Planning Board - Regular Meeting

Um, Wednesday, September 17th. This is the town of Kensington, New Hampshire Planning Board regular meeting. Uh, and we'll start as usual with introductions. Well, no, this is the regular meeting. Correct. Sorry. I was telling the next workshop. I like the way you think. Please

Bob Solomon and a few other vice chair. Oh, sorry. Justin Mlan, chair, Mary Smith, member

and member. Excellent. Uh, Marty Sylvia is not here this evening. Everyone else is in attendance. We have a quorum. Uh we have no public hearings tonight and we have no members of the public in the audience. So we will move forward with our agenda. Um new business review attached meeting minutes tracking chart. Um second item is town planner contract. Do we want to start with meeting minutes? Anyone? Anyone? Why did you give a lot of downtime?

Yes, I do not have a copy of the meeting. Um, but I do feel like I have read through all of the ones that I have done in the present for

the back just to everybody. It's just something I put together. So, it goes with every meeting. So you never have to ask the question where are the meeting minutes and where Jesus trying to take Mary's job. I know [laughter] testify while we change. Can can you just tell me about what what is MMD meeting minutes draft? Yes. Sorry. Does that mean if that's the it's being uploaded as a meeting minute draft and that's meeting it says final.

So you don't have any of these as final except for July 2nd. Is that right? Uh there's one others that says a meeting and I may be final. I just didn't change anything. I got to go back and check and change it from amendment to detail. Okay. Well, I just check somebody else knows on the meeting agenda from July 2nd. I believe we had approval of these four minutes February, March, April, and May. And I wrote down they were approved.

I was checking through all the meeting minutes. That's why I printed them all out. see the office of the learning activities. Well, so I mean like I this one May 21st I know that it was I I think I do remember voting on that. I think it was approved with comments and maybe that's the distinction that we're running into that it was that was the one that I had to change verbage.

Yes. So, what we've always done in the past is we have stated the verbiage that needs to be changed and approved based on those conditions. So, you may still have those written down as draft, but the way the board has always proceeded with that in the past is once we have dictated that wording in the changes and it's approved, we don't need to revisit. So, that's the purpose of so I can hear it straight. Yep. That's how we've done it in the past. Does the board agree that that is adequate or

if it's spelling and Justin said it instead of Carly said it or whatever those sorts of things I think we can just call minor changes. So I think that maybe that's just something moving forward. Um, so we need as far as approvals then if the May version was I'll check it on the

we [clears throat] believe May is complete and we can we can last it seemed okay. So Mary has approved that uh just that's the only one you see I have that we did February that we did February this particular day July back we did February 19 March 19th April 16th and May 21st of which year I see any respond that be those three.

Say that again. Those three were approved on May 21st. May 21st. Okay. So I have it July 2nd. But you don't have to as a final up here. You say when it's draft some of the ones I didn't change. I'll go back and Okay. So you got even though I might say Mm over here.

All right. So Okay. So, am I reading this correctly then? That from the agenda I'm looking at today, these are the four that you say have not yet been voted on. Right. And May 21, you just confirmed those already. May 21 we believe was voted on this and had some minor revisions which which have been recorded. So, we're looking at June 18, July 2nd, and August 20th. And Mary, do you have any of those as ones that we've already handed on? Which ones? They're on the other flip that over. May 21st.

Yeah. May 21st. Well, I I had written down here is approved. Yeah. Um it's pending. Maybe it had significant enough changes that that it does warm.

Yeah.

And that was done. Yeah. And that was done. But I think that was the changes that we suggested. because it said the public Yeah. made comment and you went back and had spoke and shut. Yeah, that's right.

And then June, July, August, July is a workshop. So it's June, August are the No, June. Just one question. Um well one is the test that you answer to me but um did we approve the uh being close at sunset? I thought said no because sunset could be 4:00. We didn't say no we said sunset unless he brought lights because we said it's not your site. Yes. Fine. I didn't

because it's not safe to have an Olympics and without debated it because he did not the right side because he was insistent that he was going to convert on May 21st because there was so ambiguity on it or that we need that it was proved and we all recall now that that the point was we needed the names associated with the public comments which we can see on here was completed but that would that stick to our normal call which was approved with comments comments have been edited so in my opinion it's already approved as agree with I think it's Okay.

Do we want to vote on the June 18 minutes? Mary had a question. Those will be just resolved. Um, which one? June 18th. Yeah, that was the only question I have. I make motion to approve the minutes from June 18th as written. I'll second. All in favor? I I 17. I'm going to abstain from that because I was I had to recuse myself from that meeting. I don't know if I

That was one um that was Aaron, Bob, Carly, Mary, and Dan. All in favor and Justin.

