Planning Board - Regular Meeting

meeting of the kensington town planning board to order uh starting with an introduction um to the member are you sorry yeah okay not anymore okay

Today we have a public hearing on the table. Do you have the actual notice? Yeah.

Okay, so we have a public hearing tonight for a subdivision proposal for tax map two, block five at 8 Highland Road. The applicant has submitted an application to the Town of Kensington hereby requesting a five block subdivision at 8 Highland Road, block two, block five. Platinum proposes four driveways on Highland Road and one driveway on South. So just a quick review of our procedures. The board will start off by reviewing the application for completeness, and then we'll take jurisdiction of the application. Once the planning board takes jurisdiction of an application, we have a 65-day clock during which time the board must make a decision. And following your decision, we'll go ahead and hear a presentation and then open to public comment. I think everyone should have their copies already. Glenn, I know we have a note from you, kind of your overview and comments. Is there anything that you'd like?

I found the application to be really well prepared, put together, followed our checklist really very closely.

I think that they absolutely have provided us a complete application.

Anyone else have any concerns about completeness of this application? All right. With that, I've entertained a motion to take jurisdiction of the application for MAP-2 offline. I think that motion

we do like to go ahead and kind of talk us through the application sure is it most popular from ucc here or where should i go ahead and then you'll just introduce yourself for the record

folks my name is keith cartel i'm here on behalf of liberty woods for the current owner of the parsnip island and we're the applicant for the application to be for you um i'll give you kind of a general overview of it i'll tell you some of the work that we've uh we've done what we've encountered what we're intending to do in the vision that we have for the property itself the property is uh comprised of just under 12 and a half acres it's on the corner of highland an extensive amount of frontage on both Highland and on South Road. South Road is a DOT road. Highland Road is a local town road. By and large, the property is in a hay field. My understanding, once it was a farmhouse, the center portion of it. On some of the existing conditions plans, you can see the trees that surround the legal farmhouse. You can see the open area where the hay field currently is. Central to the property, we have a large farm on it. Within that five pound feeding into it, there's a small sliver of wetlands or hydroponics soils that feed up to it. It appears to be controlled by an old farmers control structure going into it. What our proposal is fairly straightforward, no new roads, on either 107 or on Highland Road. Given the town that we are in, you guys have a beautiful, very New England, you call it, sort of town. illustrations of houses we've built in the past, which are intended to be here. I've noticed that we build a little differently than most builders. These are not lots that we would do custom builds on where we would have a lot, have a buyer come forward to propose a certain type of house of their choosing. We typically permit and start construction and sell the houses at completion of them. What this supports us from A benefit to what I'm speaking of right now is a little bit more control of the finished product coming in the outcome of it. So we're able to maintain the characteristics that I'm showing you. I definitively know which style of house is going on in each of those house slots now. I didn't bring it or submit it as part of the package, but I certainly have some handouts that I can pass along just to give you an idea of some of the architecture. You see this. This is about a 3,600 square foot house. It's a four-bedroom house. farmhouse side and farmer's porch on the front, farmer's porch to the front, farmer's porch to the back, some of the lower roof lines with the traditional gables that you would have seen on the older farmhouses.

We've currently permitted, because it's the farm lot currently that we're developing into or adding four additional blocks on,

We've started birding and construction on this house, which again is very New England-style, colonial, straight front. It actually has a center chimney that'll be built coming out of it. Farmer's porch on the side, three-car garage towards the back. Again, those small dormers in the cupola really meant to maintain the aesthetic of an older farmhouse with the barn situated towards the back. That's a house that would be built on a low plot of your screen. going into it. And then another one, we call it our graph of farmhouse. The farmstead will not be white, but our illustrations are all white. Again, with the traditional farmer's porch going onto it, the offset farm, the cupola, all of these houses that I'm showing you are about 3,500 to 4,000 square feet with three-car garages on them. I had pretty illustrations for three of the five. I do know what the other two of the five are, and they maintain the same sort of architecture. Each of the lots, each of the lots conforms to local zoning. They all have an excess of two acres. I think my small one is about 2.34. My larger one is about 2.76. They have an excess of the required frontage. Four of them having that frontage on Highland Road, the fifth having frontage on 107 going down. We are aware that Highland Road is designated as a scenic road. We see the beautiful trees that are lining the side of that street, and we see the remnants of some stone wall really towards the 107 side of the property. Typically, when we encounter situations like this, we limit our breaches of the stone wall to the minimal distance necessary for creating safe sight distance. And any breaches to an existing stone wall, we typically use those stones to recreate the stone wall, just turning it, going down along the sides of each of the driveways. So any stone walls found on site, which I think are limited predominantly to that lower section or upper section on your plan of Highland, and then there is one stone wall down by the farm pond. We try to reuse those on site. We try to maintain that New England architecture that we see that everybody expects the old stone walls to stay with them. um worth completed so we've obviously done a full survey of the property printer survey uh we've done topographic importation of all the lines in general the parcel um is higher towards the highland side has a gentle slope away going down towards that farm pond and then heading down towards a lot that fronts on 107. um fairly consistent as far as where you go is nothing else terribly challenging from a building standpoint the house has been in nicely there we've obviously mapped the weapons the farm pond has some open water with it so that came back as a hydric egg that has that required 100 foot structure set back as well as the 25 foot no disturbance and then the little finger that runs parallel to the two lock lines right in the center is a hydric b soil and that has a 25 foot setback that we've adhered to uh going across with it We've completed a full soil snapping of the site. The site was delineated and soil snapped by a gentleman by the name of Luke Powell. All of that documentation has been submitted to you guys for review. They've completed the appropriate lot loading calculations to prove out that the lots have the ability to hold what's being proposed on each of them. We've completed test fits on the lots for both stormwater management as well as for septic systems. We did those and had them witnessed by Mike Cuomo of Rockingham County. build test pit for each of the stormwater structures that I'll talk to you guys about coming up in just a little bit. We've actually gone a little bit of a step further in regards to the septics. Because we know what we're building, we have designed most of these septics. We adhered to the four foot of separation going through to estimating seasonal high water tables. We had no problem meeting any of the right reserve area. That's the box I can see not drawn in with the little vines of the septic system on there. For drainage, the senior engineer on this project, Brian Brack, wasn't able to make it here. He had a scheduling conflict. So I brought James with me today. James is actually the wizard behind the curtain that's done all the calculations and number crunching. He's completed a stormwater analysis for both the pre and the post uh development conditions going on to it he's analyzed where the water is currently going where it's intended to go afterwards and how he intends to treat it as we come through um i'll defer to him if you guys want some of the technical background of any of that storm water but i'm assuming you also have a review letter from your talents engineer as well um

Do you have an email with input?

