Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

call the meeting to order. And uh first item is the pledge of allegiance to the flag of the United States of America to the republic for it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all

section need to seat somebody for Todd correct uh Todd's Here we get to see someone here, Todd. Yep. We'll see.

All right. And the first item on the agenda is new business. The receiving the application for 130-1 will road flat rock hill subdivision. Good afternoon Jay representing uh the old line affordable housing commission and the town of the monuments. Um members of the commission are here tonight uh Sean Masrianiano Riffle and Fred Fenton. Um if I can't answer any questions I'll turn to them and let them answer. Um, I don't know if you're familiar with this. Um, I don't know, I think it's five or six years ago, the town took ownership of 80 plus acres off of it has frontage on Flipperville Road and Flat Rock Hill Road. Um, it was a a conveyance to the town from u the McCullik family. Um and in that it was the land was uh restricted conservation wise open space in essence with an exception that there be two affordable housing laws. There was an agreement um with the town that that's that's what would happen. Brown took ownership uh step ahead to today. The town is now acting on those two affordable housing lots. And in the conveyance, they um uh plan for the the in general, the area, the two two uh two house affordable housing lots is where you see it here. Um the town has a memor memorandum of understanding Habitat for Humanity to

follow through on building the affordable housing. This is a reubdivision because um it was cut off of other land of McCullik and about 30 years ago um Dave McCullik divided off two lots for affordable housing um that are right here. You can see it there's two our proposed two lots then there's two lots here. So on more than three lots, it's a resubdivision which will require public hearing. Um the overall layout is the the there's a right of way over town property to get access to this property. Um we uh got a a variance from the zoning board of appeals because these two lots do not have frontage on a row but uh the zoning board of appeals granted a variance for that. So we don't have the frontage but um through the variance they are viable zoning uh lots. Um, in the process, we've met with the fire department. Um, and there's a letter. Um, I have extra copies. I don't know if you see it. Uh, we've reviewed this with the fire department. Um, they in essence are satisfied with the access and we're turning over development. This is a a flow of the two lots and this strip goes down to Flat Rock Hill Road. So, there's an existing driveway from Flat Rock Hill Road that comes up. It it ends at this second lot. Um, and what we're going to be doing is improving uh building extending the

driveway up to the two lots. And we're going to be improving this driveway to a minimum of 15 ft. In talking with the fire department, they were uh uh agreeable since this driveway would only serve a maximum of four lots. Rest of the land can't be developed. We can't extend this. They're comfortable with the the the 15t driveway and they're not requiring any um type of water storage tank. Again, these are going to be uh the the the house sizes are limited to a maximum of 2,000 square feet uh which includes the garage. So, the fire department felt comfortable that no uh water would be required. There's a letter um uh in the application for that. So in keeping with that, we are asking for a waiver of the subdivision regulations which limits a shared driveway to three lots. So we now that sh the shared driveway will serve one, two, three, four. So we're u and in the application there's a waiver request um that we be allowed to have four lots off of it. And again, in keeping or knowing that the fire department for emergency purposes ex as uh they're okay with it, you know, we think it's a a good thing for you to do the rent out waiver. Um also, might as well these lots are served by um overhead utilities. There's a series of utility poles overhead which serve these two lots. We're requesting a waiver of the regulations that require that utilities be underground. This would be an extension. I don't know. We'll have to

deal with the utility companies as to uh couple polls to extend this. Um part of the criteria criteria for granting a a waiver is that um it's not affecting uh health and safety and it's not uh adversely affecting neighboring properties. I think a waiver request would be in keeping, you know, with it's just an extension. Um it wouldn't be adversely affecting neighboring properties and um considering these are affordable uh affordable housing lots, the the granting of a waiver would would help on the affordability of this. Um we've uh had soil testing on the property. Uh the the uh the plans have been submitted to uh Ledgeite Health District. I haven't heard back from them, but prior to the public hearing would have input. Um just today I received uh input from the assessor which through your regulations required that we get street number and tax maps assigned to this. And I just got that today. So, we will, you know, revise the plans to show I think this is 199 Flat Rock Hill Road and this is 19. Whatever.

We're complying with that.