All right, that is the June 18 minutes complete. Moving on to July second. June 19th was the um I don't think we need to vote on do we need to vote on accuracy or approval of comments from a site because did we do that at the meeting? Well, I was I have a very vague for that meeting. I do think they personally think they do too because it is definitely

Well, that's I mean it's Yeah. Um, you have the site planility site. What? What date this? Well, this is June 19th. That's wrong. Yeah,

that the date, right? I have brother from June 12th. So, well, that's Wait, wait, wait, wait. That's before. Yeah, because we went to this the the first hearing and then we went to the site. Is it ever the meeting? So that was so because this one is quite brief. The board in favor of me reading this so that we can vote on it because I know most of us have read it but some have not and we don't have copies. Is that acceptable? The people that were there were me, you, Aaron, and Marty. So people don't feel uncomfortable doing

reading or voting on those participation. It's it's voting on acknowledgement that you convey in attendance st uh Kansas planning board Thursday June on revising 19 to 12. Those revisions will be made prior to this being reported 2024. That will also get changed to 2025. I think I copied better

2025 at 1 p.m. at 49 South Road. You got that part right? Kensington New Hampshire meeting minutes in attendance. Stan Stacy, the owner, Joseph Mlan, chairperson, Carly Fenton, vice chairperson, Aaron Fenton, member, and Marty Sylvia member. The site visit began at 10:03. Soon as all members were in attendance, Justin was then started the visit by reiterating that he has recused himself from any deliberation on the application. Dan Stacy led a site tour of the property and pointed out existing features and new improvements on the site. Notable improvements include significant site cleanup, added gutters to change an existing dug well. Plant display area lifts and electric improvements done by the utility company. Electric now run directly to the building. Driveway work approved by the state included removal of trees and shrubs, adding a burm, and increasing the swale near the road. The gate of the driveway have been provided for insurance purposes, and the fire department will be provided with a lot. Reference notes on the site drawing. Reference notes on the site drawing. In regards to chemical storage, please stay noted that small quantities of wheat killer will be stored inside the building. Bags of weed feed and other products containing chemicals will be stored inside the trailer. Rock salt will be available in bags only. Landscape materials stored outside will be limited to soil mulch and gravel. For the most part, large bulk pickups will be diverted to a separate property in adjacent taste. He shared that whenever possible, wherever possible, he topped dead trees and left the basin root structure intact. In the plant display zone, he shared that wood chips have been planted on top of grass. Dave cover has been extended across the property and drains adjacent to the weapon buffers.

These stacy noted that this matched the existing flow of water on the site. Steve Bent and J Mlan both noted the 25 foot buffer area and reminded the applicant that it would likely be a topic of conversation at public hearing. Steve C. Benton also shared with the applicant that she anticipated questions about hours of operation nature of trailer storage permanent versus not permanent visit adjourned at 2:05 p.m. Signly Fenton vice chair. Uh, I had one note and I'll see if anyone else has a note. It says here that the fire department will be provided with a lock. I think it would be provided with a key. Yep.

Um, or it could be a it could be a lock in line with someone else's lock, but if they say key, I believe it means that which is so I would recommend you make that provision to say key. That's on line 20. Um, did anyone else know any provisions?

I move to approve those meeting minutes as do we have a second? Very second. It's all in favor. I think in I know about that. You got those? Yes.

I was going to get when dropped one off the list. It wasn't on the list, but it was going to be on the list. So, we're we're getting we're doing good. Uh June 2nd meeting minutes. That's a workshop. Or was that the the meeting? July 2. Sorry.

This I have a couple question. This we actually did talk about um and they were changed some of which are done. But um but could you help me with this? Um this was one of your requested um that it took on originally it just said not in three waiverss. Um I said I thought they the motions and who made them should be on here which I don't think they are. It said um well I think that's what the updates on probably indicate right that we miss

right but that this is the second property because some of the changes were done on but like it still says Northampton unless I thought you changed I know I did that saying that it was You haven't made that change and um is is this update on progress of saying newspapers suggest

do we well I know We talked about it because suggested to go back to it. Yeah. I went back in changing everything. So let's read that. I'm writing the note down to go back in the whenever I see numbers on the other side. I know that's a draft. That's not the final. So that's not what you emailed to us. You emailed it to No one. Well, I guess I shouldn't say that. You send me this tonight. The next final dog that I'm looking at in my email does not have the uh the numbers belong, right?

All right. What does it say on the on the road about the waves? They weren't.

Yeah, that's what says. What about on the next page? Um, note three under E. This still falls. Remove the reference to down. Great. Is that what you're looking for? Yeah, it still says that. It still says the same thing. So the plan said Hampton Falls or the plan said Northampton but it should say Hampton Falls. Yes, I get that correct. I don't know if empty it should be and false, right? Okay. False.

Okay. But we don't have a note with we say the following waiver should be listed on the plan but we don't we never voted specifically waiting against I I think we did it not standing we did what I think I think we might have voted the wrong way. Yes I think we did. Okay. So, so then these days are going to be right. Yes.

So on that page of the agenda, it says that we didn't suggest that it we did as a group and I think suggested we still have a motion. But did we motion to approve three waivers or did we to approve the whole application with the waiverss that were not separately voted? Well, even if we voted on the mention that yeah that's the issue.