I can talk to them as well if you guys have any specific questions and then I'll talk about what we need for permits and there were a couple of waivers and one of them is relative to that. Just get through what I know we've talked about or what we've completed already. We intend to actually met with the fire chief early on when we first approached the project, just to know his preference and understand the regulation allows us to either sprinkler homes or have a cistern nearby. The chief did let me know that he had a cistern further down, but there are some deficiencies noted in that cistern. He and I had a dialogue about, I'm glad to sprinkler the homes, I think it's a great benefit for each of the homes, but we acknowledge that that was a benefit for the individual I had offered to him that in lieu of the fire sprinkler systems, he would like me to contribute an equal amount towards him redoing that system. And I was glad to do that. And I just don't think he was familiar with the mechanics of that and do something like that. So we included a note on the plan that the houses will be sprinkler just to make sure we have conformance We obviously need approval from you folks. Step number one, we need driveway permits from the town on Highland Road going into it. The lot difference on South Road or 107 is a little bit different. That's a DOT road. We haven't made that application to DOT. We've received some comments back from them, some minor shifting of the culvert, and they structure, just uphill of it, as opposed to having a hole on the side of the road creating to capture the water that they felt wouldn't be quite as safe. We've made those revisions. We've sent them back to DOT. We expect that permit to be issued imminently. We need a state subdivision approval. Again, we've been through all of the calculations with that, but we thought it would be to come as you guys sort of conversation before we submitted that up to the state. And we didn't have any wetland impacts that are on property. The wetlands are really isolated to that center portion where we're not economically having development associated with that. We're able to upland access all the open buildable areas without crossing anything on the site. And then obviously we need approvals for the individual septic systems. You guys have a local sign on for that. that you see on each of those slots on there conforms to your local regulations and maintains the separation requested. Um, we did ask for 2 waivers within there. Um, 1 of them is a storm water waiver and what that waiver is is relative to your storm. I'm not sure how technically you want me to get. I'm not sure how I'm capable of getting, but I certainly have somebody here that can answer those. Essentially, when stormwater is looked at on a parcel, they look at the creating of it and figure where all the existing stormwater is going. They then designed stormwater treatment in order to treat the areas, adhere to your regulations and treat the areas that we're developing. When the initial raw plot of land is looked at, the areas that contribute to a point where it's crossing property line or coming up on top are much larger areas. When you develop it and then capture some of that water to make sure that it's treated before going elsewhere into the environment, those areas become smaller. As the areas become smaller, the water reaches quicker. The water reaches the point of analysis a little bit quicker. So in the two-year storm, we infiltrate increase in the cubic feet per second that it's crossing. When I say slight increase, it was on this, on one point of analysis, and then 10 on another point of analysis. So we did ask for a waiver relative to that one, and I believe you have engineering support on that. The other one that we asked for a waiver to was a tree cutting plan. You guys have a very robust tree cutting plan, which seems very prudent in a larger development or a forested area that we're maybe building roads in for fear of a developer clear cutting a parcel of land without any respect to it. We have two areas that are wooded on this parcel. Peter, can I bug you to go to maybe an existing conditions one where they can see the lines a little bit better of the trees, one without the love lines on them?

I would think in the beginning. I can do it if you go to the one previous to that.

So if you look in that central portion of the property with the frontage on Highland Grove over to the tourist, just a little lower on your downing that there was an old farm that was raised prior to my purchase of the property. Around in that farm, there's a beautiful specimen. It's very large, sugar maples, way of picture on the farm going into it. Unfortunately, with the lack of maintenance, what's developed around all of those trees are those vines that strangled and killed them. We have two areas that are houses so that we're not pushing them too far back to trigger any additional fire codes or additional utility requirements. nipped into the corners of each of there. I sent along some pictures earlier today so you can get a feel for it. That where the houses are placed under either of those development plans, there's no need to take any truce or substance, but that overgrowth regeneration vines needs to go. Just from a general housekeeping, we're going to lose some beautiful trees that are there if we don't take those. So we have a very slight impact, and I have some percentages that of what's shown as a survey tree line that using the word tree maybe isn't an appropriate measure to say there. Down in the lower lot that fronts onto 107, you can see a stone wall about there we get into an area of hardwood forest uh mostly beach trees that seem to be in there a couple of maple centers first because of where that pharmacon situates on that plot development is it kind of tells you what you're going to do with it so your your tree cutting or timber regulation seemed more to theorize that there was the ability for somebody to go in and just clear how to put a house here but i was there in the case of that that's not really the case what needs to be cleared is what's needed for development that house needs to be in the 107 side of that front farm pond so it's a defined impact to the tree structures that are in there and we've shown those by depicting a full gradient plan for each of each of the lots going through to give you some numbers on that the entire parcel is about 544 000 square feet On the most egregious of them, which is the forested lot on the lower side of it, that lot is proposed at 105,190 square feet. The limits of clearing to constrain where the lot tells you the house needs to go is 24,057 square feet. So we're impacting about 23% if we look at the individual acreage of just that lot going through. If we count all of the driveway access coming through along the road and assume that a tree isn't this, it's the canopy, we impact a total of under 10%, just about 80% on the property, which I honestly think will come down a little bit from there. So we asked for a waiver because it didn't seem to fit what the intent of your tree cutting regulation where we're encouraging developers to maybe go in and clear the road, give a little bit more thought to the aesthetic of the house. The trees that are on that farmhouse are very important to us. The vines and brush, which are part of the numbers that I've given there, they really need to go just in the housekeeping measure of it. So we felt like it was just that one block that we have a defined development plan for and elected to ask for a waiver to the forestry.

Just to confirm, so you're saying lot five, I believe, you have a number that is lot five is the one where there's more significant padding. Is that true?

Let me just make sure that I'm keeping up with you on numbers before I answer that question. And lot five is the one that's down in the loop. Yes, ma'am. but they think that's lock five. One of the comments that we received from staff was renumbering the locks with some letters. So I think they all stated five, they came through with something of it. I just want to make sure I answered correctly. But yes, you're correct. That's the one that has truth of any substance that needs to be cleared.

And you stated, if I'm following your numbers correctly, that you believe you're impacting about 23% of lock five. which is roughly 80% of the total parcel.

Nope.

Nope.

You're both, you got a lot of five facts, right? 80% of the total parcel is the cumulative of lot five. Plus clearing a little bit of brush around that old homestead and access of each of the driveway cuts going into it. So it's of the true total of the parcel.

Okay.

I wanted to kind of tell it to you both ways.

Yeah, perfect.

Let's take any questions, but I think that was my end to some clarification.

I think you've addressed most of the comments that Glenn had. On sheet S4, I think you've noted the monuments there. I think the only thing that you haven't addressed are

if the boundary line exceeds 400 feet then you need the interstitial so i probably should have clarified that it's not a lot of stormwater you guys have some questions on that um there was nothing that i saw like you guys i didn't see a little engineering review letter i just saw where yep i'm okay with this um i did see glenn's comments i did see a few comments from peter there was nothing on either of those lists that we had to issue with it all easy stuff that was uh that's one that's a pretty

does the board have any additional questions at this time of course we can continue to ask questions all right um with that let's go ahead and open public comment Do we have any comments in favor of this application? Do we have individuals that have any questions or concerns about the application?

So I'm going to ask that for each person, of course, we'll give you all time to speak. You'll go up to the podium, you'll state your name and your address, just for the record, and then go ahead and share your comments with us.

Thank you for coming to talk to me.

I'm in Butter at Green Gap Lake, ladies at the bottom right of the corner. The big question I have is on the stormwater and the waivers for the stormwater. We have historically had big problems. Beth and I have been doing it for over 30 years, 40 years. The water comes off of that. I'm kind of concerned about losing all that stuff, and I was wondering what the weight for the stormwater. I know it's a slight increase, but we're losing a lot of permeable, is that the word, permeable area, which is going to be covered by giant houses and driveways. They're going to take a big part of that away from us and actually send it somewhere. And I was wondering if you could

We're going to hear all of the comments and then we'll give the applicant the opportunity to respond. Sarah Rosenkrantz, we live at 9 Island Road, Kensington.

I own the property. Mostly, you're seeing all that. My parents was the Monty Rosenkrantz of 15 Island Road. Their property abuts mine, as well as the Aiden Island Road property, which originally belonged to my grandparents. My family's concerns are any potential tax increases with the size of these homes. I'm concerned about being driven out of our home because we can't afford to live here. Also concerned about any potential internet interruptions with these homes. My husband works from home. He's the primary owner. And I think noise pollution is just another concern, and I agree with the rainwater concern as well.

So I think those are our options.

Thank you so much.

