Planning Board - Regular Meeting

There's no zoom. Are you ready? Can we roll the roll, please? Once that's through, we should be good.

All right. I'll double check on my phone, but Okay, we did the play. You ready for the roll? Okay. Minimize. All right. We'll do that. Uh, Chair Jones here. Member Nelson here. Member Roberts here. Member Duda here. Member Peter here. Member Farm here. Member Pinsky here. And Dave, Dave Church, and myself. Oh, here. Great. Um,

first item on the agenda is to approve the minutes from the January 12th meeting. Everybody had a chance to to read them. Yeah, I want to know um just a minor note that on uh relative to dignified dwelling to just clarify that the proposed private road crosses the federal wetland buffer near Rose Hill Road. Okay. Because there are two wetlands on property. There is no federal wet in both of them. A federal wetland I should say. Well, our town code I think has a wet. Oh, actually town code ends above it to the federal wetland to everywhere wetland. So what? So just make it.

Yeah. Just that there's a since there are two wetlands, the federal wetland up closer to Rose Hill Road. That's where the the proposed private road would across that. Anybody else? Anybody like to make a a motion to approve the minutes? Make a motion. Uh Dave seconded by Jennifer. Everybody in favor? I. Anybody opposed?

Okay, Simmon is here often. Um we have no public hearings. That's why we have very few people at the meeting tonight aside from the board and and the applicants. So let's get started. Uh John Haidiga for Fresh Air Land Company.

You have maps in front of you. This is a a project that was approved back in 2022. Um it was a four lot subdivision off of Vhine Road and um they're coming back to asking for a lot line adjustment. John, why don't you explain the adjustment? Why do I ask you for

basically I think the the owner owns all four lots and um when originally the bas even out the lot acreage uh at the time the owner for some reason or another wanted to have the lot configuration the way it was and the new owners wanted to move it over a little bit. Um there's no particular reason the the structure is that that they are building is well within the setbacks for the current lot configuration. Um I think it's just a you know it's a thing where they they you know they like the the configuration better that way. They want a little bit more room on that side of the certain and and they have it because the the other lot is is a little bit larger. Okay. So, the 7.2 watt is going down to six something and then the 56 5.6 is going up to six.

Exactly. It's it's essentially more evened out in with respect to the rest of the months. Okay. So, I have two or three concerns and one of one or two of them I mentioned to you when we talked quite a while ago. The right way. Um but when I went back to the old decision from 2022, I think it was August of 22, um there was supposed to be a drainage easement provided um evidence of a drainage e easement being set up that encompassed uh it's an existing swale um that that is in use. Yes.

And the ement was supposed to describe who is responsible for the maintenance of that. It was supposed to be according to the decision. It's not clear, but my recollection um was that it was supposed to be in the deed of the property over which the drainage swale um courses. On the old in the old scenario, the drainage easement covers most of the drainage easement would be on just one piece of property with a little bit on the second piece of property that can make a lot line adjustment too. Now with the lot line adjustment, it's about half and half. Half the easement is on one property, the other half of the easement uh is on the other piece of property. In any case, I couldn't find any evidence that an easement was ever delivered to us to the uh town board.

I think I think basically they're relying on the ement that was presented on subdivision map at this point. But if you're talking about um you know a maintenance agreement, I I'll bring that to the client to specify. Well, a maintenance agreement, who's going to be responsible for the maintenance of that easement of that drainage easement? I suspect there's nothing in the deed that mentions a drainage easement and responsibility for it. I think it might mention the easement, but I'm not sure that there's a maintenance agreement for the drainage ement, which is not necessarily typical on a subdivision map when the drain easement is provided. Uh, however, um, I can bring it to the client and and see if they'd be willing to outline that.

Well, I invite you to look at the Stacy can give you a copy, sent you a copy of the decision. So, I I have Okay. But it pretty it does suggest that somebody's responsible for maintaining that easily. So, that would tell me it has to be on the map and it's here, but it doesn't say anything about who's responsible on the map. Well, we we could add we can add that like I said after I bring in my client. So, we'll do that. Who in fact would be responsible for that, but we're also used to seeing those kind of things in the deed, okay, of the property that is responsible for it. In this case, now the property is going to be responsible for it with this new lot line adjustment. Okay.

Before it was pro, it looks like it's hard to tell, but it looks like it was just one. Now, it's two. No, it did straddle both. can't get. So, a combination of like to see the and then they have to file new deeds anyway. So,

I'd like to see Yeah, I'd like to see the deeds evidence that the deeds contain for both pieces of property contain verbiage about who maintains the easement. It needs to be noted on the map. And the other thing that question mark, there was also a roadway maintenance agreement. Beehive Road is a town road. It's not in great shape. Certainly not paved. It's hard packed gravel as you know. And there was also in the uh decision reference to the fact that all of the property owners that touched on this on the um the turnaround were responsible for 50 ft of that turnaround for the maintenance of it and or if any damage was done to it during construction. and they were responsible for maintaining it. The water easement or the drainage easement, whatever you want to call it, comes from the back of one of the lots, comes all the way down over the other lot and then actually goes down alongside Beehive. And so part of this maintenance easement was the the drainage ditch,

right? which does get to be I won't say a raging torrent when it rains, but there's a lot of water in there that then feeds into the wetlands that you see on the I guess it's the south side of the map, right? That's the uh the wetland that we was it officially wetland that we designated as a alternate wetland buffer

as a wet area. There's a buffer around it. So again, I don't I don't have any evidence of this maintenance agreement for the roadway. Again, that's in the um decision. It's one of the conditions of the decision. So that's the second thing. And the third thing, it's not in the um decision, unfortunately. We had talked to the previous owner, Mr. about having a conservation area designated in the back. And instead of doing that, he said he was going to put deed restrictions on each of the properties that provided for what you could do on the land, how big the houses had to be, what material the houses had to be made of. I think it was even in something in there that said no double wides for whatever reason. There was three and a half, four pages worth of material in there. um about some restrictions, deed restrictions. Um and actually I found a copy of that and we could get you a copy of that as well. Space can get you that. It's not in the decision so I don't think there's much I can do about that, but that was talked about. It's in the notes. It's not on the map notes. I guess I'd like to know whatever happened to that. Yeah, that I I I you know, at this point, you know, Mark has sold the property to Fresh Air. Uh Fresh Air has sold one of the lots to another person who was, you know, one of the applicants in this matter requesting lot change.

So, just for giggles, if you can tell me what happened to that intended I I couldn't I have no idea. I'm I'm the surveyor here. Absolutely no idea what So, we have to do something about the That's fine. We have to do something about the other two items which are those easements. Okay. So I make myself you okay we need it on the map. We need I need to see them indeed. I I will bring it to the client and you know and if he needs more information I can you have the decision y and I can I have notes so I can give you all that information. If I have any questions I'll I'll read

anybody else. Um, all I would request is that you put a legend on the map for your hatcher marks. I don't know. Sure. Uh, it seems they have three separate hatchers. So, I'm not sure what they are and they should be on the map. Those are the different wetland. Uh, we had two wetland uh areas. One was a regulated area. One was an area that was requested by a town speed. Okay. But yeah, it should be on that. Anything else?

Sorry. I'm clear out to the landline adjustments that the driveway lead into the brook and end there. But that part of the trial becomes like a shared driveway. So when when the triangle becomes part of the 6.1 properties, you're questioning the naming of it. No, I mean should be kind of going forward. There should be any shared driveway driveways. Sorry,

are you talking about the easement? Yes, there's a driveway to which you right now would like with additional of the triangles to to another property. No, that's that's a drainage. That's a drainage ement swale. Yeah, that's a swale. The driveway is not on that detail. Well, here the driveway is off to the left of the where they're making the lot line improvement. Do you see there? Goes in between the stone walls, right? And the other driveway is off to the right. You see that? All right.

Yeah, that's not the driveway. That's the That's the East. Anybody else? So, John, we'll we'll defer if you can get me answers. Okay. In the next day or two, I'll try to put you on the meeting of the 9th. Okay. But I'll definitely get you on the meeting of the 23rd. That might be easier to put all this together. Me, Rick. I'm not in a rush. I said I'm not in a rush, but my client. So, I I will definitely get back to you tomorrow. If you get me answers by tomorrow, I I'll try to put you on the 9th if everybody's okay with that. Yeah.

But otherwise, I'm put on the 23rd. And it really is I need stuff on the map. I need to see copies of it and I need to see that it's in the going to be it's in the deed or it's going to be in the deed. In any case, the deeds need to change because you're changing the lot lines. Yeah, the deeds do obviously. Yes, they need to be. Other than that, it's sort of a no-brainer. Okay, sounds good. Thank you everybody. Thank you.

He ventures, Bill and Mr. So that it's something I don't know if the battery died. I don't know. keyboard doesn't want to work. It's the only It worked when I logged on. I don't No, that cursor won't move at all. So, it's not transmitting. Still transmitting. It's not doing any though. Are we good with the

We're live, but the cursor will not move. Usually I minimize the YouTube so it's the Zooms. So like at the end of the meeting I don't know how I'm going to be able to end it because the cursor won't we'll worry about that when we get to the end of the meeting. Just figured I'd let you know. I might just turn the computer off and see if that works. I don't know.