And uh yeah motion to approve build one last following conditions and then the second one out of list three waiverss on the plan. Right. Like usually we would vote to grant each waver. Gotcha. And then it would be a condition of approval that they list that on. Yeah. I I mean I can't remember when I mean I think we thought we did go vote on each individually. That's like saying can't remember told you people not to do.

Yeah. I think another blank second and it's written there was only one motion to be voted on and I don't think that's right. So it needs these need to be revised to have at least one more promotion. Maybe they'll work, but there be a whole another motion by second. The other thing was the climing business in the end and you did make those changes all that stuff that you gave us that so the takeaway that I'm getting from this one is the July 2nd. Correct. Correct. Yes. You want to revisit it because there was there were two things. So we'll just look through is something we talked about before

just the so Oh the waivers mentioned multiple times in the minute. Yeah. I think what we have to do is probably go through the recording. Right. So because under a presentation to the board, it says three waiver requests were identified in this guideline and then the next parent bullet is the board noted that three waiverss were accepted and should be noted on the plans. But instead of that bullet should be changed to whatever notions these have if they haven't.

Well, I would believe that in the order of how we did it, we just said they should be noted on the plans at that time because that was in a discussion period. It wasn't the time that we likely made a motion. That motion would have been made towards the end of the meeting as we were actually getting ready to vote on the application and it was you look on page three of three section F motions and final actions. It says approve on subation with the following conditions. to list three wave motion to approve list something that hasn't been separately.

So really the first motion underneath motions and final actions assuming that we did what we think we did. So, we'd have to go back to the recordings because I think doing an after the fact motion to approve that may be redundant is somewhat inappropriate until we do the investigation to see if we actually did it at the time because I believe we did it at the time. I mean, if we didn't do it, we didn't do it. But [laughter] I'm 95% sure we did it because I probably would have said something at the time. That's kind of one of my I think you and I Well, I know we talked about last month. I don't know. Whatever.

You think we can go back and find that recording and see if we can find the motion? That it wasn't approved. Wait, they were here for you to share it wasn't I know I'm 99% sure the Two people in the room remember making a motion and voting on it. So I think we should I'll I'll see if I can check it and then we can revisit that at the workshop.

I don't think he suggested I don't remember suggested it would surprise me if we did not. Yes. So I do think it's worth just Glenn. What do we do if we didn't make those motions?

No, I we can't do anything. If we were going to if we were going to revote, we'd have to reopen the process. So, we can't do anything. So, so we seriously need Okay. And anything new on it?

Yeah. Can I ask a question because this one was troubling to me because the the waivers some of them are just inherently waved on every application. The tree clearing requirements and a lot of those things and they don't get voted on on a regular basis. But by the board approving the application as drafted, does that not cover the fact that we have by default accepted? It doesn't that exemption. It doesn't.

It doesn't. So there there's always the ability for a board to defer to sort of administrative loss um and and use an argument like that. But our our regulations state that if there are wavers, we're going to address them separately and we're going to vote because our our list of requirements because we do everything under this one broad application. a a simple lot line uh adjustment would require upwards of 6 8 10

because there things that don't apply it. So we I guess if it I was under the assumption that by saying okay it's stated on here that they want a waiver. So if it was written on the plans that they are requesting a waiver for these items that by us voting to approve the application as submitted that that waiver as part of the application was also approved. But you're saying that the reg state that we actually have to vote individually on each but if if something's not applicable you don't need it.

Correct. So that's why these things were not updating the whole lot. He was just pulling a lot out of the front portion. So we didn't really care. This is the this is the big one. Right. This is this is where they were taking the all 2 acre rod in the easement [clears throat] and well it was reserved but they were doing that. That's right. That's right.

So many excited about that just they actually quest usually they give them to us and write too. um request, right? I think I'm going to say that the request need to be on the plan, right? And so that's what she did. Okay. Okay. So, we're going to table that one.

And then I'll pull the transcript from that [clears throat] print out. And then August 20th is just last months, right? But what about

it says

in August 20th? Does it say? Yeah. Next motion negative. No change. Yes. Um I will suggest them intended which looks like so yeah they were definitely resign you may have noticed which was I don't know when 2020

first giving you um we're we're way out of order Typically, we get to these last month's meeting minutes at the end of the meeting. Since we're here, do we want to vote on them last month's meetings? We've had one revision

because he's quit. It sounded he was released this morning because I didn't have the invite on his calendar to the meeting. Does anyone else have any other comments on the August? This one I don't think I read. Oh,

I was seriously looking for I did request part [laughter] if you could change due to a chocolate change that due to a potential conflict interest

and no it may not say effective immediate [laughter] 20 minutes for those. I said all in favor again. Everyone else is in favor. Excellent. So, we have now caught up with all meeting minutes with the exception of July 2nd. July,

we are going to revisit uh pending recordings. And at that point we will seek advice from agreement on how to proceed if uh for some reason those motions were not workshops. Do we have the workshop? What a couple weeks ago.