And as the governor has stated, we have terrible life problem. When I moved in here almost 40 years ago, in order to get the street approved, I had to put in 10 inch perforated pipe from my property In the meantime, what's going on in the back of my house? I would like to know where the house is going to be placed because that was behind my house. I can stand in my kitchen window and just watch trees fall over. I just had one fall over. It's huge. If you think that for us to say, I have no story. There's a lot of head trees in there, the waterlogged. We can't get water from the back of our house, from the left and the right. It's like a waterfall. I have videos of it. It's awful. So how are you going to contain that with all these houses going in? And how is that house going to do to me on the 107th end of the day? That's what I want at home. I want specifics because if you plan on putting a house where those trees are, good luck. You have my blessing. It's not going to last. Those trees will come down. You better be very careful which ones you choose the way you place this house. And the irrigation pond, what's going to happen to that? Is it replacing it? Getting rid of it? That's what I'm supporting, going down the side of my dry hole underground. I've been doing it for four years. And over the four-year period, we've had a major increase in water. I'm sure Tammy and Michelle can attest to that.

I want some answers.

I'll break that.

Is there anyone else who would like to comment?

All right, we'll give you a few minutes to see some clicking going on. Give me a moment to gather your thoughts.

I think I can start. Go ahead.

knowledge that we have in your backyard since we walked the property. So when we tasked Buss and O'Neill for the engineering of the property, we shared a similar concern that to make sure that the existing farm pond is not utilized for any sort of impoundment of stormwater coming through each of these. So it should take a minute to think about what the stormwater looks like in those sub-catchment areas and drainage areas that I was talking about, because I think that the route of the root of her concern coming onto it. What it looks like in its existing condition, it keeps cracking me up for a moment, I just saw what I was able to see through the woods, is that currently that wetland finger that we described picks up most of the flow and it directs it towards that farm pond. The old farmer was smart. the bond would intercept some of the water so that it would accumulate going into there. It appears that as that water would build up in that firm bond as kind of an old-fashioned control of the levels of it, it has a pipe that comes through the earth and the dam on the back, and it appears that the water has a small channel. It looks like it's directed only to the outside of the fire. Yep. And then behind your house, it looks like you have a square that bends the bird's head out to 107.

It's just scary why it's going to go to that side and down on the street. I didn't call the state and everything else and does it all. I've been asking.

Yeah, I can see how that would be.

It's weird that I can't tell them when we used to go, but they think there were three problems. They said that was the only one. I had to show the state for the other two problems. I was the first one to admit it. Yeah, that's similar. I know. Yeah, I'll tackle that one in a second. Get through how the stormwater

condition of it. So behind each of those lots, the four upper lots that you see on island, you'll see kind of towards the back property side, a half-moon smile sort of shape going through there. And you'll see some lines leading from what looks like the house to that half-moon sort of shape. The way that we're describing the areas that caught stormwater and did different things like that, the fear for us from a development perspective would be that the engineers allowed increase the impervious area to head out towards that pond and increase the water that will get the environment that's valid concern going through um we shared that when we first approached the property and moved doing anything relative to that each of those dashed lines eating the half moons is a swale that cuts through and that swale communicates all the ground water that's coming from all the surface water that's coming from the development areas into burns infiltration area so the water that's being collected based off of the than its current existing condition does is being captioned and it's being retained until it gets sent back into the ground in those areas of it. The argument, am I wrong in saying that that might limit some of what is going to the bond?

Yeah, I mean, it directs the waterway from bonds.

I think that would be helpful.

Peter, do you have, in the stormwater, in the stormwater report, three large size green buzzards?

I don't know if you prefer that.

To clarify, the waiver, because when I first saw them submitting asking for the waiver, my fear was that the total volumes were increasing going back off. And that's not in fact what is happening is that timing of the water is an imperceptible millisecond off. And one of the areas that we're asking for the waiver, the pre-built construction and the post-built construction, contributing to it. Just because it's a smaller area, it gets to the point of analysis. Exactly.

So what happens is when you break up these proposed subcatchments into smaller areas, it's a weighted curve number. And so that curve number bumps up. It results in more flow, but there's nothing actually happening on those smaller subcatchments. They're actually If you look at Southbrooke, that is one of the subcatchments I think we've seen that's the 10th in the two-year storm. And that's a direct result of that curve number is bumping up because of the liquid efforts.

There's no development within that subcatchment.

So the next sheet would be the pre-existing conditions. And the one after that would be post-development. So I just wanted to see from the starting here, it's rather larger areas. And when we go through our curves in each one of those smaller subsections and models, it kind of breaks down into, I think we had maybe a dozen subsections compared to the three we had in the beginning.

I want to make sure I answer the question, but I am feeling like I'm lost in the river against a piece of stormwater.

This is, it clearly is a result of the torquiness of the stormwater we have, and the AOT permit through the state, for their heat control, they look at 10 and 15-year, I believe. I don't think they look at 55. And that's where they, their peak controls. And if we look at our 10 is 50-year storms, we're actually reducing flow a lot more. I can pull up those numbers.

That's also in the report. So for example, AP1. AP1 in the 10-year storm used for 1.61 PVP, 1.55.

For AP2, that goes from 0.6 to 0.58. And then for AP3, that goes from 0.77 to 0.75. And we actually start reducing flow more as the storms get larger. So the next step of AP1 in a 25-year storm is from 5.27 cubic feet down to 3.19. So the larger storms are actually detaining that heat

There's one. That's so good. Okay.

I don't think we're going to do that, but that applies, you know, from the exterior. This is a scale moving the face.

So the development plans that Peter had up on the screen before we went to the Humboldt Journal of Chinese drainage stuff are accurate renditions of how that house will be built. And I do not have a scale with me, but that house, it's about 80 feet from, folks, 80 feet from 107, about 100 feet.

from your problem on its eastern side, and then from the farm. Yeah, because your house is set away from the problem, so the distance is greater than

So it's going to be directly in my house. I don't know.

I don't know. I don't know. So we do. So we go to the existing conditions, because we know that that farm condo, let's start driving by your house to the other side. What's that? Oh, yeah. I do not think that she is.

Okay, so you're all going to see the strong wall. Yeah. Strong wall. You go directly to there. I think it's about 180 feet from each side of the house to the front. So if you see this. This line here going further.

Did you see how this line that was coming straight across parallel to 107 seems to describe what I'm going to say about how it's coming across? This house, the line that we're looking at right here is that.

So the line that I was drawing for you, yeah, is doing that. So I believe we're just that your house is just on the other side of it and this house is just forward. And then the distance from here to here is 100 feet.

I just wanted to sign that up and scale that up. And he told me that it's about 100 feet from the homeowner of this house to this property, not from the house to your house.

Yes, I think so.

And here we go. Thanks. Thank you.

Because if you have someone who's following you behind the house, that belongs to you. Yeah. Those are the things that really can see why you're following them all the time.

Yeah.

It's really that act.

I'm in conflict with that because they have one of the things that's going to be to save and minimize something. Well, you can just have a stack of things. So you're just going to do your best bets on it. And I think this can happen very quickly because that barn bomb comes through. There's more maples that are up there. It might be differently than the soil is that we encountered.

Yeah, I don't think there's a financial aid there. So we we've got just that one portion. What's in it?

Okay, so we've addressed the whole location in relation to your house. Let's go back to stormwater. I know there's a lot of kind of technical language happening around stormwater, but it seems like that's a predominant area of control or of concern, excuse me. So each of the properties is getting a swale at the back. Can you explain swale in layman's terms for everyone? Like what can we do?

A swale is maybe taking six inches in the ground and creating kind of a burr just to direct water into right into the burrs.

So it's just a little ditch.

Are there, is there any other questions or concerns?

Yeah, go ahead.

Can we get back to the wave and the stormwater and the low tremors? Yeah, that's fine. I'm sure that coverage is based on square-point surface area with the wave, all that.

Yeah, so the stormwater really means it's the area coverage type the path of the water, how long it takes to get there, the storm events, obviously, and how hard it's raining, the rainfall distribution curve. So there's a lot that needs to be done.

And you lose the square footage of the housing and the driveways. I'm sorry. You mean the square footage? Do you want me to take it?

Yeah.

Yeah.