All right. So the next project is Among Ventures. Um there's also a lot on there's a map there for it. Bill, do you want to describe it for us? Sure. Um there's two existing parcels. One of them a larger piece which was a one of three lots in subdivision. It was approved in 22. And um so that was an approved uh subdivision lot there, building lot. And then there's a little piece, a smaller piece that has access off of a private road called the Heaven's Way um over land of the Sinister Radio Association, which was a group of homeowners, various lots down in here that uh built this network of roads in there and else accesses into that parcel. And then um it's uh proposed to take this large lot basically cut it in half and access the rear portion of it via the small heavens way lot and we basic we own two my name is little one of the owners of hemlock. So we we purchased the larger piece of property and then we were approached by one of the neighbors asked if we wanted to buy their lot which we did. So we now own these two lots that are in next to each other that border each other. Um, so we'd like to give land from the larger lot to the smaller lot. So the larger lot is 67 Baker Road and the smaller lot is 34 Heaven's Way. So we're just here to present the kind of initial sketch plans. Um, anything else? my uh no I guess that's so I have you know I have lots of comments on it but I want to see what the board feels about

what's being proposed I go around the room

um yeah I I looked at this and I wondered why this would not be a subdivision actually because for a couple reasons um and analy improvement uh because the previous um previous decision ision said from no further subdivision is parcel is permitted without prior approval of the planning board which would have been lot three and you're cutting that into two pieces essentially and which to me is a subdivision. Um so I wonder would wonder whether it's a subdivision or a lot line improvement probably both to me. Um the the previous decision had a lot of um restrictions because of environmental stuff uh timber rattlers and things like that and that's all stuff that if this does get subdivided wetland approve should be improve included um on that property uh noted including wetlands in the back there which are not indicated on the sketch plan of course. Um, and then I had questions about Heaven's Way. Um, whether that's a private road and is it permitted to access that for building off that? Is there a road lean agreement for that for that road? Um, and that's, you know, with an eye on protecting you all, but then also protecting the other residents in that road and whether it's permitted. um on a private road, there's potentially, you know, issues about road maintenance and stuff like that. Um and it's I think we've run into this before with uh Grail Heights um with the idea of establishing whether there is a road maintenance agreement um and if somebody can um

jump in on that or be included on that. There is an agreement that was um put together by at least several of the major owners on that road and it was filed in conjunction with town Rochester. Okay. So, you do have a road maintenance agreement that you can share with us. Yes. Okay. That was done at the time. You may not be exactly to what you the wording you would be looking for today. Um but there was one that was done within 20 years. Okay.

Yeah. And I I know from my fire department experience that that's a very very very tight road. And that road um I would question whether it that adears to uh the fire code. Um whether you can get a fire engine up there um on Heaven's Way.

Okay. Um, and uh, and then if you presumably, excuse me, presumably you would want to build on the uh, on this other lot back here. Um, and would you be able to, it's a question. Uh, would you be able to meet the setbacks against the wetland bumpers and everything that I saw on the on the previous map? Um and your concern is um believe that it's both a lot and so that's that's my yeah question

I he basically covered everything what I saw as well. So the subdivisional field and the environmental issues around this. I mean I can see why going to jump back in. I can see why initially you know theoretically it would look like a lot improvement because you started with two lots and ending with two lots but you're you know you're adding a piece of property to an existing one and subdividing one that needed to come back to be subdivided further. So that's uh just reading back of the previous uh subdivision decision. Jennifer, you're shaking your No, I was just agree agreeing about the subdivisions. The same as me.

I agree as well. It's the same thing. And just point of information in all applications, this was submitted to the code enforcement office and they make their determination and their determination was it was a lot line improvement. So, so for full disclosure, Dave,

oh yeah, I'm just I'm trying to um put together the you know this location scale map and and the larger amount just to determine how many properties are serviced by Heaven's Way. It's not. Yeah, it's not clear to me either name because there's a couple that 4.7 acre pass or the seven acre whether they're serviced as well.

All right. So, but all that I heard tonight was my concerns with it. So, for full disclosure, I when I saw this initially, I went to the building department and told them that I thought it was a a lot line and a subdivision. We have those not frequently, but we have those. We have one right now and kind of a site coming in with a lot line. And then I met with the applicants, Mr. Dyer and his partner and um they thought it was no, it was just a lot line. So I said, "Okay, fine." I did write a letter to the building department about a month ago. I didn't give it to anybody because I didn't want to impact anybody's opinion about it. The building department took it and went to their attorney with it and indicated. She didn't weigh in. the attorney didn't weigh in and simply said, "Look, if you if the board feels that this is not a lot line simply, it's a lot line and subdivision, then they need to go, they need to appeal the decision to the CBA." Um, so um,

so when was the decision? It was on November. I'll give you the date of meeting whe

Yeah. What's the date on the code enforcement? Here it is. Um, November 25th. So, it was done on November 25th. the um we have 62 days in a lot line from the time that we receive the uh determination by our code by our lot line code section 125-18 we have 62 days from the date that we receive it from the building inspector the new system uni collab makes that a little bit difficult to discern but there's something called ready for review the building department gets it, the building department goes through it. The building department decides when it's ready ready for review and then it's sent to us. So that's the date on which we get it. That was on December 17th. So my reading of the code is we have 62 days from December 17th in order to make a decision. I don't have the code in front of me, but is it is the code I mean is so let me let me continue with where I'm going with it because I think there's a solution. There might be a solution. Um I'm concerned with it not meeting the letter indicates to the building department that I didn't agree with the decision but it never went to the ZBA at that point in time. The other piece which I realized was the previous subdivision from 2022. That particular lot, the larger lot had it um by condition and that said quote unquote. Um no further subdivision of this parcel is permitted without the prior approval of the planning board. Prior approval of planning board to do another subdivision. This is being submitted to us as a lot line, not as a

subdivision. If it was a subdivision and a lot line, we'd be off to the races. We couldn't get moving. So, what I believe we should do tonight is to deny the project as a lot line. Uh, or not even as a W line, just deny it as in violation of the decision from u 2022. ask the applicant to go to the CBA. We can also refer to the CBA and say um they have to come to us for subdivision approval and they're not. They're coming to us for a lot line beyond which more if you just took it as a lot line it doesn't even qualify for that. The lot line section of our code is very clear that a lot line does not involve a subdivision. It doesn't grant a subdivision as part of granting a lot line. It's fairly clear order and quote. It says nothing about subdivision. It says it's we're not granted a subdivision. I can pull out the code if you want. Oh my god. But in order to get this moving, if you would um I prepared a resolution and I distribute it in a second asking the board to deny this on the basis of there was a previous decision that this can't happen unless it comes to us as a subdivision. and then allow the applicant applicants representative to go to the CBA and they can continue to sort it out. But at the end of the day, if they say, "Well, it is a lot line." You got to come to me with a subdivision on the subdivision. That's what the previous condition of that property that the applicant now owns. That's what it says. If you want a subdivision, you have to come before If you want to further serve the right, you have to come before us. Could I try to ask questions or present my my case?

You have to speak. Oh, could I could I try to present my case based off my reading of the code or I can wait till later, too. It's not not a good time right now.

Um, so reading through, you know, what reading through the the town's code and looking at the couple pertinent sections that I found was the definitions in the zoning code. That's section 144 talking about the sub what a subdivision is what a lot is and then there's section 125-11 which is the reubdivision of subdivision of re subdivisions and then 125-18 which is lot improvements and natural subdivisions. So, it's I'm not understanding based off my readings of the code what classifies this as a subdivision versus a lot line adjustment. This here I'm going to read you guys the definition for subdivision which is the division of any parcel of land into two or more lots sites or other division of land for the purpose whether immediate or future of transfer of ownership for building development accepting lot improvements and natural subdivisions as assigned as defined in number chapter 12518. So to me the sort of operative there's a lot of commas and things that are in there but it's the division of any parcel of land into two or more. So I would say we have two lots now but the end of the day we have two lots. So things are not being divided trading land from one lot to the other. When I look at let's stop there and we'll keep going with your other definitions. It says the division of any par of lands into two or only lots for the purposes whether immediate or future of transfer of ownership or building development accepting lot improvements.

Yep. So I'm going to look at that. So now we're looking at

improvement the definition of lot improvement which is 125-18 to qualify. So basically as partial shell to qualify as lot improvements involve the addition of land to an existing parcel or a lot line adjustment so as to a improve ability of that parcel to comply with setback or other building standards or b increase suitability of the parcel for building development or c add to availability of open space or d adjust a boundary line location or produce a corrected deed a map reflecting the same desired for recording purposes. It says number two of that same section is it shall not reduce the ability of the lot from which the lot improvement parcel is taken or reconfigured to comply with the applicable development standards of this chapter and it shall include a map restriction to the effect that the improvement parcel will never be considered a separate building lot apart from the tract to which it is being added. So my looking at those two things I say okay I'm not creating a new parcel and I am increasing the suitability of the 34 heavens way parcel for building development by giving it this land from the 67 finger

it already can be developed plus what you just read on what a lot line is further on in the section it also says these plants are acknowledged for the town of Rochester. The note that's supposed to go on the map. These plans are acknowledged by the town of Rochester and for recording purposes only to represent an exempt lot improvement in accordance with 12518 of the Town of Rochester subdivision regulations. No subdivision approval is required or given.