That's right. That's right. Well, [laughter] oh yeah. So, we don't have those yet. I don't think we have those. Maybe. Okay. So, next month we will revisit July 2nd and we will uh take a look at the workshop meeting minutes from September.

Excellent. Okay. Um, so we just crossed a few things off the list there which is great. John Kensington planning planner contracts uh review. We preliminarily remembering that we preliminarily reduced it our last meeting at the workshop. Um, Len has once again not requested an increase in pay. um but has agreed that there is some more work which he is um open to and then and is accepting the increase in favor of the acknowledgements that we've now added to workshops and and it's a little more um we have workshops now that we did not have and Glenn originally came up with his his uh contract got his contract not He acknowledged the fact that there is more time involvement because of those workshops and a few other things we're working on like the master plan, but he has agreed that he will still keep his rates at the same.

Yeah, I'm glad you did. Thank you. Maybe we not I wanted to, but we agreed not to at least at the moment. That is great. Okay. Um, so this says review two-year contract and appendex for action of the 917 V8 date. Your appendex [clears throat] is still the same appendex. Yeah, no nothing changed. I did say last time if you think the school is going to be the first invoice separately, right? because I've [clears throat] already I've already done for them and connect with them and

make sure that consume the free time with your every application we burn through that free time. Yep. And I excellent and that makes that only makes sense that you're your base contract if you're going to keep that the same you do need to exercise the ability to compensate yourself. I mean the job should be a to work with them right beyond say just to provide something to talk to them and ask questions and just for to refresh my memory that per application there's four hours

four hours per application is what's expect is what's built in as sort of a guideline for this right Okay, I make a motion that we um send it to the board to be recommend by the board. Second. All those favor. All right. Very good. unanimously pushed forward to

Yes, we had to follow. We've had it happen before, but Glenn has never it's never been excessive. And this is before we've even this is before we've even seen an application. So I think it's very fair for you to make that statement now and as those applications come forward. Is that something that Peter should note to them or No, you know the next time they talk with them, you'll be able to say okay. Excellent. So the board doesn't need to take any action on that. Okay.

Are we getting closer to staying out of location? I know they wanted to apply for our September meeting, but they weren't able to. [clears throat] Yes. Have you got traffic studs done?

But as far as planning board directly, no. No progress. When we have our first opportunity to see an application, we will see it. Heather, there's no need to uh No worries. Just made three special days for them to expedite the schedule. We didn't emergency. That was a month or two ago. Still in that. No, he's done. Oh, okay. He was trying to be the nice guy. Making us all look better. I [laughter]

Okay. Um that takes care of the planner contract updates on prior business. Um we are looking at these three waiverss waiver for a full perimeter survey. You know I I will say in hindsight the reason I didn't think that was really a big deal is because the whole thing was in uh conservation. I'm sure that such surveys have been very active and recorded and known and it was I I I guess

requesting a waiver from the street regulation. It's a tiny little lot in any other subdivision of its size where you're just creating a 2 acre lot with two twoacre lots out of a four. Do we typically is it not applicable or do we typically address it? I generally don't get the problem. Okay. Just just because I don't like that regulation. Yeah. Okay. And then the other one is surv that's coming out of the conservation. Is that regulation or is it state regulation?

They just only needed to add one new monument park because the power was being divided. But any that's like what? Yeah. So we can get rid of it if we want. We can't do anything about it.

Yep. We will wait. We will table that until we get a chance to review the recordings again and see if motions were made on that at which point we will revisit and figure out the need to address that. Uh next item on prior business is reviewing 149 South Road. The conditional approval of 618 2025 90-day time frame expired on September 16th um which is today the conditional approval was what were the conditions of approval? We had test.

We had the trailers. We had the test kits which needed to be delivered within 90 days. Were there any other additions tied to the 90 days? I think the trailers were actually tied to 60 days. They're going and they're

okay. We said the planning work conditionally approved site while allowing temporary use of the trailers for 60 days. It gave them 60 days and they've been removed. Yeah. Test fits completed within 90 days of all test bits and retention. So I I don't think we we we have received the test kit information correct and that was done within the 90 days. So there's some clarification that I want to try to really understand and not leave anybody hanging out to dry inside of the town. But the way that I see the responsibility of the planning board is to review the site plan regulations, subdivision regulations, and any other regulations that apply to the planning field in an effort to review an application and the associated set of drawings to approve those drawings. That's all we're approve. We are approving the application and the paper drawings that say this is our intended scope of work. moving forward. And once we have that, we may have some conditions of approval that need to be followed up on. But generally, anything that we suggest you have 90 days to do this, you have 90 days to do that. That's so that we can check the box within our site plan regulations. So, a lot of times, for example, with ADUs that we used to have to approve, we would say yes, you can wait on your septic plan approval. It's a conditional approval that you get it and you have 30 days to get that to us. At which point we file this, we we're done as a planning and it moves on to the applicant pulls a permit from the building inspector or gets all the inspections completed and then gets a certificate of