It changes the timing in which water moves, because if I have a grass field or a woodland field, the water can't move through that as quickly as if it's on an asphalt surface or on a roof surface. So when I was referencing before their pre and post development, they look at how the water can stay, assuming it's all teeming. Then they put in the square footage of the driveway that they have there they put in the square footage of the roof that they have in there the things that are going to speed up that water and they they measure the timing of that and that i think there's some confusion because the waiver that's being sought is a millisecond of time do not fall true yes so it's that it's coming out of a millisecond quicker the same water then In one storm, the two-year storm, and I don't know why it is that two-year does that. Peter, do you have the chart that he has that shows each storm going into the boat?

Well, quicker and more concentrated. Why do you think it's more concentrated?

Well, because it's coming off the roof square, and it's getting captured, and it's getting into the infotainment. Into the infotainment. That's right. so where it's heading straight to you now that path is being interrupted within the most that's why we did individual grading plans on each of them so that we knew exactly what was going there rather than um not knowing whether the garage would be on the left or the right of this stuff

it is me standing here saying a lot so i don't know what they're going to be i do know what they're going to be so in a two-year storm those spaces in the valley which would be 100 percent of this is and that's in the two-year storm and that's the one that's the subject of the waiver when we go to the

development from previous development, correct? Yeah. So they're suggesting that less water is heading to the same point of analysis after it's built, it has to be before it's built.

Right.

Go ahead.

The technicalities of the program. So when you're looking, what this program does, that you can say, we didn't have your design. Can you explain that? So basically, it takes this huge area, and one of the sub-captions that's increasing is it's included all of the southward pavement. And so when you break that down, and you still include all of the southward pavement, but break out all of the proposed lots, it bumps that weighted average up. So it thinks there's more, it's a higher percentage in the furthest area. So we see this a lot on the two-year storms, and that's why any of the key heads there are regulations that permit you to increase in the two-year storm on Gaines.

It's just a performance of the program in these two-year storms. So who brings that way?

That is so typically, well, in a situation like this, right, the applicant has given us the application. The application has gone to our town engineer for review. The town engineer came back with an email and said that they would be in support of the waiver because they feel like the change is low enough that it's not going to have an impact on the site. this board then we take that information um with the guidance of the engineer and then of course hearing all of your concerns um this board needs to vote to grant that and what we're weaving is um you know specific requirements from our subdivision regulations for any very specific portion of the stormwater

Yeah, all of the other regulations that are in there, the ground level rain charges that are infiltrating all of the stormwater areas in two-year storms, so that's greater than the one-year storm and all the involved ones.

And so, you know, we're talking about the two-year storm here, as they've explained, they've done all of those studies for more significant storms during a storm event that might happen only once in every five years.

I don't know how many. So once every 25 years, it's a 25-year storm event.

So they're saying the more significant storms, the larger storms, they're meeting the regulation. It's just the storm that happens once every two years. Or there is a slight deviation.

Yeah, and the reason why the stormwater is decreasing in those larger events is because of the assigned infiltration ways of the stormwater is infiltrating the ground and it's not running off the site. So that's how you get that eagerness in the deep flows. We put in 10 public, we got a question. If they build an infiltration basin out back from the potential, yeah. Intense stormwater is very,

Have a good ordinance.

And on the other side, these plans have, you know, they're providing a mechanism to. Deal with some of the problem.

Yes.

Thank you too. Yes. You know something better than mine taxes, affordability, internet and noise. So taxes, a subdivision of the site is not typically required to do a fiscal analysis going into it. But from just a layman's perspective, the larger houses with the same number of bedrooms, smaller house with an equal number of bedrooms, you generally assess higher. So I wouldn't see that as a tax permit going on to it. They're regular single family homes that are going into an area that's permitted for regular single family development. affordability is a picture better bigger than anything that i can solve here going into it you do have a very desirable community it's reflected in your land values construction costs are high um they're not inexpensive things can be built nowadays so it's uh that's just a factor of really zoning ordinance um speaking of mr mccarthy it's uh if there were just not the way times were typically laid out. Internet, I know of nothing that would typically when we build new houses, these are just a regular residential single family hookup that's going on to it. So there's there's when we're constructing, there's not usually any times that we're disturbing that it's not something that we need to take down and rebuild. So it would be It's something that when the new homeowner goes into it, they come, they hook up the new service to it. I'm typically uninterrupted from the flow that's going down the street right now. Noise, it typically takes us eight months give or take to build a house going on to it. So we're usually the most defensive group when it comes to noise. We do not work Sundays typically. Most towns have some sort of ordinance based off of start times and stop times that each of our guys I sit here to your certain local flag me down on site every day. If somebody is breaching any of those going on to it. Our intention is that once we obtain approvals to simply build them all by one one year, one year, the next year, the one following year, with the hope that we can get in and out of here as quickly as we can. So the first thing that we do when we go in and pick up the topsoil through it is we run it through that big red machine and the screening machine that takes all of the rocks out of it, I mean, the sticks, et cetera, like that, so that the topsoil is suitable to put back in for the erosion control and for yards afterwards. It's important for us to do it in the early stages of us, we're optimistic that we can find some support, that we can have a good growing season to get some of those swales

And I think you mentioned in the beginning, you do have a permit already to construct one property. I do, yes, ma'am. One home, because it's a single lot that can hold one home. So they do have a permit to go ahead with construction of only one. And then if the board does approve this evening, that is what allows them to subdivide the lot and then build a new one.

or grab those like kind of one on the spot and that's what the fourth or the letter a or the bedding is outside you're gonna have to help me i'm bringing i don't know which i need with which if you sell it it goes up the floor

Okay, so you're saying block one is going to become any?

Yes. Give me one minute. If you find it faster than me, we can race.

So it's going to be one house at a time?

Not once I get past this initial stage of it. It's one house currently so that we could get a jump start on that one if we wanted to make some of that talk. So let's get into those infiltration areas and hopefully not become novice. But no, we'll just go with our trade through them.

I'm sorry.

We'll go and just continue right through. We wouldn't build one house, wait for it to sell, then start the next one. That's not typically how we do it. So you're only going to have basically one group of people?

No, Marty, they're going to build them at the same time.

Yeah, we're going to go.

So as soon as they get approved, he's going to start on what he can start on now. If that's where he got approved, as soon as it gets approved.

We put the plans together. We have a full building permit application. So you can keep going. Dig in. or additional basements at the same time. Yep. It's easier and we tend to be in that spot long enough that whether I'm a nice guy or not a nice guy, nobody wants me in their neighborhood any longer than I have to be.

the safety of the dwellings. What impact, you must know, documents provide on this?

So there is not anything that would give a study of well water. It's very non-actual. It's a process for this level of development.

There's not any documents that would give a study of well water.

um so i can't speak to that hydrology of what's underneath there and what's going into it but given the distance from any of you guys that are concerned uh can you help me out with maybe a property line distance um because of the separation in septic

of your question the wells are actually in the front of the house um really disagree with this because uh when's that been unintentionally but um the benefit of that are there repercussions or anything this is a general question it's not going to be yeah people's well-run strive repercussions for that in general yeah not

From the state's perspective, because so much of the state, about 45% of the state is on individual wells, their perspective is unless a development is requiring a large groundwater withdrawal, which is a regulated process, it's pretty much the straw that goes with the ground.

And if there's an impact, you're going to have to

do some sort of individual go out and do some sort of study to determine why they have a sample. And it's much harder to do with solid elements because none of them are pulling volume of water great enough to create influence spheres that are likely going to be the cause for an individual well and another property to go dry. It's a common fear with everybody who has a lab when a new subject is presented. Sure. Of course it is. We all have to be concerned about the resources that we're using on our labs. But it's a dickens of an enterprise.

If your lab does what's right, definitely it's going to cause things going on in a nearby center.

And next year, you're under that.

It's in that.