Um um in talking with Eric, um question came up about to provide you folks with comfort on maintenance of this driveway. um in the in the u memoriam memorandum of understanding with habitat um there's language that I think it's just simply they would be responsible for the for the upkeep. Um Eric indicated that perhaps something you know a bit more uh to pin that down a little bit more um would be necessary. We're happy to do that um to to formalize that a little bit more if you folks, you know, deem it necessary. Again, we would have that for the public hearing um and get it to Eric ahead of time so can review it to make sure that you're comfortable with that. Um, so tonight, um, I I guess what we would respectfully ask of you folks is, um, that you would consider the waiver request because if you deny the waiver request, we'll back it up and go home. Um, and if you, um, if you act favorably on that, then we can proceed forward. Um, we do have a a little bit of a glitch. Although there's no wetlands on the property, there's uh adjacent wetlands. We have an upland review area. And even regardless of that, as required by the regulations, we have to submit your application to the wetlands commission for referral back to you that there's no um no activity or they don't have any objections to it. they don't meet in February, February. So, we're uh talking with Eric as to

whether we can um how we can proceed with that, but we would ask that if this goes forward that you do schedule a public hearing from March and if there is a glitch, then we would just extend it over to the April meeting, your April meeting. Um I think that's it. I don't know there any questions. Oh, just paper fees. Yeah, that was the other thing is um considering it's the town of old lime uh is the applicant uh and the owner uh request a waiver of um the application fee.

How would there be any more respect to the driveway? It's going to be 15. It would just, you know, we're requesting a waiver of the that that section of the the regulations. Did you say this was open space currently?

Yes. Um, yes. with the exception and I have a see um in order this is a reduced copy apologize. But when they when they acquired the property, this was all conservation restriction area, but they reserved residential area 3 acres plus or minus building envelope and reserve residential area 3 acres plus or n or minus building envelope. So in essence, these two areas are not currently restricted, but the the surrounding land is

lot is 2 acres. Is that what you said? Lot one is 3.28 acres and lot two is 3.0. Okay. And then clarification on maintenance of the driveway. Will it be paved? Is it going to be crushed? What

um be gravel driveway? It's an existing uh gravel driveway. When we went through the uh uh the division of these properties, um the driveway was 15 ft in width up to the first lot because two lots would be utilizing that driveway. From from the access to lot one up to the second one, it was reduced to 12 ft because it was only one lot serving it. Now what we would be doing is improving constructing this portion of driveway. a little over 200 f feet. Um, and then improving this 12 foot wide driveway to 15 foot width so that the whole driveway is 15 foot width. Additionally, as part of the fire um fire department review was they requested that we have a turnaround at the end. So there's um there's an easement. Uh this would enable this is size so an emergency be able to come in back around come down uh without you know having to cherry mander around. Uh I remember when we we got this land or however we got it. I forget what it was, but um there were two floating lots, you know, floating envelopes according to Amanda L. So why couldn't we put it on this side of the road getting closer? It, you know, and and I I was involved in that.

Yeah, I remember.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. It really wasn't floating because this I think I think initially there was discussion of that. That's how they would do it. But when the land was conveyed, the map pinned it down to those two locations. And just to take it further, there are Yeah. Well, you couldn't up here, but there is a a stream that comes across here and ventures up to to the wetlands on here. So, I mean that was

So, the topography is better up there. Yeah. And quite frankly, the topography up here is better. This this slopes has some slope to it. Okay. Long time waiting here. Yeah. I remember um with a man who going through that. Right. One more question. Is this cleared? Are these lots cleared already? No.

Right now there's um the open um guess the open space commission or committee. Um they have a series of trails for here that link up there. put the fabric come down to Whipplewell Road. We come up extend through here and and there there is one of the trails comes up and actually goes through this property now but I did go through it. They've reconfigured that so it goes around these this lot so we won't have you know people hiking through the middle of these two lots. So they'll be completely clear then. No no just just around the house. Okay. You know, I mean, it'll be a typical typical clearing.

Yeah. I have two questions. So, you you don't need to because I've walked the property. I used to be on the open space commission and was involved in the trail relocation. You're you're not going to be needing a wetland permit at the where you cross the brook at the Andry because you're not doing any work there. Right. Right. And um who owns the lots ultimately? I mean, does does the town retain ownership of the lots and Habitat for Humanity own the buildings? I'm just curious. I I don't know how that's the town currently owns the land. And are they going to be conveying bee to Habitat?