augments. So the planning board is done the second the paper is this job at 149 uh south room is incredibly complicated because and and it's gotten very convoluted because the work was completed before the paper was generated. So I think the confusion that's going on here is we in no way in anything that we said at the planning board approved or disapproved any work that has gone on or may be existing or may be out there in the ground. All we have ever stated is that what is shown on these plans meets the regulations of the town with the following exceptions or conditions. Right. So we gave him this and said, "We need to test that log so that we can verify your detention ponds work as designed." Soon as we have that, we're done. We've said, you know, in combination with like the state documents, the Schwep plan for storm water management and the and the driveway permit, those are included in the application that was given to us and we approved the application as a whole. So that means he is held and he is bound to what the state has required on his driveway permit and he's bound to what state is has required on the storm art management plan which involves the test bits and the detention bonds and he's bound to complete the work shown on his drawings that we approve. That means the planning board's done. He's blocking storm water.

The the the issue now is that what we've done is then handed it off. The normal process would be, okay, now the applicant goes to our building inspector with this set of plans and said, "I'd like to get started. I'm going to go out. I'm going to put up all my my storm water management measures that are required reconstruction." And the building inspector is supposed to come look at it and say, "Yes, it's in place. You can now proceed with your excavation and all your other work." He does all that work. When it's done, building inspector goes out and says, "Yes, your detention bombs appear to meet the drawings. Those were done." Might require an engineer because our building inspector may not have the qualifications to to be able to determine if the pension bonds were done. He might require an asbel from the engineer saying the engineer agrees their completion. the the check lists just keep going but it doesn't come back to the cleaning.

Well, I mean that's the select. It's all about enforcement at that point and and the building. So yeah. So she goes email to the engineer that copy the planning board cannot do the final inspection for until all conditions have been met by the planning board. He's spoken several times to Mr. Stansy about the retention bonds that are required. He believes that the detention bonds are one of the requirements that need to be met and he's asking the engineer to verify the bonds have in fact refilled to specification so that he can proceed.

Correct. So that's the so Gino is proceeding as well as they can. He wasn't able to inspect a lot of work because it's already completed or it's buried or it's whatever it is. There's issues out there with enforcement that I'm well aware of and the board has recognized there are the gate is shown within the right. we need to see on our plans that we approved because I think one of our conditions is that all the conditions of the um maybe we didn't you couldn't put it we didn't put it because the state had already

so it wasn't a condition of ours the fact that the gate is shown within the right

the did approve how is that possible the gate went in way after the owner received they sent us an email and said that the although it was con should not have been there to have it there as long as it doesn't interfere with maintenance if it interferes with maintenance he has to okay so there was a followup to that okay and they said the bolders that are there have to be okay excellent I saw some reference to that the engineer statements but I didn't know that it had that that come directly from the

D. So, we have something near as he done what she know. If he responded, we were going to probably I I think I think I don't think this is as crazy and not going to work. I don't think that our position is anything is which is to say I don't care what was there when improvement is there now will be there in the future. We said if you do things like this drawing with this list of conditions, if you do things like this drawing and inspector goes out and checks it and it is done like this drawing, then you're fine. Right?

We said to the drawings, we prove drawings. Now an inspector goes out and checks them. Now would it be easier if this were done things as they built? Yes. But who cares? It doesn't matter. All of these have whatever genome needs. and he'll say this looks like the drawings. Yes. Right. So then so I as far as I can tell there's not you really need to do right as you said

that's pretty much where I am is that I'm just saying that the clinic board is being continued is continuously being called upon to to to be involved someone and I I guess I'm just trying to understand exactly what we have the jurisdiction to do. Do we feel like there were these conditions are all that we can hold? Like for example, at the time we approved the drawings, there was not an approval for the gate to be in the rightway, but we didn't approve that. Now we have the backup. Do we need to take that letter and somehow attach it to the drawing showing why it's okay for the for the gate audience? It

doesn't matter. So, the drawings that were submitted to us with the change of the trailer being removed, we're ready for a mile on our signature. Yes. Because we can't vote on we can't change anything else. We've already voted on with that being the only condition of of change to the draw. Exactly. The all the condition says the silo test bits and retention bomb is shown on the site bombs are not installed. There's no ones on the drone. So you're going to be signing something that's doesn't exist on site that doesn't exist on the site.

Yeah. until he builds the bomb because that's how it would usually usually usually I would sign the drawings and say I approves them before he builds anything and then he goes and says I want a permit to build this. So if we're signing the drawings with the pond shown on them then we're saying sir please go get your permit to build the pond.

Yeah. The redness is uh Gino must sign off that his retention bond fits what we put on his plates. Gino has not done that. Gino will not do that until he does X Y and Zion. We don't have to worry about that. That's Gino. Gino's going to have to say here's a client made by that. It's it's not we don't have to. It's like it's we can't

so we don't have to go issue a filing today even though it says something has to be done in 90 days. What had to be done in 90 days was the test bed logs had to be completed. So that because the test pedal logs are what prove that the detention on drawings are so so the detention on drawings from theoretical until they're assessments to verify they work. So now we have the information to have the engineer agreement.