So you're asking us to subdivide as a as a part of doing the lot line. But beyond those two pieces, the decision from 2022 is very clear that the larger lot cannot be subdivided until you come back to us to get a subdivision approval. I I understand that. I'm not understanding how this is a subdivision because I'm not dividing this parcel into I'm not dividing.

So I think that's why you might want to go to the you might wind up eventually at the CBA. This board is needs to decide whether or not we can approve it the way you presented it. And I think I had seven votes here to say no. I don't approve. This my question is where I'm I'm not finding where there's any I just read to you two separate sections that say you can't do a lot line and create a subdivision. And under the subdivision, it does the reverse. It talks about you can't accomplish this through a lot lot.

So what you used as a as to define what you think you can do, it actually I think says the opposite. But at the very least, the decision that we made back in 2022 makes it very clear that you can't resubdivide this parcel unless you come before us for a subdivision. So what I'm going to do is I have a resolution just to move this forward. You may get the EVA. You may be able to convince the CBA. That's fine. But I'm going to move this forward. Hang on one second. And I have a resolution that I'll distribute to everybody to essentially say we're denying the lot line request of tonight because of the subdivision issue and beyond which encouraging you to go to the ZBA and we will send a letter by this resolution to the ZBA stating what we believe this is or isn't and you can go before them and argue your case. They are like a court of law. But right now we have seven people who have said no this is a lot line and a subdivision. I I have a long

and that is that um I think what's difficult to get your head around with this situation is that the the rear of the lot, what they say is lot three or where the marking lot three is is so is so large, right, compared to uh 34 heaven's ways. If you could imagine that it was a tiny piece that was being thrown into the 34 Heaven's Way slot and taken it removed from the hemlock benches, the front P. I think this would be a lot more palatable as a lock line revision.

It it could be. And yet the effect is the same, I would argue, as you know what what's being proposed here. The other thing, you know, the the four reasons why something's a lot line all deal with making the lot more appropriate for development. The Heaven's Way lot is already developable. It's not as if it violates any zoning code. You can develop that lot. So, there's no need to add anything to it in order to develop that lot. So, it doesn't make any of those four that I can see any of those four requirements. And we agree with you if this was a small little sliver of land and they simply wanted to put them together. It probably would be um well no big deal. The fact that you have nine acres and you're literally dividing it in half and then adding something to it. And the prohibition against subdividing something that's already been subdivided until it comes back to us just convinces me that what should be it seems like to us a lot of subdivision and we can move forward with it.

So to now even even if now there is the issue of the RMA and you know I'm not even going to get into that. If if it does become well I won't go there. through him. Uh what uh legally what prevents us legally to approve latline line improvement? I can't hear you. What does prevent us legally to approve just a lot lat line improvement and say we're not approving subdivision and then we're not repro we're not approving the lot line by virtue of the fact that they're attempting to subdivide something that they didn't come. But I can't sub right if we're not approving subdivision. We we're approving a lot lat line.

We're not going to approve it because the lat line proving and subdivision you need they apply they need to apply for another with another application. Well, what we're saying is that a lot line revision is essentially some a subject,

right? But we're not approving that. But basically we're going to build line of the property for that big property and if we need to subs point um I if I was only asking to move the line by 10 ft how is that different if I'm let's say I'm asking I'd like to add 01 acres to 34 Heaven's Way versus I want to add 10 acres to Heaven's Okay. How are those different?

I'm going back to you're subdividing a lot where over the previous decision that said you can't subdivide it unless you come here for a subdivision. Not for a lot for a subdivision. Well, the subdivision process is a lot different from a lot lining. I totally understand that. What what I'm getting at is if I was asking to move the lot line by 10 ft, you would say that's a subdivision. No, what I'm saying is that you can't do it the way in which you've described it because you're doing a subdivision, but you're not here for a subdivision. I'm not seeing that in the code that this is making it a subdivision.

And that's why, Mr. Deutschelina, that's why we have a ZBA. Okay. This board has seven votes that says we're not approving this. Just I have a question which is is there a reason why you didn't want to do a subdivision? Because there seems like being a subdivision and a lot line improvement. I'm not going to make a new lot. But we have two lots right now and I just want to keep two lots. I just want to give one lot land. I don't want to interrupting but you're trying to make a case for yourself from the board but co doesn't allow us to do it. It's very simple. with the blood line any piece of land period you want subdivide it's it's another process

so but my point is that fundamentally two I'm sorry interrupting two lots before you have two lot here it's it I don't think it's correct logical way of thinking it's again to return to the definition that I'm seeing in the code is that a subdivision involves taking one thing and making it into two or more separate things. And I'm not trying to do that. I'm trying to take two two parcels and at the end of the day, we will have two parcels. So, I'm not I don't want to do a subdivision. We don't want there to be three lots. We just want there to be two lots.

You're required to do a subdivision because of the previous subdivision that was done. You bought that property with a condition in it that if you wanted to subdivide it further, we believe it's a subdivision. you wanted to subdivide it further. You have to come back here if you're subdividing. So, we're going to move forward. I put together a resolution and you can argue it to the CBA and they may agree. Um, and it's rather long. Our attorney will follow. David, are you okay? Yeah, I'm good. Yeah, I'm good. Yeah,

it's long, but I wanted to try to cover everything. I also wanted to try to make some suggestions as to how it could be resolved. So the plan board of the town of Rochester resolves to deny the LLI application of Hemlock Ventures due to the fact that is in violation of the condition of approval for the three lot Sal subdivision of Malatesta Pagazi Gentaluchi dated January 14, 2022 where it expressly states in conditions of approval number 3E that no further subdivision of this parcel is permitted without prior approval of the planning board. The manner in which to reapply for further subdivision of the parcel is through a subdivision application to the planning board and not an LLI application. The applicant has failed to proceed in the proper fashion to obtain the planning board's consideration of a further subdivision. The planning board further resolves to refer the LLI application for hemlock ventures to the ZVA for interpretation of the CEO determination date 112525 and delivered to the planning board via the meeting on 1217. The reason for the referral includes the board does not believe it fits any of the four criteria laid out in section 12518A. In addition is in violation of section 125-18C where that section specifically states that no subdivision approval is required or given. Um, it is hoped that the ZBA will agree that a different approach to resolve this would be an interpretation that this application constitutes both a subdivision together with an LLI and refer to the CEO for this new determination, but that's up to the ZBA. So, I'll make that resolution. I'll make the motion. Do I have a second?

Second. Alina makes the second. Um, any other discussion on the board? Okay. Uh, all in favor? I. Anybody opposed? N. Ned. Okay. Um, so six to one. And um I'll sign this and then look at your copy of this, Phil, Mr. Miller. And then you're going to need to apply it to the ZVA together with the audience. And I'll provide them with this resolution as well. and you can change it up.

So, I feel if we got the code enforcement office to advise their determination and say that it's a subdivision so we could properly apply for a subdivision, we're going to have a problem. If you were to get the code enforcement officer, you tell I want this to be changed to a subdivision and a lot line because to do to attach this piece to that piece, you need a lot line. But if you got us both subdivision and the lot line, then we'll proceed. But Rick, it can't be subdivided pursuant to the previous approval. It just has to come back in front. No, it has to come before us. Now, could we decline it? We could. Yeah, exactly. We could.

The purpose for starting about four years ago, all subdivisions have verbiage in there that has to come back. Doesn't mean that we will. doesn't mean that we won't. There was actually some verbiage and some decisions that said no further subdivision allowed, which is illegal. If there's enough bulk there, you can do it. Can you do it physically? I don't know until we have the map with topos and everything else. I don't know. I actually think and know knowing I looked up the toos I don't think it's problem terms of setbacks or anything else the biggest problem is going to be providing us with an RMA that that gives us reassurance that you have road um I'll say finance but you have road access that's agreed to by everybody else on this private road that's probably your biggest problem if you remember we had a situation where the gentleman couldn't get the approval. So, he withdrew the application. Now, you can build on the smaller property bill. Leave the lot. Don't change the lot line. That's a build of a lot right now. And as zone, right? I believe it is. I don't see the the

you could build on right that right now. And you don't have to come to us. It's not a subdivision. You're just putting a house on. It is. If I recall, the reason you wanted to combine it was because the views from the bigger lot were a lot better. No, it's not about it's just about making it more valuable, having a larger lot than the two lot. So, you could go to the CEO right now and put a single family home there. And I don't know that they asked for I don't know, but anyway. Okay, we're good. All right. Thank you.

Thank you. So, I'm of course disappointed, but I'd just like to raise my hand. We all question, what makes the difference between a lot adjustment and subdivisions? It's simply a matter of what? So, I I think we've had others appoint this and they tend to have to be both lot lines and subdivisions. Maybe the ZVA will have a different view towards it with this project. I don't know. Okay. They have the ability to handle it differently. Bill is right. If you went to the CEO and redid it, we re you could reapply and re put back in the agenda for the subdivision and a lot line.

I mean a typical to answer your question the previous application a typical they moved a line to accommodate to shift property from one to the other without you know without changing without subdividing the property. It's just a that's what I think you know most of us would consider a lot line a simple lot line improvement would be. This is you're actually taking a line ining it, dividing a piece of property in half and adding you're creating a new, you know, larger property uh out of you're ending you're starting with two and you're ending with two, but you're moving a line in a way that is not just a an improvement, but it's it's actually dividing the other property. Plus, it has to it goes back to that previous decision, which is a we can't really ignore that that it says that you're dividing that property. you have to come back to and you're literally cutting that property in half and you have to come back to the board for approval.

