Zoning Board of Adjustment - Regular Meeting

I'd like to call to order the meeting of August 17th, 2026, Board of Adjustments at 6.05. And the roll call for voting members is Suzanne Ryan, Chair, Chuck Sumner, Vice Chair, and Clerk, Jody Persons is a voting member, and Brody Dusha Deshaies is a voting member. And Sabet Stoneman is an alternate, but tonight I'm going to make a motion to place Sabet into a full-time position because our dear friend, Kate McMahon had to resign, and so I'd like to move, so I don't have to keep making her an alternate, move her up every single meeting, I'd just like to make a motion now to move Sabet alternate up into a full-time voting position until the end of the year in March when Kate's term would have been up. Do I have a second? Second. Any discussion?

My only discussion, I'll support you, Sabet. I think you'll be a great board member. I wish we would have posted publicly in the newspaper and solicited for applicants like every other board does in town.

Okay. And you accept that? Yeah. Thank you. Okay. All those in favor, roll call. Aye. Aye. Ryan, yes.

Chuck Sumner, yes.

And Sabet said she accepts. So we have a full complement of five as voting members tonight.

Sabet, you do need to speak in your microphone from here on out. We can't hear you at all.

Okay.

Okay.

I have one question.

The minutes of June 15th.

Does Sabet have to take the oath of office before acting as a board member?

She's already done it as an alternate.

Does she have to take the oath?

No, she's just changing the position.

Okay.

I do.

Well, I can't do that. Only the town clerk can.

Minutes of June 15th. Do we have any corrections on those?

Move to accept. Second.

All those in favor be signified by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Okay. Now I'd like to move a couple of items on the agenda. First of all, I'd like to move up the... Rules of procedure, which only should take a minute, and that's on C5C. And it's simply we've amended the rules of procedure to change the stop time at 9 o'clock from 10 o'clock. And it takes two readings, Brody. So we didn't accept it at the last meeting. So I make a motion to accept the second reading of amendment of section 5.7 adjournment in our rules of procedure from 10 to 9. Do I have a second?

Second.

Thank you, Chuck. A second. Roll call vote. Brody? Oh, sorry. Discussion?

No. No.

Brody?

No.

No.

Okay.

You don't agree?

I'm not going to get hung up on that, but no.

Okay. I'll make a point. It's the exact same amount of time we've always had. We just shifted our starting time and our ending time. So I'll say yes. Yes.

Thank you. Jody?

Yeah. All right.

Ryan, yes.

Chuck's on there, yes.

Okay, so the motion passes. Our stop time will be 9 o'clock. What was the other thing? Oh, okay. The other thing was we have tailored homes on here twice for different reasons, and so When you come up under 4B, I'm going to move up under 5A so that we do them sequentially, because I know there's people here that are for both.

Do you need a motion for that?

I can.

Do you need a motion for that?

Well, yeah, when I...

Okay.

I'm looking to see if anyone's upset about that. I don't see anyone's upset. Okay. Okay. So motion to move item 5A up under 4B. Do I have a second?

Second.

Roll call vote. Brody?

Aye. Aye.

Aye.

Ryan, yes?

Yes.

Okay. Okay. All right. So now we'll go right into, tonight we have a backlog of continuations and rehearing applications. So just so the public understands, the consideration for rehearings, those applications are not public hearings. Therefore, no public comment is allowed. The board will only discuss the merits of 677.2 and 3, should a rehearing be held or not. The merits of the case will not be discussed. OK. So the first item on the agenda is continued application for Alan. Oh, why don't you read it, Chuck? The clerk.

Well, the first item is Alan and Felicity Freund, QPR Trust and Heather M. Murdoch and Michael K. Arlen, 11 Poplar Island.

Yeah.

Keep reading. Tax map, lot number 193-001, case 15SE25, public hearing for special exception under section 17543. A1J of the zoning ordinance for a vertical expansion of a non-conforming structure.

I keep reading.

Action is required. We need to vote on the application withdrawal.

Okay. Jeffrey, could you give us an update as to how this is appearing in this manner, that we have to take a vote on the withdrawal, and what are the reasons specifically that they withdrew it for? Thank you.