It brings through. It's really probably more reflective of what you're going to do. Most well, that's especially true if you're not a Douglas. Hundreds of Douglas in the answer 50 years ago. now next guys are our teachers and you are then less something to the wind up drought but let me tell you the 10-year driving experience um and i think we're out of them but it's fun around a long time um created lost wells in greater numbers than we've seen in the state in the entire time we've been playing

That's certified. So it really groundwater supply thing because right now we're going to run out of that.

Are you going to start? If you have a bedrock well, the likely impact of the coast water is very similar because you're in you're in a geologic formation that's providing you water that really has nothing to do with a well being as close as 400 feet away.

If you're in a stratified drift well, a well that is generated by water contained in sand deposits beneath the ground, then there is more connection across property members. So it's really, it's a magical science.

It really is an intriguing experience for one to imagine.

Then are you finding anything?

Sorry.

I'm not finding anything.

I'm not finding anything. Peter's not finding anything.

I see no evidence that we have. I follow my noise.

Peter, tell me. I saw a second person that I was going to say.

And does it give you what number?

100-9.9.1. No person, group, firm, or corporation is allowed to attend gatherings at 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. and wait for calls. Calls to make any noise are free to call the police.

What page is that on, Sarah?

Five.

Five? What regulation is it that you're looking at?

it's it this is what that says this is todd kensington four minutes is adopted about 9 29 as stated uh sorry 9 29 to 20 25. um so it's not in our regulation it's an ordinance on my website so that says that we are not doing construction between the hours of 10 p.m and seven and eight so now we start to get started 10 p.m

Well, I'm really, I'm really in ordinance work, which hasn't been all in ordinance.

That's something I'll discuss away from this meeting. That makes zero sense to me.

All right. We addressed the internet before.

don't see any reason for impact um noise you will not be working on sundays and we will not be starting prior to 7 a.m according to some warnings we've covered storm water um and i know that you have heard concerns about the trees potentially not being safe and you will do your due diligence as you get to that right now

Are there any other questions or concerns from the public at this time?

Okay.

Great. So, with that, yes.

One comment on Seaton Road. It would be in your best interest to have four pictures Anything you do on this long scenic road in case any questions come up, we have it before and then after time. Great suggestion.

We actually had the surveyors locate tree sizes along the road so that we could weave the driveways through the least intrusive areas. James and I had a lot of time before, one of them just trying to maintain the right site distance and those trees were helpful.

The tree definition, the 5-inch tree or 15-inch

but that's a good suggestion thank you okay with that which is a tree thing as well that's a question it seems like the the trees that you would be clearing on the front edge of the road are just for the driveway um and just a reminder once that we close public comment the board can continue to ask questions so hearing no further comments from the public unless it's changed

go ahead and close the public comment period um does the board want to do a sidewalk is there any interest in that people are people familiar enough with the site um we can do the drive-by but i would love to buy this thing we also probably have some aerial that's helpful as well you know some aerial

that with all the clients that were related on to it, that the new site, I think you can see the majority of the site is open field.

It's so limited with the incidents.

Peter, can you pull up an area? Is that in one of the documents?

Or is it easiest just to go to the one?

Mail it to me, put it in that big thing, yeah.

Yeah, I'm looking for like the satellite image from my Google Maps.

I did bring one for my own reference. When we were laying out the test, I don't know how easy it is to show, but I did want to point it out. It's a new service and it's early, early progress. That's exciting. It's the best thing. But it'll give you an idea of plot lines, street cover, where plot lines fall, what went on. So it really gives you a pretty good handle on the site itself.

Is there anybody in the back?

I don't know.

I think there's this one on the back. I think you're getting on this.

Yeah, it's just so small.

Yeah.

That, this one's actually, that's actually very healthy.

Yeah, there won't be staph there, and it'll stand up to be limited. There's no requirement to have any aerial cycling, so it's, and you're at this time seeing their flashback.

I think it's that you have the overlay concept on it to make sure we're aligning property lines with where we thought that there could be a wet finger of it, where the tree spills, things like that.

If I use the Wi-Fi password, if they pull along the platform, Wow, Mary. 17.

Is it the dance incorporation thing? Yeah. 17, Mary said.

Do you want this one? Yeah, we can pass it on.

Okay, does anyone, I did a drive-by also.

Is there anyone that feels like they would desperately need to walk the site before continuing the documentation?

Looking past the list from Glenn, you know, the applicant already stated that they didn't have any concerns. They just want to revisit number nine. the fire suppression sprinklers. And confirm that the direction at this point in time is that you will be providing sprinklers.

That's a simplest, finite answer for it. I had a dialogue with the fire team probably about two, two and a half months ago. And it seems like an overwhelming process to do anything bigger than that. But if that changes from my perspective on the

each of the houses so so for other easy fine ideas so let's just say that then you just saw this coming plus dissolving gets the letters from you stating that's what he's doing you're doing yep no problem that's the only thing that's holding up the fact that he needs a letter stating that yeah we did it as a plan note we're glad to do it in a better format too then we'll see

And then from the package that I have in front of me, it sounds like there was a conversation about changing a lot from numbers to life. So that has been done already.

We were aware of it. We waited to encompass all of the comments into one revision set. So it wasn't burdensome of everybody to review them one at a time.

It's Kensington 1737.

Let's look at the waivers unless anyone has anywhere somewhere else that they'd like to start. So we've discussed with stormwater that morning. Christian Smith, as I mentioned previously, did send an email saying he doesn't have any concerns about the two year. Does anyone have any comments?

You keep on referring to the program.

The one we use, which is common for a lot of the developers, it was kind of a TR-85. Okay, is that the same one the state uses? Yes, and we do all of our state learners with this program as well. In the SOAR monitor report, it talks a little bit about the program itself.

So the data you're putting into the program is the same data that the state would be putting into it?

Yeah. Yes. And all of those parameters were supplied to, I'm not sure if your town engineer is, so that he could review and verify them.

Okay. In New Hampshire, it's the standard.

Oh, I know, yeah, it's the standard.

Yes, you may as well. All the new ingredients that I've done are in store.

Just that we never referred to it by name. You just kept on saying the program. We had a chat with Google.

So to make a motion on this waiver, do we need to reference one specific requirement? Or do we want, like, when we go to make the motion, don't necessarily want to say I'm leaving. all of the certain water requirements.

I think that the stormwater money is going to be very clear that the waiver that's being requested is for the two-year storm figure. I think the language might actually be on their waiver request description. I believe that's all I have to say to you.

That's all I have to say.

Yeah, it's something in the letter from H. Yes.

So stormwater specifically is off H debris.

Section I can read H requires calculation of the water volume. Section 5.3 requires calculation of the groundwater recharge volume. Section 6 establishes general performance criteria for stormwater management plans. And then we say that tables 4.2.1 and 4.2.2 of the stormwater report indicate minor increase in peak flow.

So you're requesting a waiver of the three sections, right?

Section I.3.H, the calculation of the water quality volume. The 3.I, the calculation of the groundwater recharge volume. And then I.6, which establishes general performance material for stormwater management claims.

And we'll be specific there if that's the two-hour storm.

I'd like to entertain a motion at this time to waive the requirements of the stormwater management standards. So we haven't approved the application yet, but we are creating a waiver that is a conditional waiver.

Well, I'm in for the, yeah, yeah.

Super 8 section is 5.3.8, section 5.3.5, and

section six on the stormwater management new developments um and based on the fact that it's a minimal increase in g flaws we have a second second All in favor.

Can I just make sure, did that mention say specifically for the two-year storm event? Say that. I believe that the first ones you mentioned apply to this, but they also apply to the 50-year storm, the 25-year storm. and whatever other intervals there are.

Oh, okay.

And we're not granting waivers from those other units. We're only granting the waiver for that two-year small amount.

Okay, so after the section site hasn't been changed to...

Exactly.

Yeah.

Otherwise, I think we just wouldn't be granting them. Well, yeah, I'm waiting for all of us.

Yes, it's a two year.

So I want just for a second.