So, unless you've got something Yeah. that's urgent, but let's move to the next one. Okay. Okay. Thanks. Okay. Thank you all. Thank you. I still want to say because selfdivision allows more factors to consider to the board rather than simple that is a big difference. It's not just a we name this subdivision, you name it. Subdivision must along the process. Well, I understand. So, I understand the logic you guys are saying, but I just But as I read through the code, I was not seeing that in the code. That's what the ZBA is for. Okay.

Okay. Um, Bill, you're staying for the next one, right, Lewis? Yeah. Okay. So, Bill Thorsworth is a uh two lot subdivision of uh n over 9 acres, a 3 acre zone. Both lots have road frontage, adequate width. However, um there's a significant amount of wetland right at the road fronting there's an existing driveway into an existing house and due to the wetland we don't want to put another driveway through the wetland. So we propose to have a shared driveway across the uh existing driveway with a right of way to get around the wetlands. And I believe almost all of the board members, maybe just one, but has not actually been out to the site to visit it at this point.

So, Bill, I I know when I went out with some of the members and I guess the others saw the same thing. There was some culverts that weren't marked on the map. Did you get those marked on the map? Yeah, that's Oh, we didn't label. We just put the put it on there, but we saw that little stream coming across through the wetlands there. Yeah, I don't see it on the map. I don't see it on the map. I don't see it on I'm on lower Whitfield because that was quite a considerable culvert work. I don't want to call it a screen. So, but huh. October. This map is October of 2025. I don't think you put a revision on it. You did. It's I don't see We don't see it.

This is January 12th map, but municipal map. Did we get paper copies stuff? I believe so. All right, let's go to Munich collab. Don't worry about station. That's fine. Give us all a second to get into collab. If you go to the agenda, it probably be the easiest way to find it. That would have been the easy way. That's why I did the agenda that way.

I'm doing it the hard way. Everybody got it? The agenda is on mini cloud is awesome, by the way. Thank you. Figured it would make everything easier to find during meetings. Makes a lot faster for me. All right. So, the map that we should be looking at is dated 112 bill. Yeah, January. Okay, it's in. There it is. Okay. Thank you, Bill. Also, I'd ask for that the uh building on the adjacent property to east there. Yep.

On the adjacent property being the one field of forest, right? Okay. Does anybody have any other comments or questions after having seen this the site? So, we already did this as unlisted and declared lead agency back then back then in October actually. Um, I don't have any other comments on on the map. We're going to need an RMA bill. Yeah. Road maintenance agreement. So, if nobody has anything else, um

my my one one thing on this and it's it's not really addressed in the town code is um my concern is um the road to the second lot, the driveway to the second lot. Um drainage and then also of that it not be paved. And I know that's not a there's no way to really enforce that after the fact, but I wonder if we could include that as a as a condition.

We'll make sure it's a condition. Um and then also that care is t made because it it crosses that west wetland border to the proposed gravel driveway to that it's just um under construction so it doesn't u or you know contaminate or mud and stuff get into the wetland as much as possible. Contravention of water quality standards. That's that was didn't roll off my tongue. But yeah, what did you just say? Contravention of water quality standards. So yeah, it was sorry, you know, sediment and erosion control to prevent contamination of violating water quality standards for sediments in the article.

There you go. So Bill, the map is need going to need to show what steps are going to be take taken to prevent any kind of pollution or wetlands. That's the only thing I have. M I'm going to suggest we set a public hearing. I'm going to suggest we set a motion that we set a public hearing. I second. Okay. Uh I like to set it for the 23rd, which is the last meeting in February. Okay. So, Helina made the make motion to set the public hearing on February 23rd, 2026. Okay. I second on second. So, all in favor? I I

Okay, there we go. Uh Dave, if you could actually if you could actually start working on the decision. Yeah. Okay. I just note some of the documents you have. It's still a threemon subdivision. Yeah. I don't I noted that in November for EAF the application. All right. Narrative. I think basically everything still treats it as a three lot subdivision. Yeah, it should just needs to be updated, right? So I I guess the the CEO determination it doesn't matter because that's how it started when we paired it back.

Seekers should be changed, right? Yeah. No, we've never Yeah, the determination project changed. Project change because we didn't want three lots. So it's back to two. I don't think the determination it's not like the use changed or something right that you don't have to go back the seeker forms bill and the narrative should change to reflect this. Yeah, I thought we had done that, but I'll check to see. Maybe it's just not I don't see right anything else, Dave, that you No, then you're okay. As long as the driveway is gravel, you don't have to worry about buffer.

Yeah, I think the board appears to be okay with that. Do we need to do anything official on that with the Well, you've got this option of modifying the buffer if you want with this concern about it to build the roaded too. Right. Right. Um it says no p I forgot the exact phrase. No paved surfaces in the buffer. Right. So you're create your precedence been as long as the road is gravel. But I don't know if you I'm just posing the question. Yeah. You want to modify the buffer. So it's

no because it it it's again it's almost performative, right? We said the buffer is 100 ft. It's 100 ft presumably if we modify it and then tell them you can go ahead and put mechanum over it. Leave it the way it is. Tell them you can only do a gravel drive and put it on the map. Yeah. Yeah. Right. On the map it's gravel. Yeah. I mean, I'm just observed in the landscape of reality. Yeah. Everybody paves their roads as as soon as they get frustrated with the plow job that somebody Well, I don't know that I would want to pave this road because it's probably 800 ft long.

Yeah. I mean, there's no real way to enforce that. My next door neighbor just paved them half a mile. Uh, you told me how much it cost. Good thing. Look, why don't we just want to changeing from practice it? Uh, I would just leave it the way it is. Enforcement of gravel driveways is going to be it's kind of a move point because there is no one because it's not really defined in the code, right? So, no, all these terms are undefined. Yes, it's true. So, we shouldn't should, but I think that it would be wouldn't be a bad thing to include that on the map. It's on the map on Well, yeah, it's on the map now. Yeah, it's on the It's on the most recent map for sure. Where's the note about this? All right.

All right. So, we got the public hearing. We solved the issue again of the pave. Keep p keep it gravel. Put the note on the on the map. Anything else? Just just to update the documents. Ah. Uh because that would be confusing for the public hearing if the documents say three. That's right. Yes. except for the seek a document and but I'm not asking you to go back to the CEO to get a determination. All right. Okay. Thank you, Bill. Anybody else? Okay, we're done. Bill, you got a public hearing for the 23rd.

Next, Mr. Captain and Mike.

Thank you,

Bill. So, Caleb had given sent us a um an email on January 23rd with a series of things that he wanted to talk about. or not. I believe it's in the movie collab.

Anyway, he'll he's got a series up he wants to talk about. But before we launch into this, I don't want to forget to do um seek the not the secret of eternal moving but typing the project. that had been recommended by Dave Church in his write up of some months ago that it's an unlisted action. So that um I'll entertain a motion to declare this would be an unlisted action and also um in that motion to declare ourselves the agency. I'll make that motion.

Okay, second. Peter makes it. Second, Jen, all in favor? So it's unlisted and by our sales to be rebate. See who did the motion? What's that? Who second Peter? Uh Jennifer. All right. So Caleb, why don't you give us an update? I know you wanted on the just I can on the lead agency. I did do a notice back in December that was in draft form and I'm willing to offer to circulate it to all the interested and involved agencies. Are there other involved agencies? Excuse me.

Are there other involved agencies? Yeah, I have Yeah, I have. Yeah, we can't we got to do a coordinator review. I would think just declare ourselves to be the agency without circulating. Okay. My mistake. My mistake. What do we do? I'll just undo it. Um, okay. I'll entertain a motion to undo what we just did. Declare ourselves lead agency. I'll make that motion. All right. And instead, um, I'll entertain a motion to circulate what we didn't see. Then u Peter, you'll make a motion.

Jennifer, you'll second. Perfect. Are we okay with that? Yes. Okay. And Mike, you have the I have it here and I can circulate it and then give you an affidavit if you want that you that we mailed it to all the agents. Well, the board has usually if you want to give us provide us with the provide us with the draft and we'll we'll work with We use your circ too. There's a lot.

Yeah. Too.

Okay. Who's going to start? Delic. Go ahead. Yeah. So, um I mean we haven't really changed the plan a whole lot more. We did add uh you know we did add the parking numbers. We did the public profile. Um we add the S road center control plan. Uh some more details to the plan overall. Um but one of the things we also sent along with the updated site plans was a sound plan. We are working on want to put together a sound study and we wanted to have the signing board to comment if they have any comment on the placement of any sound receptors. Um currently I have three proposed locations. Um

they didn't we didn't send paper copy if you want me I haven't done that it's in the file

it's in municip it's in municip and it's on the agenda. So we had three three locations proposed. Uh one was uh towards the historic district historic. We also added that to our uh location map. We added the ever bill about historic district uh boundaries. Um but that one down there by the neighbors off of Top Path Road and then uh a second one planning to do parking lot for deep pole and then the third would be the closest uh residential uh neighbor but all on all on the property. So

I think our code is the property line, right?