Sure. Thank you. so this proposal has been before the board since 2025 and during 2025 it secured a couple of approvals the last approval that was attached to the same proposal was a special exception permit for a vertical expansion of a non-conforming structure now The particular standard that was under review here, which is cited on your agenda, 175-43A1J, is associated just with vertical expansions of nonconforming structures. There are other standards under that same section, 175-43A, that deal with nonconformities, but they deal with non-conformities in a different manner. This particular one, J, is just for vertical expansions. So, for whatever reason, this particular standard state set If you have a nonconforming structure and a vertical expansion is beyond 25% of what exists for the nonconformance, then a special exception is required. If it's under 25%, there is no identified planning board or ZBA review, so it goes to the regular building permit process. When this proposal was originally brought to you, the vertical expansion was over 25%. Not much, but it was over. The structure, I believe, was 1,611 square feet that was in the non-conforming area. And of that 25%, I believe it equals 402.5. So the proposal at the time, when you were reviewing it, was 421 square feet, which exceeded that 25%. It went beyond the 25%, so it required the special exception. The applicants were here for a number of meetings, they were continued, the ZBA considered it, and ultimately what the applicant decided to do was to revise the proposal and to drop it so the vertical expansion is under the 25%, so it no longer goes beyond and doesn't meet that threshold of special exception. Now the 25%, under the 25% wasn't much. They dropped it down to 390 square feet. So it's about, if I recall, like 24.38%, not 25%. So that kicked it out of the special exception and went to building permit. Just to ensure that this, That's what I felt and to ensure that this decision was correct, I did consult with our ZBA attorney and I consulted with the town's attorney too because I know that this decision could have implications beyond just this particular application. And they supported that interpretation. They said it was the right interpretation. So we decided to move forward with that interpretation and removed it from the 25 percent threshold. Therefore, it no longer required a special exception. And now that it's out of the special exception area, the attorneys have dropped their lawsuit against the town. And we approved it through the building permit process. We had this withdrawal on the agenda for a couple of the meetings, but we just haven't had some meetings since June. So right now, just to close this particular agenda item, we'd like to have a vote on the application withdrawal. Thank you.

Thank you. Any questions?

What's the motion? Can we make a motion?

Yes. Any questions?

Okay. I have a question. Could you tell us what they specifically did to reduce, to drop this, number one? And number two, can you tell us how that is going to be followed up to ensure that they are held exactly to what they have said they've changed?

So for number one, it was literally shrinking the footprint of the vertical expansion. slightly. It was a total reduction, I think, of 30-ish square feet. So if you were to look at the building, let's say if they built what they were originally proposing compared to what they shrunk it to, It would, you wouldn't notice, it's so negligible, but they shrunk that footprint up slightly to acquire the additional, or to reduce the square footage so they could get under that, under 402.5, which was the cap for going over 25%.

They shrunk the footprint but not the height?

But not the height, correct. Okay. With the second one, that's a good question. I think it's a good question with all of the projects that we approve, really, is who follows up to ensure that they're built correctly. Ultimately, it's... It's the code enforcement officer building inspector's responsibility to ensure the building's brought up to plans during the building permit time and also during the construction time. where we're without a code enforcement officer and we've been without a code enforcement officer it makes it a little more difficult to follow through on some of these proposals as we would have i assumed or as we did in the past before my time um I can't promise, but it's certainly my intent to have our new code enforcement officer ensure that they follow through with all of the proposals that go through the ZBA as well as the planning board. And before that certificate of occupancy is issued, to confirm that any of those issues that might have been sensitive or conditions attached to a proposal are clear, clearly met.

So I would say I appreciate your decision to save the town money and to find a middle ground. But because we've as a town have dropped the ball so quite a few times on following up on what was supposed to be built and then maybe what was built. that especially when there is an administrative decision to make a change that the zoning board wasn't part of, I'd like to make sure we really are diligent so that we don't send any kind of messages out there that, oh, we can go in and make some changes and say we're making some changes and nobody ever follows up.

Absolutely.

Chuck?

Just to clarify, that particular ordinance requirement is confusing. What Jeffrey said is that 25% of the footprint, it's not 25% vertical expansion. It's vertical expansion of a footprint that is over 25%, has increased by 25%. So we're not looking at how high they went, but how wide they went, what the expansion of the footprint was.

But if you're changing the footprint, you're changing the building.

Correct. And yeah, I understand you want to make sure that they meet the new plan for a reduced footprint.

And if I understand correctly, this is also one of the ordinances that hopefully in your spare time you're going to be cleaning that up for us.

yeah tomorrow night at the planning board we're discussing our ordinance work for 2027 warrant and i shared with both the chair and the vice chair that the non-conforming standards are really difficult for a consistent clear interpretation for everyone involved so it's my hope that we can work on those and correct that

So is it appropriate to make a motion now?

