Planning Board - Regular Meeting

Good evening. I would like to call to order the September 1 meeting of the Wolfboro Planning Board. I'm Roger Murray, vice chair. Seated at the table, beginning on my far left, is Jeffrey Hinderleiter, our town planner, Susan Murdoch, our recording secretary, Rhonda Martin, planning board member, Doug Breskin, planning board member, Nancy Wiley, planning board member, Paul O'Brien, the select board representative, and Julie Jacobs, an alternate. And Julie, will you sit tonight in place of Steve Webster?

Sure, I will.

Okay. First item on the agenda is the minutes of the August 18 meeting.

Mr. Chairman, line 11. I believe the attribution is to Mr. Webster, not to myself.

Thank you.

That's all I have.

Okay. On line 7 and line 11, Vaughn is V-A-U-N-E. On line 45, it should read page 2 of 5, not 205. And on page 5, line 220, it's Ann, A-N-N-E, Blodgett, with only one T. And on line 223, it is Chris Franson, I believe it's F-R-A-N-S-O-N. Does anyone have any other changes? Or corrections?

Nope.

Does anybody want to make a motion?

I'll make a motion to approve the minutes for August 18th as amended by Roger. Second.

All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Okay. Minutes are approved. Item 1 on the agenda of public hearings is a special use permit to amend the 2025 approval for 5 Applewood Drive, tax map 201, lot 66. Dan?

Hi, good evening. Dan Coons, representing David and Carrie Ransom.

Before you begin, let me just say that a site visit was held. Doug John Thurston and I were in attendance along with the property owner.

Okay. At issue here is the placement of the shrubs and what was initially submitted what was approved and Where I think I guess the shrubs should actually be placed At the time this was submitted was long before I got involved with the project well before I got involved with the end of the project but Initially, the shrubs were requested to be placed between the lawn and the stream resource within the buffer. What was actually approved was to put the shrubs on the backside of the lawn closest to the house, away from the resource, the stream, and the riparian area. For all ecological reasons, I believe that the shrub should be placed closest to the stream resource, not at the backside of the lawn. The buffers, which were established originally in 2008 and adjusted, I believe, within 2012 or 13, Buffers protect for several reasons, one of which is erosion, second of which would be nutrient and pollutant attenuation, and the third would be for habitat. The grasses that are there are fine in low impact storms, but in heavier storms, you need something with more root structure than grasses have. under pollution and nutrient retention, attenuation, you want to have something shrubby that is going to be sucking up more of the pollutants than the grasses are. The grasses are temporary. They're not going to do anything except during the heart of the growing season. If you are looking at habitat considerations, if you're looking at birds and their desire to be eating, they need someplace safe to retreat to into the trees, into the shrubs, not in a grassy area. It makes all ecological sense to have your shrubs put closest to the resource you're trying to plant, not furthest away from them at the other edge of the yard. That's, in essence, what the applicant is looking for to do the best ecological, what makes the most ecological sense in this particular situation.

Do any board members have any questions for Dan?

Dan, can you give us your opinion on how well the grassy area to the east of the tank hatch will protect the wetlands as compared to if it were in its natural state?

Well, if it was a totally natural resource, if the buffer had been left intact by the contractor, it would be better in a natural state. Unfortunately, that didn't happen.

Yeah, I understand.

And it's nothing that the homeowner had any control over. He trusted local people to take care of it. I wish they had called me beforehand. I wish they had actually looked at the maps that were drawn and noted that there was a wetland buffer there, but they didn't.

uh they're on my list to go talk to and suggest that maybe they need a professional to be looking at their projects locally so so uh for those members of the board here who were not on the site visit uh there was a line on the original approval from november as you might see in your packets there was supposed to be a line of shrubs that extended north north south roughly in line with the tank hatch, is my recollection. And to the east of that was supposed to be the buffer. It is now fully grassed over.

So if I remember, because I went to that site visit early on, that got walked and... John, you were there too, weren't you? You were there for that site visit. I'm looking... And I think we stepped through where the shrubs should be. So we got that wrong. Is that the issue?

I wasn't there at the time. Good point, because you already said that. I only got called a couple months ago.

Is that what happened? Did we get it wrong? I'm sorry. I'm not sure your question. At the original site visit that Bill Scott was at, I was there. I think John was there. You were there? We kind of stepped through where the placement of shrubs would be. That's right. Did we get that wrong?

I'm not sure what you mean by did we get it wrong.

Did we put them in the wrong place?

I believe that we indicated correctly where they should go.

But maybe there's a better way.

I'm sorry?

But maybe there is a better way. That's what he's saying.

I'm not sure I understand. Well, I think what Dan is saying, and Dan, you can correct me if I'm mistaken, is that the original plan that we approved might have been the best plan. That's not what was done. And Dan is now proposing to make the best of a bad situation.

Well, I think what I'm proposing is the approved location of the shrubs I don't think is the best location for the shrubs. I think they belong between the lawn and the resource we're protecting, not on the other side of the lawn.

And would you think that the original planned location of the shrubs would have been appropriate had the buffer been left intact?

Yes.

Okay. So I guess the answer to your question, Paul, is that I don't think we got it wrong originally.

Right.

But unfortunately for the applicant, his contractor did not follow the plan.

Got it. So we told them where they needed to go, and they didn't get put where they needed to be.

I believe that's correct.

Is that kind of a simple way of answering that?

No, I don't think that is right. I don't think they've gone in yet, right?

No, there were no shrubs put in.

No, there were no shrubs put in.

Got it.

So they didn't go in the wrong place.

That's correct. They did not go in the wrong place. They didn't go in at all.

Where they were initially proposed, I think, is a correct place. Where the planning board authorized, I think, is less advantageous to the habitat and to the local environment.

So given where the grass is located now, there would be some advantage to relocate the line of shrubs to the edge of the grass rather than having them run down the middle of the grass?

Correct.

Yeah. Got it. Thanks.

And I took a photo of the site this afternoon as we were there, if anybody's interested in seeing it.

I'm trusting you. I'm sorry? I'm going to trust you.

Are there any other planning board questions at this point? Are we ready to entertain a motion to accept the application as complete?

I think so. I'll make a motion to accept the application as complete.

Is this a new application? Yes. Completely new.

It's an application to amend the prior approval.

Okay.

But it is a new application.

Yes. I'll second that. All those in favor?

Aye.

Opposed? And I will open the public hearing. And John, I think you might like to say something.

John Thurston. I was originally there in November when we did the walkthrough. And I think the reason that we ended up there in the first place was because the wetland buffer area had been encroached. And it was encroached on two different areas. It was encroached on the side of the driveway and it was encroached in the back. And I think we came up with a really good plan for the side of the driveway. I got a report from the owner that said what we did there was really good. And I think what we did on the back was a really good plan also because what we saw there was we saw there was a gas bottle tank in the wetland buffer setback area. And at that time, that grade and that ground was all in a raw state.

You had a grade, right?

They had a gas bottle off to the side. So the edge of the area where the proposed arborvitaes were to be was on the inner side of the wetland setback area so that we could preserve the wetland buffer setback area by moving the bushes to the line all the way back closest to the property line. And then behind that, we were going to concede the gas bottle was not to be disturbed because more damage would be done if you disturbed the gas bottle. But at that same point, the requirement was to put the arbovitis in and leave it as a natural state by putting bark mulch chips over that area so that would become a natural vegetated state and eventually the forest would take over. And when we go there tonight and we see that is now lawn all the way up to all the way through and right next to the woods, in my mind, The plan wasn't followed.

It's not what we signed up for.