Yeah. Yeah. I have noise, you know, noise being the way it is, um I think it might be prudent uh to have a receptor on Rockhill Road because you're going to the way noise travels going to go uphill. And I'm not sure with this I don't have a scale what the distance from your proposal to Rob Hill Road is, but that might be something to consider. because as you you know I don't expect going downhill I don't expect the receptors even though they may be closer um they'll be shielded from you know because you're up high and moist travels up and I was thinking just you know because this is going to be a commercial space in an area probably where the DBs are probably around 42 43 you know it's very very quiet there and I think for us we should and there's a people that live on Rock Hill Road and I think that should possibly be included.

Well, we've um the Rock Hill Road due to the topography is over up there. Okay. The compass direction would be north provided no north arrow on this plat. So I can't say no. So this would be that Peter's killed. Okay. Yeah, because that is a that is a very there's a lot of homes there. Um well, typically like you place them at the property line and then they project where the sound would travel. I mean, you would expect the ones you're saying because you go down off the hill, you'd be worried.

No, no. This noise goes uphill. If you're going to put in a BM, right? Okay. So, what I'm saying is it would be good to have a point across up on Rock Hill because a there's a lot of homes that are on Rock Hill and that would really then we can make a determination of your project with speakers or whatever you want to do is going to impact the residents on Rockville Road. That's why just another receptor location. So, you can model to it. Okay, these locations were suggested by your acoustic consultant or Oh, we submitted it to them. I mean,

but we, you know, they were looking for comments from the board before they put any because again the se the reception locations are there to measure the ambient noise. Okay. But model to then then you would model it to Rockill Road if that's what the board wanted. So you don't expect any ambient noise to come from Rockill Road. Oh, I got clicked on. No, the lang was I'm bling up. That's all right. Okay. Because I didn't see any discussion or paper. So, Caleb, the the receptters that you have on here are the ambient noise. Yeah.

So, you're okay with doing it by Rock Hill Road or you're not? And if you're not, no, no, you can model to Rock Hill. You can model to Rock Hill. Um, but you know, we're supposed to make sure that we don't it there was 10 dB at the property line because more than 10 dB at the property line itself. That was what I was written. Well, you need to it's also referencing the Dc noise assessing and mitigating noise impacts. All right. So, you suggesting that you model it. Is that all right, Harina?

Go ahead. Uh I think you still have to follow the code to put the receptors at every property because today perhaps the right but it has to be on on that left side east west was what a west the only question I have with that would be what public is on the there is no resident on that there is a house that's on the um very close to the to the west on that property. Yeah. Yeah. Um there are actually several houses there on be resident. So you got to because it's done done once

and I would I would also suggest along the the north side um because the that's close to the creek um there property right across the creek from there. Yes. several properties and how fast basically setting up receptor on property line and then showing where the sources the noise coming from. Yeah. And consultant will be well firstly you got to get the the ambient noise.

Yeah. So, if I could, I actually like Felina's idea to capture ambient noise along Rock Hill Road because then you I understand I've done noise assessments. I understand that you project. It is also very useful to have your baseline collected so that when we have public hearings, we ha we can tell them we monitored on the road. This is the existing noise. So when you overlay the projections, they have a a a they have a way of understanding those differences because they're going to see numbers along the property line that are likely to be very very low. Well, especially at this time of year.

And I I feel like in more populated areas with more traffic, that's going to be a different ambient noise level and it will be only to the benefit of everyone to understand the actual ambient. then project on top and to see what that difference looks like rather than to just say well on this property line it's 40 dBA and it's going to go up you know what I mean that's my opinion having done this before and having done public hearings where so Jen you would argue for a monitoring I think helpful to know what the existing okay decibb are so that the public has a baseline to understand my house is yeah this is a

I part process. In the past, they they measure an ambient and then they do uh modeling and they projecting okay here's your ambient and one case was uh this arrowwood they were measuring ambient running tracker there and the board objected to that so you need to measure ambient it's a part of the process right so you're gonna you're going to do know the Well, that would make up to six receptors then if we did everything that everybody suggested right now. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Well, it's a big project.

If you've never been in a meeting, if you've never been in a meeting, if you were never in the meeting for what was it? The growing rooster, whatever it was. I was if you were never at one of those meetings, which you weren't. No, Barry was. Exactly. And where's Barry now? So is And thank you for confirming crest of fan. I was going to say something else. I'm glad I didn't. No, I forget those ones. Um, you're better off. Yeah. All right. Um, you got to add three more.

The only issue I'd have with one right now would be like the north one. It's accessibility. How easily is it accessible for somebody to walk that far down it? I mean well that's just you know probably in summer actually ended would be fine well at night time yes sure and the ambient the suggestion it's a nice life it's good exercise the ambient may help us gives a baseline yeah I was going to say it's better to have more information up front it's help informed public process and They're not even native. They don't know what it is.

The only other question I had about this is could you do you have information on how I don't know what I don't recall what our code says about the duration of the ambient um requirement? So, how long will the monitors be out and what days of the week? Are you doing it for a full week or what's the plan? Oh, well, typically you would I mean we would do it for a day. Um and it would be whatever the operational hours are itself. Um I mean

so what I would say what we would have to go at least we go an hour before operation of what we would be proposing and then an hour after the operation. So I think right now is 7 to 10 or seven. So it would be like something the minimum would be to 10. So a minimum would be like 7 to 11 to monitor the ambient noise. That would be the minimum. And you should also um I know you're saying one day, but we also need to capture weekends. Well, that was I'm assuming that it would be at Saturday.

No, but you should do Mon, you know, since the operation is going to be Monday, said seven days a week, you should capture weekends and weekday. and I'm used to but I'm used to it am PM that it's laid out in the I think you document it's a school bus route on top road so it'll be you know during the week in the mornings you'll and afternoon all your school buses but obviously you have more vehicular traffic private vehicles on the weekends because it gets a lot of

yeah know I mean the the one that I've been on a lot of times it's the road noise travels a lot farther than you realize a lot of times But I mean, even with like the river there, I mean, you could have depending on a thaw or something like that, you could hear it a lot, too. Yeah. Or it could be super quiet. It's going to be vastly different right now. There's so much snow and all the water is covered by ice than it would be in, you know, in July when everybody's down there with, you know, their boom boxes even though they're not allowed. But now it's just an iPod. All right. So pay did you get the answer to your question about you have now six stations doing it your operation is seven days a week

profit associates do we want him to resubmit a map showing those receptors that we're agreeing Oh yeah okay redo yeah redo the map we'll send us a new map you're going to do it uh for weekdays we're going to do at least a weekday and a week and separately for weekends then Okay. But if your consultants should know the process, yeah, but like I mean I probably wouldn't have done Rockill Road unless somebody told me to do it. So that's you know part of the reason why the consultant wanted to get I mean we were advising to wait till the point where the meeting they want if they're the consultant they'll understand that just because of the way noise travels.

Yeah. All right. Your next question was about the historical preservation committee. Well, we're yeah, I mean the architecturals um are are a lot more detailed um from what was submitted as well. Uh I'm not sure if there's any comments directly on that. If there's, you know, this procedure on having them review Well, we go ahead, Dave. I had mentioned you wanted to get a ship on me. Oh, we did. Oh, you're saying on the building? I moved past the building. I've

um to go to the historic preservation committee there. They're not just worried about what the building looks like, but the fact is the neighborhood's full of historic property since in fact you include part of the canal, right? Yeah. Which but no, it's a little confusing where your lot line is. You don't own part of the I thought I I had hoped I did and uh came out said, "No, you don't." No, not even the top pan. Huh? um unfortunately not the canal is on the national register of historic places and they and the historic I think it needs to be referred to ship. Okay.

Well, there's nothing I'll just say there's no conceivable way anything's visible from there or anywhere around this is really this is nestled in a spot that has no public visibility anyway. But well, make a recommendation then. It's been policy. The board's referred things like this to Shipbo just to be sure. Well, yes. And then also you should demonstrate to prove you should demonstrate to the public that um it will not be visible from Pass Road and you know so line of sight sessions would be required.

There there are a few in our actuals. Okay. Uh so but uh so on Shipo though we we h we we did a phase one archaeological investigation. They didn't find anything. They submitted that to Shipo and LA I'm not sure if it was last week but we actually got the no adverse effect back. Okay. But it wasn't it wasn't in time for our submission deadline. Oh that's that should do it. Yeah. I was just uh just a note for the board. I I'll note the archaeological survey never mentions the canal. Yeah. In the entire study, it doesn't mention that this parcel is adjacent to a national register site. Okay. So, you have the report back from ship, right?

Yes. Get that to us so we can put it up on Munich. I mean, that's even the the historic narrative doesn't mention that the canal was there. Java file. Could you also with a letter from Chipo? Can you include the submittal in the phase one? The phase one was we have it in Yeah, it's in it's in there. Yes. Uh but it may it was only submitted digitally I believe. Yeah, it came in in mid mid January something like that. I just found it. It's all right. January 6th is what I have for the but uh you're saying that you looked at that report and it doesn't mention the canal at all. No, it's just a curiosity. You're No, you're your client's proposal is nowhere near the canal.