No, first of all, not quite. Typically, the applicant has every right to withdraw an application, and we don't grant it or deny it. I mean, you can't deny something somebody wants to withdraw. So why are we making a motion to grant or allow him to withdraw it? He's withdrawn it.

I was not aware of that. So that's completely fine with me. I don't think a motion is in order. I just wanted to ensure that the record was closed.

But I do think a notice of decision that goes on file with this letter that they have withdrawn. That's all the action that would be required. OK. Thank you. Next item.

One less vote.

Okay. Under 4B, you want to read that, Chuck? Taylor Community Bay Street. Read the whole thing.

Taylor Community Bay Street. Tax map lot number 20362, 6364, and 65. Bay Street Limited Business Case number 2026-AA-001. Administrative appeal under 175-104 and 175-52. Appeal of Planning Board's 4726 decision to deny Taylor community lot merger and site plan applications proposing to establish four residential duplexes on a single lot. Action is a public hearing and decision.

Thank you. Okay, so this is an administrative appeal of the decision the planning board made on 4-7-26. And that's our job, to determine whether or not the planning board made a proper decision or not. And I would like to open the hearing for the case number 2026AA001. And interested parties would like to explain. I guess it would start with the Planning Board member. And would you state your name for the record, even though we know you? And further, would you... state whether or not you're representing the planning board whether you're here as a planning board member whether the planning board sent you can we get a sense of why you're here other than the case okay my name is roger murray i'm the vice chair of the wolfborough planning board and i'm here this evening speaking

Pull the whole thing, yeah. Thank you. And I'm here to speak on behalf of the planning board as authorized by vote of the board at its July 7, 2026 meeting. And I do have a copy of those minutes.

Thank you. I wonder what's on here.