I think where where it gets confusing is like we have to view these plans as like intent to build rather this is not as built current state plan. this is what we approved and so he now has to make his set match that that's it might be a good practice in the future whenever we have a time limited data to make sure we include a if we see within 90 days what are we doing the steps you still be sitting here going we have to be doing the whole thing is it knows like if we just put in any condition but it doesn't much time. What happened?

Well, and they wouldn't find that. Well, yeah. I think I actually was saying from a legal perspective, we just say what's going to happen themselves. Technically, if it expires and they didn't meet the condition of the approval, the conditioned has to be reheard, right? But if we just say if we give him if we give him a separate Yeah. I just said if he doesn't have testable application yeah we did so that

yeah it's the good news is that this has never been an issue before typically we give people 90 days it's going to take them and the engineer there's an engineer record on it and they just get it right away what He doesn't want to drink. He doesn't want

because I know why you so unfortunately what this condition of approval should have said is signing off of test kits and retention bonds that were for CO but our 90 days was just to receive the test beds. So there was just a little minor confusion in the wording. The intent of the board was always in the right sphere for the the misunderstood the wording of it and and has chosen to interpret it in a more favorable way for for side of things. Conditional use of storage six days while seeing CV approval storage need to be removed. Um so the only thing that I see that would need to be changed and reported differently on the drawings prior to signature is the trip. So we can let them know that as far as the planning board is concerned and this letter will need to be very very carefully drafted to the applicant in this case to say that what we just spent the last 15 minutes to discuss it is this is planning board approval of the proposed work that is going to be done and will need sign off by the building inspector in order to obtain a seal. I I don't even know it's I don't think it's proposed work. We're not approving anything else. We're what the sign will look like if it goes like that.

Yeah, that's what I meant by proposed work. But yeah, there's probably anything else we are saying this when you're saying looks like that looks like that. But that's not a requirement to determine. Yep. So yeah, it's something along the lines of the drawings have been uh approved as accepted and uh in in design or the design you displayed on the on the drawings has been approved

with the removal of so it's bottom line. Yes, I agree. That's about a much better language than any record.

Everyone agree on that one? Great. Did they put in Does anybody know? I can't tell. Drive by. Did they add some type of additional storage when they took out the trailers? Not yet. They put in a bunch of what looks to me like miniature bolt storage containers that I would venture to say are still in the rightway um behind where the trailers were.

And also is it not supposed to it's not supposed to have storage or I I'm just saying what it looks like. They may be bag materials stacked in separate cubbies just for organizational purposes. I can't say. Uh, I did notice a tremendous amount of filth in there the other day. Big another big mountain of dirt and then it I guess got regraded. And so there's just a lot of ongoing work. But the tree company trucks there's a couple of days in a lot of trucks down and it's that's that is all way outside the scope of the plan. So I Well, except we talked about it, but but

but we don't enforce. I've talked about it and I've gotten red in the face and very upset and sent a lot of nasty emails about all sorts of things, but it's completely out of our hand. It is up to the board of select to enforce and or not enforce and and their work with our legal department and how what we have the means to be able to enforce are all the things that are for consideration by people other than us. Well, luckily the trucks did the statement for a long period of time. I don't know that there's a rule that they can't have trucks. we've approved it as a commercial well entity and I don't know but again

so Glenn I specifically asked the question here are there going to be any states tree removal trucks of the farm because early on be all the time which is you know before anything start um and he said no we're just taking it on's word it's Well, that's what I'm just asking. So, doesn't matter that um I guess it was stat um I don't think that there is a place on the plan site that shows storage tree.

Yeah, we can always store you can always park something. I I think where is if he's using it as a standalone use of okay we're storing from now on his approval was for storage area you know for to me I think that's probably it's why that that might be okay if you know oh your recruiter was doing seriously that doesn't mean you know immediate industry or if his or if his employees are showing up to get into said the sharks and head where there were now he's operating a separate business out of

that would be but again I you know the planning board we addressed it we are in a position that all we can do is is make approval and what we intended to approve the first draft That's going to be from [clears throat]

if you could if you if you could start a draft that at least has letterhead, date, name, and the very basics. Um, and then I think I'll take a stab at it and I'd like to run it by you Glenn before we send it out. That's basically I mean basically all we're doing is saying make sure the trailer off plans and get us mileage to show the work that is going to be done on the site. Police show them our

and we don't even need to reiterate that because it's already on the plan on the plan. I think our statement does have to say that the approval was based upon those items displayed on and for that reason we'd like the trucks removed from the plan. The trailer

Yes. And I I think we've already requested that the trailers be removed from the plant, right? You've asked the engineer to do that and he was going to do that. They've done it. They just got it printed from. So really, I mean, we I don't know if we need to send out any sort of an elaborate letter. You just need to request the final set of drawings for us to review and I I'll come in and review and we'll just make sure that there's been no changes to the plans other than removal of the trailers. And then we can say these are good, we can get myars. Once we have the mileage recorded, um the planning board's review process is complete.

