping around here. Sure. You had a diagram of all the signage on the various sides of the buildings. There was a couple that were facing 21. Correct. Yeah, that one. You want to go back? Yeah, back. Sure. And back one more.

10-4. There you go.

Nope. It was like an aerial of the... Ah!

That one.

Gotcha. Yes, please. Thank you. All right. Down here at the bottom, I mean, are these, we're looking at these two, this one and this one, and those face 21, but can you see them from 21, or is it?

Limited visibility.

Limited visibility.

Yep. And just so everybody understands, our tree ordinance does not allow limbing of trees to make signs visible. That is spelled out in black and white. We have had some discussions with the neighbors to the north because they weren't exactly following the rules, and we'll just leave that there. Honda is well aware of the rules and knows they will be trimming up their trees.

And then the 5x5 Honda down here at the entry, that's?

Yep, that's their standard monument sign. And they can actually, it's 5x5, it's small, they can go up to 32 square feet.

That was already allowed. Correct. the big over here on uh... the north uh... they correct all by right okay okay so the only one action for the exceptions are they've been read the arrows correct interior to the development

And none of these are illuminated, correct?

They will be internally illuminated.

They are illuminated, okay.

Again, there's brightness levels, those types of things. It will not change, in effect, how the site looks as folks drive by.

I got you. And there's no neighbors to the south, that would be. That's y'all's building as well. Correct.

They bought the part, as a matter of fact, three or four years ago, their predecessors bought the lot next door to do an expansion.

There are some houses across 21 to the south, though.

There are.

and there's a lighting study, all that stuff. They're not gonna have a blue light shining in their window in the middle of the night, no?

No, sir.

And this doesn't open a, I mean, there's a whole bunch of car dealerships there. I think my fear is, all the car dealerships start coming in and saying, well, if Honda got this, then I want my signs.

And if it's apples to apples, I'd be more than happy to endorse those as well. The last one we did for this was Frankie's, and I think that was, I can't remember what year I did that last sign district, so we do this pretty rarely. Our sign ordinance is very accommodating. Again, signs are for identification. When you're internal to a project like this, that's when you get a little artistic-ness that can come in and really see what your customers need. We spent some time with these folks, and again, our initial thought was, man, what are they going to do? Then they came back with this, and given with the sign locations and their limited visibility, I think that's how we got comfortable with this. And we would do the same for other businesses. Okay. Great.

Any other questions for staff or for the applicant? If not, we will...

Ask for motion in considering the proposed rezoning petition S 26-01, uh, hall Honda, special design, special sign district. The planning board recommends approval based on the master sign plan being consistent with Huntersville, 20 40 community plan policies. L U seven L U 7.1 L U eight L U 8.1. It is reasonable in the public interest to approve the special sign district because it is consistent with the greater flexibility and form style and design. desired by the 2040 community plan. Thank you.

We have a motion and a second?

Second.

Scott, thank you. Any discussion?

No, I just, I mean. It seems like it's been well vetted. It seems like we're going to have the lighting requirement that's needed there. So we're not blasting light in any personal space. And then, you know, as long as everybody has to come forward with this same plan as we see these and people see how nice these signs are, they're going to say, hey, I want my signs too. So as long as we have those controls in place, I'm good with it.

Sure. Yeah, I would just say I think it's a good example of the town and staff being accommodating to an existing business to try to help them help their clients and customers.

Agreed. Okay. All those in favor? Those opposed? Great, thanks. Thank you. Okay, the next item, item number five, quasi-judicial hearing. It's a density averaging certificate, petition number DA-2601-13711, Hagers Ferry Road. This request would transfer impervious from 13929 Clarendon Point Court to 13711 Hagers Ferry Road. And... Before we get started, I've got a lot to read here, so bear with me. This is a quasi-judicial hearing, which means the board must base its decision only on competent material and substantial evidence. Only parties withstanding may fully participate in this hearing. This includes the applicant, the property owner, the local government, and anyone who can demonstrate special damages. Special damages must be particularized, separate, and distinct from the public at large. Proximity alone is not enough to establish standing. Parties may present evidence, call witnesses, and make legal arguments. Others may be allowed to speak as witnesses, but may not examine witnesses or call their own. Witnesses must swear or affirm their testimony, and testimony must be factual. Personal opinions are not permitted unless given by a qualified expert. Expert topics such as property values or traffic impacts may require an expert witness who must explain the factual basis for their opinions. The board recognizes the applicant and the property owners as parties. Anyone else who believes they have standing to participate as a party may come forward and briefly state how the project affects you differently from the general public. If you do not wish to participate as a party, please wait and come forward until after we have identified parties with standing. So at this point, we have the staff and we have just potentially the applicant. If you could state your name and address, please, for the record.

Matt Essler, 13711 Hagers Ferry Road.

Okay, and you are the property owner?

I am the one receiving the pervious rights.

Impervious, you're receiving it, okay.

Correct.