Yes. Okay. will be conveyed to so Habitat will own the lots and the house and so they'll sort of rent the houses or well they'll uh I think the way they like to do it is uh find appropriate owners, train them and then have them be the owners finance, you know, they handle all of that and there'll be appropriate restrictions on the property so it will remain orderable in perpetuity. So, so will it be a land lease or I'm sorry, will it be a land lease or it will be fee simple? No, my understanding at the end of the day is these two lots are going to be sold to owners who will own them and own the house on

and fe simple. See, all right, but but there'll be restrictions on it. Yeah. There for better or worse, this is not an 830g application. So, we don't I mean, the affordability piece is between you and the buyers. It doesn't affect the subdivision piece of what we're doing here tonight. As long as you meet the subdivision regulations, the affordability component is is sort of a separate separate piece of the puzzle. Well, I see it as related because if we're doing waiverss to allow affordability, then Well, but theoretically, you're not allowing waiverss for affordability. You're allowing waiverss because you're fighting. You don't want to increase the price of the activity.

So, it's affordability. Well, there is a um and there was a believe you have um January 9th, 2025, there was a memorandum of understanding between the town of Oline and Habitat for Humanity. And I don't know if I can pull it out here real quick, but this goes through um you know, responsibility of the town. They responsible getting subdivision. And I may be reading this out of context, but Habitat Humanity of Eastern Connecticut will and one of um included among the terms of sale and lease uh shared maintenance agreement among the property owners utilizing access. Okay. sell or lease the land and homes to qualified lowincome owners or tenants targeting 60% AMI levels up to 80% AMI. So, and this was signed by um first select women of the town and by uh Habitat for Humanity. I'm not a lawyer, but I'm sure that, you know, this is going to get carried forward in deeds. And I I'll speak you could in in your consideration of this, you could include in the approval that it shall meet the requirements of the memorandum of understanding that the lot shall be affordable housing. I I I think

does that make sense, Eric? It does, though. Again, I understand what you're saying, Michael, about the waiver issues there, and I bet they're asking for the polls because the cost factor involved. Um, I mean, ultimately though, your your waiver is set up so that it's really a public safety issue here. Um, but not for the electric. the well it was his testimony that even with the electric that because it didn't affect nearby lots and because this was a continuation but it was cheaper to do it by polls and rather than burying it in accordance with our regation. I will defer to your take on that. Nowadays, it's about the same. Who ensures

20 years from now that uh houses are still being sold affordably? It will still be in the deed, right? Is it there will be a deed? So, the housing folks would get involved. Yeah. Yeah, I mean theoretically if there was a breach of that deed then the town could step in and say that you know like any other affordable housing you could step in and say you're not meeting the requirements of the the deed restriction deed restrictions are are property rights and they're enforced by the by the owner who put them in on the property in this case the owner put them on the property is town of old line so the town would be obligated to step in and enforce if that were the case well usually in some towns with I'm talking about the 830g and the 60 and 80 80%

is there's a deed restriction and say in five years these people want to sell it, they can't sell it at market rate. I I understand but the point is that's what this is going to be right what what Chris what he's saying is if there's a if someone violates the terms of the agreement who enforces it if they try and sell it at market rate despite the agreement whose job is it to enforce in this particular case them right guess would be them count line

yeah there'll be restrictions so they can't sell it so it would be in the deed I think that answers your question what you're saying right yeah okay I it's just that point the two lots that are already there that's what they that's their situation that already must be are restricted in that way. Correct.

So my understanding is there's a slightly different arrangement there that because they're presently owned by a different entity though Habitat's going to acquire them that hope owns the land and rents out the houses there. Again, in this particular case, you know, for tonight, it's all going to be fee simple package. You're going to buy the the lot and a house with a restriction on it and and carry that forward. And again, a lot of this theoretically should be waiting for the public hearing. So, I'm lucky to get too far into the weeds here. Your again, as Tom indicated tonight, your question for for tonight are whether to grant the waiverss or not and then to set up a public hearing presumably for March 12th. Actually, that's I was going to ask. We can do the waiver requests tonight.