I think it's has to be clear to him. He thinks he's waiting to Yeah. to be clear.

He's open, isn't it? Yes. Yeah. Yeah. It's not going to violation of so many things at this point. He wants us to say that. So yeah, we can I mean we can I mean but I guess what I'm saying is there isn't typically a a letter that would go out at this point. Typically we tell the engineer, do you have so they can go get a

So it says it's all very top. Yeah, we can send an email and in that email we will just say that it appears that the drawings u have been revised with the removal of the trailer uh which which you know came to be done pending the zoning vote and uh as such these drawings are complete and you know

yeah the yeah the drawings are complete and the application uh has already the applications start to get through. So the only thing they have waited long is to record the drawing. So we can record the drawings and the drawings you know are complete. Um so the the the design as shown in the drawings acceptable network from here on [clears throat] all approvals will need to come from the building inspector and all must be completed in accordance with the plans I guess

I think that yeah we can drop it off but yeah I'll work and be sure that my name's at the bottom or something. And I said clearly in my email earlier too that I am not trying to wipe my hands in this dump on G now. I'll support him in any ways we can but I don't feel like we don't have any we don't have much.

It's obviously fine. Yeah, exactly. If he would like some clarification on the drawings or what our intent was or something, I'm absolutely consult. I'm not going to put that into but it is true. Yes. Um, I did get a So, we're going to say that completes the update on prior business uh very thoroughly. Um, for 149 South Road. Uh, I I got an email earlier today from Katherine. We were on that as well saying that um she would really like us to do some work from the budget. Uh

is this different like our planning for a budget or the capital of I think for the capital any not it was just what's that have to do with the budget the master technically want to hire consultant has to do with the budget. Yeah. So it's anything with the planning bill that can come out of center expenses. Oh, us providing our information of what our anticipated expenses and budget are going to be. So is this for the annual budget that we're needing the annual budget process is starting at that.

So we just need a copy of last year's annual budget so that we can start working Yes, I

well because we know that if we request it to change it, we just get voted out anyway. So, u [clears throat] we've actually said we don't want to request that there's no money because there isn't any additional money. So, you know, uh but yeah, we will see. I uh was thinking about this on the way over when it comes to both the the annual budget I can handle that's relatively small list of numbers. The capital planning uh request is way out of my comfort zone of what I know how to do as a human being. Um I'm I'm very comfortable taking hours of my time outside of these meetings to review drawings and review site plans and to review construction. and that's what my brain knows. But budgetary numbers are something that I'm going to have to really ask for some help on. My financial background is very limited.

Well, the capital improvement plan budget at least as it was explained to us initially primarily other programs,

right? Can you say that contact other departments to send us requests? And part of that is yes and part of that is there's some meetings going on in October where all the departments are going to start. Yeah. Again, there's going to be two sets that we need to limit the information coming in for the admin and we're trying to also inorate that into the domestic plan CP to get information on

and until we have any clue as to what the numbers are requests are, how should we go forward I said that I'm happy to once the information comes from the department I'm happy to recruit and put it into a CP program. Yeah. And the the thing with the CIP that we'll need to be careful of is what actually is a capital improvement versus what is additional dollars that departments are the definition is pretty straightforward, right? Which we know, but I think depending on how carefully that definition is relayed to individuals providing us information. Yeah, that that will get pretty quick once it gets submitted or goes to the expense side. Yeah.

And the planning board doesn't need to provide a name yet. We have no capital expense, right? I would I I wish that we did so that we could buy our hardworking staff slightly longer cables. [laughter] Guess we're going into Okay. I I every time I come in, I'm waiting for this contraption to tip over. No, I just set up that. All right, [clears throat] back against the wall. I gota be careful. I can't change anything on this building. That's got something fire in the middle of something. Okay.

Peter, can you send us a copy of last year's budget then to Justin? 9 or more. When I looked at it, the last plan was they had a number in there and then anything more than X. I want to say it was only three is the capital. Who comes up with that number? Because yes, obviously it was how many years ago each like two 20.4 15,000 in two is 25.

Okay. Cuz that's sure. Some towns say any amount any threshold that the town has for requiring the award article. Some towns say put that in put that to be as low as $5,000. What do we have on that? [clears throat]

But whatever the number was, I said to myself that you know

budget committee usually so can Okay. Communities of our size typically use 10 or 15,000 as a limit for a project to be placed on. So we can use that as part of our

absolutely [clears throat] proposal. Absolutely. Okay. But they actually exactly I send out when I send my solicitation letter for all my time. It gives a description of what a capital project is, what kind of things and it says the level for these are either 15,000 10,000 pilots. And we actually told the chief when he was here. Yeah. It wasn't going to be It's not for employees. No. So he knows that.