Got acknowledged. But it's just odd uh that they write a whole historic narrative and never even mention the presence of the canal. Um I think that's like the ship. No adverse effect in the shipo letter would specifically mean where our limit of disturbance is dwell where they did the phase under study like if you were to get closer to the canal obviously then there would be probably a lot more artifacts concerns well you did shovel tents all over the property right so uh I'm not sure they did it all over the property they did it within the limit of disturbance area disturbance I just looked at it quick it looked like they covered the property pretty well uh But anyway,

don't say that. Um, if you got if you're about to get a ship or you got it already, that'll do it. Well, it sounds like it has it already. Yeah. Just saying you don't have I know. I got this kind of mess. Yeah. All right. So, Caleb, um, you could you could put stuff up on Munich. Yes. Even if it's after the submitt, right? I gotta get I gotta get on that. We helped a little help today. I can help get a little better at that. So, Stacy can help you with that.

I mean, that there's the canal is actually something that the historic preservation commission will highlight. I think including that that you know that there's a pond on that property which I've understood to be a historic resource for water for the canal potentially. So, that's should be mentioned. Okay. So, Caleb, whatever you sent to the whatever we sent to the restore committee, I would look for you to reach out to them copying us. One of us or maybe more than one of us can attend the meeting also. We if somebody wants to, I would.

Um, but you need to reach out to them. But I wouldn't do it until you've got the final pretty much the final architecturals. You have the shipo information uh together. They're be I assume they're going to ask you all sorts of questions about archaeological artifacts. They're going to ask you about shipo haven't commented on it. So they're going to want to know are these the final diagrams? Is this the final close to the final site plan or location of it? So if you feel that you're ready for that, you have all that information together, then it's time to go to the historical preservation committee. I mean, as far as site, it goes itself. I mean, building,

well, you changed the the height of building, right? It used to be it was one thing and then it changed to you go back a little bit on that. um you trying to um just going through the definition of building height and making sure it matches that definition that we stay under the 35 ft. Um at one point it was much lower and it wasn't much of a concern. Right now the average uh to the very was it to to the the top is about 35 but the way the measurement it means the top the measure to the top portion no it's the mean of the roof it's the mean of the roof is that does yeah that's what it says okay

so but there's that's like 28 there's something there's like the the roof is it's all on a hole in shape uh with a little koopa on top so even taking the most conservative the koopa itself self but uh it's all the same structure. Um it's well below if you consider it all one room structure but even looking at so really want to be stringent on it even the top pupil meets the definition of less than 35 ft. Just so you know we hold other people to speak to the fire on that you know units and

so here's what I suggest you do. Work with Dave Church on your submitt what you have to submit. He'll make some recommendations. He's been before the board before before that committee before. And when Dave says you're looks like you're ready to go, then let's get it out. Let us know and one or two of no doubt will want to join you in that meeting. Yes, I would too. I do have one question before we are we wrapping up? Yeah, let me just I just want to wrap up. All right. So, work with Dave. I think you have to I mean, we've only done this once before. or it's brand new in code. Right. Right. This board has to refer it to that committee when you're ready.

Okay. I don't know if you're ready to say that now. No, I'm not ready until you and he work together and you say that he's ready with what he has and then we'll he's ready and I'm ready. Then you're ready. Yeah. I'll sign the memo to the historic preservation committee. But I want you to be satisfied that what he's giving us for that submitt is what's going to pass the smell test with that committee. It may or may not. They may ask for more information. And they're monthly still. Do they meet every month? I don't remember day of the week. A day of the month. Okay. And then Dave, when you say it's okay, you know, we'll put together a memo. All right. And I'll sign it

and we'll let the board know when it is. as members of the board were want to get that meeting. Paulina,

um I have a question in regards to the long form EAF. I know you had made some comments for some corrections and have we received that and I think at at some point we are going to need a corrected EIF. uh for instance, you know, your description of the structure is 25 ft high, 75 ft 70t wide by 75 ft long, and now the plans contradict that. Um, and I know that Dave had a couple of other things. Um, your short form EAF indicated that storm water was going to go through a culvert in the pipe underneath to path road. I didn't see that in the full EF AF, the long form EAF, but you shouldn't do that. You don't want a point source going into across toe path into the crack.

It's an existing there's an exist but still you should be conscious of that during construction. So you don't it will be need of full sw. Yeah. Yeah. So just just it's just little things that I picked up going through the first EAF that I got to the second you know the long form EF and then I know Dave's memo just three things on page nine. Yeah, you you have you got the memos and you going to elaborate? Yeah, that yours uh what's the the bedrock? Oh, right. Uh yeah,

prime farmland. You got to answer. Yes. And the DNH canal seems to be on nobody's radar. It needs to be added. And Son, you had a question. Yeah, minor stuff. A couple items. Is that That's the letter. Sorry, that's paperwork stuff. That's the letter dated the 3rd, January 3rd, 2026. Yes. Okay. Yeah, just those three. All I had was those three things on page nine. Uh, she's got the other stuff.

I'm still unclear I'm here. What are we saying? Is a piece of little fair driveway leading to the parking lot for the cold on the lot line. chain lot to prepare some kind of agreement. We'll come to that. I got it on my notes. And why don't we do it now? The lot line the lot line changed with that um lot for the um the deep hole, right? We had asked somebody had asked it was either Zurian or Peter at the last time you were here whether or not there was a permit, right,

for that. And I I think we all went around and kind of said, "Well, yeah, there must be, but there isn't. No, I Yeah, as I I had called into the to uh Terry into the building department to ask if I needed a permit. I was told I did not. So, that's strange because I went to them and asked is there a permit? They said no. No, there was there wasn't because I called to ask. I I Why don't you do us all a favor? Yourself included. Why don't just just apply for the permit? You've already built it, right? It's built. You just get the permit. The driveway the driveway permit.

No, it's not a drive. Yeah, driveway permit onto uh parking area into the parking area. Pay the whatever the fee is. I told Alysa that I would be telling you that we need a permit. It's just paperwork, but it wasn't obtained before for whatever reason. as a ministerial a ministerial thing. It'll it'll save you some heartache down the road on that. I I have a question about that same ministerial. Zor, is that okay to cover that? No, but it's for shouldn't be formally written somewhere where owner could be in future. They have a right to to go on on your property.

Yeah, there would. Yeah, there definitely would be an agreement. You you all had mentioned that. We haven't drafted that, but happy to have that. About the the parking lot there that there's a 50ft strip to the left of the parking lot that actually goes over the driveway. Is there a reason why that just isn't straight across? We keeping it for access for the site for access to the I don't have any maintenance right down around the pond because there paths coming from that access currently. Yeah.

Okay. So that would be access and so you're not planning on using that as a driveway. We don't want to. Um that actually brings a point up that we've been talking about. This is this is a challenge for me.

Go ahead. just so I think it's as part of the environmental there's uh no cutting trees between March and November because of a hibernate or nesting bat Indiana bats. So, my concern is if the planning board is to approve this at some point, I'm hoping this spring or I'll lose a whole year of construction if I can't have either the trees cut or the road somehow built so that we have access to the site. That would then either mean I have to put in a road in this other way, which I really don't I don't want to mix and have a road there that relates to deep hole and people wandering down.

Trying to avoid putting a driveway from the deep hole parking lot, right? Exceptional. Have you done any work there now in the back of the property? No, the the pond. I'm sorry to you have done work in the pond. The pond was done. Okay. Yeah. When in the year before, not the pond that you were talking about what you It was a pond site. There was a there was uh it was clearly a pond. There was a a former dam that was there that was not functional and

called an embankment. I don't think it meets the definition of a dam. It was probably probably related to very common say. It's probably related to the canal. Yeah, that that could well be. Yeah, I know that was So what's the deal with the 50 ft and the fence? So the idea is just to have have an access road. So I would keep that and give a a deed right of access to the deep. What comes down to is that if you can't cut the trees before the end of March, right,

he's going to he he's not going to be able to put that driveway in that location in and then start construction on the building next year. So, we'll lose it either strip for the driveway the the new proposed driveway. Yeah. And that that strip then will take all the construction vehicles etc etc etc. Correct. Well, that's if you started this summer. Um, so

I guess my my question had been is it possible to at least cut the trees for the roadway before the approval in which case it would then be it's like they could hit the ground running and without no physical alteration while we're under we're in the Seeker process unless attorney what she said. Yeah, we we've got empathize. Sorry, I empathize with you. I also live and die by the back window and we don't cut trees until we have our approvals. Unfortunately,

that's it's a a lot of planning boards look at it that way. I have had plenty of boards that have said that you can bell the trees and leave them in place and leave them in place, but it's it's expensive to do it that way, too. And kind of everything just lays there until you're done with seeker. But and then you might not get approval. I mean, I've seen huge acreages where they've gone developers have gone in and completely cleared during the, you know, during the winter and then the whole the million square foot project went away and then you're left with ask us for a different kind of exception but that one doesn't fly

or this one doesn't fly. Yeah, we're still in secret. I mean if if it's just if it's cutting the trees that just cutting them and leaving them in place is I don't see that still doesn't I don't see how that gets around the problem the law says no cutting of trees yeah no physical disturbance whether you know some board let you kill you know so if you just cut the tree you don't dig out the roots there's no physical disturbance but the the reason behind that is there's species species of bats that that inhabit the trees in a warmer month under the bark and things like that. That's why they're hiberated at that time. At that time, what's that?