The application that came before the planning board was for four residential duplexes, for standard residential duplexes. And as the board discussed on June 15th, there are two issues. One, whether one duplex is permitted per lot this zoning district or whether as Taylor Holmes suggests there can be as many duplexes as will fit on a lot limited only by setback and lot coverage requirements the second is whether the proposal violates the funnel development provisions of the zoning ordinance section 175 52 Beginning with the density, in preparation for coming before the board tonight, I looked at the video of the June 15th hearing, and I was so much surprised to find a statement by Attorney Bouchard in terms of the board's justification for our decision that it required one, you can only have one duplex per lot. And he said, speaking of me, the first is he said, me being the he, that other parts of the ordinance limit density to one duplex per lot. I never said that. And I went back, I looked at the video of the planning board, meeting and it is clear I never said that. There were also some statements made that the planning board looked at other sections of the zoning ordinance in reaching its decision. That also is not correct. I think the minutes of the April 7th meeting are really quite good. They capture what took place. It was a short discussion and all the salient points are listed there. In addition, the planning board did not engage in any grafting, no extrapolation, no looking at other sections of the zoning ordinance. What we looked at was section 175-104. Let me add one other thing. The references to section 144B of the zoning ordinance by the applicant, that is the town's multifamily ordinance. That has nothing to do with the application for duplexes. It's got no relevance, no bearing, and the board's decision was based on Article 17, which governs the Bay Street Limited Business District, where the property is located. And looking at that, section 175.104 provides a minimum lot area of 43,560 square feet, that's basically one acre. You then look at the permitted uses, and they, number A is single detached dwelling, B is duplex dwelling, and then there are other uses listed, some are singular, some plural. The mere fact that other districts with zoning districts with other permitted uses or other employ different language doesn't mean that the language of the Bay Street Limited Business District doesn't mean what it says. It says duplex, singular. It's one duplex. I know the applicant has cited Section 175, 174, which is under Article 27 of the Zoning Ordinance, and that's the section that addresses definitions and word usage. And Section 175, 174 in its entirety reads, unless otherwise expressly stated, the following terms shall, for the purpose of this part one, and part one is basically the standard provisions of the ordinance, have the meanings indicated in this article. Words used in the present tense include the future, the singular number includes the plural, and the plural and the singular. Where terms are not defined in this article, that article being 27, they shall have the ordinary accepted means or such as the context may apply. They're really referring to how the terms are defined in section 175, 175, which defines the terms of the ordinance. The language is not a basis for expanding the duplex dwelling, singular, to include multiple duplex dwellings in the district. Nor is it the basis for overturning what is a substantive provision of the ordinance. And if you went through this ordinance, and every time with singular or parole you switched it back and forth, it would create total hap. It would basically make the ordinance useless. Also, in terms of this point, it's necessary to look at Section 28, administration and enforcement. Section 175.182, zoning administrator under B duty says that the zoning administrator must take the most conservative, restrictive approach in applying or interpreting these regulations. Section 175.183 pertaining to code officer states under duties H, take the most conservative or restrictive approach in applying these regulations. The most conservative approach here is one duplex per lot. This interpretation is consistent with the ordinance as written, as it has been interpreted. And I've been involved with planning in this town for 50 years. I spent eight years as a planning board member in the 70s. I then spent 40 years representing clients before the planning board. And I have never heard this interpretation before. And in 2023, after I retired, I became a planning board member, which I am today. So I think it is clear that you can't take duplex spelling and suddenly expand it to an unlimited number. And I will try to be brief in my remarks. The master plan is also referenced. But the master plan is a guide to the planning board in drafting ordinances, zoning provisions, and as attorney Bouchard acknowledged on page five of his May 5th, 2026 memo, the master plan is not the ordinance. And the planning board is bound by the terms of the ordinance. We cannot go outside the ordinance. Our duty is when an application comes in, we look at it to see does it meet the applicable terms of the ordinance. In this case, what is being proposed is not. I would also say that, looking at the density section of Attorney Bouchard's memo and also his comments, that my name seemed to be mentioned with some frequency. But this was not a vote by me. This was a vote by all seven members of the planning board. And it was the correct, we believe, was the correct decision. Second point is funnel development. Wolfboro has had regulations governing funnel development since possibly the 1970s, but certainly since the 1980s. Originally, you had to have 25 feet, which basically intended to address the situation where a developer buys land, it has shore frontage, he then subdivides the back land and conveys lake access to the back lots. Initially, Wolf Bar required 25 feet of shore frontage for a back lot. Then it was up to 50 feet. At one point, it was 150 feet. And then now we have this current language. The situation where the proposal is, and originally when it came to the planning board, they were going to bust people from any property they owned. They did come back and say that was not correct, that that was a misstatement, but it would be, I believe, within a 15-mile radius, and certainly the discussion would be people across the road. In Section 175, 52 states. Lots which are adjacent to the shoreline, which the lots Taylor Home has on Back Bay are adjacent to the shoreline of any lake or pond are prohibited from granting leasing or otherwise conveying rights for water access to any other lot except as permitted. And that refers to the cluster zoning ordinance. Currently, prior to any lot merger, Taylor Home owns four lots on Back Bay. They are tax map 203, 62, 63, 64, and 65. The parcel on the other side of Bay Street, the inland parcel, is tax map parcel 203, 47. That is an other lot within the meaning of 175.52. What is being proposed is exactly what this portion of the ordinance was intended to address. Ownership doesn't matter. You can't grant the right to violate the zoning ordinance even if it's on your own property. whether it's quite applicable, but there's a development on Pleasant Valley Road on Lake Wentworth, Point Breeze. That is a condominium development, and that was developed back when the requirement was for 25 feet of frontage for every unit with access. The whole property is a condominium development. The land is owned by the association and there are condominium units on it. They had to show that there was 25 feet of frontage for each of the 45 units that have lake access. So ownership doesn't matter. The intent is to prevent funnel development. So in conclusion, the Planning Board respectfully requests that this board uphold its decision that only one duplex is allowed per lot, that Section 175.52 prohibits Taylor Homes from granting access rights to land on the other side of Bay Street, and that the board votes to uphold our decision. And I'd be happy to answer any questions.

What was the vote? Was it 7-0? Did everyone on the planning board agree?

Yes, it was 7-0 on the density issue.

Are we allowed to ask questions, Suzanne? My specific question comes... I have questions about a few things, but I'm going to go to the appeal of issue two, the waterfront access. I think a key thing here about... You say the ownership doesn't necessarily matter, and I want to, you know, based on what was written to us, though, I guess it's the best way to ask the question, how can a private property owner, how can they grant, lease, or otherwise convey rights to water access to themselves?

They're taking land, taking property on the opposite side of Bay Street and allowing those people to access the waterfront on back bed. When the developer comes in, takes his parcel of land, chops it up, has a, the way those were done back in the day, you'd have an oceanfront, a waterfront parcel that was owned by the developer. He would convey off back lots and then give them the right to use it.

