Planning Board - Regular Meeting

You hear me all right?

Thank you.

All right, call to order.

6 p.m., Planning Board Workshop, Tuesday, August 18th, 2026, 6 p.m. We're in the Great Hall at Wolfboro Town Hall, 84 South Main Street in Wolfboro, New Hampshire. This evening we have board members, Doug Breskin, Rhonda Martin, Roger Murray, my name's Steve Webster, I'm chair. Nancy Wiley, Julie Jacobs, and the most famous, upstanding gentleman, Paul O'Brien, representative of the Select Board. And of course, Suzanne Verdot is the Recording Secretary. Julie, will you sit tonight?

Yes, I will. Thank you.

I don't see any general public here, so I don't believe there's any general public comment. Pre-consultation, item one, subdivision, create a three-lot residential subdivision, case number 2026-SUB-004, Middleton Road, map lot Map 274, lot 19, zone is residential. The applicant is Middleton Road Subdivision, LLC. Tonight's action is to provide comments and recommendations.

Lead us forward.

Is there anyone here to speak to the Middleton Road Subdivision?

Timing is everything.

Look at that.

Bada bing, bada boom.

Good crowd, good crowd.

If you could make sure to turn on the mic and get it close to you. There, it's on.

How's that?

Good, thank you.

Oh, that's good, thank you.

Sorry to run in here last minute. I'm Jim Fralick. I'm here from Middleton Road Subdivision, or what we're now calling Whispering Pines Way Subdivision. And I was at the June 23rd planning board working session with you all. And I've been at two TRCs. And you see my engineers aren't with me here. They're planning on being at the September 1st planning board meeting. So I don't have everything on an easel to talk through stuff. But I can answer any questions and go through whatever you need me to do to whatever level I can.

Did you get a variance last night?

I did, sir. Thank you. They held on. It was a long one after making it through that first item. But they were gracious enough to stay for a few extra minutes, and it passed 5-0. So we're using private wells since there is no public water available at that location.

So I have what I expect will be a very minor comment. In the document that is the Declaration of Shared Access and Drainage Easements, in the first paragraph, it says in the last sentence, located of Middletown Road. I assume it should be Middleton Road, not town.

Yes, sir. Definitely noted.

Good for you.

Good catch.

Was the variance the only thing we were waiting for?

from when we saw him last?

That we had questions on? I mean, I could go over the items that I remember were discussed, if that's helpful.

I did have one question on the form factor. I looked at it. Yes. Is it in, it's on there somewhere?

It is in, yeah, we calculated it, and it's in here, and everything's way within it.

Where is the form factor? I couldn't find it. It would be...

I have a tiny version of this. Let me find it for you real quick. Your excuse, sir. That's okay.

It would be good to have that on the plan. I think it is. See, it is being a problem, but it means we touched on it.

Yes, form factor is on sheet 3 of 11, note 10. Okay.

There you go.

Okay. It just doesn't say form factor on it. Yes, it does.

Column 4 says form factor. This is 3 of 11. Sheet 3 of 11, note 10, column 4 says form factor. Yep.

Okay. Yep.

And while I'm on a roll, I got one more for you. On the Stormwater Management System Inspection and Maintenance Manual, page two, the paragraph titled Stormwater Management Facilities, in the middle of the paragraph it reads, it does not include Middleton Road nor the associated drainage ditches along Middle Road, which I assume should be Middleton Road, not Middle Road.

Correct. Page 205?

Page 205, correct. The first paragraph, the sixth line down.

Noted for sure. Good catch. Eagle eye. I like that. Sorry about missing that.

Has the fire chief signed off on the turnaround?

The fire, the assistant fire chief looked at, well, I guess the fire chief and assistant fire chief looked at it and said that there was plenty of room. That's the feedback we've been given. He wasn't at the last TRC meeting, but at the first one we showed the conceptual, which had the same parameters, and they said that was plenty of room for them to do what they had to do. I think, Mr. Murray, last time you would ask about the declaration, so we made sure we had the declarations ready.

I was pleased to see that.

That was one of the items. And then, I mean, having the stormwater management plan itself. You know, when I talked to DPW, they said it's good to have it. They have trouble, I guess, keeping up with actually coming back. So we're just baking it all in so that whoever owns the property, you know, as we sell homes off, they know exactly what the responsibilities are.

In that, you mentioned giving information to the planning board. I think we can check with our planner, but I think that probably should go to the planning department, not the planning board.

Okay. Yeah, the ordinance says, I mean, it says give it to the planning board every once in a while, right? Like periodically, but we could change it. I didn't hear the comment.

I'm sorry. It talks about giving the maintenance records and so forth. to the planning board, and that really should go to the planning department, not the planning board. Once we sign off, once we presumably approve this, our job is done. That makes sense.

I thought it was a little unusual that we were bringing it to you. Any other question? Oh, the other thing that you had asked about, and I think you might have it in your packet. Jeffrey, I know we maybe didn't have it in the first packet, but I forwarded it later, was the electric plan. So I went out there with the electric department. And even though it's early, they gave me the conceptual of where it would be. They gave me a letter. Barry, I mean, Barry, Jeremy. Jeremy Mitchell gave me this letter of, like, here's your approximate cost, and here's how we see us doing this.

And so there's a plan that sort of, like, has red dots showing where the poles would be.

I don't know if you guys have a copy of that. So we've kind of covered with them how it would be serviced.

Not in this suit? No, you'll get that copy. Oh, you'll get it at the actual planning board? With a formal submission?

Yeah. I mean, if it's out. Oh, we trust you. It'll come later.

Any other specific questions?

Are we going to have a third-party review of the stormwater?

It's pretty complicated.

So I take it that would be a yes?

Is that Is that up to your discretion? Just because, I mean, these, you know, our engineers were thinking with only three lots and this extensive plan that we weren't anticipating a third-party review, but it's at your discretion either way, I guess.

What are your thoughts on that, Jeffrey? Third-party review on the stormwater?

We I grilled him a bit at the TRC meeting about the storm water, both Lenore, the conservation commission chair and I. And we wanted to get a solid understanding of the topography if the applicant's engineer took into consideration. All the impervious surface if they had planned building envelopes to ensure that the drainage calculations considered those areas. I felt very comfortable with the stormwater as long as there was a maintenance agreement and that was done yearly where we got updates to ensure that it was being properly maintained. as long as the easements were in place to ensure that there was a mechanism to maintain it and not one at least as far as as much as the planning board could control what happens with owners and if they get into disputes that's one thing but i thought uh jim and his engineer uh did a a good job with the storm water but i say that as not i'm not an engineer based on my review and having reviewed stormwater plans before, I felt very comfortable with this. In fact, I was pleasantly surprised at the amount of detail that was provided considering that it was a very minor development compared to what stormwater I've reviewed in the past for much larger developments with much more impervious surface and much more challenging soils, topography, and natural resources close by too.

Thank you.

The one thing that I always recommend is whenever you have a pond, I don't know what the New Hampshire regulations are for it, but if there's standing water, it's important to remember it's not like a pond, you know, that there's some sort of protection around it so people aren't swimming.

Exactly.

Paul, do you have a comment? This is, we're talking about the stormwater management plan and whether we should have a third party. Give it a once over.

So the only thing I, just for clarification with Jeffrey, is you made, you know, I've looked at the I don't know if that's during construction, after construction, but reference there should be some type of an annual report, commentary. It'd be more helpful for me, maybe for you folks, if I understood what would be contained in that before I'd weigh in and say you needed to have a third party review.

Is that part of the narrative of the stormwater management plan?

Yes, yes. We say in the narrative what report we have to give, and then there's also a checklist inside of here in this nine-page plan. That, like I said, I think, I mean, we can add whatever because it's, I mean, I guess if I can before the first, but we, I mean, I thought it was extensive. I didn't know. I mean, I pushed back on it a little bit, but the Wolfboro, you guys have a strong, even for minor subdivision, stormwater management plan because I did a 10 lot subdivision in Guilford, way more complicated. And I said, well, Jeffrey, why is there so much detail? What are we doing here? And he said, this is what Wolfboro regs say. And I said, okay, well do whatever, you know, go over the top if that's what it takes. But if you see something missing that you want, Or if you want me to talk through it, I can as well.

At least for me, maybe talk through it a little bit.

Talk through it? Yeah. Okay.

Is that a problem for anybody?

Again, and I'll be reading because, again, I'm not a civil engineer. My engineer's not here. I'm an engineer but not a civil engineer. So, I mean, I would say the – let me go to that section here.

Excuse me. I have a quick question on that annual reporting. It keeps referring to operator. Operator. The operator will contract with a qualified engineer. The operator will submit the annual. Who is the operator?

Maybe it should say homeowners.

No, the operator is the owner of the lots.

Yeah. Right now, it's Jim. He transfers it out over to the owners of the lots.