It's not what we signed up for. So the question was, okay, well, what do you do about the grass area? I mean, I would put the grass area back in its state that it was before. I would take the grass off the top, I would put the wood chips down, and I would put the arborvitaes where we all agreed as part of the application.

Off topic, but there was a, not particularly relevant to this, but there was a downed tree in that wetland area, John. Did that get removed by MED? Okay, thank you. I remember we had to get that tree out of there.

David Ransom on the homeowner at 5 Applewood Drive.

Could you raise the microphone a little bit? You need to be close to be heard. Thank you, sir.

Is that better? Yep. Very good. Thank you. Just a couple points of clarification. First, with regard to the tree that was in the wetlands, one of the board members astutely noticed that when they were out in November, and I mentioned that, yeah, was left by the maintenance people after they cleared trees underneath power lines when a storm had knocked out the power. No one ever did come to get that. We did pave our road this summer and as part of that they had to remove the culvert that handles the wetlands. So they had some heavy equipment out there and I asked if they would consider taking that tree out for me. And so I paid to have that taken out myself and it's gone now. With regard to the natural state of the area in question, the natural state of that area was trees. That entire lot was covered with trees. I know When this build started, the planning department was in disarray. There was no planner. The inspector was on again, off again, and then subsequently left for whatever reason. And a lot of things got dropped. With all due respect to Mr. Thurston and his expertise, what we're looking at now is not what the best case scenario would have been before the project started. What we're looking at now is what do we do with what we got? We have grass that was put down by the builder. And by the way, that was a full lawn in November when this last site visit came. A few people came for a site visit. It was a full lawn back there. Everywhere that's got grass now, it had grass then. So the builder put the grass down, and that's what we have now. The reason we're here tonight is because of me, because it has never made sense to me why you would take ground that has been stabilized by this grass and dig it up so that we can put something in there to stabilize it. It's already stable there. The place it's not stable is down along where the silt fence was, which is now a silt sock because the silt fence degraded to a point where it was unusable. There's loose soil. There's soil down there that could benefit greatly from having the vegetation put there. That's the reason why. I wanted another opinion. In my head, I'm not an expert, I don't know if this makes sense to me, but hey, I don't know. Dan did our original wetlands delineation before the house ever went in. And so I contacted him and said, can you just look at this and tell me if I'm crazy or what's going on here? And he looked at it and he said, it's not optimal to put it up here. It's better down there. I said, would you tell the board that? He said, I'd be happy to. So that's why we're here. We have always wanted to do what's best for the wetlands. I can't change what happened, despite paying for three site surveys that delineated all the borders and everything, having a rogue project manager from our company who, by the way, got fired over this job. I did what I could. I couldn't stop it. But we're dealing with what we got now, not what happened in the past. And now, what seems to me to be the most appropriate thing is to put the plants where they can do the best work. And that's what Dan has told me, and that's why we're here. Thanks for listening.

Would you, is what you're proposing, we saw the silk thing coming down, would you be digging up the edge of the grass as it runs next to that?

We would do whatever it takes to get those plants in the place where they can do the most good.

Which would be down?

Where that silt sock is now, where the silt fence was.

It would be, well, as we looked at it.

It would be inside of that. It wouldn't be on the other side of the silt sock. So yes, in that regard, there would be some land that's dug up that has grass on it currently.

Yes.

Thank you.

Are there any other comments or questions from the board?

I think that the recommendation from the applicants, wetland scientists from Dan Coons, is probably the best case with regard to putting the shrubs along the line of the silt sock. And I'm wondering if there would be any benefit of, in addition to that, having an imaginary line where the shrubs were originally going to be, and east of that line where the grass is, having that essentially be a wild meadow, no mow zone, rather than continuing to maintain it as a low-cut lawn.

Interestingly enough, that came up for me this summer. Well, really the first part of the summer. I've only been in New Hampshire off and on up until this year. But for me, this spring and early summer, the ticks were way more than I anticipated. I had them in my house. I had them everywhere. So I hired an entomologist to come out and make a recommendation for how to deal with that. The one point that he made to me was don't not mow the grass that's over here. It's already here. You let it get long and it will be a tick habitat that you won't even believe. So that's why it's continued to be mowed because I didn't want any more ticks than I already had. Thank you.

Is there anyone else from the public who would like to comment on this application?

John Thurston again.

So understanding if the ground loses the grass, the grass will be removed and that will actually open up the pores of the ground so that the ground will absorb water again. If you put the mulch or the bark chips on top of it, at this point, it's like this desk right here. It seals off the ground, so that water is just going to run right off. It's not going to get absorbed into the ground. And if you do that, you won't have the grass to bear the ticks, and you'll put the wood chips down, and you'll be back to its original state, which I think is the original point. It's a wetland buffer setback which will just go to natural forest.

John, are you proposing to put wood chips over the existing grass or to dig up the grass and replace it with wood chips?

The effective nature of the wood chips is to allow the water to hold the rain from running off, and it would be beneficial if the chips were just laid on top of the grass, but it's not optimum if the grass is still there. If you laid the wood chips three or four inches deep on top, it would muffle out the grass, and that would be beneficial.

John, the area you have in question is backed by the gas bottle?

Well, it's the whole area from- Including the driveway? Excuse me?

Including the side of the driveway?

No, the area on the side of the driveway came out beautifully.

So it's up by the gas bottle, up at grade?

Correct.

It's at the back end of the house. I don't have expertise here, but wood chips float when they get wet, right?

It's on the slope of a hillside, so there's no water that's coming there. It's basically keeping water held on the hillside from running down into the wetland, which is on the backside.

I got it. Thank you, John. Dan, do you?

Yes, I would like to point out that in most highway projects DOT uses grass along the highways for their erosion control, for their absorption of water and rain and to prevent erosion control. So to say that wood chips, that grass is not effective in allowing for infiltration is just wrong.

Are there any final questions from the board? If not, I will close the public hearing. Is there any discussion? I think Doug has made a comment. I guess I think I was there for the view and I tend to agree with Doug at this point. I think that The train left the station quite a while ago and we're not going to bring it back.

I've just recently read through the master plan because I was sent down a hole to try and rationalize something else, but I noticed one of the recommendations was that we have another kind of an officer who is a site improvement officer or somebody in town who can go out and perhaps look and see if the silt fences are in the right places and the socks, and that would have prevented. It would have been very clear at the get-go where these lines are. So I forget. It might have been natural resources. I'm not sure. But it was a recommendation. One of the goals was to hire such a person, which is sorely needed. I don't think the building inspector has time to do it. I don't think the town planner has time to do it. If we are serious about enforcing these rules, we need somebody to supervise them.

Yes, I agree that not only do we not have a code officer now, but even if we have one, the planning department is still understaffed. Does anyone want to make a motion?

I'll make a motion that we approve this application and submit it.

Do I have a second?

Seconded.

All those in favor? Aye. Aye.

All right, and I believe there are... Mr. Chairman, if it's okay, now that we've cleared that, I believe Jeffrey Under the applicant's right, the door was revolving, code enforcement planner. I do recall that there was a condition of approval that the town would remove that tree. Could you see if that was in that approval? This gentleman is saying he had to write a check.

I was the one who pointed out the tree. jamming up the water flow. And at the meeting, it was discussed and even suggested that that tree remain to slow the flow.

See, I thought we, so I may be, you know, mind is mushy. I thought that was an MED issue, but they, when they planted a pole, they took that tree down and it was lying there. Now, if your memory is better than mine, then you're saying leave it there, but I thought we had as a condition on the original application that it was going to come out. That's all. Just as an FYI to all of us.