But it is. And it's not for getting new vehicles either, is it? Honestly, police departments in the state of New Hampshire are completely stood up. Stunned out there show up in the CIP. Some of them said, "Look, we rotate vehicles on annual risks." So, we're not we're seeing actually that's what the chief said. If it's not built into their budget, they might not get it right. So, I think they need to build what? Yeah. If the CIP works well for a town, one of its best reasons is so that people can see what the capital expenditures are.

Yeah. Cruisers cost a lot of money. Cruisers start at4 to $50,000 to be outfitted the way they want them to go. But if they can build the cost of the the recurring cost of keeping their cruisers new into their regular budget and not part of a capital improvement program, they know they're always going to have that money. If I'm not mistaken, the capital freedom project, those have to be voted on on an annual basis. So every year they would have to get a further approval to tap that money.

And they still remember there's nothing magical about the capital improvements program. The capital improvements program doesn't mean that they'll even be award. Yeah. Department to say there's a capital need. It's a wish list. Yeah. The fact that you're doing that planning over a sixy year period means one man's wish is another man's need. Yeah.

Right. The closer the closer the department places it the the nearer to today's date they place the project on the CIA should be the greater the need of that particular project. Mhm. And so when they're saying they don't this is the capital need that they have, but they don't want for 6 years, you're pretty much saying it's kind of a wish, but saying it's a wish makes it seem like it isn't legitimate, right?

So, well, if you if you want to build a new building, for example, and they need a a new police station, it would be very legitimate to say, "We need a police station and we need it in 3 years." That doesn't reduce the need or the importance of it, but it shows prior planning. So I suppose there's some exceptions, but your point is in general, the closer they are to birth date, the higher. Okay. So for the immediate budget, next year's budget, Justin and I are going to take the one at last year's take a first pass there and then we'll present it to the board. for the capital improvement plan. We're still in the same boat of waiting on input all department heads and once we have that we will receive right and precisely stated

yes physically sh ice cream store closes. [laughter] That's all I have for the evening. I accept that sign. I'll second. All in favor? Hi. All right. I think I'm supposed to say that before we actually adjourn that our next meeting will be a workshop uh October 1st if I'm correct. Is it really the first? Wednesday.

Wednesday, October. Um we should probably try to address some master plan things on there. Glenn, if you have a chance to give get what you got and show it to us. We have a brief review of a solar white paper, I'll call it, that basically is a document that the energy committee has put together to help people understand how to put solar on their house if they want to. They were wanting to make some regulation changes and and have um fallen back to our regulations are pretty good, but let's just help people understand what they got to do if they want. So is Marian present or

well it's a onepage document if Marian she wanted to be here so she's either gonna present or we'll read it as a board I think Richard is going to send something the request email address but I don't know I think Marian's name I don't They're the same person. They are the same person. Charlie's a nickname a nickname for Mary. That's what I thought.

I didn't want to say because No, but that's kind of what I guess because the phone she calls says one thing and the email said something. Why though? Because they just

I'm falling to sort of a courtesy because they originally came to us and said they were doing the New Hampshire soul smart system and they wanted to send our building inspector and our electoral inspector off for trainings and we wanted to have an online portal for people to get permits because we need to be able to turn our permits around in 24 hours in order to get platinum status with the state. And I just said, I don't think we have the numbers in town to ever warrant that. They went through the whole process. They attended all the seminars. They did everything. And when they were finished with it, I think they came back and said, "Yeah, you know, our regulations are pretty generous. We don't have any heavy restrictions. And if we can do something out of this, we would like to be able to post this somehow tied to building permits or somehow tied to the website." and she was since the process began with her requesting our approval of her changes. She is looking for somebody else in the town to say that looks like a goodbye. It has been a great

doesn't have to be and we're not we're not voting on anything. I'm signing anything on the giving is closing the circle because they came to us and they've invested a tremendous amount of time and interest in it and I just felt like it was only fair to just not looking for a vote. There's not going to be any part of regulation. We just want to figure out how make this as possible. I think it's through law for me. [laughter] [laughter]

I didn't stop. All right, that was good.

Anybody else a big fan of match? I make flashbacks, too.

Oh my goodness. be something provided by this one that's being pulled out of the one being pulled out of the conservation the one that falls that's used to say no is there any reference in here to the variance or waver Yes. Is it those waivers by the screen? So until we can determine that the waivers were

okay. That's good. I will gladly sign that no just I've had it for who brought it to our attention that those that did you find that they're from there she said you know the way independently or as a independent they would not vote because I will feel comfortable may not be exactly tomorrow. Thanks. Yeah, sorry to no but I just don't want to we are having public discussion something that maybe [clears throat] it's not I I obviously feel that if you go to approve an application I submitted and variances and exceptions were requested on the drawings that means that the board is voting right then to approve those variances. I don't think that they would need to be anybody lawyers and town planners who are the waste water

to me as a fall. I think we have to at least hold the weight if they