She'll act as the operator, yeah. So they use the same language, so I'll address that first. Right, so on page 105. They're owner-operator. It says, individual lot owners shall act as the operator of the private stormwater management system for this development and shall be responsible for long-term operation and maintenance of the stormwater management facilities. And at the time, that's me. That's the owner-developer at the time. of all individual lots, so initially I'll be acting as the initial operator. As they are sold off, the current owner will relinquish responsibilities to subsequent lot owners, and the individual lot owners have joint and several liability for inspection, maintenance, repair, record keeping, and reporting responsibilities. And so then in turn, the declarations have that written in so that each deed carries that with it. So every person has that responsibility with them. And then it goes on to say the operator should be legally responsible for long-term ops and maintenance. Then down below it says, when ownership of the stormwater management system changes, succeeding owners will be presented with this manual and the supporting attachment before conveyance of ownership. And then they will establish an annual INM budget inspection maintenance between the three lot owners for maintaining that, as they will with snow plowing as well, since there's a portion that's a shared driveway. So in terms of what's in that report, So I'll go to page 205. So at the bottom, it talks about it a little bit. To your point, Mr. O'Brien. So first, it has the compliance statement. Here are the standards of which to do it by. It will be inspected immediately after construction by a professional engineer. They'll do a compliance statement prepared and certified by an inspection party that will talk about, is it stabilized from erosion? It hasn't been constructed, designed, and approved appropriately. And then they will reconfirm that the INA manual has to be followed by all responsible parties in the future for the legal obligation. And then I'll circle this part that Mr. Murray pointed out, that should not be submitted to the Town of Woodborough Planning Board, but to the planning office or the planning director. And then it goes into the maintenance contractor. The owner operator will contract with a third party or other qualified professional with knowledge of both erosion and stormwater management control. The owner operator will be responsible for inspection and removal of all accumulated sediments, oils, debris from the entire stormwater management system as outlined later in this manual. A maintenance log will be kept summarizing inspections, maintenance, and any corrective actions taken. The logs will include the date on which each inspection or maintenance task was performed, a brief description, of the findings and maintenance completed and the name of who inspected it and the personnel performing the task. Copies of those completed inspection checklists will be attached to the maintenance log as well. This will be included as part of the manual and that will be made accessible at any time to the town of Wolfboro and a copy provided upon request. And then it goes into the frequency and corrective measures next. The following facilities and measures will be inspected and identified, and deficiencies will be corrected. Clean-out must include the removal and legal disposal of any accumulated sediments and debris. An inspection checklist is included as part of the blow. And then it goes into the areas, starting with ditches and culverts first. that they have to do this in spring and fall, preferably, twice annually. Make sure that the culverts are, all obstructions are removed from flow. Accumulated sediments and debris at the inlet, the outlet, and within the conduit, the sediments are removed. Repair any erosion damage at the culverts, inlet, and outlet. Periodic mowing of ditches. Removal of any woody vegetation from embankments. Then it goes into the stormwater management of the basin itself. Inspect all the basin components twice annually and following any heavy rainfalls over 2.5 inches in a 24-hour period with immediate maintenance and rehabilitation conducted if warranted by inspection. Inspection of the outlet structure, removal of accumulated debris, sediment, repair of any appurtenances as necessary, then inspection of the embankments for settlement slope erosion and repairing that as necessary, then inspection of the outlet pipes for erosion or debris or vegetation, repairing that as necessary, periodic mowing, of the embankments and the bottom of the basin, removal of woody vegetation from embankments and basin body. Next, it goes over impervious surfaces to make sure they clear accumulation of sand from the winter and remove that by air vacuum sweeping. Then it talks about invasive species. These will be checked periodically. We don't have invasive species known in this actual lot, but if any are identified, they have to be contacted in HDES. There were no wetlands found on this, surprisingly, because to the left by Friar Tuck, there's a stream, and on Dr. Lewis's property to the backside, there's a bunch of wetlands behind it, but in this tire, almost 15-acre piece, no wetlands, which was good. So then down below, it talks about the annual reporting to the planning board, which is going to be changed. I'm giving you a copy of that. But according to your regulations, operators show contract with a qualified engineer. You're looking more for just what's in the plan. So I'm going to the municipal inspections part. That's not part of the plan. But we do talk about it in here that if somebody from the town takes the time and wants to come to the private property and inspect it, that's the right. And they'll be getting the reports. And then you go basically to the management inspection checklist, which is the bulk of, if you're doing it twice annually, that's the majority of your report where you're checking off all these items, which I can read each item or I'll pause there and see if you guys have other questions. About it.

It's up to you. I'm good? Good. The essence of my question was, what could we reasonably expect to see in the report? You've just answered the question. Thank you. I appreciate it.

Roger? We will want financial security for the road and for the stormwater system.

Financial security? It was a shared driveway. For a shared driveway?

Yep. And a stormwater management system.

Okay. I'm not familiar with that. I'm not sure what that means.

Do you usually do that on a road? We have, where you have access to a road, is this a situation where they would only...

I mean, it's all private.

Yeah, but that That's what got everybody back in trouble in the 70s with private roads. Is this one of the situations where the state won't give you

three driveway permits or did you just decide to go no we just decided that it was the most um logical approach there's a cut in right there each of those lots has 150 where we could go but in terms of site distance they don't think it makes sense to have three separate driveways because it had a natural way to go so i was like well let's just make one shared driveway It'll be easier. I mean, a lot of people don't like shared driveways, but I figured had had the part at the beginning, you know, and then they can have other driveways off there for the houses. But that shared portion seemed to make the most sense from an engineering perspective and single road cut with the land.

What's that sort of a single road cut?

It's a single road cut. Yeah, it was already an old logging road in that spot.

So it's and there's also there's already an existing opening in the stone wall And it's my understanding that if you wanted to create additional openings in the wall, you'd have to get permission from the state because it's a protected wall. I see.

And I didn't even know that, but that's good to know, too. I mean, I just looked at the, you know, me and my son went and looked and was like, okay, we don't want to tear down this wall. Like, there's already a hole here, so it seems to make sense for us.

There's probably, you know, I don't know this, but I recall from my little slice of my development that there's also a requirement to keep separate cuts in the road. In other words, you can't have one, two, three right next to each other. There has to be some separation. New Hampshire DOT requires some separation for sight line purposes. Roger, I apologize. I'm not sure I understood your question about financial.

I thought we had required financial security in other instances to ensure the construction of the road that was going to serve the lots.

Kind of like a bond of some sort.

You're calling it a road. He's calling it a driveway. Yeah, it's a shared driveway.

It's the access road. And it's providing access to three lots. And in order for them to get to their properties, they're going to have to have the road built.

Is there going to be a name on this?

Well, we were going to give it a name because the gentleman suggested trying to think of his name then.

Like, can you? Because it's driveways.

Yeah, he said you guys would prefer... That's why we came up with Whispering Pines Way. Sorry, so it's one road... It's a shared driveway because that's three lots off a shared driveway. So in my mind, when I read all your ordinances, this is not a situation like a bond, like Winnipesaukee Drive. Well, I rebuilt Winnipesaukee Drive, but that was later. But originally, when something like that's built, we expect that there would be a bond or some financial assurance. With a shared driveway, I've never heard of anything like that. So that would be new to me.

So it's going to have a name on it. Whether you call it a driveway or a road, it's going to be in the 911 database. So it's a road. Roger's question is, do we need to ask for some financial security that the road actually gets constructed? And that's the essence of the conversation.

Yeah, and the stormwater system. I think we, didn't we require that on 109?

Where?

It was a three-lot subdivision. Where?

You're watching thinking going on here.

I can tell you it's out by Sally Hunter's house, but that's not helpful.

um so i have a sort of maybe it's a related question do you know what the street addresses of these three lots will be so right now and i can't think of the gentleman's name somebody told me he's the guy for road names and i sent steve randall not steve randall but it's a different guy in the department he's not the fire department i thought they were in charge at dbw chief yeah That was the first. He's a DPW guy, but. Petchy? Petchy, yes. That's it. So he said, for now, to make it what we have in here, which I think is from left to right, two, I want to say two, three, and four. two, three, and four Whispering Pines Way. So I gave a set of names. I gave three names that we thought fit. We settled on. Jeffrey, you said Whispering Pines Way was the best one that would work in terms of 911 and not conflicting with anything that sounds similar. So I like three timbers better. So here on the plan, we have the numbers as we were told to go ahead and tentatively put them. And that is... yeah two so from left to right you got two three and four whispering pines away i'm sorry where is that shown two three and four whispering where is it shown on the plan oh oh i'm sorry i'm on page it's there sheet three of eleven is the one i'm looking at and i'm just looking closely at them yeah i see it now so i i guess to the discussion that was made earlier if

there is going to be street addresses of 234 Whispering Pines Way as opposed to having a number on Middleton Road, then it lends more to the idea that it's a road rather than a driveway because it's named separately. It's a road. It's a way.

Well, I could, if you guys were okay with it, I could just have them be Middleton Road address. I mean, that's what I anticipated to begin with, that they were Middleton Road addresses. I was told for convenience, you know what I mean? I don't want the naming of the road to now turn this from a shared driveway situation into a road, which implies a whole bunch of other stuff, right? That's why you do a three lot subdivision instead of a four, five, six, seven, because it's a shared driveway. So that's why I put that in there, just...

But it's the road.

Well, that's why I wanted to write a private road, but I don't know.

Well, it would be a private road, right? But that's irrelevant. You're subdividing the property, and the access is a road that needs to be built to provide access to the lots is what it comes down to.

Well, not only built... Financially, but maintained financially.

I mean, it's a private driveway, is what I'm calling it. Just to be very clear, legally, construction-wise, this is a private driveway. We're going to give three lots access.

It's a private driveway, a private road, where the fact that it's public or private makes no difference. I mean, when you do a development, it's a private road when you put the road in there.

I don't know. If it was a single house, would you have a financial assurance? If it was a single house with a single driveway?