Dave Ransom again.

I can speak to that if you like. Steve Webster came out a couple months ago for the sole purpose of seeing whether or not the tree was still there. He said, as I recall at the meeting, we were supposed to take this out. And I told him at that time that we had removed it at the same time that we did the road. So my understanding was that it was going to come out. And the reason being was because it had altered the course of the wetland because of it being there and it was making it harder for the water to get through the culvert. So that's my recollection. I could be wrong.

I may have been premature in calling for that vote. I think there were two suggestions made by the Conservation Commission. One is that any shrubs to be planted be native and that there be no butterfly bush. And then we ideally should have received a letter authorizing you to act on behalf of the applicant, which I didn't see in the file.

But... Do you need us to do anything motion-wise? We need us to un-motion.

Can we add that to the motion?

Yeah. I have printed off a list of native plants that are recommended in this situation, and I'll make sure the landowner gets those.

Roger, do you want to make a reference to what you just read so that we can re-swizzle it? How do you want to do that?

It's... It's the Conservation Commission's undated memo from the Technical Review Committee.

Do you want a copy of the handout I'm going to give to the client on native plants?

Jeffrey, would you like a copy of that? Please.

You're asking the board to refer to this in the motion to approve. That's what you're doing?

yeah let's let's do a re-vote um my motion again sure sure so uh i'd like to make a motion to approve this application uh with the condition that the shrubs are do not include butterfly bush as noted in the conservation commission memo dated july 16 2026. second second

And they be native.

And that they be native shrubs. Second.

All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Okay. Next on the agenda is item two, subdivision, four lot subdivision for single family dwelling at 93 Camp School Road, tax map 253, lot seven.

I'm going to recuse myself and speak for the applicants.

Don, do you want an easel?

Are there people here who are interested in this application?

So what we'll do is Mike will be the one presenting the new plan, but I would just like to give a little history because there seems to be some confusion, mostly generated by an original plan to put 15 cabins on this same area. And some of the abutters who were notified thought we were putting cabins in when they were notified. So I just wanted to review what we did and why and the infrastructure that was left in place. So this plan here is just an overall plan of the whole Camp School parcel as it is today before any subdivision. It has a long neck out along Camp School Road that goes towards Pleasant Valley Road. Originally, this piece of land in 2006 was slated to be a faculty campus. And it was going to look like that. And I'll tip this because the orientation changed from the last plan. So the road is down here. And there is a road that we didn't get to today when we visited the site, but it comes down near the north campus and comes up this far, perhaps. And it was going to be the road of all of these cabins. There were 15 cabins, and there were 38 bedrooms proposed on two leach fields and a number of tanks and pumps the in 2016 there was a permit given and this leach field a was established as well as this line that goes back to septic tank c and pump tank d these are in place installed In fact, there are even some piers in the ground for these two cabins. That was the original start point. So that is in place. This field, B, is not in place. This field has the capacity for 15 bedrooms. The current proposal is to use the field that exists in place and some people saw it tonight or today and use the first lot is here and I'll let Frank demonstrate that. Use tank C and D for the first house lot. on the second house lot is the leach field and that house will need to put in the pre-approved but not in place tank g and then the third house lot over here will have to put in tank e and i'll let frank describe the easements that will be in place so that The center lot, which has the septic on it, has easements in favor of the lots on either side of it. There's also, not shown on this plan, but shown on Frank's plan, a roadway which we walked down, which was used to build this leach field. And the proposal is that that roadway will be, in case of failure, how that leach field gets replaced. in its current position so our proposal three four bedroom houses 12 bedrooms on a 15 bedroom approved leach field and yes we'll have to get state subdivision once we get through through here And if anybody wants to look at these, the design of the whole septic system is here. So I'll just leave it maybe over there on the stage. So if anybody wants to look at it, any of the neighbors, you can see that it's thoroughly designed.

And now it's Frank's turn.

Did I call you Mike before? I think I did.

I am Frank McMahon. I work with Verdantis LLC and I'm representing Camp School Inc. for this three lot subdivision at 93 Camp School Road in Wolfboro. So first we have the westerly lot 25371 which will be 2.27 acres and will have 200 feet of frontage. 200.00 feet of frontage. The second, and that lot has a well, a proposed water well, which is fully within the lot area. The second lot, going southeast, is 25372, which is 2.31 acres and 200, and has 200.03 feet of frontage on Camp School Road. Proposed lot 25373, which is the most southeasterly lot, has an area of 2.37 acres and 200.00 feet of frontage on Camp School Road. And all of these lots have their own water wells. And as mentioned by Vaughn, they will be using this existing septic system through this septic easement. So for the easement, it exists on lot 25372, and that lot is thus burdened. 25371 and 25373 are served by this easement and are allowed to construct pump lines and various sewage lines through this easement over 25372 and utilize this septic system. All lots will share maintenance of the septic system if it ever needs to be replaced. The owners of these lots will share the cost of that repair. We delineated wetlands in June, 2026, as seen at the north easterly corner of lot 25373. These wetlands do not impact the existing septic system, and they really have no impact at all. To be clear, Camp School Road is a private road, and there is safe access to these lots over Camp School Road from Pleasant Valley Road, which is about 1,000 feet away, to the west. And that's a class five road, Pleasant Valley. Now we are asking for, well, first I may say that We are sitting six new monuments for the subdivision. These monuments will be located at the intersection of the existing line on the north side and the new lot lines. So we've got two on proposed lot 253.2 and another on the north side. easterly corner of 253.73 and then we have monuments to be set where the right of way intersects the boundary lines as well as where the new boundary lines intersect the existing south westerly boundary line. So that's a total of six boundary monuments and then we will monument the septic easement as well. And I didn't count those up before, but we do have one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, 10, 11 monuments that will be set on the septic easement. We are requesting two waivers for the subdivision. One being the minimum lot sizing method, section 1749A1. We are asking for this waiver because we feel it is unnecessary to do lot loading calculations when there is already a septic system in place. which is in excess of the, if each of these lots had a four bedroom home, that would equal 12 bedrooms. This septic system is designed for 15. And we felt lot loading in this case, since each lot will not be harboring its own septic system, and there will be a covenant binding these lots to sharing the septic system that we felt it was not necessary to do lot loading calculations as in the regulations. The second waiver we are asking for is from section 1749B1, sources of soils information. We decided it was, or we feel it is unnecessary for HISS mapping to be done as the cost of HISS mapping outweighs the utility. There's only two soils present on all of these proposed lots and it's majority a single soil 46B. There's a small section of 647B where the wetlands are and on the north side of the lots. And because of this, we feel it is essentially a single soil situation.

But you're using NRCS mapping.

We did use NRCS mapping from the web soil survey.

So why can't you say you did? Why do you want us to waive that?

Oh, are you saying that in the regulations you're able to use NRCS?

Well, you want us to... My understanding was you wanted to waive his mapping and then you wanted to waive us putting where you got your information from. And if you used NRCS, why wouldn't you state that as opposed to asking for a waiver?

It is stated.

Did you just ask for a waiver for identifying the source? Or did I misunderstand you?

Okay, we were waiving HIST mapping because there is more than one soil present. And it says you need to use the regulations say you must use HIST mapping?

Yeah, you want us to waive the HIST mapping, but I thought you said that you also wanted to... Wave 170.

I think effectively what Roger's asking is, if you're using NRCS.

Paul, could you pull your mic down?

Effectively, Roger's asking, you're using NRCS data. Roger's saying, are you asking to have that waived as well? And I don't think you are.

