Remarks by James Hedrick
108 remarks on the record, newest first · Page 5 of 5
- Play at 6:45:38
“Oh, good Lord. Okay. So I was way off, but long. Um, yeah, it was just, sorry for the point of a transmittal letter. I think that there's a reasonable, we're a little boxed in with the existing policy, but I think it's worth pointing out possibly in a transmittal letter that Other similar parts of the counties have a policy in place on the master plan to allow for cases such as this. They would still have to require these, and if I remember correctly, pay per linear foot. Is that correct? There's a cost per linear foot to connect?”
Planning Board · Jun 25, 2026
- Play at 6:46:23
“OK. The point being, they would still have to invest money to connect to the sewer to pay for the cost of those extensions and connections?”
Planning Board · Jun 25, 2026
- Play at 6:46:35
“OK. Just to the point, Chair, I think it's worth putting in that there are other parts of the county which have a policy to address edge cases like this. Any extension would be covered by the cost of the applicant, and there's a reasonable proximity to both sewer and water connection, if I'm getting this correct. We are kind of boxed in with the thing, but I think it might be worth putting in the transmittal letter.”
Planning Board · Jun 25, 2026
- Play at 6:47:52
“Yeah, just an excellent point, I think, and also that, I mean, I think it'd just be worth giving the applicant an opportunity to make a case to who they need to make a case to for, you know, a practical application. I think that I would not want to see the septic system that would cover a 40-unit. I think that would be. Possibly also environmentally an issue and things like that. I think it's worth giving, I think, the applicant at least information and knowledge needed to make the case to where it needs to be made at that point. So just my point to the chair.”
Planning Board · Jun 25, 2026
- Play at 7:02:50
“Well, I mean, I'm honestly with you on that. That's the reason it zoned RE1 and RE2 is so that we don't do that. I mean, that's the reason that there's low density. I know. It's the reason low density zoning was chosen. If it were a reasonable zoning applied to it, we wouldn't be having these conversations. It wouldn't be .”
Planning Board · Jun 25, 2026
- Play at 7:06:56
“And given the current state of the property and the policies we have in place, the answer to that is no.”
Planning Board · Jun 25, 2026
- Play at 7:07:24
“I think, in general, we're making kind of a bit of a fine distinction here, but there's, I think, a difference between a proposal, a plan for a proposal of a use of a property that is private but but a reasonably decent community use and has plans run up as opposed to somebody who has two apartments that are not permitted through conditional use on their place and wants water and sewer. And I assumed from the thing, the apartments are small ADU units. I assume not. Maybe, maybe not. Doesn't matter. But, yeah, I mean, this is a case for an administrative subdivision reworking if they want…”
Planning Board · Jun 25, 2026
- Play at 7:09:03
“I really want to make a motion of transmitting all the things we just said. I don't know if that's the appropriate way to make that motion. Yeah, motion to transmit our comments and approvals to the county council on the four just discussed here based on the comments today.”
Planning Board · Jun 25, 2026