No. Assuming it had frontage somewhere.

That's what I'm saying. These all have frontage.

If it had a driveway going from Middleton Road to a house lot, that would not be an issue. In this case, you've got the 30-foot easement that gets you from Whispering Pines to lot 19-2 and that's that's his that lot owner's problem as far as i'm concerned but to get in there and get to these lights you need to have the access road i don't know what's the ordinance i mean you guys are the board but i'm just reading

what I've read and what the engineering stuff says and what, you know, is this the standard to use for all shared driveways?

Julie?

I'm a little concerned that Whispering Pines Way is written on the plan for you. I think you should remove it.

Okay. Well, we were advised to include it, so I will take it off.

I know, but you do that and now it becomes a road. Because it's published. It's a road. If you take that off, you still have

You can take it off, but it's still a road. It doesn't go away.

Yes, but it's not a named road.

It doesn't matter whether it's a named road. The town is going to make you name the road.

It's not a road. It's three driveways.

They're going to make you name it. I mean, the one out on 109, they had to produce a name just because it's a more recent one. That one did. And you're going to make them do it right here.

And they had four.

You're going to need a name for this. They're going to want to put a sign up, and it's going to have a name on it.

That's what they recommended.

Yeah, I live on Turtle Island Road, and it says below it, Private Road.

And you've spoken about your situation on Turtle Island Road, haven't you?

Oh, well, we did just get it.

Recently, yeah.

So what are the, I guess we could talk through what the implications are with that, because in my mind, again, I've been doing, this is a secondary career for like eight years, so I'm not a long-term veteran in it, but But when I'm going in and making the decision to subdivide that three lots versus many is a big deal to me because of what it implies in terms of a road that the town is going to inspect, that's going to potentially be handed over to the town at some point. Like and I'll use as an example, like when I drive that I rebuilt, like that's a different standard of how you can do it versus a regular driveway. So what's the implication, I guess, with what you're saying?

That's a fair question.

It's it's you're not building. We're not suggesting you build the road to town standards. Because it's three lots, it can be a driveway, but it has to be built in order for the lot owners to get to the car.

I mean, we're going to build it. That's our plan. I want the approval. We're going to be building it right away. So I just don't know what, like the financial assurance part, I don't know if they're looking for me to go get a bond or letter of credit. I wasn't expecting that in this situation at all because it's private. The town's not going to maintain it. The town's not going to have anything to do with it. You know what I mean? So I didn't know.

It's my understanding that the financial surety to ensure that the driveway or road or whatever you want to call it is built is in order to protect the lot owners to ensure that ultimately there is access.

That's always true in a subdivision, I agree. But again, with a three lot minor subdivision, I don't know what the regs say. I don't know, Jeffrey, what do you, this is news to me.

If I may, so a construction guarantee is required for certain types of infrastructure and site construction. One, as Roger said, for roads, it doesn't matter if it's named or not, and it doesn't matter if it's public or private. It's still required. Also, as Roger said, a construction guarantee for drainage is required. But I think the applicant makes a good point. And it's something that the planning board should consider. Is this a driveway or is it a road? There is nothing that I'm aware of in our subdivision ordinance for the construction guarantee section that requires a bond or whatever it might be for a driveway. if you look under our subdivision regulations there's a road access section and the road access section allows for the construction of a driveway but it cannot access more than three lots it's capped at three lots so i think if the applicant has designed this and the proposal meets the road access requirements of the subdivision ordinance, then it could be considered a driveway. But maybe what we could do, what the planning board could do is the applicant, your engineer, whoever you feel comfortable with, consider the comments that the board has about road versus driveway. And when you when we see you again on September 1st, I think this September 1st is what our application is in for approval or disapproval.

So I'm trying to.

Yeah, I think you could you could bring that's the time to make your argument that it's a driveway. And if you make that argument that it's a driveway, you want to make sure that you can point to an ordinance section that clearly establishes that it is a driveway. I think there's, in my opinion, I think there's some support that you might be able to find in here, but you'll just want to pull that support out and show that it's a driveway.

If Jeff Lewis was here, my engineer, he wasn't expecting another working session, but this is good because there's a few things that are coming up here that we weren't expecting, but he absolutely will do that because we were very clear going into this because acreage wise you know we could build a road we could do a you know a cul-de-sac we could do six eight we could come to you for like 10 12 lots on here conceivably but i said well let's just go with the natural flow of the land let's just keep it at three lots It'll be fine for what the land is. It'll also keep our infrastructure costs down because we'll be doing a shared driveway and not a road. A road, my understanding, which to me has a lot of other implications involved in it. So thank you for pointing that out. Absolutely, I have the correct guy come here and point out exactly in here why he designed this to be a shared driveway. And then we gave it a proper name just because in our emails back and forth with planning board and the gentleman at DPW, he said, look, it'll be simpler just to give it a name. And I said, but it's just a driveway. He said, that doesn't matter. Better to want a name because you have three houses on it. I said, okay, we'll put a name on it. I don't want to get caught in reverse.

I have a question. Go ahead. deeds for each one of these lots, is there any mention, is this a right-of-way? Is this a shared, I mean, is right-of-way? How is that?

Yeah, it's very specific on the easement that I can point out where it is. So again, if I have to, I could have my attorney here, but I told him not to worry about this for now because it seems more straightforward to me. So it's a declaration of shared access and drainage easements. Do you have a copy of that? So to your question, the name of it implies that, but it says basically continued ingress, egress, and utilization of shared access easement, labeled as Whispering Pines Way, and 30 private driveway easement on the plans. So does that answer your question? That's it.

My concern is, and I'm not suggesting you would ever do this, but okay, we approve the subdivision and you're done. Okay. Then what happens while you sell the lots and then you leave town in the cover of darkness? Not you, but then... Oh, no, I know. So a condition of your... And then you've got people who own three lots that they can't get to. Can't get to.

No, the condition of approval that this might take, that you would give me approval, this is what I want you to give me on September 1st, by the way, approval conditioned upon X, Y, and Z. One of those conditions, similar to my 10-lot subdivision in Guilford, is that it's not complete until I put that infrastructure in. So I can't sell anything.

It would be conditioned upon your constructing the road, the approval.

Exactly. I could sell the whole thing to another developer, but nobody could sell off one of those lots or build on them until you did that infrastructure. That's big time.

I'm fine with that. That actually gets to finger point to Mr. Breskin. The two gentlemen are saying exactly the same thing. As a condition of approval, you've got to build a bloody thing. We'll call it whatever we need to call it together. We expect you'd never leave town because you love this place.

You never know.

We want to make sure the person is at the furthest end can get in and get out.

She won't let me even... She won't let me leave Beach Pond Road.

If you want to speak, could you come up to the microphone? That's okay. And identify yourself?

I'm just saying a testament to his character.

If you could identify yourself?

Oh, I'm Carrie Fralick.

There you go. So we are the people who did go drive on Winnipesaukee Drive years ago. And we're like, this is a beautiful place. This road is awful. And we had to go in and get a lot of partners and spend a lot of money to fix that road. Most people in there absolutely love that road, and it's a great road. so we're actually we like the betterment of the town as well because this is our home as well good well i'm saying we did that we said oh this is could be this is a win-win because we could benefit and everybody who lives here it sounds like what we're saying is we all agree it's important yeah therefore we should just write it all down and once we do that as a condition of your building

If it's important, write it down, and we go from there. But this road or this access thing should have a comment on drainage, right? You don't want to build something that you can't run water off of, and you've got to figure out where that water is going to go. So that would be in the condition.

If you're amenable to out-conditioning the approval on the construction of the road and the – Drainage, I'm absolutely fine with that. That's my interest with that. And then obviously, you know, you've got to get state subdivision approval for the two smaller lots.

Absolutely. So that's already in with DES. It's under review this week. So we expect approval actually the next week or two. That will be subject to yours. So that went in about 10 days ago for the two smaller lots. Julie?

Julie?

I'm going back to the numbers. Go ahead. I'm thinking like I'm in the fire department, and I'm going down Middleton Road. And these lots, tax map-wise, through assessing and all that other stuff, are numbered. You've already got numbers. But now we're going to take out three numbers and put in a little road. So we're going to jump from one number, go around this, come up with a different number. And you've got guys in fire trucks trying to look for this number. That's my problem with just punching a little road in there with another name.

Well, my understanding was that the fire department wanted an extraordinary. I don't know. It's you.

Well, I had the question.

It just doesn't seem right to me.

I had a question to the town of whether it would be like 234, like I did the subtraction from the next house by Friartuck and Dr. Lewis' house, and I said, well, would this be like 237, A, B, and C, which maybe they thought would be more confusing.

No, they each have their own number coming off that one road. You see places like that all the time. They've already got numbers because you're already getting taxed.

I'll number whatever the town wants to call it to me. I was just told that the fire department and DPW wanted a road name even if we're calling it a driveway.

It's labeled as a 40 foot wide dry shed private road.

Once you have something that serves three lots, they're going to want a named road and they're going to be house numbers based on that.

Okay, we're on the right track from that standpoint.

And it's a private road. It's a private road.

They've got to be able to put an ambulance on the front. You know, these old camp roads, they've got a name and people have numbers down the camp road.

Should we ask the fire department for a note on that?

Sure. And if you get something in writing that the turnaround is fine, that would be good. just so we have it for our file.

I mean, in reality, asking the fire department for the real number, the real number should be on the plans, right? If they're doing the exercise. When the time comes, yep.