174.9 in your letter says sources of soils information. So you, as I interpret that, you're asking us to waive you telling us where you got your soil information from. But you are telling that to us, so I don't know why you would want that waived.

You're looking at the letter of intent?

Yep.

It says, mapping per the Natural Resources Conservation Service, as available online at NH Granite, NH statewide GIS clearinghouse, was used instead.

That's right. So you're telling me that you used the NRCS soil maps. Instead of his map and then you're asking me to wave the fact that you Wave telling us that you're using them That's how I interpret this.

We are asking to wave Kiss mapping specifically, which is one seventy four nine a one

B is sources of soil information. Do you want to look at this? I'm just asking why, if you're telling us where you got the soil information, you want us to waive you telling us the requirement that you tell us where you got it.

The intent, so the first waiver, it seems the first waiver and the second waiver are sort of what we're talking about. The first waiver is for lot sizing methods and the method of lot loading, which PIS mapping is a part of. We're waiving, we're asking for a waiver for lot loading calculations and then a waiver to do his mapping. And if we asked for 174.9B, that's sources of soil information, correct? Is 174.9B1. It's just telling us where you got the soil information from.

As I interpret that.

Okay, the way we interpreted it was that would have been a method of getting soils information is his mapping.

But you're using the source of your information is NRCS, right?

That is correct.

I've done this once before, but I don't understand why. I understand you want to waive the HISS mapping. but you're telling us where you, and actually I think it was somebody from your firm. I don't understand, I would like to see on the plan where you got your soil information from, which seems to be on the upper left hand corner. So I don't think you need to waive that requirement.

Am I missing something, Vaughn? Well, what we're missing is the fact that there are no calculations. There is adequate soil based on that mapping to show that we have adequate lot loading, but that is really not what we used. We used those septic plants, which already have a system for 15 bedrooms on it. And that was carefully test pitted, and detailed and approved by the state so even though we have the kind of soil that we need based on whatever that is national and rcs we didn't calculate it we're just saying that we don't need test pits we already have mapping that shows that just because people were suggesting that we do more testing so it's just covering all the bases If we don't need it, we don't need it, but we're saying we'd like a waiver because we're using the septic system that's been designed. If you say we don't need the waiver, then we don't care.

I'm not at all convinced why you need the waiver. I think we beat that horse sufficiently.

OK. Is that point, do we need that waiver?

The board will vote on whether you need that waiver.

Understood. And I'll go to the next section in the letter of intent. Regarding ground control, there is sufficient ground control and natural features. which are identifiable on site. And with that, I will conclude my presentation of this subdivision.

Does the board have any questions?

Well, I believe there was a question from the informal session we had previously. with regard to the frontage and it not being on a town road. So how do we satisfy that?

Yeah, I was kind of there too. I think the one last I looked in on this, I made notes to myself, is this notion of sharing, you're going to have a pretty tight agreement between the parties as to how costs, maintenance, dues, that gets done. I don't know whether the planning board needs to weigh in on this, but the question was, Is this Camp School Road a right of way? Is it a private road? And I don't think we left clearly with an answer to those things.

It is a private road, and there is a right of way around this private road. It's defined by the right of way, and there are rights associated with Camp School Road.

Well, before... Do we want to first of all act on the waiver request, the request for two waivers to 174.9 , the minimum lot sizing method, and section 174.9 , sources of soil information?

I'll make a motion that we grant the waiver to 174-9 . And I agree that I don't think that the waiver for the soil mapping is necessary.

Do I have a second? Second for discussion. I'm sure we don't want to just do the second one just for bookkeeping purposes. Doesn't hurt to say no, no. The way things have been going lately, double nod it.

You want to make an alternate motion?

Well, we've got a motion.

No, I withdraw my second, if Doug will amend what he says. So does both of them.

Well, if we don't have a second, the motion fails. What's the pleasure of the board?

You do have a second. Julie seconded it.

Well, did you withdraw your second? I was dickering with him.

He's the green anatomy. She seconded it for discussion purposes.

All right, so then it's on the floor.

Any additional discussion?

All right, I will call a vote. All those in favor of the motion, aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. I'm going to abstain.

I don't know enough about this to vote. Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Okay. All but one.

I abstain.

Aye. Aye. Julie, how are you voting? Aye. Okay. All right.

That passes, and if somebody wants to make a separate motion for the other waiver, they can.

Well, I thought that took care of both waivers as I interpreted the motion. Was that an incorrect interpretation?

Well, my motion was to grant the first waiver. And I admitted the second waiver because I didn't think it was necessary.

But we have to act on the waiver either to grant it or not grant it.

That's true. If we don't grant it, we need to deny it.

I think what I heard, there was only one motion for one thing. You need to make a second motion. All right.

Does anyone want to make a motion on 174-9B1?

I'll make a motion to deny the waiver for 174-9B1.

Do I have a second?

I have a question. You're denying it. Can you put the reason why you're denying it as not applicable?

Yes, because I don't think it's necessary. As Roger had pointed out in his discussion, they're using the NCRS soil survey, which identifies the types of soils, and as stated in the request for the waiver, they're worried about the cost of the mapping outweighing the need for it, and it doesn't appear that there is a need for it.

But that wording should go into that, that it's not applicable to the... Correct. Yes, you're right. I agree.

So I'll amend my motion as you just described. All right.

Do I have a second?

I second. Yeah.

She beat you to it, I think. All right. Discussion?

Discussion. So everything you just said will be noted in the minutes, so there shouldn't be a question later on, correct?

Right.

I just have a, you know, I have a question, Roger. And again, I'll abstain because I'm not familiar with it. Have we done this in the past? Is there a precedence here that we have used these data in lieu of other data for soil loading? Do you know, guys? Any precedence that's been established here? None comes to mind.

Well, I think we did it. I made a fairly recent application, and it was from your firm, and I raised the same concern.

Where's Dan Coons? Dan Coons was in the audience at the time.

Is there any other discussion? All those in favor?

Aye. Aye.

Aye.

I'll abstain, Roger.

Okay, that takes care of the waiver request. Going back to the road, unless your plan up there is different than mine, I think there's a problem that the lots do not have frontage under the definition in the zoning ordinance, lot frontage, a lot line dividing. the lot from a street right of way. In this case, the lot line does not, there is no frontage because the road runs through the lot. And not only that, as shown on the plan, the building setback is within the right of way. And my suggestion, well, I think that's a problem. There is no frontage. It doesn't meet the definition.

So most lots in town, or at least a third of them, have private roads. And those private roads sometimes go right through the middle of the lot. And I can think of one I'm working on Walt's Lane. The lots sometimes are bisected by a right-of-way. You still have frontage on the lots.

No, you don't have frontage on the lots. And the right-of-way going through an existing lot, this is a subdivision, which is completely separate from an existing lot that has a right-of-way running through it. This does not meet the definition in the zoning ordinance.

So you're saying that it's not allowed because the lot has a road on it?

No, I'm saying it's because the lot has no frontage. It does not have frontage within the meaning of the zoning order.

So then none of the lots beyond that point, the first lot, have frontage either. And therefore, the people who are pulling building permits, there's a new house going up down by Camp School. That shouldn't be allowed because they have no frontage.

That's irrelevant. This is an application for a subdivision. Those are existing lots. And to the extent they're nonconforming, they can proceed on that basis. There is a solution to this.

A through lot? Would this classify as a through lot?

No. You don't have frontage. Under the zoning ordinance, you need 200 feet of frontage, and your lots don't have frontage. I can offer you a solution to that issue.

Yeah, and he wants to put buildings in it.