Okay, we're gonna move on. Parties withstanding, please tell me the witnesses you intend to call. I'm assuming you have no witnesses, okay. Are there any individuals who wish to testify as witnesses even though you do not qualify as parties? And seeing none, we'll move on. Now we'll administer the oath and you can, from where you're standing is fine. If you could stand and raise your right hand and respond. Please respond aloud. Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the evidence you give shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you. Okay, for the board, any disclosures, conflicts, ex parte communication? The parties in this case are entitled to an impartial board. A board member may not participate in this hearing if he or she has a fixed opinion about the matter, a financial interest in the outcome of the matter, or a close relationship with an affected person. Do any board members have a conflict of interest to disclose? okay hearing none we'll move on the parties to this case have rights for any ex parte communications to be disclosed in the ex parte communication is is any communication about the call about the case outside of the hearing that may be an email communication as well as conversations with party staff or general public does any board member have any expert a communications to disclose okay

okay since we have none of that we'll move on to the staff report we'll now call upon the planning staff to present the staff report spate good evening everyone um lauren spate for staff this evening but nathan farber was planning staff that did all the preparation for the case um just filling in because i have familiarity with density averaging so So a little background about why this case is coming before you since these don't happen very often, just bear with me a little here. The density averaging certificate is first just the transfer of impervious rights between two parcels that are not within the boundaries of the same subdivision. So that would be if it's two different minor subdivisions, two different farmhouse clusters, two different major subdivisions, a minor and a major, If they were developed separately, then they would have to have a density averaging certificate to transfer impervious area between the two properties. Typically, what staff recommend when a property is seeking additional impervious area is first to try to reallocate existing impervious on your lot. If you're not able to do that, then the next recommendation is to get an impervious transfer from a lot that's within your subdivision that's eligible to transfer to you. And then the last option is to seek a density averaging certificate from an eligible parcel that is within the same watershed as your parcel. So that is what the applicant is doing in this case. And then once you find the eligible parcel, The giving parcel then sets aside an area of their lot that just won't have built upon area and that area is designated in the application and it cannot change after that's been set aside. As a part of the density averaging certificate, a meets and bounds description of the space to be undisturbed will be recorded on the subdivision maps in the homeowner covenants and on the individual deed. And then the total impervious area maximums for both lots cannot exceed what they were previously, no matter how much is transferred between the two. So the cases before you, because that is what is prescribed by the zoning ordinance, that it goes to the Watershed Review Board and the Planning Board acts as the Watershed Review Board. And then with that, obviously, the two parcels are going to be in regulated drinking watersheds. So you don't do density averaging outside of the regulated drinking watersheds in town. If you wanna transfer impervious outside of that, it has to be just an impervious transfer in your subdivision. So next, before density averaging cases come before you, they're kind of unique because all of the criteria will have been satisfied before it's even put on the agenda here. So the criteria for density averaging certificate are in article three of the zoning ordinance. So the plat that has to be proposed showing the area of both lots that's built upon and the area that's being transferred is prepared. The pair of parcels to be transferred to have the transfer is gonna be vetted through Mecklenburg County as well to determine whether or not the receiving parcel needs to include any vegetative conveyance, which is essentially when you're exceeding your original impervious area limit, if that additional impervious area you're receiving needs to be captured by some type of vegetation essentially to prevent any erosion or damage to other properties. In this case, that wasn't a requirement. That was determined not to be necessary. But all of those technical criteria will have been satisfied before it's even put on the agenda for you to consider and included in the staff report. So here you'll see the giving parcel that is at 13929 Clarendon Point Court and the receiving parcel at 13711 Hager's Ferry Road and it's pretty obvious but essentially it's very good when the parcels are in close proximity to one another. Typically that is the preference even though sometimes you may be eligible to receive from a parcel that is a little bit farther away. So additionally, obviously both parcels are in the same watershed. They're both in the Lake Norman Critical Area Watershed. And as mentioned, they do not require vegetative conveyance. The giving parcel is proposing to transfer 550 square feet of impervious development rights to the receiving parcel. So here you will see the receiving parcel and this would be a capture from the existing built upon area on the parcel that shows the proposed addition of impervious area. One thing we do want to note is that the receiving parcel has not exceeded their impervious area limit. They're seeking to do an expansion that would go beyond that so before they, so they are not in noncompliance is where I'm trying to get essentially. And then the giving parcel, this is a snip from what is proposed for that parcel showing the 550 square feet on that parcel that will be set aside to remain undisturbed. And I can take any questions that you have. And as mentioned, the applicant is also here. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. We'll start with questions for staff.

Yes, so maybe you can clarify a little bit because right now it just feels like these are boxes that just need to be checked like there's not really much discretion or anything that really needs to be applied here. So are we just kind of going behind the planning staff to confirm that we agree with the determination that's been made as to each of these criteria?

yes okay i just wanted to make sure because i just didn't feel like there was much much to interpret really for us and if i can expound a bit because we've consulted with the county about that the preference that they've suggested is to keep that control in place for a board to be the ultimate decision maker decision maker because the idea is that um the impervious area limits are there for a reason essentially. And in this case, there is a transfer proposed of 550 square feet. And quite frankly, staff receive requests that exceed that. And so the idea is to limit that. And so that has been a preference that has been expressed

to essentially preserve the integrity of the drinking water in in the watersheds this is just out of curiosity that the 550 feet that's being reserved there's part of the buffer that's included in that and I was just curious about that sit back well that's a setback yes there so they can't build on it anyway no but it's included in the land that they're giving.