I agree. But they don't number, generally the town doesn't number something that doesn't have a house on it. And you're going to have a tax map number and you're going to have a 911 number. And if they're the same That would be unusual.

But if I could, I think we owe that clarity in that direction, not clarity from him in our direction. We ought to be clear about what we're expecting. So I think we, unless I'm wrong, I think we take that one on to figure out when the number goes on the street, what we call it, we owe you that clarity. My personal opinion is, what Roger is, nothing gets numbered until there's a building on the site and you slap a number on it. But we need something for the 911 database. You have to be able to put a piece of apparatus in front of the house or an ambulance or a police car. So I think we owe you that.

Okay.

I think. There's a process.

Isn't Jeffrey, there's a process for that, right? I mean, you go, there's somebody in the town who hands out street numbers. And it's not us. He pensions.

Well, we started that process, right? That's how we got this on here. So the first TRC meeting, the deputy fire chief said, this has enough clearance. And that was part A. And then part B was we started the process of, like, what do you want to call this? And the gentleman at DPW, I think, coordinated with the fire department, who's supposed to have, and came back and said, two, three, and four, whispering pines away. And us, we would like that on an approved subdivision plan so I can go out and then we can start planning. Okay, we're going to build a house here, you know, and give it a name. You know, two whispering pines away. We're going to build a house next month on a conditionally approved, you know, a few conditions.

Barry's okay with this? Barry didn't come.

Jeffrey, you'd probably write up those conditions ahead of time so that we could review those and hold on at the time.

Jeffrey, again, if I'm misspeaking, my engineer will correct me on the first, but these conditions I'm bringing up is typical for, right? I finished that portion of the infrastructure. It won't inhibit us from doing what we have to do, right, to build the road.

Well, I might be a bad person to ask that question because my only experience right now is in Maine. And so I would have a completely different opinion on this whole conversation. Got it. I don't want to screw things up. I want your New Hampshire answer. That's easy for you to say.

If you don't have a 603 answer yet, then I don't want to hear it for sure.

Yeah. But I feel as though, Jim, we did all the right steps to figure out the addressing, to figure out the driveway and the road stuff. But it looks like we need, the board needs a bit more clarity on addressing on fire department turnaround on the driveway versus the road and some conditions in order to bring this to the finish line. Correct.

Wouldn't it be a nice thing if that was all written down in one place so we don't have to do this again? I'm sorry? Just saying. It would be nice if we wrote that down so we don't have to do all this again. Wouldn't that be nice?

That's in your minutes. That's written down in your minutes. Read those.

Yes, but for the next guy is what I'm saying. Shouldn't there be a piece of paper that says three driveways, go do this, go see him, and then it's done?

I'm just saying. Yeah, I wish it would be that simple, but I really think that each proposal has different constraints, potential constraints, where someone might call it a driveway, but then that driveway might be more than 500, 600 feet and no longer. That could be a mile long. Yeah, so.

But I also see that we've sent him on a wild goose chase in 12 different directions when we probably shouldn't have. You know what I mean? Extra steps he shouldn't probably have had to take. And now we're turning over all the rocks again and finding different items.

Sounds good.

We just need to, you know, maybe find a page on our manual that says something like that, that we can send people in one direction and the next guy in the same direction so they don't look like last night.

Part of this is why they go through the TRC and they're here tonight. So when we come down to the wedding day.

Absolutely. In Jeffrey's defense, I came to this board already once, got whatever. Like you go to the English teacher, get it marked up. We went back, we did everything that was asked for. We went to that TRC, we took in all the data. There were a lot more people at the first TRC. Now with vacations and stuff, the TRC wasn't in full body last time, so we didn't get the second wave of feedback. Jeffrey's made us go to every meeting. Even tonight, I said, hey, why are we going to this? We already have our application in, but, you know, work in the process. That's good. And Jeffrey, I guess that after this, you know, maybe tomorrow, I'll get everything we can in order to make sure this is bulletproof as possible.

You know, Jim, maybe we should actually make an appointment and just sit down and go through with that.

Absolutely. I think that's best. I'll call your office.

Anything else from the board? Anything else for us from the applicant?

That was more than enough.

I'm good, thank you.

Thank you.

Thanks for your time.

Sorry, if you could speak into the microphone, please.

short person.

Does that mean that he can clear all this stuff up before September 1st and possibly get approval? I'm not sure how the whole thing works.

Well, we talked about some conditions to be written into the approval that could work so they can be put in ahead of time so we don't have to go through this whole discussion.

And he can clear up the whole road name numbering thing? Correct. Okay.

It doesn't hurt to double check.

This is a little less formal than the zoning board was last night, so thank you very much. Jeffrey, I'll make an appointment with you. I appreciate you.

And you're out of here before 930 or whatever.

Yeah, yeah. It was a success. Success and exactly. And when you're voting on September 1st, remember Winnipesaukee Drive. Put a lot of work into that.

Thank you.

Thanks, guys. I'm wondering whether Randy failed to notice that the meeting was starting at 6 and not 7.

Yes, we'll have it at 7 o'clock from September forward. The agenda said 6. It was a carryover from our earlier meeting with the historic preservation.

To Roger's point, though, I think Randy may show up at 7. Perhaps we can move on in the agenda and come back to this application afterward.

That's a good idea. Yeah. Second.

And I did send the agenda to Randy, and I made sure he knew it was six. But that's a possibility.

What you got? What's next? Still zoning? I think I hear Randy coming up the stairs.

Should we all wait for him to stare?

Speak of the devil.

It's random.

The agenda said six. Crucify. Jesus Christ. Freaking six and seven. I don't know. So they could be there. Some other link.

It's also possible that it's on a website, not LinkedIn.

Joe. I'm not aware of it.

I think that should take time already.

It's going to be one of the worst.

All right. Item two. Subdivision. Create a two-lot residential subdivision. Case number 2026-SUB-006. 127 Bryant Road, Map 152, Lot 1. Randy Titro, Norway Plains, is the applicant. The owner is Mark and Deborah Brennan. The action tonight is to provide comments and recommendations. We're all warmed up.

Sorry about that. Ready for you. Thank you. This is Mark Brennan. He's the client. He's Vanna White tonight. So Mark has been through a little bit of a Journey with this we really when he came to us at first We did like a subdivision feasibility for him. Thanks Jeff and he Didn't have the required frontage in the zone because you need 400 feet in that zone So, you know, we we went through that and we talked to planning so he went and got a frontage variance for the remaining land and We had two different plans where you split the frontage or gave the proposed five acre lot the frontage. Zoning board felt they would rather see the frontage go with the new lot and the remaining frontage go with the remaining land. So that's how we're presenting it to the board. There's an existing driveway on the farmhouse, and that's staying the same. So it's on 125 Bryant Road. I think everybody's kind of familiar with Bryant Road is, and Mark has a little gentleman's farm there. on the farm stand. So Bryant Road's a class five town road, maintained road, so it has frontage. Other than the frontage variance, it meets the requirements. So he's proposing to do, he's got 27 acres. His deed said 30, he's got about 27 after the survey. We're going to cut out about 5.8, which leaves 21.3 with the farmhouse. So we're cutting out a building lot of almost six acres. The existing is developed as a single family farmhouse and various outbuildings serviced by a well and septic. The proposed lot, again, it's going to be over five acres, so it won't require state subdivision. We've done topography, wetlands, test pits on the parcels, so we're not asking for any waivers for this particular application. And the intention is to create a residential lot that has 400 foot, a little over 400 foot frontage. The plan depicts... You know the proposed septic and proposed building area that Mark and his son have picked out. We had a look at it as far as safe site distance is for a driveway and there's plenty of safe site distance. The driveway is going to have to snake up through to the building site. So at this point, like I say, there's no state approvals needed for this one. But it meets the town soils requirements, Lots of large. And again, there's a couple of small wetland areas and large wetland area in the back. We went through the TRC last week, last Wednesday. So Lenore, the CONCOM has had a chance to look at it to see that the wetland areas were outlined. If you look at the notations in there, We located the wetlands by survey on the proposed lot, but on the other lot we used more GIS methods to determine it out by the rail trail. And the one little thing that threw a little kink into it and a little more time and research was If you, I figured one of you guys would ask me this, but if you looked at the tax map, it included a little piece on the other side of the railroad, the old tax maps, and it kind of showed it that way too. And so I had to do some research to try to figure out what was going on there, figuring I'd be asked that. The result was that the deed into Mr. Brennan's parcel only went to the railroad. So when it was an original farm, which I think Liz Venus, who lives next door, I think that was the old farmhouse and it was a big track before the railroad went in in, I'd say, 1860, 1870s by the railroad plan. And the railroad plan shows that too. Bottom line is, he doesn't own the little piece that the tax map shows on the other side. I talked to assessing about it, and I've noted who the last owner was. It was a Mr. Tibbets, which is the same guy that sold the land to the rarer. So it's a kind of a just a title problem that is just sitting there with no tax map and lot. Town owns the surrounding land in the back there already. So, you know, it could be fixed up as far as taking it for taxes or adding it to it or whatever. It's not usable land by no means or anything like that. It's just a little anomaly that I wanted to bring up in case it came up at the next meeting or something or a butter brought it up.

So who's been paying taxes on that?