You're asking for a subdivision. We cannot create a lot that does not meet the requirements of the zoning ordinance.

But if you use that law, repeatedly then you should also not allow any building permits or any subdivisions or boundary line adjustments further down the line and there we should not allow any subdivisions further down the line if they're creating lots without frontage but previously approved non-conforming lots could be allowed to proceed yep so is this a boundary line adjustment question

No. I mean, boundary line adjustment, you can adjust boundaries. That's something completely different from creating lots under the zoning ordinance.

I'm confused. A few things in the ordinance where it defines a front lot. There's a through lot which says the front property line of a through lot shall be that line which is obviously the front by reason of prevailing custom of the other buildings in the block. There's no buildings here?

That's irrelevant. That's talking about we are creating lots. Under the zoning ordinance, you need to have frontage, and these lots do not have frontage as they appear on the map. And that's not going to, as far as I'm concerned, that's not going to get you anywhere.

Roger, you had said you had a proposed solution.

I have a proposed solution. And the proposed solution is, since this land is owned, I believe, by the Wolfborough Camp School Inc. all the way, including where the road runs, so we do not want to create a separate substandard lot there. But if you move... If you put in a line, I would suggest you do a 50-foot right of way, although I think that could be discussed. Right now, the town requires a 50-foot right of way. and you have the camp school right away within that strip, you need to measure your setbacks from the interior line. You would need to subtract the area of the road from the lot area, but that would not reduce. You need 87,000 some odd square feet, two acres, Each of these would still be above that if you reduced them by 10,000. And in that case, then, I think it would meet the frontage requirement. Because you would have a line that was a boundary. And I've seen this done. It happened on the Point of Pines, where they went in. Only in that case, nobody was sure who owned the road. But they put in a 50-foot... right-of-way when they're subdivided off lots.

That way you create furniture.

So, Roger, you're saying that the 50-foot right-of-way would go to the fourth lot over, the 253-7 onto the big lot?

Well, I run it up at least to the boundary of lots. So it would go on the bottom one? Vaughn, could you?

Thank you.

The remainder land that will remain as the camp school property will include a tongue of 40 feet well you could do the rest of the right-of-way is 40 feet there's no point in suddenly making it 50 feet we don't intend to bring it up to current standards it's a 40-foot right-of-way and for anybody who didn't come to the site visit it's a very nice country road I don't think any of the neighbors want it suddenly to be 50 feet and 24 feet of pavement It's just not desirable. Maybe some of the neighbors, if they're here, could speak to that.

If you do the break off the right-of-way like that, is that going to change anything with the wells or anything? Do they have to be relocated? No, they're still off of that.

This would be the front of it.

If that's required. It's just doing this.

If I understand it, the property owners just have a smaller, they just get a smaller lot, because the right-of-way now becomes part of the Camp School Road.

If I understood Roger's description, he's proposing essentially making the 40-foot right-of-way into a 50-foot right-of-way and taking that 10 feet from the proposed three lots.

Right, so the lots would just get smaller by 10 times 200.

Well, no, because this land is part of these lots, correct? When you calculated the lot, it's to here.

So the right-of-way is on where the lots are already. You just have to make, you wouldn't be losing it from the lot, but you'd be increasing the width of the right-of-way.

You'd be losing it from the lot.

You would lose it.

This much of it would become part of the camp school property. I think if that's what Roger is requiring.

Well, you could do that, or I would settle for a delineated right-of-way where, like, when you have a subdivision and the road goes in, you have a lot line, but the road, is shown on the subdivision plan.

So to satisfy your request, this would be 50 foot wide, even though up here and down here it's 40 feet wide.

Well, if you make it 50 foot wide, that's what the town currently requires. And if this were ever going to be taken over by the town, you would have a problem without a 50-foot right of way. And somebody might want to do that someday. Or in 50 years, when somebody is back in here, they may say to us, why didn't they just make it 50 feet so we wouldn't have this problem? But I would leave it up to the board. But if you subdivide the other part, then you could bring that part up to 50. And at some point, you're going to hit a tipping point on the road where there would need to be improvements. Depending on how many more lots can be added, it looks like the road's pretty well developed. But...

Mr. Chairman?

I mean, by the road pretty well developed, I meant lots on the road pretty well developed. I wasn't speaking specifically about the road.

Just so you know, and this is perhaps to respond to premature and something development that is not allowed. What are the two words, premature? Premature and scattered.

Scattered.

um here are all the lots along the road on the waterfront of rust pond there are 14 of them before you hit camp school on the other side the side that this development is on there are four lots between the class 5 pleasant valley road and these lots and beyond this there are many lots beyond Camp School, down Camp School Road already, and I didn't count those. Maybe 24 more, actually, I might have.

But it's pretty well developed, depending on whether the big lot that has frontage on New Garden Road happens right away over this, but there doesn't necessarily seem to be any reason why it would.

I don't think we're abutting New Garden Road, are we?

No, there's a lot that comes down and abuts you on. But it's not this lot. No, it's not this lot. It abuts it, but it's got frontage on.

Well, if that will satisfy the board, I don't see any reason why we can't do it. It seems unnecessary. Maybe we need some legal review. I don't know. We're willing to do that.

So Roger, if I understand what you're proposing, let's just assume just for the heck of it, it's a 50-foot wide road. And if on 25371 you have 200 square feet of frontage, it would be 50 times the 200. out of that property.

Right. So each of these lots are 227, 2.27, 2.31, 2.37. Probably it will have no effect whatsoever.

Maybe like 100 square feet, 50 times 200. You're taking out 10,000 square feet out of each of the lots.

Yeah. And they would still all be above the two acre minimum. Right.

What if the applicant seeks a waiver from the 50-foot requirement to get the 40 for the right-of-way? It already exists. It's on the table.

It's in the deed that way.

I guess the question is whether they could do that. And the question is, well... Current standard is 50 feet. You require it to be 50 feet, which if it was ever to be taken over by the town.

So one of the things that apparently you can require and we're willing to do is to put a reservation on the deed that says we will never ask the town to provide services and take care of this road. They do not. Steve Randall, I understand, had no problem with this because he said, I don't have to take care of it, basically.

Never seems to be a short period of time in some cases. We can go around and pick out the roads that were never going to be town roads.

Well, when it does become requested to be a town road, everybody on that road would have to agree to make the right-of-way 50 feet. And at that point, this would be the same.

But I think Roger's opening comment was these are lots without frontage. So that's a problem or an issue that has to be dealt with.

If it's true.

If it's true. Now, you're coming back and saying, well, what if we did them as 40 feet with a promise that we'll never ask the town to take over the road?

I think, actually, we have to put that on the deeds anyway.

Well, this is why I asked earlier, because we left this in the general discussion. Is this a private road? Yes. But these are lots without frontage with a road going through the lot. What Roger, I think, is saying is you've got to separate that out. If you agree to that, then the question is, is it 40 feet or is it 50? It's a two-part question.

If it's required, we will do it. We would like to subdivide and sell these lots for the benefit of the camp school.

Would everybody be happier if Vaughn erased some of those lines over there and made the frontage along the other side of the right-of-way?

Right, and then this piece becomes a tail on... To just erase a little bit of that?

So would that be considered frontage then?

If you make... No, because that's not... Why not? Because a lot frontage is the line dividing the lot from a street right-of-way.

That is. If she erases that and uses...

Even when it's on the lot.

But the lot does not have frontage. The right-of-way runs through the lot.

It has frontage on the right-of-way. The right-of-way is deeded. I think we're willing to go either way. I think the way we proposed it is fine. I think perhaps council should weigh in on this somehow because we could go either way. But to redo it, I don't know.