You can do the waiver requests tonight because you're not acting on the merits of the application. You're just acting on the waiver. I mean, you can wait on those, too. You don't have to, but if you want to act on them tonight, you can act on them tonight. I think we can. Um, everything. So, I would tend to be more comfortable doing it at the public hearing because what if we get public input at the public hearing that has concerns that we haven't thought of tonight. We're just doing the waiverss though. Yeah. Yeah. Well, that's what I'm saying. What if the fees? Well, of Well, not of the fees, but of the, you know,

if someone comes in and says four houses is too much. It's a it's a safety hazard. Don't do that. At the hearing, what do we do? Yeah, but we've been talking about this. You know, I was on the board of selectman then. That was the whole deal when we got this. We were doing two envelopes for affordable housing. That was the Yeah, I'm not saying we won't. It's been like six years in the works. I understand all of that. So, I don't think it Well, I hope nobody's going to oppose it, but yeah. Yeah. You never know. Yeah, they've had opportunity. The issues that we're trying to approve, right, is the driveway, driveway, utilities, utilities, and the cost, whether or not to have the application fee uh paid by the town.

Yeah. So, those three issues I cannot see having problems with the public hearing. I don't think they're big issues that neither do I think we could like to look forward Do we need to break them out individually or can we just do them all three waiverss as well? You can do them as a whole, but if anyone wants them to be done individually, I would sort of pull the commission to see what the what the preference is. Make a motion that we um vote on all three at once and just get them done. And we want to include the memorandum of understanding too, right?

Sure. Yeah. Right. Chris made a motion. We have a second. I'll second. All right. Okay. We can have some discussion. Anybody wants to? So, it's the three waivers al together. Any other concern or discussion beyond what we already had? All right. Then all those in favor? I. Any opposed? No. Okay.

Okay. So, the next thing we need to do is set the public hearing. And again, March 12th is your next meeting. Uh we're going to try and sort out the wetlands issues between now and then. And if we don't, we'll just have to kick it another month. But I would respectfully suggest that there request that you just set up for next month and I'll see what I can do on the wetland side. Okay. Motion. I move we schedule a public hearing for March 12th. Is it? Yes. It's literally 2000. It's February. The dates don't shift at all. Great. Seconded by Howard. Um in favor? I

post. All right. See you next month, I guess. Okay. Hopefully I'm If not, we'll just carry it over to Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Okay. Right. Second item on the agenda is just the plan of conservation and development. Not sure if there was anything more we needed to talk about this month. Conservation development. Did you say right? Oh,

I just I just wanted to, you know, given um from what I've heard from Rivercog, I think, you know, we will have to be and Eric, you can jump in here, too. I think we will have to be involved in some way with because the town has to do a housing plan and that has to I think according to Rivercog people are going to be looking at their POCDs to make sure that that plan there. So I don't know who's going to do the housing plan.

Well, I mean theoretically it's going to have to be this commission because you guys are the planners. Um and again, Riverco is sort of committed to working with towns on this issue. Um they've already sort of let us know that they're going to be providing assistance on putting together these housing plans. The housing plan is not due theoretically until July 1st, 2027. Yeah. So, we've got a little bit of time on it here, but we can start working on that going forward. I believe though the um zoning for housing and commercial areas that's due that that zoning changes, aren't they? Yes, those are due in June. This June

it is. And again, as part of the phase two that we're working on now, we're going to be incorporating that into that. and Francisco Gomes who's the a the person who's working with us from FHI was already aware that that needs to be updated and we will be proposing that as part of the phase 2 updates for the for the zoning regulations. Um so yes we we are we are aware that that is going to need to be done. So,

so that gives us a choice of either just taking a passive role and approving what zoning does or taking a role of well there's two pieces of again the the the statute requires that the two to nine units in the commercial zone be done. We have to do that planning. I mean, you can you're going to get it referred to you for determination of consistency with POCD, but it's a statutory requirement. We're going to have to do it no matter what you guys say. Right. On the housing plan,

we certainly can look at putting together some sort of subcommittee or something to to start working on a housing plan. And again, we have been told by Rivercog that they will be providing assistance on on the creation of this plan because obviously every town in the Rivercog area is going to be needing to do this. So, so we still have a a choice though of reacting to what zoning does or we could look also at the PLCD, right, to see if we want to make any changes before they decide that, right? Just the change for commercial areas. Yeah. I mean, you're going back to the same argument we've been having the last two months.