Well, they got a little hook across the railroad on the tax maps. So my instinct is that he'd be paying taxes for what little minimal that would be. It doesn't matter how small it is. But again, the deeds are pretty specific when you take them back, that he only goes to the railroad, that's it. So I think it was just, it happens, there's little tidal pieces like that. And I have the old tax maps, so I went back and looked at those, and they kind of left it alone. And the other surveyors that did work in there kind of ignored it too. But I think in this case, it's up to town whether they want to fix that or not. It's really not Mr. Brennan's problem, but because it's close, I figured you might ask. I'm trying to think if there's anything else. I don't think there's anything else. Like I say, this one I'm not asking for any waivers on, MISA requirements. I guess I would ask the board if they have any questions after looking at the claims.

I do have a question. I see that you've gone before the ZBA and gotten your variants for a hardship.

For a what?

Hardship? What is the hardship?

No, it was a frontage variance. It was what? He obtained a frontage variance from the ZBA. As far as the hardship goes, the ZBA looked at the five points of the law and they granted the variance. And don't recall because you did that. I think the hardship was inherent in the size of the land.

I guess I'm looking for a definition of hardship. Do we have a definition of what constitutes a hardship? My whole purpose behind this is just setting precedent.

We're bound by the Board of Adjustments decision, and if you want to read about hardship, you can look in the planning and zoning book, and there are about three or four pages where they fumble with what hardship actually is. It's kind of like pornography. It's in the eye of the beholder.

I would say in this instance, though, certainly the planning board is not setting precedent the ZBA may have set precedence in their decision.

And it was, in my opinion, it was inherent in the property. The zoning requires 400 feet. This property was there and had 520 feet. So in essence, it was unsubdividable even for the one lot. And when they went through those requirements with the applicant, they felt that it was reasonable for a hardship inherent in that size of a property to have two lots. Speaking for them, that's how it was granted. Hopefully that answers your question.

When would they be coming to us? Would they have to wait till the appeal period terminates?

They've secured approval of the appeal, so... So that's the April 6th, so it's well beyond that. Right, yeah, so they could have come any time after April 6th. So there's no appeals on this?

No, because it's been more than 30 days. I have the date of the... It's April 6th, I think.

April 6th, yeah.

So...

One question on the plan. The wetlands is delineated on the smaller lot, but you didn't note the 30-foot setback around it? On the small one?

On the sludge.

Yeah, that is the setback.

Just noting on the big lot, you noted on the plan, and it's not noted on the end.

So the little thick solid line is the text. It's in a little bit. It's the actual weapon, and the 30 feet is the line around it, the dash line.

That's a good question.

And you can see it on the other ones. Yep. So the wetland end is inside of that. And if it's fully drained, it's a 30-foot setback. Yep. For the 25-foot level. Up and backwards, they're very fully drained. It's a 75-foot setback for the 25-foot level.

I see. Any other comments from the board? Any waivers?

No, no waivers. When we met at the TRC and Jeffrey and I talked, I thought it would be a good idea to give the board a quick cursory look at it before we showed up in September at the public hearing. So that's what this is about. For feedback for that, but we already submitted because you had to submit ahead of time. You know. Just the way the dates fall to get on the September meeting. But so. We thought if you had to look at it, it would be a little bit easier second time around.

Yep.

Are we going to do 6 o'clock all the time? That's pretty good. No, no, no, just tonight.

OK, just to mess you up. Yeah, I'm going to mix it up for you.

Yeah, I should have. I got the agenda, too. Farmington's 6 o'clock, and they switched to that, and they switched to Wednesdays because there was a lot of conflicts with the other towns. Everything was Tuesdays, and it was always 7 o'clock, and so there were some things. And that seemed to, you know, the 6 o'clock thing seemed to be a little better when you get old and you don't want to really go out.

When we adjust our bedtimes, you mean?

Yeah.

I have to get off of work first, though.

All right. We did have a site walk with the zoning board. So they got a pretty good look at it before the zoning board meeting. So they got to see kind of what it looked like and what size it was in the frontage. And so I think that was one of the reasons why they granted it. But that's why I had Mark represent it, and I didn't do it.

OK.

Thank you very much.

Thanks for coming in.

Oh, my God, the times.

Roughly speaking.

Yes.

And you will see it's cold. All right.

Another business discussion. Ordinance preparation for the 2027 warrant. Identify priorities and discuss process.

And if I may? Certainly. Thank you. Thank you.

Jeffrey, if you could pull the microphone a little closer to you.

Thank you. So, thank you. This is really the beginning of the process to prepare for the 2027 warrant with our ordinances. There is a memo that you have in your packet, and in that memo, You'll see a number of ordinances on that first page. They're bullet items that it's my understanding that the planning board would like to consider. On the flip side of that document, the back side, is the important dates associated with the ordinance adoption process. And I'll get into both of these in a second. I just wanted to point that out. Um, so what I was hoping for tonight is that the planning board could prioritize and decide which ordinances the board would like to focus on for the 2027 warrant. Uh, begin to think about scheduling our, our work in consideration of, uh, of those important dates. And then what are your expectations of, of me? And Getting into the the 2027 warrant ordinance list, I do have some updates with one in particular that is extremely important that I just found out about yesterday. And I can begin with that because this one's a mandatory one. If you want to continue to cover have FEMA and flood insurance for property owners around here. And if you'd like me to, we'll go right to the ordinances. So Shanna, I think you all know Shanna, our Lake Region Planning Commission. She and I met yesterday to discuss a few things that were on the ZBA. And she indicated that she had a meeting with state FEMA representatives that morning. And they informed her that that FEMA is about to inform municipalities that they have six months to adopt the revised FEMA maps and the revised FEMA ordinance. Six months. I literally was shocked because I've been through this process in a hardcore way before as a flood and plane administrator in multiple towns. And there is a, there is a, FEMA has quite a detailed notification process There's an appeal period, there's a determination of, FEMA makes determinations along the way. So I asked Shanna, how did we get to this point where we're just finding out about this now? And I think Shanna was a bit mystified to that. So I asked Shanna, who's the town's floodplain coordinator? And Shana wasn't too sure. I'm going to find that out. But why that's important is it's typically the floodplain coordinator usually gets the documentation from FEMA that outlines the whole appeal period, the map adoption process, and so on. So I feel like something must be out there. that we can at least use in order to understand where we sit with the appeal process, including where are the maps? Where's the FEMA maps that we're supposed to adopt? So this is mandatory if the town wants to continue with the flood insurance program. And why is that important? When the town applies, two ways. One for the town is to protect our assets. Two for the town is to help us with grant applications, whether it be storm water, infrastructure improvements, whatever it might be. And then a big one is for the property owners. If you have a mortgage on a property, and I believe this is nationwide, I know it was in Maine, and your structure is within the floodplain, you are required to have floodplain insurance. If you do not have a mortgage on the property, you just own it outright and the structure is in the floodplain, then it's not mandatory for flood insurance, it's voluntary. So if we drop the ball on this, FEMA will likely go on FEMA's blacklist, or whatever list you want to call it, and that does two things. Number one, it puts us on notice and it says that if we don't adopt what FEMA tells us we're supposed to adopt, them, the people who have flood insurance will no longer be able to secure that flood insurance. So it puts people's properties, lifetime investments at a severe risk. And then number two, the banks see this and it jacks up people's rates. So Out of all that I have listed here, that floodplain is going to be number one by far, if in fact what Shanna told me is correct. I'm still working to get the definitives on that, but I certainly trust Shanna, and she got that directly from the state floodplain officials. And I just want to say what that amendment to the floodplain will include will be likely to warrant articles. Number one, it's a change to the maps. So that will require a change to our FEMA floodplain maps. Then number two, it's a change to our floodplain ordinance, which is a little odd because if you look, we're so used to being in our zoning ordinance or site plan and subdivision. Floodplain is actually, for whatever reason, the town put floodplain in the section of ordinances where you commonly find like police type stuff or yeah, I think it's chapter 65 and it just kind of pops up. But it's there and we can't ignore it. So I'm sorry to just kind of drop that on you. I just found out yesterday but it's important enough news that we need to know. Now, the good news is you have me, I guess, you know, depending, who is fresh off adopting very complex FEMA maps and also writing FEMA ordinances. And the good news, or floodplain ordinances, also the good news is states are almost always have a template I get nervous when it comes to templates, but they at least have a template. They should have a template that will make the adoption process or the ordinance drafting piece a bit easier. So it may not be super complex from a drafting standpoint, but the adoption process could be I have no idea where it's a bit different here. And when I asked Shanna, I said, did that six months consider towns that have town meeting and that adopt ordinances through the town meeting process? And she said, that's a good question. I said, because in Maine, FEMA gave us two deadlines. One, if your legislative body is a council, they operate much more efficiently when it comes to ordinance adoption. And they don't have a yearly, once a year time frame. So FEMA provided municipalities that had town meeting in Maine the ability, they had an extended amount of time to make sure that they were prepared. Those that had council had a different time frame. So I'm working on all these, and it's very fluid right now for floodplain, but I just wanted to let you know. you know the latest on that. So please, whatever you decide as priorities, just keep that in mind.

I just had a question about that. I don't ever remember voting on a floodplain thing ever.

You probably didn't.