It might be cleaner if you did erase and move that line over so that the right-of-way is very clear who it belongs to.

It is.

Yeah, I know, but make it belong to the other piece instead. Just so that it would butt up and everybody would be happy that it butts up to the edge.

So I'm going to...

If it belongs to this piece and it's a right-of-way, it can still be a right-of-way if it belongs to this piece. Correct. So... I know.

So Von May just made an interesting point, and that is, so we get Camp School Road. If I dial 911, I can have a truck come there and take care of me.

In fact, that was the only real request that came from the TRC was that we get emergency numbers assigned to these three lots.

Let me just go down, at least from my mind, the logic here. So you just made an interesting comment that says it does have frontage on a right-of-way. And the right-of-way is being acknowledged by the town as a road. That's an interesting argument.

That's what we would propose.

Your lot line is not dividing the lot from a street right-of-way. It is incorporating the street right-of-way into the lot.

Yes, but that happens frequently throughout town.

Not when there's subdivisions being applied for and approved.

Well, look it, we're willing to go either way. We would like to subdivide three lots. Whether or not this tongue belongs to the camp school or belongs to the lot owners, I don't think it really matters.

Personally, I think it would be better planning if the right-of-way belong to the individual lot owners but for purposes of computing the lot size and setbacks you used the inland side of the right-of-way so that just means that the dotted line in here moves back the dotted line that shows the setbacks well yes that's fine Yeah.

We would put the front set back from the right-of-way line.

You would not be dividing off, because that little thing... If the town took it over, that would be deeded to the town very easily. If the town never took it over, you really don't want that thing floating around in space forever.

And the other thing is if you've seen this land and the houses on it, nobody is right up on the street. It's not something that I don't think anybody will do. So it's of no consequence if we put the setback back. We're happy to.

Well, the next question is, is it 40 feet or is it 50?

It exists at 40.

Should it be 50?

It's already on the deed at 40. How can you change that?

We can require a 50-foot right-of-way across the lot.

I appreciate your we're never going to ask the town. Pinky swear. However, we do have a couple of people who want to ask the town. From a longer-term perspective, you don't have to improve it, but if I want to avoid in the future someone says, well, but I do want the town to take it over. And then the town comes back and says, there's always someone. There's always somebody.

If you have that, as you described, a tongue of land from the camp school lot, is there a concern about form factor?

And what difference does it make if it's the camp school's land or these lot owners' lands? The right-of-way is defined. I'm not saying that it does. You can't put anything in it.

I think I would prefer having it as a right-of-way, but it's like a pretend lot line. You make your distances back from it, and it gives the road a 50-foot right-of-way.

Are you suggesting that the right-of-way edge has a setback of its own?

It would be the 50 feet and then the setback from the edge of that. Yes. Well, we can have a vote on, do we want to vote on first of all whether there is agreement Lots need to have... There is agreement with the fact that there needs to be a right-of-way delineated... Or the lots need to have frontage as required by the zoning ordinance and delineated as having... is dividing a lot from a street right away.

I'm not sure what you're asking, Roger.

Okay, do we want to go with my interpretation? Maybe that's the simplest way.

Well, I'm just trying to make sure I understand your interpretation so we can record it properly.

That there needs to be... Well, do we want to go with the... the width first, or do we want to go with that there needs to be a dividing line between the lot and the camp school road, which can be in the form of an easement line.

There is an easement line there, and at limit of right-of-way, and there's a plan reference on the plan that says what that right-of-way is. It's 40 feet.

But you're including that within the lot itself, because your 30-foot setback is within the right-of-way, and your 30-foot setback... We're happy to move the setback back to the edge of the right-of-way. You have to be 30 feet back.

That's fine. If that solves this.

And leave the actual right-of-way at 40 the way it is for the rest of the road.

Well, do we want to vote first on whether to proceed with?

I just want to show you this is, you know, off of GIS. This is the thing we're butting up against here. None of these lots actually have frontage except for on the right of way, on the rust pond side. So this 40-foot double line, with double line is the right-of-way. And suddenly if you had three lots with 50, does that really make sense?

Does that help anything? I think the reason that Roger's proposing that is to essentially future-proof it so that if sometime in the future things change and people do want to improve the road, then at least these three lots won't be in controversy.

That's one side of it, because in the future, But if you indicate that they have to have 50 foot now, then those lot owners are going to say, well, OK, so our section of the road meets town requirements. We want this road maintained by the town. You just shut yourself in the foot. There's a process for that, though.

Well, they could petition to do that. I'll stop it right there. They could petition to tooth that.

But the road would have to be upgraded to town standards from Pleasant Valley Road to these lots in order for the town to take it over.

Or would Pleasant Valley Road have to be upgraded too? Because it's not town standard road.

There are very few. But it's a town road.

Yes, it is.

I think you opened up a can of worms. Living with our families.

So we're willing to do whatever we have to, but we'd like it to be as least painful as possible. So 40 foot right of way already exists.

Roger, would it make you happier if they moved that extra 10 feet? to not moved, but just made the setback from the property line an extra 10 feet. So 40 feet instead of 30 feet from this right of way line? Yes.

Yes.

Just like extra grass. So in the future, it could be 50 if anything happened to it because there's nothing built there because it's an extra setback. Yeah. Would that make you happy? We could agree to an extra set.

I would prefer that it be 50 feet. Well, no, I think what Julie's saying is that if you make the building set back 40 feet instead of 30 feet, then the total is 50 feet.

But then you sort of created this no man's land where if it were to be a town road at some point, then you would have to get 10 feet out of each of these lots.

You have to get all the feet off of every single person on the entire road. Right.

Yeah. These would be three less people.

It would be about 40, 50 people.

When we get done, we will open the public hearing. You may ask any question or make any comment you like at that time. We need to get past this.

Right, but then it would be part of this.

Roger, I would propose at this point that if you could or would you like to put your proposed solution in the form of a motion, is that appropriate at this point?

All right. I would like to make a motion that the plans be revised to show a dividing line separating the Camp School Road from the remainder of the lot to be shown as an easement right away on the plans, and that it be 50 feet wide.

And that the setback is from that line?

The setback would be, and the lot size computation would be from that dividing line, which would not create a separate lot.

You said 50 instead of 40. What? You said 50 instead of 40. I said 50 because I meant 50. Then that makes it 60 where she's drawing the line. No.

I don't know where she's drawing the line, but it would be 50 feet wide right of way for the road.

So we'd change all the deeds to say 50 feet right of way? No.

Yes, the deeds to these lots would be subject to a 50-foot right-of-way.

And once that right-of-way makes contact with the remaining land, it goes back to 40? No. It stops at the remaining land?

I'm not sure I followed your question.

The 50-foot extension? Yes. Widening? Are you suggesting that it ends at the remaining land? Yes. And then goes back to 40 feet?

Yes.

If it has to go any more, that would have to go before the select board as we lay out the roads. So we have to go to the select board? No, if you wanted to go, your question was where do I terminate And you're saying there, I don't believe this planning board has the authority to say you've got to do it down the whole.

Yeah, the right-of-way would not change on the main camp school lot.

It's only for these three lots.

I think the problem Roger's trying to solve, and this is the crux of it, is his argument is you have no frontage. Your counterargument is it's a right-of-way. And so you do have frontage on the right-of-way. That's the crux of the argument.

But not within the definition of frontage in the zoning ordinance. Right. There may be a right-of-way running there, but it is not a frontage as defined in the ordinance.