And I I think the commission's already sort of decided that they're not going to be wholesale reopening the POC. If there are particular sections of the POC that you would like to have revisited, by all means, bring them forth and we'll take a look at them. Well, that's kind of where I'm I'm just kind of trying to ask where, you know, do we want to do that? Do we think that we should review where that, you know, where that commercial uh where housing in the commercial area should be if it needs any changes to the PCD at all? I think the only change would be that we allow housing where there's commercial. I mean, whe whether you allow it or not, whether the PC changes or not,

you're going to do it, right? We're going to do it. I understand. Yeah. And we can do it. We could probably do it when we comment on the zoning change. Yeah. And again, if you want to update the PCD, terrific. I'm I'm happy to work with you on doing that. I'll look through there and I'll come back next month with where in the PCD you might want to consider making that making that change. So, I'll make a note now to come back with that with that section here. Okay. I think we should at least go through that kind of process. That makes sense to and then we got a better idea if we need to change something or not. Okay. I'll do that. Answer it.

There was an earlier discussion of us meeting with the zoning people like maybe two people from from our organization, two people from zoning to try to come together. Where did that discussion go? Um my understanding and again it was sort of first select woman is going to be a member of this commission or committee or sub subcommittee. Um you were looking for volunteers I think Harold Harold volunteered he said and Howard volunteered to be the two people from this body that would be doing that. So I have two members from this commission. I believe I have two members from my zoning commission and this the first select woman's going to set up a meeting on this. She's going to be the person setting up the meeting on this. Okay. I had volunteered at all.

Oh, well, let me I will figure out okay how to do this year. But again, the first select woman said she's going to be setting up the meeting on is going to come out of her office there. Okay, good. Yeah. All right. Um, our third item is a referral petition to amend the zoning regulations.

Okay. Um in the zoning regulations right now uh you are prohibited from having forprofit schools. Um this was largely done because 20 or so years ago there was proliferation of ITT and other sort of trade schools that were doing all these advertisements on the TV and basically turned out to be mostly scams where people were paying but not getting anything of value. So the the zoning regulations at that time were blanket prohibited for any for-profit schools. Um more recently there are agencies that are sort of doing work with autistic or other younger children that are for profit. They're not nonprofits in the usual way that previous ones had been. Um so we have someone who wants to move into 230 Shore Road. Um, we told her because she was for profofit she was ineligible to move there. She is coming forward with a change to the zoning regulations to allow her to perform that kind of service at that location. It would obviously be for all of the C30 zone. Um, but to do that we need to again make an amendment to the regulations to make that possible. Um, and that's why it's being referred to you folks to see whether that would be consistent with your understanding of the PC. Can't see why it wouldn't be consistent with the

That's fine. But anybody else have a input on that thoughts on it in either way? I'm okay with it. I don't I don't see where it's against the POC. You know, I don't think there's anything in the PC that that makes that undesired. And are you familiar with this property? this particular property. Oh yeah, it's uh present space here. It's the old Simpson Health Care onshore road. Yeah. One big large building there like mostly healthcare or whatever.

That was years ago. Years years ago. But in fact, this use would only be taking up a portion of the second floor. There's two cosmetologists who want to go on the first floor. They're reserving space for a sandwich shop or some other food service on the first floor. This would be just taking out space on the second floor. So, this wouldn't even be the entire building. Um, but again, they were working with Ledge Light on the septic issues. Um, again, they came to zoning to talk about the zoning issues. They're trying to get this done relatively quickly because they need to essentially start making reservations now so that kids can start coming in over the summer. So, Eric, will school buses be going there this? No, this is entirely private private transportation.

People bringing their kids there themselves. The only thing is we're approving this for all of C30. Well, not just That's true. But again, this would be a special It's all of

this is all all you're doing is making it possible as a special permit use in that zone. So you're not even you're not even approving it for this location. All you're doing is changing the regulations to say where previously you couldn't even apply for-profit schools in this narrow subcategory, you're now able to make that application. So you're not saying that you want her to go to this location. All you're doing is saying as a matter of the POC allowing this kind of for-profit school is not adverse to the POC. Okay. That that's really all you're doing tonight. But are we saying that this type of use is permitted in all of C30, but this is part of Cy 30ed by

special for anybody to do it somewhere else. They're still going to have to go to an application for zoning, get an approval from zoning. And so, you know, yeah, I think this will be a benefit to the area. Yeah, I don't see a problem with that. Okay. So, again, this isn't an up or down on the application. All you're doing is telling zoning that you believe this is consistent or at least not inconsistent with the POC. So, that's the kind of motion I'm looking for. All right. Someone like to make a motion. I'll make a motion. Find it consistent with the PCD. That's your motion. Second motion seconded. All those in favor?