Back in the 70s, while I was on the planning board, we did adopt maps which were I don't know if anybody's familiar with the old airport, but if you go out to the end of Wolfborough Neck, there's a big drop-off. Well, according to those maps, that was underwater. And we just went through a process where my office is in Bayside Village. We were in the floodplain in 2013. We got out of it. We just went through a process that cost us close to $3,000, I think, to get ourselves out of the floodplain because the water in Back Bay hasn't changed all that much. And now... It appears we may get to do that again. The maps were just all over the place. It's like somebody who didn't see well drew a line on it.

But I mean, it's just plain residents. Did we ever vote on it? Is this just regular people, like you're suggesting, that it would go to vote?

I don't remember voting on it. I mean, I remember the planning board in the 70s voting to adopt maps or to complain about the maps that we got.

I'm looking here at Chapter 65 of our ordinances titled Flood Plane Management has a definition and it defines flood insurance rate map as an official map of the town on which FEMA has delineated both the special flood hazard areas and the risk premium zones applicable to the town. Is that what we're talking about? So it doesn't talk about the addition of that map or whether it's old or new or when it was published.

What's the date of that?

I'm sorry?

What is the date?

This was adopted in the annual town meeting March 13th, 1990 by Article 10, amended in its entirety on March 13th, 2012 by Article 8.

Can I make a comment? I'm a little confused because as a realtor I'm very familiar with this. And it's driven by the banks who give mortgages Because, as Jeff mentioned, if you buy something with cash, no one cares. You know, you're on your own. And it's driven by the insurance companies. So they have these maps already.

But to Jeff's point, though, one more.

So what do we have to do?

I'm going to get to that. I just noticed 65-1 in the same chapter, applicability, reads, the following regulation shall apply to all lands designated as special flood hazard areas, by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and its flood insurance study for the town of Wolfboro dated May 17th, 1989, together with the associated flood insurance rate maps dated May 17th, 1989, which are declared to be part of this chapter. So we need to update it to the current version, apparently, because those dates are obsolete.

Mr. Chairman. So 89 is probably when this started to gain popularity that people knew about flood maps.

So my personal experience, FEMA floodplain maps get updated every handful of years along the coast. They get updated, I think, every 10 years. I might be wrong, but OK. And you're correct. If you buy a house for cash and you're in a velocity zone, which is you're just looking at something that's going to blast you off the map, you may not require flood insurance. If you are in a velocity zone and you have a mortgage, you have to have flood insurance, and then you have to go to the National Flood Insurance Protection Program, which It's kind of a special thing. It seems to me that there should be a set of maps for the town and there should be a new set of maps for the town. To Roger's point, lake level rise in the town probably hasn't created new velocity zones or A zones. That's the one just behind a velocity zone. And so your point is probably correct as well. We don't have a choice.

No, we don't.

It's not our decision to say, voters, do you think this is a good idea or not? The voters say no. Tough. It is the Federal Emergency Management Association maps. How this got, you know, sent upon us, you know, who knows? But I'm not, I understand you got a little, oh my God, how did this happen? But I think this one, I don't even think this goes to a warrant. It may have to, but if the voters were to say, I'm not supporting this, it's tough, I think it's too bad.

I'm confused why it's a warrant because we have no choice. And just to your point, you said, you know, every 10 years, it's driven by insurance companies for sure. Correct. And that's why this conversation is coming up more and more because of insurance companies.

It's also along the coastline.

And they drive when the maps are updated as needed.

To your point, it's along the, you know, having experience along the Massachusetts coastline, FEMA collects on an annual basis insurance claims. And so if you were to open up the flood map central repository and you were to type in your street address, you would see a display of all of your neighbors and you would see the floodplain insurance claims that have taken place in the velocity zones and in the A zones, velocity being right up in front of the ocean, A zone right behind it. And you're correct. The insurance company says, whoa, whoa, this is getting expensive. We need to change the maps. So there's pressure on FEMA to do that. That's the facts. Now, there should be a set of maps. There should be a proposed set of maps. And we have to just let the public know that they may have to acknowledge it. You may not have to vote to support it.

So does this have to be a warrant article? No, I mean, I would hope. We don't know.

No, my point is that it does have to be a warrant article because currently an obsolete map is referenced in our ordinances. So we need to change the ordinance so that it references the proper map.

Yep.

And perhaps the way to do that is instead of referencing a specific map, we can do what we've done recently in the past years and say instead of a map dated whatever it might be, just say the most recent FEMA map.

Right.

Correct.

That's right.

Yep.

And that would avoid this problem in the future.

I'm almost wondering if this is something that has been done and accepted through our emergency town, emergency group, you know, the two firemen, the other emergency guy, the select board, that group. And then the select board gives the announcement, and we adopt the new thing. I wonder if it's been done that way.

For the years, I've only sat on the board for two consecutive, not consecutive, two terms. I don't remember it, but it's worth looking at.

Because they would be getting the emergency stuff continually.

Yeah, I don't remember seeing it coming to the board.

I know it's typically the, if you have floodplain in a town, you need a floodplain coordinator. Correct. So typically, whoever the floodplain coordinator is receives a letter from FEMA and also the town manager and usually the legislative body of the town the board has selected.

So did any of those three get a letter?

That's what I have to, that's what I.

That's what we talked about in the beginning was to find out. Yeah, to find out.

Not just the coordinator, but did anybody get a letter? That's two different things. Yeah.

And the letters start out, hey, you know, we're looking at adopting these new maps. You have an appeal period, and it's typically a 90-day appeal period. Municipalities or individual homeowners have the ability to appeal the maps. We did in Old Orchard Beach, and we were successful, but it was a very, very expensive process. proposition, I think over 500,000. But it was worth it due to the impacts to property owners, and we proved that FEMA was wrong in some locations. They used the wrong data.

So you just put it out to the public to come look at them, like at the assessor's office, and they came to look at the stuff and said, uh-uh, that's not me?

Yeah, that's exactly what we did. In fact, what I did was I digitized the maps. So I had a layer of the existing floodplain, put it on our aerials with a parcel base, and I digitized the proposed maps. So we were able to see which properties were impacted by the new floodplain. I got the addresses through the assessing database, sent every single property owner a letter that was affected to notify them first of the appeal period. Because they have the right to appeal and they needed to be notified. And then two, whenever we were notified of these changes by FEMA, the next steps would provide the property owners a letter. In addition to that, I held public listening sessions, one at the town hall and one at a community center, to update everyone on what was happening with the maps. I just learned of it, so I'm not too sure.

And then after everybody did that, what was the next step that you as a town had to do to get, you got FEMA to change the stuff, but then how was it accepted?

So what we, because our legislative body, your legislative body is required to adopt it. Even though it's mandatory, you're still required because it's a change to something that was adopted by your legislative body. So we had to go through the council process like any ordinance or map amendment, which was typically two meetings and then three readings. Public hearing, two meetings, and then a final vote. But there was a lot of preparation, a lot of public discussions, a lot of work before that.

Did it go for a general vote or was it just the town heads?

Council, it's just them.

Jeffrey, so does the financial burden fall on the taxpayer? You said it was very expensive.

Yes. Essentially, the adoption process, the ordinance, doesn't really cost anything. It's something that I can certainly do. And the mapping is produced by FEMA. But if you wanted to appeal any of that, then it would be public dollars that go to the appeal. And that can be a big deal, because not everyone's impacted by the floodplain. And people can say, hey, why am I subsidizing this appeal? That was happening from York up to Brunswick and Harpswell, where people were saying, oh, why are we subsidizing Kenny Bunkport's appeal? It got pretty crazy.

So what's your suggestion of the easiest, quietest way, less financial burden to get through this?

Take the existing flood maps that were put into place whenever they were put into place, overlay the proposed flood map, publish those data to the community, and let them know what they have to do. They can appeal it. That's probably the... My personal opinion, that's the best and only way to do it. The good news is Wolfboro doesn't have any velocity zones. I just did a quick check. There is some, what they call A zones and AE zones. They have different base flood elevation stipulations. A homeowner can go to the FEMA Flood Map Service Center, type in their street address, hit a button, tells you where they are. So I'd copy, I'd take the, what you did, take the existing, overlay the proposed, see what the delta is between the two, put that in front of the voters and say, this is what you have to deal with. There's nothing that we can do other than, I don't think there's anything we can do as a town, my opinion, to change that. It has to be an appeal by the individual, I think.

Yeah, and my concern is the appeal period is for a defined time. Correct. Of course it is. When they open the door. Yeah. If Shanna told me that FEMA is saying you have to adopt these maps within six months, that tells me that the appeal period's already come and gone.

Oh, yay. I was going to ask you, when is the six months starting? When to when? I mean, what's that?

whoever is supposed to get these and if we didn't get these letters then that is a problem in itself they're required within the federal statutes to provide so I agree with you Jeffrey that we should have this as a priority and then inquire about some sort of extension if our form of government warrants that I'll get more information, but it was pretty, it was shocking enough to me that I thought the planning board really should know about this. Thank you. Just because I've been through the process and I know the process. Yes.

Yeah.

So what's next on your list here, Jeffrey?

So with the ordinance list, what I'm really looking at is what the board would like to concentrate on for the 2027 warrant. I know that there are some ordinances that were discussed last year and they never made it to the warrant. And just so I can come back at our next meeting and we can at least, you know, that's part of tonight, you know, what are your expectations of me and our schedule? But I just want us to start thinking about this now because those public hearing deadlines are going to come up quick, especially when you get busy around the holidays and all of that.

Can we just start? start putting numbers in front of a couple of these, because one or two of these are already like, we already did that. I thought it was already done.

They're ready to go.