So one little more additional wrinkle, Roger, is that all the discussion has been focused on these three lots, but strictly speaking, if we approve this subdivision, it's going to include four lots, not three.

Right.

Correct. But we only want to apply your solution to the three of them, not the fourth. Is that accurate?

Yes.

Because the fourth lot is not... So the new lot's being created. You're not building on that fourth lot.

If they subdivided that lot, which is the remaining land of 54.3 acres, then they would have to extend the 50-foot right-of-way. But as long as they aren't subdividing, they wouldn't have to.

So do we have a second on Rogers?

Do you have a second on your motion? I just want to make sure we're, this has been a lot of, very confusing for me, I'm sorry to say. But I want to make sure that we're going through this right. As far as I know, we have not yet accepted the application as complete.

Right. I think, well, we can't because we need to resolve this in order. TO HAVE A COMPLETE APPLICATION. AND AT THIS POINT I'M NOT SURE THAT WE DO.

I DON'T THINK WE DO. AND YOU'VE MADE A MOTION WITH THE PROPOSED SOLUTION. I'M NOT SURE THAT THAT'S THE PROPER MECHANISM TO DO THIS. PERHAPS WHAT WE NEED TO DO IS ASSURE THE APPLICANT THAT IF THE PROPOSED CHANGE THAT YOU SUGGESTED WAS MADE THAT WE WOULD IN FACT THEN ACCEPT IT and approve that application, provided there were no other concerns. I don't know that we can, as a board, make a motion to cause them to change their design.

Well, I think they're looking for guidance from us. Yes, I'm sure that's true.

And we need to provide that. We were hoping for approval, but if we take guidance, we will.

So, Roger, I would support your proposed solution I'm just concerned about the proper mechanism to implement it.

Well, we can deny the application.

Well, we haven't approved it as complete, so it wouldn't be denied.

Well, it's not complete. There's some additional things that I... I would like to see the septic easements. I would like to...

They're on the plan. They already are on the plan. And they will be monumented. But...

not just the physical layout, but the language that you're gonna use to require everybody to maintain.

There's a note.

You're talking about the deed language now.

Yeah.

We do also have a stamped version of the plan. Your version is not. There were a couple of tweaks made, one to that sewage easement note by our life and slant surveyor. So we do have the language that you are asking for.

Well, you're going to need state subdivision approval. We should probably have the form factor put on the plan. It seems pretty clear to me they need it. I would like something documenting that houses constructed on those lots will be able to tie into the existing leach field, even though it's a 2016 approval.

So state subdivision will verify that.

Well, verify the state thinks that you can put.

The septic system has operational approval.

But you're building new houses will be built. on those lots will then need to tie in. And the question is whether the standards have changed and the state will ask you to do something else or something more.

Roger, are you suggesting that there might have been changes to the state septic regulations in the past 10 years?

Yep.

OK.

I mean, if you want an example, I put an addition on my house, and I had a perfectly functioning septic system. But they had changed the size of the tanks between, I'm not sure I really added any, the state decided I added a bedroom maybe. And I had to put in a new septic system. Happily, in my case, I live on a pile of sand.

Were you going to speak?

We could pursue a letter.

Yeah, something that just documents that somebody will be able to tie into it.

Yeah, I believe those are collection permits, the tie-ins. As far as I'm concerned, if it's operationally approved in 2016...

but you were adding something new to it.

It was operationally approved for 15 bedrooms in 2016.

All I'm hoping for is something that says no problem tying into it.

I'm not well versed enough on the state septic regulations, but I'm assuming that the approval that you received in 2016 was for the single lot that the camp school is presently on and does the change to three separate lots then require each of those lots to get septic approval?

There are septic systems all over this property and each of those systems serves different parts of campus. This system was only to serve 15 cabins.

No, I understand, and I'm not questioning the capacity of the system and its ability to serve the houses that are proposed. I'm just wondering if the subdivision is approved, do those individual lots then need to go to the state to get septic approval?

That's a question for the state. Do they need approval? The reason for state approval is septic systems.

That's fair. And if we grant the subdivision approval with the septic easements, then that would be the means by which those individual lots could then apply for their necessary approvals. That makes sense. Thank you.

I presume that one of the conditions will be that we have state subdivision approval.

Yeah, but the question is, will they approve tying into this system?

Yeah, they may or they may not, but as Vaughn pointed out, that could be a condition of approval.

And they would not be allowed to have their own septic systems. They must use this septic system. They would be binded to it. Mr. Chairman?

That may be the restriction you're imposing, but we just want something so people don't come back to us and say, well, you approved the subdivision, and they won't let us look up to the sewage.

Roger. If the applicant had a septic designer provide a letter indicating that each of the homes built on those lots can be serviced by that septic system, is that something that would be acceptable?

I would be delighted. I mean, that's all I'm looking for.

Mr. Chairman, so this conversation about how septic systems would work and how people would hook up to them is not, at least in my opinion, it's not relevant to the motion that's in front of us. The motion in front of us is to somehow disposition that, would you call it a tongue? That line. And at least I as one person, I'm now a little confused, not confused, I'm unsure as to how I'll vote because The question that I think you raised, Vaughn, is one that I think we probably need to get answered, and that is, can you have a right-of-way going through property and call it a road?

You can, but you can't call it that for zoning purposes.

And is there someplace I can look that up and get an answer?

175, 175, a lot line dividing a lot from a street right-of-way, that's lot frontage. And that road, right as shown on the plan, is not dividing the lot from a street right of way.

Over here.

But it is.

Back here, it is.

Yeah.

So we'll move it, the lot line.

So the applicant is saying, if this motion flies, the applicant is agreeing to moving that lot line back.

I don't see any harm in that. But who does that belong to? Does that belong to these lots or does that belong to the camp school lot?

I think it could be done in a way where you're reserving the right of way and it's like on a subdivision plan where the right of way runs and the lot, everything in the lot is measured back from that. So it would be, you would have a line dividing the lot from the street right of way but it would still at the moment be part of that lot unless it was changed so you don't end up with this tail there that really so 50 foot right of way just for these three three lots and a 30 foot setback from that yep which is zone and the but the lots still go all the way across the right way you would not include it in your computation yes they would be

You mentioned and it says in the regulations that it needs to be a lot line that divides.

It probably should be attached to the other remaining land and that would make it cleaner probably.

Roger, I have a point to make. Maybe I didn't follow this, but I assume you're going to be selling these lots. Okay, so what about if when the new owner takes possession on the deed or whatnot, it specifies who owns that piece of land? Yeah, so then why wouldn't it be all set then?

No, I think Roger's point is that if you include... that strip of land as the tail, as it's been described, then the lot line between that tail and the proposed new lots would be a frontage. Whereas if it's only a right-of-way, then it's not a lot line. So, Roger, I would say rather than making that change to the design through a motion, perhaps the best course of action would be for us not to accept this as complete and have the applicant redo the plan and resubmit it.

Yep. With the understanding that we were instructed to do so.

Yes. And so it wouldn't be questioned at a later session and have to redo it again. Yes.

Do you want me to make another motion?

Well, we haven't voted on the current one, have we? No. Has it been seconded? I don't believe so.

Why couldn't we just approve it with the stipulation? Because that's going to save them a lot of time.

We can't approve it. I mean, you can't approve a stipulation.

You don't approve the— Approved based on them doing what we said we were going to do, so they don't have to come back again and lose time.

It's a change to the wants. Yeah.

I think it would be pretty messy. But we've got another meeting coming up in a couple of days.

So I'll go back and, well, Roger, you as chair, do you want to recognize that there's no second to your motion?

I will recognize there was no second to my motion.