I I no post. All right. Taking the giant leap for mankind. Yeah. Um All right. On to uh CEO updates.

Okay. Um Sharon Drive or 16 Neck Road as it was before you guys read the subdivision. Um they have come across an interesting not interesting sort of distressing problem here. Um when they came to you for the original subdivision, they indicated and you didn't impose this. This was their application that they would be sprinklering each house individually. And they did this so they wouldn't have to put a fire tank in. And they did this so they wouldn't have to make any area for the fire truck to turn around. Um it was a condition that because Tom Tom Medaf in reviewing the subdivision said, "Do you have adequate fire protection?" And their their engineers specifically said, "Don't worry, we have adequate fire protection because we're sprinkling each of the houses." Um about a year and a half ago, and sufficiently long, that was before uh the last two people who were sitting in that chair was Kim who who flagged it. um when they first started straining out the houses um she reminded the building official make sure that they're leaving room to put the sprinklers in um and he went through and not said I don't see the area for the sprinklers to go in and they said what sprinklers

um so far for the course

we showed them their own plans and they said oh those sprinklers um okay So, fast forward a year and a half or so. Um, they were originally supposed to come to you this month and ask for permission not to put the sprinklers in. Um, I passed back to them that if they were going to do that, they needed some alternative plan for fire protection. Um, a fire tank and changing the road or whatever it was going to be to provide adequate fire protection. Um, and they then said, "Oh, never mind. We'll figure something else out. Um, so they're now sort of caught in this bind that they probably don't have the money to put the sprinklers in and they don't have the money to come back and amend their application. Um, so I'm not sure where this is going to end up, but they still have the wetlands e assist in place as well. So again, we are working with at Cassella to draft an enforcement complaint about this. Um, but I just wanted to make you guys aware that they're having trouble on the subdivision side as well as trouble on the wetland side.

So, I'm sure more to come on on this. So, um, it is no update to the wetlands side yet, right? Well, they came in to ask the cease and assist order be lifted. Um, the wetlands commission, as Michael can tell, you had a whole bunch of questions about Were you there that that Okay. Okay. Um, including the fact that they owed a um they owed a bomb. They owed a erosion control bond to ensure that if there were further damage to the wetlands that there was a bond in place and they said we don't have the money for a bond. So um

our problem there we go. Um so the wetlands commission said well I guess we're not lifting the order then. Um which honestly I have to say the notes were totally shocked that they wouldn't get the order lifted. Um but so in any event, the wetlands season system is still in place. You still have the original approval to put sprinklers in. The subdivision, in case you've gone by recently, has no activity. I'm not sure. You know, I suspect at some point the bank is just going to take it over. I don't know when that's going to take place, but it's dirt cheap and some go buy it and finish it off and make it nice.

That would be lovely. And the faster we can get them out of there, the better. But I I unfortunately I have limited control over that piece of the puzzle. Um but again, I wanted to give you the update on the fact that they were going to come in and ask for no sprinklers. Um they pulled that request um after I asked them for what they were doing instead. Um and and here we are. Um any questions on that one before we go to the next one here? Next one. A side question about that one because that developer owns upper end of Lord's Meadow, don't they? Yes. Bless you. Well, honestly, that there's a problem with that. Yes. Okay. I was wondering how that doing because road not done there. The road there is not a town road.

They have now sold off more or less all of the lots. We are holding a bond for about $100,000 Dr. Dr. Aba gave us. The problem is that the road improvements are 500,000 at this point in time because the 20 years have gone by. Um, in talking with our town attorney, they insist town is not obligated to kick in the difference. um town has $100,000. Town can pull the bond, do $100,000 worth of work. After that, it's going to fall on the lot owners to to do the work themselves and presumably turn around and sue the notos for that. But that's not the town's obligation to step in there. At this point, um the town has a bond. The town can do whatever the bond has for value. After that, again, it is not a town road and will not be accepted as a town road until it's brought up to town road standards. So yes, Harold,

if I may speak, um we've had historically we've had Tom Metcap out there several times to identify all the deficiencies in the road. Yeah. And they have been instructed numerous times on what needed to be done and how it should be done and when it should be done. And obviously it hasn't.