Like the first one. I mean, that's been agreed upon by all the boards, and it just has never had the stamp.

That water hookup thing is... I don't believe it was agreed specifically the way that it is written here. We didn't remove the requirement for public water hookup. We just gave the option for the Public Works Department to remove the requirement for specific addresses. Steve Randall was going to come up with some language for that, I believe.

Well, I drafted the amendment, which the board voted to put on the warrant, except we couldn't get a meeting spot. I mean, the first two of these are drafted.

Can we just pull that paperwork out and say number one, number two? You're ready to go.

Yep.

I mean, I gave them to Jeffrey, and I've got them. Number one, number two, OK.

I've got copies of them. And let's do number three. But are they priority?

I think the point is that we don't need to assign a priority because they're already drafted. We don't need to work on them. All we need to do is have a public hearing and put it through the process.

And we really need to address the water hookup because the Middleton subdivision had to go to the Board of Adjustment to get a variance because they can't get water.

Right.

and the posting permits is fairly minor, but it means that a developer can simply get a building permit, sit on it for 30 days, and then your appeal period is gone because the legislature and its wisdom changed the appeal from being filed within a reasonable time, changed it to appeal being filed within 30 days.

So you want somebody, the second they get their little thing in their hot little hand, which might not be for two weeks after this gets approved, you realize, they're supposed to go out and bang it on a tree. That's what you're saying.

They got to post it somewhere, yep.

Yeah, Roger, what was the timeline you had? I think it was a week. Week after approval?

I believe the permit does say must be posted. So there's some wording already on the, because I'll get these to laminate every once in a while. So I believe there is wording on the permit itself that tells them what they're supposed to do.

I think Roger's point, though, is that while it says the permit must be posted, it doesn't say when. And if you post it, but if you wait 30 days to post it, the appeal period is gone. So Roger's trying to enforce public notice so people have the opportunity to appeal.

but public notice kind of happened earlier than that.

The wording is to amend section 175, 186, governing the issuance of permits to read D. Evidence of the issuance of a permit shall be posted in a visible location on the lot to which the permit pertains within seven days of the issuance of the permit, period. The manner of the posting shall be prescribed by the code enforcement officer.

Roger, did you say seven days? From issuance. From issuance? Yeah.

And it's through the Code Enforcement Office.

Yep. You know, again, personal situation required where I did a building. Actually, it was seven days after you got a a conservation okay or seven days after you got it from the building department whether you whether you had it you posted it in fact you recall I had to get some laminated stuff on that you got to put it up on a tree that avoids the situation of someone saying well you know you didn't attend the planning board you missed it you put it up on on a side of your house and people can say I want to appeal that and I think that Roger's point or ask is appropriate So the people sit on things and let the appeal period expire.

But what I'm saying is the permit already says that on it.

No, there's no requirement that you post it within a certain number of days.

It does not anymore.

Under the ordinance, as it currently reads, under Section 175, 186, there's no time frame in which you have to post the notice. And under the statute, it used to be a reasonable time. And then the legislature made it 30 days. So that is in the case of one particularly infamous project in Wolfboro. The permit was sat on for 30 days, and the appeal periods were gone.

Yep.

So those two are ready to go. Yep. Accessory dwelling units, 175, 57.1.

I think Bill Scott put together something that I think needs some work, but we probably need to address ADUs since now they must be permitted by right in all districts.

Didn't some of the state wording overlap what we had?

Yes. I mean, there have been bills going back and forth on accessory dwelling units. and I worked on one that would have required that they be by conditional use permit or special exception in the protected shoreland, which is 200 feet back, which was the way the law read initially, and they weren't buying that. Legislature said, no, we're not going to change it. So now if you have any kind of a shed, doesn't matter where it is on your property, you can convert it into an accessory dwelling unit.

So let's look at that one again and make sure we get the right words changed. But it's 95% done.

I think Bill Scott produced something, and I think it could be shortened a bit, but I think it had some good points in it and would be a starting point

He spent a long time on that.

The next one is the Ridgeline and Shoreline Protection Ordinance.

This was Peter's, right?

Yes, Peter had Ridgeline pretty much.

And it was all written.

Yes, correct.

So that one's done.

My thought on that, I think Peter did a good job. but it reads more like a description of what a Ridgeline ordinance should be rather than the actual structured ordinance language.

So we need to look at it.

So I really, you really need to look through that. And if you want to move forward with that, you need to structure that language more in the legal ordinance stuff. And you need to think through that one a bit more, my thought.

And Peter had referenced other municipalities' examples of that that we could use as a model.

So the question here is, you have all of these, is it you want all of these to go on the warrant? Or is that the next step? These are all important, but the question is, when you get down to sorting which ones are number one, which ones are not, that's the next step?

I think at one point after 2023, we thought four was a good number. I don't know whether it needs to be that few, but I would

That was kind of what I was getting at, Roger. Not to force this, but you need to create an envelope that you're going to put the really important ones into and others are going to have to go off on the court. These are in order right now?

This has been the standing order for a while. They keep getting pushed back every year.

Okay, so you'd pick the first four?

This is still the standing order.

One thing we don't want to do is group them into a group so that if it's voted down, then they all die.

Yeah, there are individual warrant articles. That's what I would suggest, because they're all different.

Well, perhaps we would pick two or three burdensome ones, if you will, ones that will be difficult to arrange, and then take the first two, I think, that Roger's already done are easy. I don't think they'll be controversial. They're simple to explain. I think those will be a breeze. And then maybe three that are more difficult.

The one that keeps coming up at the zoning board is that one about that they were talking about last night. How do I say it? Up to 25%.

The one that goes like this.

Okay, back up your roof three inches to make it come under the thing for the 25%. That one.

Which one is it, this one? Yeah, that's the next one below Rachel Island.

And they've been asking for a couple years for us to work on that one a little bit.

Because nobody reads it the right way. I think we need to address that. I mean, that kind of ran...

Didn't you kind of run into that during the Hunter's conversation?

Yes, that's right. There was some discussion as to whether it's overall floor space or footprint or yeah so you ran into it on hunters but there's been a few down on down there on Sewell and you know the second floor or first floor or just the basement or the you know the whole thing's whacked out and one of the other discussions was what is what are you basing the 25% on is it the original approval or if they made some additions does it include that and then you can use that what's on the record that needs some staff work okay good that one needs work

All right, so we'll put that on the priority list.

Thank you for that. That's really helpful, actually. I'll just let you know what I can do. We have the FEMA one. I'll have more information for you and update you at the next meeting. about that. Or I may, hopefully I'll have more information maybe even under other business on September 1st. Let me write that down.

Given the effects of the FEMA one, I think that should certainly be a priority.

Yeah, that's the first one. And I think it should say mandatory in, you know, when this voting, this is mandatory and then what it is, you know, so that people understand that you got to do it.

So it was my thought that we would work on these for September, October, November, then begin the public hearings in December. The first public hearing deadline for the warrant is January 3rd, and in fact, The dates that I gave you, I'm almost 100% certain, I haven't verified everything, but the office of whatever, what is the office? That doesn't help anyone. The New Hampshire Municipal Association just provided their meeting calendar deadlines. FOR NOTICES, PUBLIC HEARINGS, WARRANT ARTICLES, BUDGET ITEMS TODAY. OH, GOOD. YEAH. AND SO IF YOU'RE EVER LOOKING FOR THOSE, WE'RE AN SB2 TOWN MEETING CALENDAR. THERE'S DIFFERENT TYPES OF TOWN MEETINGS, SO WE'RE SB2. SO YOU'LL LOOK FOR 2027 MARCH SB2 TOWN MEETING. BUT IT LOOKS LIKE THE DATES THAT I PROVIDED IN THE MEMO Let me see on the 25th. If that pops up, it's accurate. Yes. So they look accurate. And those dates in the memo, they are drop-dead dates. You don't want to depend on those dates because you're already, you're too late.

They said in their seminar that those would be coming out, they thought September, so they came out early. That's good. And that was a good point. Seminar that they had on zoning changes what to do and what not to do in consideration and Setting them up with the language

I was thinking that you all would want two public hearings. Please correct me if I'm wrong. And I was thinking of the first public hearing in December, like mid-December sometime, and then the second public hearing in early January. That's what I was thinking and kind of basing the schedule.

That seems kind of late to me. It's kind of pushing it. What would you propose? Maybe public hearings, these kind of things can be done at a regular meeting at the end. Maybe one or two of these that are ready to go, maybe October. I'm always at the front of this thing that I have seven more things to do before the event. My deadline is back here.

Yeah, I agree. Let's handle the ones that are almost done.

But October is not bad for some of these things. People have already been to two hearings for some of these things. So people are going to look at them and go, oh, didn't we already do that?

Right. Well, I want to make a point, too. Let's not lose sight of the heritage districts on number eight on the list because we have some momentum and interest. And I don't want to drop the ball on that either. So I'm in agreement with Julie. Let's. handle the things that are practically done in October so we can have the time to work on some of these other things like the non-conforming in the Heritage District.

Yes, sir.