So the motion fails. And so I propose that we request that the applicant make the adjustments as you've described with the tail as we've characterized it. And... come back again, perhaps, with a new plan. Vaughn, do you agree to that? Does that make the most sense to you?

Well, the big picture, no. I mean, the big picture is the camp school is trying to raise money, and we're spending it rapidly.

Yeah, I understand. And the delay is expensive. Yeah.

Yeah. And repeating the effort. But I mean, I'm curious if that's the real legal definition of frontage, or it can be frontage on a right-of-way that is on a lot.

Well, I think it's pretty clear from the definitions we have in our ordinance that having a right-of-way pass through the lot does not create a lot separate from the right-of-way.

but it should just say setback from the right of way, not the lot line. Because there are lots of lots around town that have a right of way across them.

Yeah, so reading from our ordinance directly, as I'm going to restate it, I think Roger mentioned it earlier, lot frontage is defined as a lot line dividing the lot from a street right of way. and having the right of way through the lot does not divide it from the right of way. And perhaps that's something that should be addressed in our ordinance to prevent this in the future, but that's what we have to deal with today.

The type of lots don't apply here? Corner lots.

When you're talking about corner lots, you're talking about an existing lot and how you define the frontage of it or how you define the frontage of the lot. So if you have...

I guess that's where the frontage is located.

But the short answer to your question is no. You need frontage. I will retry. I make a motion that we request that the applicant revise the plan to reflect the Camp School Road as being a 50-foot wide right-of-way running in front of these three lots, and that in computing setbacks and lot size, the that right-of-way, which will then not be part of the lots, be excluded, the camp school right-of-way to be attached to the retaining land, which is lot 253-7. On the proposal?

On the proposal. Proposed lot 253-7. Yeah.

Well, 253 is the remaining land.

Yes, yes. I'll second that motion.

Is there any discussion?

I don't understand what you said, Roger. Would you repeat that, please? Because that made no sense.

Okay. There's going to be a 50-foot-wide right-of-way that encompasses the existing camp school road, and it will run in front of those three lots, and there will be a boundary of those lots dividing the them from the Camp School Road. And the section of the Camp School Road currently shown as in front of those lots will be attached to the remaining land, which is 253.7.

And is that going to reduce the square footage of the lot itself? Sounds like it. It's going to reduce the size.

The balance of this goes into this lot. Yes.

Yes.

So there is a little caveat in here. There's a jog. across this right-of-way in the land of the Tappans and Albi, I guess, and Lucille Marie, there is a jog that shoots up and makes the right-of-way narrower. So do we have the same jog on the opposite side to make it 50 feet? Just to clarify. Or do we leave the right-of-way where it is on the deed and show a new lot line for the right-of-way? Not a lot line. Well, I guess it has to be a lot line.

You're going to show new lot lines for the proposed three lots?

That would probably be cleaner if you did it that way.

So this right here is going to have a jog to 50 feet because this has a jog.

But wouldn't that be cleaner if you just moved the lots up and made the lots smaller and left the right-of-way alone?

Well, the right-of-way has a jog.

What if you see a minimum of 50 feet? That way it can account for the little extra square footage for the jog where that might be more.

That runs from the, it runs all the way down almost to within 40 feet of, starts there and runs down. It doesn't really show it. Does it? Oh, here it is.

Von, if you moved the lot line completely, wouldn't that just leave the right-of-way alone?

Well, the right-of-way then belongs to somebody. The guy's down over here.

It belongs to them. Untouched. We didn't touch it. Nothing's going on. You're just trying to put three lots over there, up higher, that would have the right to pass and repass on the right-of-way to get there, right? To get onto? Or isn't that already a built-in thing that you have the right to get to a road?

Well, all of these people beyond have a right of way anyway.

But it's not new.

Wouldn't that be cleaner, though, to just move those guys up a little?

Yeah, that's what he's proposing.

It's not starting here. It's starting out here.

If we maintain 50 feet where the jog is, if we follow the jog, then these lots can remain as they are. If we...

I'm saying just pick them up. Move them up on the paper and put them back down. Just pick up the green lines and move the green lines up. No, up. Yeah, just pick up the green lines and move them up.

Well, this lot back here, this is somebody else. So these are the outer bounds.

Well, you've got a little bit of space, don't you?

These are the outer bounds here. And the only way to expand these lots would be to expand into the camp school remaining land. If we carry this line through, so if we go to the part where it's jogged, in and if we were to bring that 50 foot right of way all the way through then it would be 60 feet so once it gets past the jog and that would subtract 0.275 acres from 5371 which would bring it below two acres

If I may, I'm just going to throw this out there as another idea. And I kind of said this before, but I think that the planning board would have, if the applicant could demonstrate that they meet the waiver criteria for the 40-foot width, and they put language in both the deeds and on the plan that indicate that the road will remain private in perpetuity, and that it's recorded that way. Roger, I expect you'll still have your concern, but rather than, and then measure the setback from that 40-foot line, I think that might be the cleanest way to avoid jogs, because I'm also thinking about this from, a code enforcement and an administrative standpoint. We all know what we're talking about, but God knows how to unpack that once it gets to building permit time. It could get a little insane. Just a suggestion.

I am opposed to waiving substantive provisions of the subdivision regulations. And I think that I question whether these three landowners could prevent the, if this was going to be upgraded to a town road, the fact that these three lot owners had deeds that said it would never be upgraded Couldn't prohibit that if the rest of the people wanted it and they met the requirements for an upgrade. Are we ready to vote on my motion?

If there's no further discussion.

Is there any further discussion on my motion?

We have another weird situation. There is a little strip of land here between the green and the pink here where that jog occurs. That right-of-way is on the other lot across the street. That's not on your property? No. So this piece of land here is not on the camp school property. It belongs to these people down here. So we just need direction.

OK. All those in favor of my motion?

Which was? Yeah, can you restate it?

My motion was, well, All right, I'll rephrase. My motion is to create three lots as shown on that plan, but with the southwesterly boundaries of the lots being a line 50 feet from the currently shown boundary and encompassing the camp school road. And that piece of land should be attached to the remaining Wolf Brokamp School land shown as lot 2537 on the subdivision plan before us this evening.

So there will be then no jog because this land does not belong to this lot. It's going to be a 50-foot right-of-way plus 9.97 feet.

So in a nutshell, there will be a line 50 feet from the current boundary running across all three lots.

And if we have to adjust these slightly to make them meet two acres?

Yeah, I... I looked at that earlier, and I don't think it should impact your proposal.

It'd be from here.

All right.

Are we ready finally? Do we want to let any of the abutters speak just because they might be here?

Well, I would like to take this vote, and then we're not in a position to open the public hearing, but I think my take is that if there are people who have been here and are concerned about the application, that they should be given an opportunity to speak. unless the board wants to overrule me on that.

No, that's fine. But we haven't actually accepted the application, so what are we voting on?

So we're voting on my motion to create the three lots with the 50-foot strip taken out.

So we're just kind of putting a guarantee stamp that when Vaughn comes back and does that, that we'll take it?

I think that's correct, yeah.

I mean, I've stated what I think are my two concerns, and that's one of them. The other is the septic, which is irrelevant to my motion.

So let me ask the question. Are you guys good with that? No. Can you make it work?

Yes, we'll do whatever we have to do to make this work.

Do we second everything yet or not?

All those in favor? Aye. Aye.

I don't feel qualified right now to vote on this, so I'm going to abstain.

I'm going to say no because I don't think that we can actually do what we're trying to do without opening the thing and doing the thing. I think we have to fold it all up and say, come back next time.