They're all section. Yes.

You're talking about minus six, the general performance criteria.

but six instead of the second.

As long as the waiver is clear that providing the waiver too is the standards required for the two year storm event, I really don't care how you say it. I just want that to be the language reflected in the new legal.

Thank you. And I think you just amended your statement to say that, so I appreciate it. We just want to make sure we wrap this up.

Okay, so section 3.i.3.i that requires, refers to the two-year storm specifically.

And six as well, that's all of that performance criteria.

Now I'm looking at IVF3.H, requiring the calculation of water quality. This has runoff from impervious surfaces shall be treated to achieve 80% removal of total suspended solids and at least 50% removal of both total nitrogen and total phosphorus using appropriate treatment measures. as specified in the New Hampshire Stormwater Manual, Volumes 1 and 2 of December 2008, excuse me, as amended for other equivalent means.

Where practical, the use of natural vegetation filtration and or infiltration practices.

But this doesn't apply to the waiver that we're granting right now, does it?

No way for a company to be treated.

This is talking about runoff.

Well, actually runoff is.

Right, but it's not talking about a calculation. It's talking about the percentage of runoff that has to be treated.

So yeah, so over 300% of all the components, all the components developed with those central training units.

Right, so you don't need a way for us to do that.

Well, we didn't provide an worksheet because we're creating 100% of it. Okay.

Oh, because...

Yes, I think they're saying that they didn't provide a population that they were treating 80% because they're treating.

We heard from providing water quality without conviction.

Yeah, that's right.

Yeah.

We got it all. Yeah, pretty good. Yes.

Sorry, thanks for being with us.

That's a good question. So when you come to that end.

We're going to break this into multiple waivers, I think, would be my suggestion, right?

I don't think you need to.

I don't need to. Okay.

I don't think you need to because you're still focusing just on the two years long. Three seconds. Go ahead.

okay um and i just want somebody either it doesn't have to be in the motion but if you have a discussion about the motion to just include the fact that it is only for the two years um advised by um engineer yeah that's about being appropriate yes that should make it right in this way

don't stop all over again confusion i think we're good okay so mary has motion dan has seconded are you understanding yes okay so martin is abstaining so that means it's four oh one yeah

And that would be the best. Sorry, I lost your statement.

Okay, the next waiver is for the tree clearing regulation. For me specifically, the burden of preparing

a tree cutting plank since we are not exceeding 25% of cut trees. Is there any conversation that we'd like to have surrounding this?

I mean, my main concern looking at it before we had our conversation this evening was the impact to kind of the street view. We've had residents recently voice concerns about deer cutting along the road and the impact that that kind of has. Visually, as you might think we've heard very clearly tonight, the intent is only to remove what is necessary to maintain and improve the health of the current trees and then to facilitate the driveway cuts.

as well as, of course, facilitating that one. Well, the same thing was just that binds and overflows would be cleared.

So it's that we can do this. Yeah.

Is there anything else that we'd like to discuss regarding the tree cutting?

So we are not approving the cutting of trees. Sorry, that was misleading. There is a requirement in our regulations that suggests that an applicant should provide a construction phase tree protection plan. And it talks about what trees are existing, what trees will be cut through the process, and what, if any, trees will be replaced. Yeah. So it says it's the leading from the ordinance. It says the plan to make the clarity of trees until we lost due to proposed land alteration the location and number of trees to be replaced after the construction process is complete. And then it goes on to talk about benefits of protection of trees before, during, and after the construction process. If the board were to approve this waiver, we are not requiring the applicant to construct or to create said tree protection plan. yeah so if the board approves this way though we are saying that the applicant does not need to provide us with a plan dictating each individual tree that they might remove throughout this construction process um We have closed the public comment period, but I do want to make sure that we clarify so you all understand what's happening. Our regulations state that for initial site development, up to 25% of the total area of the site may be cut and removed for site grading, utility installation, construction of streets and sidewalks, and construction and grading of drainage ways and storm detention areas. So our regulations state that individual developer can impact 25% of the site. During the presentation, we heard that the estimates for one lot the lot most heavily impacted would be that 23% of the site is impacted. Of the individual lot, 23% would be impacted. When we look at this parcel as a whole, including the tree removal required to facilitate the driveways, all five lots, The applicant has stated that they will impact only 8% of the troops. It's just less than 25. So we're complying with that 25% of the ordinance. The only thing that the board is determining whether or not to waiver right now is a plan showing that they will move back 20%.

That being said, it is part of our regulation.

So if anybody feels that we should require that claim, that's absolutely in our purview to do so. So if I read the first three bullet points, if I go down to 6D, it states that the applicant is agreeing to periodic inspections by an agent certified as a state licensed forester retained by the planning board at the applicant's expense to ensure that the tree preservation plan is being followed before, during, and after the construction process.

Thank you, guys. We can continue to discuss.

Do we have any precedents? For those very similar requests, we typically waive this for excitement. However, we then recently had an instance with the, you know, where individuals brought to the Board of Selectmen concerns about petting along a scenic road. Related, not related to this, but

Yes, we're going to do what we are supposed to do in the right of the area. It was quite frankly a misinterpretation of the scenic road statute.

Because the scenic road statute pertains to utility companies, not to individual property owners who do have a right to alter their property.

I think in the past we've been kind of, we've had that virus and hopefully kind of based on the fact that this more or less would apply to much larger developments.

My suggestion would be that if we go through this waiver, that we state the things that we've discussed here this evening, that there will not be more than 8% of trees cut on the property,

Yeah. It's that your regulation lists it out as a poor scrub.

Yeah.

The purpose of the regulation itself is to ensure that there isn't

are resulting greater than 25% of basal area removed from the site. That's the overall pressure. And that becomes a real issue if you are working with the development where you're putting in a road. Because roads have such a great impact on removal of trees because all of the road ends up 24 inches, I mean, 24 feet wide. The right-of-way is 50 feet wide. A right-of-way of 50 feet wide running through development, creating a roadway, you can easily be looking at 50 or 70% of the trees being taken down. And this regulation was put in so that we would have leverage in that, if that occurrence happened. It wasn't really developed or a five watt subdivision that isn't going to create that destruction in any magnitude equally why we put this in. That's why there has been a historical record of us waiving this regulation. We know that there are instances, there are problems in town that will require roads for development, and we wanted to make sure there was something on the record.

Okay, so we are suggesting then that we would waive the construction-based tree protection plan. And that instead the applicant would provide a supplemental plan showing that they will not remove more than 25% of trees.

Or more than 80%. More than 80%.

Yeah, I think we want to save the note that there is a state-reflected gap.

On the southernmost block, I'm going to go there. Um, you know, the belt in the middle of the existing trees.

You could say that it was a tree plant. Let's be with that. What law is that? I don't remember. It's this.

It's one that says the law of the law.

It's a law of the law.

Well, that's next up.

Is it just inside that tree line going into it? Yeah.

On that one. Um, there is.

That tree land probably should have been pulled back a little bit more, but in that area, there is no trees. I sent Peter some pictures earlier today. It's scrub brushes. There's nothing in there that's over five inches, so we moved to it. We also discovered evidence in the field that the septic for the going farmhouse would have been over in that area.

So I think that will probably, but I can't know that exactly. OKAY. I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION AT THIS TIME ON THE TREE CLEARING REGULATION. DO I HAVE TO DO IT AGAIN? NO.

I DON'T THINK WE'RE MAKING THE OFFER.

approved in the waiver of the Treatment Area Regulation of New Dollars. And the evidence provides with a of how they are going to Do any treatable and it will be no more than 8%. So, you're comfortable with 8%?

The numbers you gave were actually accurate.

And honestly, yes, I'm glad you showed us a turning point. We've never really been able to do this in real life.

I'm just talking about one plan. That's a condition you want one plan in total area.

Right. So we're looking for a plan that just shows the percentage of.