None of my business, but since I'm sitting here, I've heard a couple of times, and maybe it's covered here, but I've heard a couple of times applicants And in fact, I heard it last night at the zoning board. An applicant comes forward and says, you've defined a, I'm gonna use the word duplex, it could be other thing. You've defined a duplex and its applicability to that zone, but just because it's applicable to that zone, does it make it applicable to that zone? And I recall Bill Scott, saying, you know, it might not be a bad idea, and maybe you guys have already done this, it might not be a bad idea to say, here's the things that we have, whether it be ADUs or duplexes or whatever those items are, on a table, and it says, these are what they're defined to be, and here's where they are defined to be permitted to exist. So that It leaves clear to an applicant that If they want to get an XYZ structure built, and they want it built in Village Residential or some other place, that table would say, yep, it applies over there, or no, it doesn't. Because, again, not to beat the horse here, but it strikes me I've heard this more than three times from applicants that says, just because it's over here, why are you telling me it's applicable over there? And I think that ambiguity is probably an easy cleanup. To me, that's administrative cleanup. So I'll just put that in front of you guys. I'm sorry?

Clarification?

Yeah, it's clarity.

The idea is simple. I don't know that it would be so simple in execution in that we currently have a section of definitions, which is one of the first things you mentioned. But then each zone has its own list of what's permitted. And to... redefine it maybe is the proper word for what you want to do to organize how it's referenced. You'd have to change every chapter, which is a lot of work.

Or you're going to have people coming to the zoning board saying, it ain't there. It's not in the paper. So why are you doing this to me? So whatever you guys think is right. I just think clarity is important.

I do remember that Tavis was talking about one of those things, that same thing, that we needed to... Every time we do a new one, it needs to match the majority of the other things because of that particular thing from last night. Talking about that, this doesn't say exactly the same as this one. There was little bits of difference. And that's because that particular bit hadn't been changed in 15 years and didn't need fixing.

Yeah, so I agree that standardization is a good idea. I just don't want to discount the amount of effort and the number of chapters that would need to be changed to accomplish it.

And each one individually would have to be done, so you can't do them all in the same year.

But if you want to know what's permitted in a district, you'll look at the district and you'll look under permitted uses, and they're listed. I mean, some towns have charts where they have uses and then they have Xs. It's a table. And I've found our system a lot easier than trying to trace across to see where the X is and whether it's a special exception or whether it's something else.

Right. I mean, we've been trying each time we do a new article to bring it up. We look at the newer ones that we've done and make sure that the wording is similar. Big updates. But it takes a lot of time to do each one. That's why, you know, it's hard when somebody comes in and goes, well, it doesn't match.

I'm just reacting to what I've heard. I know. That's all.

Thank you. I know.

That deserves further thought in the future.

If nothing else, that could be part of the worksheets that get used.

You guys.

You know, and get slipped in later at a later point.

All right, Jeffrey. If we talk about structure definition, lot redevelopment standard in the Shorefront Residential District. Revisit the language, question mark. We did touch on that.

I feel like I have my direction, at least. Okay. Yeah, right now, what we're going to concentrate on at first, and then maybe we see how we do on these ordinances, and if we feel we can add more, we have more time, maybe start going to picking more off the list. Or there's nothing that says we can't work on the others in preparation for the next goal. In fact, it might be... Right.

So at the end of the day, the planning board is going to vote on our recommendations and then submit those to the select board for their consideration.

No. No? No. We come up with our proposal, we hold a public hearing, and then we vote whether or not to place it on the warrant. The select board does not have any say in it.

I see. It's our baby.

Sitting right there.

We're busy enough messing up our own stuff. No, I mean the planning board has the elected officials. You have the responsibility to recommend to the public what's appropriate. My only advice personally is voter fatigue. A lot of warrants. We always get this thought, leadership from the voters. How much is enough? And that's the only thing you got to do is, my view, is make your list short and important.

I was thinking it would coincide with what we do with CIP because that's what we do with CIP.

I guess the comment is we don't give you the yes, no. You do what you think is appropriate.

Part of the saving grace is this doesn't cost anything where all those other things do. And they're first, so we have a chance. If we have some well-worded things that are easy to understand, people can go, oh yeah, there's one, there's one, and get them right into it. And then they can get to the costing things later.

I've got a good document that they put out on that seminar, and I'll circulate that.

What is this seminar you're talking about?

It's the Municipal Association seminar on zoning changes and the do's and don'ts and so forth. When was this?

It would be really helpful to see what they listed now for their zoning changes. The Municipal Association is very helpful.

They're great.

Is that that lunchtime thing?

That's lunchtime. So, Mr. Chairman, did I hear that you drew a line under any of these, or all of these are still up for grabs?

All of these are up for grabs is what I'm hearing.

Okay. Do you want to move one up? Not my choice.

So what I can do for our next meeting, you know, I'm not going to mention the FEMA. We know it's the big one, so just... remember that that has precedence over anything uh but what i was thinking it sounds like with number one and two first and second bullet you're you're pretty set with that language but what i'd like to do is just bring it to you it may have been a little while just to take one look at it at your september meeting and just say yeah jeffrey you know this is consistent

I think I heard Julie say, and I'm probably right, if you feel the language is good, relevant, you can start your public hearing process. There's nothing that says you can't.

I think the only factor on that is that a limited number of times you can bring people out. If you do a hearing on zoning amendments, that means people can come out once. Say what they have to say about the zoning. Not all.

You'd say put the whole.

Yeah, but then you have that fatigue thing again. If you do more than, you know, three, it's going to be too much for a lot of this stuff. So I would say, yeah, better in smaller amounts, that it's not just a public hearing day. It would be, you know, a slowish meeting, a work session meeting. And, you know, so that... It didn't seem like it was such a big, huge, long list. Baby steps.

I agree. So then with number three, well, number three, four, and five, ADUs, the Ridgeline, and non-conforming structures, I would separate them a bit. And this is for our September meeting. And let you... let you have us brainstorm those. I'd give you some thoughts to think about before the meeting, some ideas that I have in going forward, and you can give me some of your thoughts back. Then the intent with those would be, you know, in Ridgeline, I know Peter was very involved with that. I'll certainly discuss, I think, was it Peter? I'll certainly discuss that with him again. But then what I can do is I can put that information together in an ordinance format so you can then see it in that legal language for the following meeting. But I always like that first meeting, now that we've kind of refined our list, more of a brainstorming session. Language and so forth.

Yeah. On the non-conforming, is that the one that's most likely up to 25%? Is that the one? I think there was some work done to point out by Bill Scott to point out where Based upon the question you got asked, the answer was different around the ordinance. And I think he pointed out, again, the Hunter situation. Not so much to politicize the question, but to point out how that or where in that nonconforming structure you might want to pull some words out and put some new words in. So it wasn't meant to be, at least I don't think at the time, and I still believe it. It wasn't meant to be a political statement as much as that we're inconsistent in the way in which we deliberate on things. We need to just kind of straighten it out, and here are some ways in which you can do it.

Paul, if I could perhaps rephrase what you just said, if I understand it correctly. The point is not to change the intent of the ordinance, just to clarify. That is correct. Yeah.

That is correct.

There seems to be no starting point. You start at point A and go left.

We just want to clarify how the ordinance is applied, not change the intent of it.

That is correct. Thank you for doing that. That's exactly right.

Good deal. Thank you. That's all. I don't have anything else on my agenda.

Wow, look at that.

Many of the people in the audience want to say something. Someone make a motion to adjourn?

No, I think we have some public comment.

Oh, we do.

When people came to seven.

I guess we'll open the floor for public comment.

Hi, everybody. I haven't seen you for a while. Anne Blodgett, Jeffrey. Nice to see you. Nice to see you, Ann. First of all, I made some quick notes so I wouldn't forget. Kudos to Jeffrey for dealing with FEMA templates, maps, and mazes. I've seen them and it's, ugh, I don't know. A simple request from people like me, when you are on a subject, And this is for everybody watching on TV land. Can you please be illustrative about what you are talking about? So if you say number three, I'm clueless. And sometimes the agenda's there and sometimes it's not. Thank you for fine tuning the ridge line. or an article. That goes back to Kathy Barnard and Chris Franson. It should be dedicated to them. I mean, seriously, I'm going to call Kathy and say, I think they're going to do it, and she'll be really happy. I also want to thank Jeffrey for offering to meet with... meet with citizens on their priorities on warrant articles. I think the Heritage District has definitely come up as a biggie. Two other recurring themes that have come up over the last years, and I'm not sure what to do with them, but you guys are the planning board. You're the great minds of this. At one point the planning board agreed to review and potentially take to the select board the following items for the betterment of our town. Noise. enforcement and they those affect absolutely everybody in our town and i keep hearing people say the noise thing is weak um i don't have a leg to stand on and i hear it from all different kinds of people even those who drive motorcycles okay And then enforcement. Roger, I'm going to remind you that you said, yes, I really want to work with the planning board to take something to the select board. And now we have Jeffrey. Holy mackerel, how lucky are we? And I don't know. It's a huge subject, but it seems to be a huge thing that gets kicked down the road because we don't have staff. We don't have staff. We don't have money. We don't have staff. So thank you for listening.

Thank you, Dan.

Hi, good evening.

I'm Dan Coons. I thought we were on the agenda for tonight.

Dan, I have you on for the reschedule for the 1st, September 1st.

No, we tried to reschedule for the work session.

Oh, I didn't. I wasn't aware of that. I had it on for the 1st. OK. Yeah.

OK. Is that Applewood?

Pardon?

Is that Applewood?

Yes, exactly.

Yeah.

Okay.

Yep.

Well.

Bye.

That was a waste of an hour. Okay.

I'm sorry.

I can make a motion to adjourn.

Motion granted. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye. Thank you.