They're hibernating at that time. No, they're hibernating now. They're hibernating now, but in the summer months they roost. They roost. They use the trees for roosting and then like the shack shack, they're underneath those. Well, and also if you even to your point about sometimes the plant birds will let you cut and felt them in place, but you can still end up with bats in those trees in the summer even if they're felled in place. So, it kind of is a distinction without a difference if you're talking about like the actual spirit of the environmental law. It doesn't really make you're not really helping.

Exactly. Project it wants to be is well suited with the environment. But I we have one question that hasn't been brought up. Mike has promised us a traffic study. We haven't discussed the traffic study in your letters. Um, you acknowledge that uh traffic, endangered and threatened species, aesthetics, but the traffic study and if we mentioned there's going to be 75 people per day. Uh I we never talked about it. So, it's in your letter. I know we Yes, I know we talked about parking briefly and I did add the parking numbers. Uh, I know for assembly, you know, they're saying it's one parking space per four.

I'm not talking about parking. I'm talking about traffic. But no, talking you you say 75, but I'm saying that they account for it's a little less than Well, then change your paperwork and narrative because your narrative state states up to 75 people. Yes, but it would be I would I'm just saying it would be 75 people. That's all. Uh well, but that's track study. That's not that's not for I'm just thinking Mike's better. Yes. Are you guys going to do the traffic study with the ITV table or you gonna have like Manning? Probably reach out to Crate Manning first. That would you know that would be good.

So let me just make sure I understand the parking the particular use requires only 20 19 parking spots. He had only required 19 because it's one for every four people. Yeah. And you projected 75 people. Yeah. But he went up to 30, which is fine. We did go up to 30. I because one four people in a car isn't realistic. It's probably more like two or two and a half. Well, that's what I was thinking. So that would be Yeah. Two 288 spot. Yes.

Two electric vehicles. If you according to the code on one by going to spaces. No, we Okay. So, talk to me about the uh the deck area or the occupancy or the how many people are going to be here at any point in time. They've said 75 but not but there's some pretty big

are bigger than Caleb mentioned this this concerned me just just now and I guess I I just love the cascade of decks we had to get down from this elevation down to the lawn but 75 is what my desire is to have people not not the 75 people inside and other people outside. So I'm not interested in having any kind of huge events big. So I thought, you know, people might dance on one if it's a small group. If it's a bigger group, they might go to the middle or go to the lawn. Sometimes people are afraid of six, so they want to be on decks. event, you know.

Okay. So, it's not your intention to have an event from time to time that might have 150 people that you don't have for nothing like that. You're sticking you're sticking with the 75 and I don't want to port any of that. It's not that. All right. So, 75 is the agreed upon number and you have adequate parking for that. More than adequate. Okay. So, so no public performance essentially. Well, 75. It could be with 75 people. I It could be that somebody sure

it's not 75 performers or dancer participate in the club or society. It's a school maximum 75 people on the program. Yeah, that's how I've understood it and that's what I'm And you're not renting it out for any other purposes of weddings. I I I it has to it has to cover expenses. I don't know what that's going to be to me. I don't have any interest in being in a wedding venue uh approach. I actually have

but I I do I I I I feel like it's my job to to have this place built and I need to see that it sustains itself for the future. One of the kinds of rituals and dances that happens that is meaningful to people is weddings. So I it's not my interest but I somehow it has to it has to sustain itself. So Dave I'm a little rusty on the the implications of that in terms of the new code does our code in this zone and use

still pre prevent or permit um commercial events of that sort. a whole section about commercial events then. So I looked up I did find a restriction that if I think it might be residential property cannot have a venue on it but I don't recall if this use is particular. So like if somebody wanted to convert their barn for an event that's no longer permitted under our code based on my reading but I I don't think there was that restriction for new construction. The whole section got deleted in the last section got deleted. It's just not clear to me.

And are the weddings going to be limited to 75 people? So, you know, we got to look 75, you know, I mean 75 is I'm just kind of talking out loud here, but with Seeker, you know, you want to always look at the worst case scenario. And now that you're introducing weddings, I can see additional impacts. That's me. So, the power of the know is going to be much greater than during your So, what do we do? Why don't we do this, Dan? Commercial events are

the new code got rid of commercial events in most if not all zones or use use uses, right? Let me have Dave Church take a look at that issue. Dave, would you do that? Not now, but come up with another letter to us to the board regarding commercial events. What kind of events they could have? Yeah. Would you research that? What's the definition of a commercial? I know what the definition is. It's something that's that you're paying money for in order to hold a birthday or wedding or whatever. is an exchange of money rented a place money or

trade. So I don't know if this particular use and it was some sort of an educational use that we came up with the I forget there were two choices school versus educational education and conference. So I want to make sure that you're aware that our new code may have changed the possibility of doing commercial events in that particular kind of zone needs to be accounted in the noise type because before will be just outside small speakers but if you have a wedding they're going to they're going to bring band they're going to play music loudly it's so sorry how about we let Dave research it

I also I have a client that has a venue in the town of Gardener. It's the the um the whiskey place. They have like a town. They their maximum allowed people on the site I think at one time is 55 or 60 and they had no amplified music. They had they agreed as a condition. Okay. We would not have amplified. So you could possibly mitigate impacts some way and still especially with 75 where I have the biggest

the biggest push back projects are the 250 300 people wedding venues they they get a lot of push back. But this is something that I think you you might be able to build in mitigation expect. I just want everything out up front like in terms of what can or can't be according to the code. That is all. All right. So Dave will take care of that. What else we got? I will do my best. It's so then maybe

it's going to be quirky because the definition of the commercial event facility exists still but it's subject to the standards of 14035 which was stricken. So there is no 14035 anymore. Right. And commercial event facilities were struck from the scheduled uses. Yes. So they're not permitted. So think about it. I'm all over it. Go through the code. That's all I'm asking. Whatever. Don't um I just want to be on solid ground. Whatever direction we give the applicant, I want to be on solid ground in terms of the code. Okay. Do your best. And if you need our illustrious attorney,

fair enough. Include him in it.

Um I have one comment though. If we're going down this run, this road, Mike, the company, then maybe you not you might not want to correct or resubmit your long form EAF and narratives until we know until you know what you're proposing because right now your EAF your narrative says nothing about weddings. Correct. So if you want this and after you hear back from Dave, I'm just saying don't correct your your long form EAF until you hear back from Mr. Church and then if it's a go or whatever, you then will place that put that additional information in the long form EF because that is a legal document and that really needs to capture what you're proposing.

So and I hope I've done that because I from the beginning. So for me I'm a ritualist and a dancer. Those are two things. The ritual is a not as kind of commonly understood. We do all participate in public rituals of um weddings being one of the most common ways that the community cements the relationships of people with the community and each other and the family structure. And I I had one friend got married on my property. I don't I don't officiate a wedding. I'm not uh it's not my it's not my thing, but I can imagine that for very small groupings and within whatever noise restrictions we find out from the acoustical study are necessary. Then it it was stated in the in the kind of the initial purposes of of this that it would be for gatherings for ritual and dance events.

Yes. But that is not we're let's not get down into the semantics but I think your attorney can understand that if you are going to be proposing weddings or to have weddings it should be in your documents in your narrative and and be reflected in your per and all of your permit documents.

Yeah. One one thing about the one thing about the EF especially the long EF that the long EF part one is the applicants document. They they submit it the board considers it. What the case law has held and I had a case just a couple years ago with the Kingstonian where this exact issue came up. The opposition argued that we didn't change the EAF and make changes on the EAF, but all the changes were subsequently captured in part two and then in a very lengthy NEG deck. The appellet division said it doesn't matter if you change the EAF because the EAF is only a data it's a data collection document and as long as those changes are reflected in the progression of the project, it's fine. So, and I can provide a copy of that case to the board if if the board wants, but that's what that's what

I can appreciate that because what the opposition wanted to do was to delay the project month after month with you know this change that change your changes are this is relatively

how about all I'm trying to say is that your document should capture all of the proposed activities that you're that are going to occur on the site. I mean, for instance, when we were looking at the racetrack, we had an applicant. He was trying to figure out first it was music, then it was antique fairs or this and that. And we had to we had several several meetings trying to impress upon him because he did not have representation that whatever he's wants to do, he has to put it into his narrative and his submissions. So, you know, we have that's that's on its place.

Yeah. And as long I mean I'm anticipating that at some point I'm hoping we have a neck deck but we'll get to the neck deck where all those things be you know 75 is the limit. This is you know this the here's the communication measure for music they'll all probably be reflected in there but I I'll give the yes yes and yes make one additional comment. Um, I think I agree with you. It's best to be explicit about exactly what the intention is for the purpose of the the site. In addition, if there are things that you know you will not be doing, you want to articulate that very helpful to say we're going to AB and C. We will not do EFG. That's very

Yeah. One simple question, but it helps. It helps the on the plan should be one 100 ft buffer along with lighting zone which is the buffer question on your property inclusive plan 100.

So it's there it's not there show up buffer. You don't show a buffer. Yeah. Same is true with a piece of the canals have a wet weather. You you're saying down by the canal a buffer the 100 canal part of the canal with some wetland you're just going to put a 100 foot buffer on your map the flooding zone it's or the river or both

the code the code requires 100 foot buffer on map streams and and and a wet wetland is mapped by any agency and we got a we we did get jurisdiction back too that the wetland but But the National Wetland Inventory's got the canal mapped as a wetland. Gotcha. So sorry is correct. If make sure you have the wetland buffers around that and that includes rivers, streams, whatever. Okay. Anything else?