Right. Yeah. All right. So. Do I have a second? All in favor?

Yes.

Okay.

So that brings us back to Glenn's list, which we've reviewed. We're talking about potential conditions of approval. So we have the condition that the plan will obtain an HPDS subdivision on approval. that we obtain NHDS and mobile septic system approval, that lot five or lot E, whatever lot we're at there, obtains NHDOT driveway permitting, that lots one through four or A through D obtain town driveway permitting, The zoning table on Sheep S1 will be updated to include the wetland conservation district since wetlands are indicated on the plan set from the farm plan. Sheep S4 should be updated to show that there will be additional monuments anywhere that there is a boundary line exceeding 400 feet. I'm glad you have a note about clear numbering of all sheets.

Yeah, just in the final, the final question, can you just add that sequential number?

One with X value. Exactly, C1 for whatever you mean.

Yep.

I also have a note from earlier that we have We need fire approval to obtain approval from the fire chief.

We'll need a letter submitted stating that all homes will be spread. Are there any other conditions that I might have missed?

which is on the back page, the back of the page.

Oh, did I miss something?

They do a really great job of providing themselves with this information and they say that their personnel went out there, but it should really also say that Mike Romo from RCCD, that means the countertops they've written, is also there.

We'll make that number . other questions concerns potential conditions we don't need to make construction hours and conditions because it is in the ordinance on the website so we've addressed the noise concern already and then we have two waivers that address the other concerns perhaps um I'm going to be able to reflect it somewhere and be granted on a plan.

Okay.

Okay, so year 11, number 11 on my list, I'm off by one somewhere. But the final condition would be to note granted waivers on plans.

i have a motion if you want to get the conditional approval of the time 90 days around 20 minutes or 10 years well i did say that they've already submitted revisions back to nhdot um this should be

Something simple for every COT. I would think 90 days.

I've been waiting for 3 days and soon it's coming soon.

So the time frame we'll put on this would be 120 days.

If any time is done, we'll bring the class in. We'll be asking for an extension. Does that take a little longer for the station? I have a question.

Do you have conditions that are approval to be the individual septic designs or

Yeah, actually, we don't require setbacks or celebrations.

So I told you guys what permits were needed for, and I mentioned the local approval and the safety of the individual setbacks, but we don't typically.

And I think it's not going to be provided by the board in person. So I think it's not going to be given. So I think those should be not part of that.

I hope that's correct. That's correct. It's not. It's beautiful to see, but it's unusual to see.

Right. It is not important. I just need to lean toward it to say this plan number, this slot, to get .

So my understanding that we don't need this.

We do not need the second system of plans approved at the local and state level.

Yeah. So that was, I think, The second one, right? The application obtains an HDS and local subject system approval. Yeah.

It is required, just as required on subject.

Let's go ahead. So we'll say, we said 90 days, correct? We said 120, so. Okay. Let's make it 120. We'll give some buffer time. Okay. I'm going to run through that listing condition one more time. So the plan obtained NHDES subdivision improvement. One of the proposed lot, lot five, obtained NHDOT driveway permitting. Lots one to four obtained the town driveway permitting. The zoning table is updated to include the wetland conservation district. We update the monuments at 200 feet intervals.

We update the numbering on the plans. We receive approval from the fire chief.

The test pit information is updated to include their witness by the test pit witness. We're going to note the granted waivers on the plans and our approval is conditional on 120 days.

Of course, if you can't meet that for any reason, Do we have motion on the subdivision proposal of our tax map to lock five with the conditions that I've previously stated?

I'll make a motion that we

through the subject application for a tax amount to what um for the property of my government with llc with the conditions that contact is listed do you have a second oh second all in favor

Okay, so we have unanimously approved this subdivision application.

So the applicant has 120 days to meet the conditions that we have discussed.

And then they will leave people with . With that, I'll take a motion to close the public hearing.

This one's easy, guys. We have a second. Second.

Great, thank you.

All right, so that's our session of the hearing for the evening. We do have planning for business, but of course you all are welcome to stay for a good life too.

But otherwise, enjoy the rest of your day.

Thank you, guys. Okay.

I have some new business on the agenda. Do you want to take a pause for a minute?

I don't know.

I don't know. I don't know.

So here's the agenda.

So the different agenda. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah.

It's taking me a long time, but it is a huge project. They are a diligent engineering department. They are. It's surprising to me that they seriously look at our languages in a way that irritatively most developers don't.

I think they've only seen Why not? Somebody come in with.

So. Hey, so I think they'll be back in the new business for this evening. Peter has started to take a look at discrepancies in our. Regulations, making revisions specifically to the site plan review regulations and the sub-regions and regulations. Is that true? You want to give us a quick overview?

of the two procedures. Article three is the subordination of the site plan review. Article five is public safety and voter. I didn't have much to say about the planning board's purpose. There are many public policy questions that are generally asked. If anyone has any closing words that you want to add, that's fine. So the planning board rules and procedures, we had information recycling, we did regulation, we had stuff in the sub-division plan about how to get them open and how to do it. And they weren't really, they were things that weren't giant. So I thought it would be best to put in one place, this is how we're going to conduct the planning meeting. This is what has to happen. If there are any changes in site plan review, you can adjust, you can note what the changes are. So we have one set of, one way is that we need to look at each one, but I'll get a little bit more even done and send it out to everyone. That was the big change, but the other thing was adding fees and actual costs into this other than maybe on the website or what's another thing. So I wanted to get in on the regulations, what are things that we're gonna charge for, whether it's for our vacations or, we don't wanna see that.

Yeah, so I've looked at, I've taken a look at what other towns do, and it seems like other towns have just like one seed chart on the website somewhere.

We don't wanna make a change in the feed SOMETHING THAT REQUIRES A LEGAL A LEGALLY NOTICED PROBLEM HERE THAT'S WHAT WE HAD MADE A DECISION WE TOOK EVERY RECOMMENDATION IN THE SAME LAW SETTINGS WHICH YOU HAVE TO THEN EACH PROGRAM IN OUR CITY HAS TO HAVE ON YOUR WEBSITE A LIST OF ALL OF THEIR CURRENT FEES I THOUGHT THAT'S WHAT WE DID WE DID YES WE DID THEIR CURRENT I don't know.

The fees haven't been updated in a little bit. That's like a separate thing as we talk about.

But state law said that it has to be available on our website as long as we have it listed.

And I've started to take a look at comparing our fees to what other counties are doing just as a separate item when we had a conversation about impact fees. You know, permit fees are another area where we can make sure that we're comparable. but I don't think that's a conversation for tonight.

Yeah, and Gino was doing something that's the same thing, trying to get over everything else.

You definitely want to have something that's current in all in one place, but you definitely don't want to have it in your own place. Okay.

Maybe I should call Gino and share the homework I've already done. No, that's good.

um setbacks is another section of putting there that we always have discussions with everyone they said what's the setback in this thing do i have an inspection and that old setbacks now the question becomes there are setbacks indicating zoe markets would it be appropriate to put it in this also if you say you know these are i think it's the guidance document having a one-page flyer that says what all our setbacks are

I think that's information, you know, really helpful tool. Trying to force it into the regulation because there are setbacks in zoning and that there are buffer areas and things maybe not called setbacks that still serve the same purpose as a setback. Having a sheet that says all that in one place is a really good tool. I'm just not sure it needs to be in the regulation itself. It makes it difficult, but it doesn't necessarily make it easier because it brings in the element of making mistakes about how we describe it when you take it out of the regulation itself. But getting the cheat sheet is a really great thing to do.

Yeah, I think I would personally be in favor of one pager. My concern is always the more places we put the same information, the more times we have the opportunity to contradict ourselves.

And to not keep every single place up to date. Right. That was the original thought of putting it in here, just a simple slide. Right. Right. This is where you refer to it better. Well, if you make a cheat sheet, that would just make it out that.

Yeah, the regulations stop you.