Yes, there is a very short list of development that you could do in that setback. So you're allowed to have at-grade patios in that type of setback. You could have gardens, like playground equipment type things, but you couldn't have any structures over there. The home couldn't be there, any home expansions, pools, those types of things you couldn't put in the setback anyway. Anyway. Okay, thank you. Sure.

So just a couple questions. So if you can go back to the plat where it shows the 550-foot blocked out. So this will be on the permanent plat, so whoever buys the Leonard's property will understand that they can't build there, correct? Correct. And two, why did you go so deep into the property as opposed to just going long right underneath the sanitary sewer?

so that would ultimately that's a preference by the property owner it's their decision to make we generally recommend that you select areas of the property that couldn't be built upon anyway so yeah but would you like to add sure and if you could state your name just for the right matt essler one three seven one one here's her right

It's a natural area and so they've got a beautiful property and just the way the peninsula is out It's it's wooded. No one would ever build back there.

So it was just a natural natural selection Yeah, I was just wondering why instead of not going like ten foot deep you just didn't go three foot deep like for all the way across.

Yeah But in that distinct area, yeah, I mean you can't really build over there. Yeah, so got it Okay

I need further questions, Lee.

Back to the plat of the receiving. Back one to the receiving plat. Just a couple questions, I guess, for next time, maybe. So the swimming pool, it's not included in pervious calculations. Swimming pools are not included.

The water surface area of swimming pools is not included in the impervious area calculations. But the decks are.

Yes, that's correct. Okay. That kind of makes sense. And my only other question is, is there a limit to how far you can transfer within the same watershed? Can it be miles?

So... that is a subjective determination that's made in conjunction with the stormwater administrator about what is appropriate essentially um and typically the idea is to find properties that are in close proximity but that also drain to the same um area of in our stream system and they make that determination. There are a number of items to get through before you would even find properties that would be far away that you could transfer from, but it's a subjective determination. Okay.

That's it. I see where you're going with that. I guess my fear, and this is probably immaterial to this, uh, quasi judicial meeting, but with somebody, if somebody bought like a, a pervious bank and then they like overbuilt something somewhere else and just like a developer transferred it, is that doable?

That is within the scope of possibility.

Okay. Interesting.

Okay, I will ask if the applicant would like to add any additional information or speak.

Matt Esler, no additional information.

Thank you. There's no other parties withstanding. No non-party witnesses. No need for rebuttal. No closing arguments. So at this time, does the board members believe a continuance is warranted for this hearing? I do not. OK. Hearing none, we'll begin the deliberation process. Does the board have any further questions before we deliberate? And hearing none, we will begin the deliberations. The evidentiary hearing remains open for clarifying questions. The board must determine whether the applicant has met the burden of proving the standard using competent material and substantial evidence. If the applicant meets their burden producing competent material and substantial evidence that the standards and this ordinance will be met, the burden shifts to the other parties opposing the application to show by competent material and substantial evidence that the standards in the ordinance will not be met. If conflicting evidence as to standards presented, the Board will weigh the evidence and determine which side's evidence is more credible and more reliable. If the applicant does not meet their burden of producing competent material and substantial evidence that the standards in the ordinance will be met, the Board must deny the application. So the next item is to determine that the items were met before we make the motion and a vote.

I'll deliberate. I think he has met his burden of proof.

I would agree with the staff report with the surveys precisely showing where the receiving and the giving Any other further thoughts, conversation? Okay, is there a motion?

Sure, I'll give it a go. The Planning Board recommends approval for DA26.01 to allow impervious rights to be transferred from 13929, cleared in .2.

You got to use what's on the screen.

Do I have to use what's on the screen? I can't.

Apparently.

Oh. I had it all written out.

Yeah, me too. I had a nice one.

The planning board finds the request meets all 12 criteria for granting a density averaging certificate. The board grants DA 26-01 and incorporates staff applicants. Article 3 incorporates staff applicants Article 3 findings of the fact for the criteria to grant a density averaging certificate. The density averaging certificate is granted based on the conditions meet Article 3.3.2A-D has been satisfied. Yes? Can you clarify if you're selecting staff's finding of facts and incorporating that into your motion as included in the report? Yes, staff's finding of facts.

OK. Do you feel comfortable with that? OK. OK. My wonderful motion. Do we have a motion? Do we have a second? Second. Yes, thank you. Any discussion?

I don't know if it's relevant to the case, but I think, like Chris said, you could see where there's a loophole that somebody might, but I think this is a good example of somebody who has a personal residence that's trying to improve their situation by just a small amount and being able to do that. So again, I think it's a good support for a resident.

Yeah. Anything else? We'll call for a vote. All those in favor? Those opposed? Unanimous? And there's no other business, so I have a motion to adjourn.

I'll make a motion to adjourn.

Second. Second. And all those in favor? Those opposed? Great. Thank you very much.