So we have repeated memos in the file going back 20 years now um of what needed to be done. And I talked to Tom about it a few days ago and Tom was like, I would just update the memo every time. Um the problem is that over time obviously the work they did originally has been deteriorating. Um so you know again you know they're sort of worse off than they started because now they have to go and and sort of bring it up to current standards you know by going back and doing the repairs. Additionally, um the fire tank they put in is supposed to be maintained every 5 years with a fire marshal. Um they were supposed to set up an association to do that and have not collected any money to do that either. So they're about $400,000 in the hole on that one.

Where does it stand? You said last time you were sending them the homeowners a letter. Um, where that stands is I have been waiting for the town attorney to give me appropriate language and the town attorney has not come back to me with the language I want to put in that letter and I'm not going forward without the town attorney's blessing on that. Okay.

So, it's not on the agenda, but now you're up to on that one as well. Um, 11 button ball. Fortunately, sort of a better story. Um, in the last week or so, um, Ed Cassella has been working with Bob Don, um, and their attorney on the other side on completing the legal documents that need to be recorded with that. The myar has now been signed on that. So, we should be seeing lots ready to sell on that within a week or so. Um, the road is going in. We have a $700,000 bond on that road. Um, I don't know if you guys have been by, but they have been blasting like crazy to get that road in. Um, the one thing that I need to sort of follow up on is it looks like they are tying into the town's drainage in the street there. Um, which requires DOT signoff because that drainage goes into Shore Road. We just need to make sure that, you know, the appropriate approvals have been obtained from DOT. Um, because I don't want to be tying into DOT system without DOT's okay on that. So, I I I will be following up on that piece of the puzzle there. But, um, again, that that has been a much more successful subdivision than than the one that the noto has been working on.

Eric, how many houses are in that one? 11, I think. 11, I think. Yeah. Okay. 11 new ones plus the original one that was there. Okay. Okay. Go with Julie on this one. Again, 11 new houses. the the problem with the old house that they had to take down was um the septic system was literally in the road. Um and so they asked the town to give them an easement to have the septic system still be in the road and the town didn't want to grant that ement there for us.

So anyway, they they had to create a new septic system and as long as they were going to go through the trouble of creating a new septic system, they were going to create a new house to go with the new septic system. So, okay, that's where we were with that. Um, so yeah, that yeah, if you drive by the detention pond, they've been putting that in. Um, they've been doing a lot of work out there at this point in time. And obviously, they're very anxious to start selling houses there because they need money coming in to cover all the money going out. Who's the builder? Um, it's NA is K and I'm sorry. I don't know.

Okay. Um, KPW Development. Well, again, these are new new guys who are young builders and they've been again doing pretty well out there so far, as far as I've been able to see. And I did go out there with Jacobson's office to sort of inspect the work. Um, the one thing that was happening while I was there the last time was that they were tracking onto the road and that actually DOT came by and said, "You've got mud on our road." Um, so we told them you got to get a tracking pad in place and they had it in place within six hours. So they they've been very responsive to any issues that we've raised with them so far. So I I'm much more optimistic with that one than I am that

they didn't know that they had to do a tracking pad. Are they new? Well, new new young guys that potentially

I'm guessing what happened was the actual people who were going in there and doing the work were not aware they needed a track and pad, but once we told the actual just, you know, site supervisor, look, you got to make this happen, he got on, you know, he he called in the people he needed to call in and and they made it happen. But there was a a period there where again DOT called us and said, "What's going on? Make it happen." We went on site that day. We told them it needed to happen and it it did happen that day. So, you know, there there are going to be glitches in any construction buildout. The the question from my standpoint is when you raise an issue, does it get resolved successfully? So, in this case, we raised the issue, it got resolved, and we're moving forward. So, that's to me the sort of the encouraging piece of the puzzle. I can't promise you that it's going to be perfect going forward, but it looks again if there are issues that we can get them resolved quickly and successfully, and that's really what we're looking for. Okay, so that's all I have to say on on those two matters.

Great. No other questions? Move on to reading approval of minutes, but I don't have Todd here to do his uh Todd, but we need him, right? Uh let's see. I make a motion we uh uh approve the minutes as posted. Yes, that's what he says. Okay. For both dates. Both dates. Yes. I mean it's plural. Both sets. Motion second. Second. All those in favor? I. Any opposed? Okay. All right. Motion to adjurnn.