Yeah. The regulations take precedence. yeah yeah and i personally like referencing which section of the regulation yeah okay so that clears up a lot of information um the big things on the planning board um site name review and certain

Things that we have in there that the town engineer has to do all the inspections. And I think what we've been doing is the town, the building inspector has been doing inspections. Well, we should make that change.

If we're comfortable and Geno's comfortable with doing those inspections, our regulations should reflect what we're really doing.

Didn't one of those, I was going with that quick, say, you know,

One time I put in four because I wasn't sure how, what would we change it to. We've never had a Christian come out and do an inspection. So, you know, and you choose particularly more courses now in septic and other areas where you can go and start doing those inspections. So I think it's more natural, you know, for them to pick it up and have a change in all of our restaurants.

Okay, so I think based on these comments, Peter, you're going to make revisions and then you'll start doing something that updates us for us to review. So we won't take any action there tonight. Glenn, are there any inspections that we technically need to be done by an engineer as opposed to building conductive?

Yeah, there are. I do think that there are inspections that Gino wouldn't want to do.

Well, that's, I mean,

So when you provide us with the proposed changes, we can look and see if any of them are actually stopping the engineering.

And I'm dealing with Gino also to go through so that we can say, yes, David, I'm comfortable with this or no, I'm not.

I guess I was thinking more of is there something that actually requires the signature of a certified engineer as opposed to

I mean, I'm not going to dance with Jane now, but... You did remove that one where we had... where we took out the... You took out the one with the environment acceptance system, the need for a professional engineer to do the work with a wetland of civil scientists. You've got to do it every single time.

We did that at Sutton Ratings, didn't we?

Yes, because it was done. So all these changes would have to go through the same period, go through the public meeting. So we had to shift it very fast. Yeah, the rest of it was just editing and getting dicks and numbers and things straightened out. Anything I changed from what's existing, I added. So if it's just an editorial part, I didn't want to just leave it unnoticed. I made sure so that people could read what it said.

Okay, let's go get old business quickly. Faster plan update.

Wasn't I going to get you a copy of the master plan?

Yeah.

As it stands?

Yeah.

And I'm sorry, I didn't know you were going to get a copy.

I didn't know you were going to get a copy.

I didn't know you were going to get a copy. I didn't know you were going to get a copy. I didn't know you were going to get a copy. I didn't know you were going to get a copy.

I didn't know you were going to get a copy. I didn't know you were going to get a copy.

Anything new on the CIP right now?

I've started looking at the language, so you're not going to connect when you're, when you were ready to get back to that. And Sarah, nothing else came out of the signage, construction signage regulations, right? No, I know Gina talked to the folks and they took some things down. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. That's not what is still up. Yeah. I feel like it was the ones that didn't have like any sort of words that came down. But do you have some value with that?

We don't get any more complaints.

Yeah. I mean, it looks like forward progress. So I think that's possible.

The other thing, you know, like you talked about, we don't mention is temporary construction in the in one of these languages about construction signs, but there's nothing about temporary fencing, and we thought it would be a good idea to put something into the temporary fencing, because the argument we're getting from that potential resident was that the sign was on a pole. Well, you have something saying you can't have a sign on a pole, but he was saying it was fenced as a pole, and that's the same thing. We've got to do this to fatality. We'll just put something in about a fencing, you know, construction fencing is permitted. I don't know, should we say a general signage?

I think we can discuss that when we get to the warm and cold season. We have a little time to think about the board meeting.

Well, where did the board work? Maybe I stopped the discussion.

No, I don't think you were here, I think.

No, on impact fees.

We have information to review on impact fees. We left off really with needing to find an individual that currently works on them. And I did.

Okay. Yes, huge for all of my accounts, by the way.

Yeah.

I mean, I have three accounts. Kensington's the only job I invested with, actually.

Yeah.

On my accounts. And I've been struggling, and lo and behold, a planner that's been with me for years doesn't. And so I spoke with him about a month ago. He's willing to come and talk to fans. So if we want him to come and talk with the planning board, he's willing to do that.

I think we could talk about that maybe at a workshop in September.

Yeah. That's absolutely fine. He may have some, just some PR materials that he's done that the board can look at. So I'll ask him.

Yeah, so let's try and schedule, maybe we can connect him with either the schedule or we can just give him the date of our September workshop.

Yeah.

If that would work. I think the hesitation, I think we're relying on impact phases. There is a cost associated with creating them and the current climate of the town seems opposed to additional pumps, even if it might net some gain, I think we'd have to evaluate. Yeah. And then I think along with that, I mean, I kind of alluded to the fact that I started to look at the permit fees just to get a personal understanding of kind of where we were in relation to similar sized towns. And so once I dive into that a little bit further, I'll share that information as well.

So that would be September 7th. Yeah, because maybe the day is September 7th or something. Yeah.

Okay, yeah.

It's our first Wednesday.

It's the last day of the year, so we got it. Yeah.

We have to get this out of the machine.

We have to send them all back to school in September. Let's send them to these days in September or something. It might be now or then. um september or october that is this with meeting minutes i know we've gone a little longer tonight although it's nowhere near how long this hearing by far yes it's just two yeah so had actually noted and we can either revise the may 20th notes or we can just make a note in this in this running meeting minutes uh mary and i didn't think that we had voted on the march 18th notes but peter yes No, I had the, well, I had the March 18th, the February ones, we know squarely that they were approved at the March 18th meeting that I was at. The March 18th meeting notes were actually approved at the April 15th meeting, but... Wait, no. Oh, no, yes, the April 15th meeting. But we didn't have the notes, so we had to get the notes for our notes available. So that happened at the April 15th meeting. So that leaves us three day notes for April 15 and then. Um?

Maybe try it. I think it was why I was sitting there when I was reading it, so I applied. To make sense. I don't think we did.

Now, I don't think we really have a whole lot to discuss. There weren't going to be many people there, and some of them might be bad.

We approved meeting minutes on May 6th. Hang on, we'll probably just give me a sec.

That's the one about the inclusion of protections. Yeah.

You did have to make six.

Yeah, it was the April workshop that we skipped.

Yeah, OK. OK, so we have meeting notes from Wednesday, April 15th. Marty, I don't think you were here for that. You also weren't here, correct?

You're welcome to vote on minutes for a meeting that you weren't at.

If you don't feel comfortable, we can table April 15th until Justin's in attendance. I just don't know what they do.

Otherwise, we don't have enough. With only three, we can't period vote.

I actually haven't had a chance to talk to you about yourself.

Okay, so we're going to table April 15th. Has anyone had an opportunity to review from May 20th? I think I thought I did.

I did something a little unorthodox and kind of during the meeting. Oh, that's right.

Yes, May 20th, April. Yeah.

Does anybody feel comfortable voting on the May 20th notes today, or would you like some more time to review?

I'll make motions. Okay, great. So I'll make motions.

Party of seconds. All in favor? Yes. I have one.

Well, that's what I thought.

In the email, it said these are the sections I submitted, so I'm sending them now.

I think if you want to copy them, that's all. It can get you a customer.

Okay. It confused me. It happened, but I think maybe I want something like that.

Can I have those minutes there, or are those the most?

Okay.

Anyone have anything else they'd like to discuss this evening? Chairman? I will take a motion to adjourn the meeting.

I make the motion.

Second.

Second.

All in favor? Great. Thank you all. These are the nine meeting adjourned.

He said it was not. Oh, it's the 3rd. It was the 3rd.

It was amazing.

It was time to leave because we never, we've never left.

All of our children, remarkably, have left many times.

That's always the case.

Did you get real fish and chips? We did. We did a lot of fish and chips. I was under-impressed, but I'm not going to admit it to you. Oh, so, but I have to do it, but you have to do it. I mean, it's like, I mean, it's like, I mean, it's like, it's like, it's like, it's like, it's like, it's like, it's like, it's like, it's like, it's like, It's remarkable, you know?