Yeah, just a question on the um on the index map for the plans on the down joining now or formerly Tetlo. Are those buildings are those buildings down there. Is that small shells on the squares? Yeah, because I think I did I did give you the aerial map. to locate some on the sound receptors to put those buildings. But I think the good guys appear to be the sheds over the property there.

So Ray, did you have a question? Well, I just I I think we clarified one thing, but I just wanted to make sure. I just I took a look at it tonight before I came and there is a full swift but I haven't seen it. There's a requirement for a full Oh yeah yeah yeah. Okay. I just want to make sure because I looked at Uni Collab but I just don't have um all we did was size the square footage of the bio retention areas based off their drainage area. That that is what's shown on the map at the moment. But as far as prevention goes, we haven't done any.

And then on the driveway, I just wanted to bring um for fire apparatus and emergency vehicle apparatus, there may need to be a pull off along that driveway that's greater than 500 ft. Um did we about 600? I thought you were showing 20 ft wide. That's But you still have to have a turnout. Yeah. Or is it 550? Yeah. So, but so the driveway on there. I I need to check that. I didn't see a driveway. That's specifically the driveway profile.

Okay. Profile. The driveway sections. Okay. And then and then the grade of the driveway. Um, I don't know why I didn't see it, but I must the profile. So, Greg, how about we do this? This is Would you put together your usual report? This a general report making comments on the site plan map. Okay. With all those highways in it, Greg will be the one to review your swim uh Caleb and I'll also be the one that's reviewing the uh the traffic study. But in the meantime, I invite you to do your usual one page or whatever. Okay. That gives us any other comments you need answers to. Okay. Okay.

Anybody else? Septic and wateration. Is that preparation or septic and wateration? Uh septic we have uh put in for the permit. But I mean, but honestly, it's been taking three to four months for them to get back to us and it's probably pushing through somewhere seeker than but that'll all be with the Department of Health. We will need those.

And the engineering report that goes with that is that in collab. The only reason why I asked about that is because there were some questions coming up about water use and number of bathrooms and that should all be in the engineering report. There is no specific report yet right now. It's just the data that's on the site plan. Okay. So, there's no specific report submitted to the health department. What? Oh, health department. It it was just plans were submitted to the health department as far as the septic goes, but like not a water plan. Uh, no. Okay. What's the uh daily you water usage projected to be? Uh I think 375. Yes. I was wondering where you

since I can't believe what's in the fullang up but the fully AF said 375 GPD. Yes, that's right. Yeah. 37 right for assembly it was 5 gallons per day and it was 75. So okay. You don't make any of the thresholds where you have to do a hydro hydro study or anything. Uh that was the data that Yeah. for the septic system. Yeah. 375. Yeah. Anything else? Question. And I I don't think I've seen it. It's not in here. I think we need to Is it in the EAF the number of trees you're taking down? Have you done any tree surveys? We talked about trees, but I don't think we

Yeah. Uh the only thing on the EAF would be that we list it at about a half an acre and that's specifically for the driveway itself. And size we don't list we don't list the number of trees that would need to be taken down um in there. Size size of the trees certain we have not done a a study specifically. I know they went out there and they they did mark the center line. I know we had talked about doing a site visit. I mean, obviously snowmobiles.

Uh I mean, there's definitely some trees in there that would have to come down. That's for sure. Uh I mean, the power line that goes along the road there is very overgrown itself as well. I'm not sure when the next time they're going to come in there and do the on that power line uh is along the road itself. Um but we had talked about uh is it specifically saying we need to have the number of trees? So the code has a requirement for identifying trees of certain

size. So we're so I've seen it done differently like you actually have to survey and tag the tree by oftent times at minimum there's a list of the trees over what 60 dBH usually um so that you get the list of and of species size etc. so that you can see exactly what's going to be on site. I say there is that you can't usually do in full spray for your tree surveys.

We did we did locate around what uh is listed on the plan as cedar stand. We do we do have several of those listed as individual trees in there, but I don't think they don't list the actual names. So they they show symbols for the trees. That's it. I mean, wouldn't you typically have this species and doesn't doesn't the code attempt to do the identification of trees over a certain diameter? Sure. I'll address that. And the purpose of that is to see if you can divert around. I haven't done a comment letter yet, but I'll address that. Yeah. purpose is to take out the minimum number and also to avoid in some way if we can go around some of the

I know we as we were talking to Dan Dan's been very concerned about that as well. Um you know I would I would hedge the bet that uh we could try to go around certain trees but we'll then be taking away other trees. So I you know how much you go out of your way to say one tree to the next and then some precise look at diameter and get a feel. Well, I think what the board is looking for is to plot whatever the code says trees of of a certain diameter at a particular breast height over a certain diameter

and show it on a on a map and then we can make a deter you can make a determination. We can avoid them all or we can't avoid any of them because of the tobos. But we need the information and it's also for the environmental investment so you can say what actually happening on the site. I mean I did a job we took down 35 acres of trees. I mean it's not like you can't throw in trees. You just have to disclose what you're doing and why and maybe there's a way of avoiding some of the damage some of them. Yeah. It's 140 15b. Thanks. You got to specify number, location, size of species of all existing mature trees or other species of 6 in caliber of grapes

and that would be within the area of disturbance, right? Yeah, it says the landscape plan has to specify them all. Um, no tree of 12 in or greater diameter at 4t high from ground shall be removed before until there's final approval. Okay, that makes sense. And there was so 120 140 14015b. We went through this when we with court social, right? So, but this is a little bit more sensitive because there's probably way more trees of significant size

and it's ecologically can we also um work on setting up a site visit once the weather? Yeah, I mean what do you recommend? I think I'm walking in every Friday regardless of the weather. How about uh March? large, but maybe we should wait until we see what the weather's. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. My mouth is fine. Just give it back to your body. I didn't want to do that. There was some question um discussion about noise and amplified music. Did we come to determination on that or what?

Until we get the sound study back, we're not going to be what we're what are we allowed to do, right? Is really the question. If that's based off of that sound study, I mean we have and then it would be speculation. Well, I would just be pure speculation whether we were allowed to do it. May I added to that that based on wood the conclusion was essentially they limited the uh power of the source in order to meet lines. So I probably should that that study should say all right at certain distance from the source should be no more than so many days above in order to meet the requirements.

Okay Peter, you good? I'm good. Okay. I think you're leading you're leading the witness a little bit about what's going to be allowed in terms of music and the drum circle. How is it going? No, but and when we are looking at your the sound, I mean, I guess we'll figure out what the ambient is and then but we should drumming is really loud. I mean, drumming can be louder than amplified music. Yeah, that's where I was going is it's not necessarily amplified music, right? But acoustic music or drumming can be extremely loud and carry far. Next question about this is sort of in the weeds. Maybe it's a question for Greg.

I haven't done a noise analysis in a while. Are we still doing just straight VGA UVA? Oh. Or does it go to the bands? Do the bands get it drums versus Right. Uh do you know what I'm talking about? Yeah. Yes. But and I think the code just really talks about DBA. You can do a DB. Okay. But if it was, let's say low truck noise, I think we could make a case for DBC for the for the lower for the lower safety. because that's

so Caleb I think the next appearance here is when you have a lot of media content whether it's graphic study swip answers to lots of the other questions that we've asked tonight so uh we should talk about when that is but I don't see anything until March with the exception of working on the uh getting to the historical preservation committee. Yeah. And we don't need to come back here to do that. We can do that through with Dave and you know we'll set it up in that fashion. I mean I feel like the architects have come a long way and they they are there's a lot of there's a lot of information on those plans you know. Yes.

They may not be construction planned but that they are but they they show everything as far as the floor plans and the elevations. So that's okay. Anything else? I have one question here that wasn't understood when you said uh no use 12 in at 4B shall be removed till till final approval. Does that mean less than 12 can or does that mean still? I wasn't sure if you were if that was changing. We have to locate everything with the 6 in caliber above. That's clear. But yeah, is it what Dave was reading from was the uh

new code again, the landscape portion of the code. There are some So what he read was no tree in excess of that size can be removed before you get the final approval. that

we came across some issues with the landscape code in another project that Gale was involved in and we were able to make exceptions to that to work around it to make it work. So what Jennifer and everybody was bringing up is we need to see on this property those areas where you're going to have buildings, parking lots or driveways, what is the impact on the environment on trees, right? Does it hit any of the mockers from the code or the landscape code? And if so, can it be dealt with or do you need some sort of an exception to whatever the code prescribes? This prescription about what has to be planted in a parking lot, how many trees, um those kind of things. And again, we made some exceptions because of the nature of the site and the code probably needs some tweaking.

Yeah, they asked for six inch trees planted, right? Just that's the size of the trees to be planted. Try this size of trees to be planted would be I have to get into a lot of detail, but the size of the trees being planted were not realistic. It was just the code needs some adjustments. Yeah. So, we'll work with it once we get the information. All right. Anybody else? Okay. So, we're done with Spirit Circle. Stay in touch. We're going to take a minute break and then we're going into a client attorney meeting for the rest of the evening. Thought you have.

So, I'll entertain a motion to adjourn the running meeting. I'll make a motion. Second it. Uh never mind enough.