So I understand that. So in the planning board's argument, they are conveying those rights to themselves, but my understanding is you can't convey rights to yourself.

Well, you can't convey rights that violate the zoning ordinance, no matter what you own. And they are granting the people who occupy the buildings on the other side of Bay Street the right to access the waterfront. They came in and told us that's what they're going to do. That's what they want to do. And they do not have the right to do that under the zoning ordinance. Zoning ordinance regulates the use of private property, and that is what's happening here. There is a statement in here, which I may be taking out of context, but it seems to suggest that property owner can do anything he wants with his property, and that simply is not the case.

So just so I understand the planning board's argument on their second appeal is that even though they own both lots, they can't convey, and they're not even conveying, they can't allow themselves to have people who are occupants of their building utilize this waterfront lot because in the planning board's belief they are conveying that right to the occupants of the...

I'm not quite sure what the form of ownership of the units there, that they're owned by, I believe, Taylor Home. But they are telling the people in those units, you can stroll across the street and get down to the waterfront. That's granular right. I can't go there and walk down to their waterfront. You can't. It's the people because of their occupancy of those buildings that can walk down and access the waterfront if, in fact, they've prevailed on this.

So the planning board believes they've conveyed rights to their occupants if this was granted.

We believe that they are giving rights to their occupants.

Okay. Thank you.

Okay.

Is there anyone else in the public that would like to address this issue at hand? Anyone from Taylor Homes? I can't hear you back there.

You're going to have to.

Yes, I speak. Yeah, I'm asking anyone from Taylor Holmes.

Hello again. I am Michael Flaherty. I'm president of Taylor Community. I'll respond to the gentleman very briefly, but a couple of things I just wanted to reinforce for this group today. One, our intent in what Taylor Community is, and I'll respond to him in a second. I just want to reinforce, and I don't know if this is germane to this conversation, but it seems to be some confusion that Taylor Community is absolutely 100% certainly a non-profit organization. We have been around since 1907. We've been in Wolfboro for about 25 years. expanded recently in the last five years when we acquired the Sugar Hill Resident Association, which for all intents and purposes was failing financially. So the hospital which owned it reached out to us and asked us if we would like to acquire it. And it fit in with what we were trying to do, which is our mission is to take care of senior citizens in the Lakes region of New Hampshire, which I biased obviously, but I think we do a pretty good job of it. Our intent with this property is to try to meet that need. I don't think this is news to anybody, but New Hampshire is not a young state. The demographic that's growing faster than any other demographic in the state is the senior citizen sector, right? And we have been successful meeting those needs. And that is what our intent is with this. We are trying to meet a very aggressively growing population of senior citizens to meet their clinical needs, their housing needs, and quite frankly, their financial needs when they run out of it. It is an insurance program at its core. now some of the things that our gentleman was talking about earlier to me is not our main concern we're trying to find places to meet the demand for the people in this community to access the services that we provide we are a continuing care retirement community so they will have access to nursing assisted living memory care and independent living And we will pay for those services if they outlive their financial resources, right? And that happens. We paid just about $2.5 million last year and that number is growing to folks who outlive their financial resources. I think some of the things that he was talking about kind of is not necessarily specific to this need that we're trying to do as far as access to the waterfront. Yeah, I mean, we would love to be able to give our residents access to the waterfront, but if that's a deal breaker, we can just tell our residents that it's just the folks that are living on that side of the community that is going to do that. He also mentioned that we have a 15-mile radius for people to drive. We transport people. That is there, not to take people to the beach. We'll take them to the beach if that's what is allowed. But that is in place so that we can take individuals to their doctor's appointments, to the hospital, grocery shopping, or whatever else that they need transportation for. snowing out, it's raining out, they don't want to drive or they can't drive, we provide that transportation for them. So I just wanted to clarify some of those things before Brian comes up and talks about some of the details, which quite frankly is above my pay grade. I just wanted to make sure that you folks all know our intent is pure. We're not trying to make a huge profit off of this. We are a non-profit. We lose money. on an annual basis, what we're trying to do is meet the needs, which we've done very successfully in the Lakes region since 1907, and in Wolfboro for 25 years. Thank you, any questions?

Okay, Brian.

Good evening again, ladies and gentlemen of the zoning board. I don't know if I have anything necessarily further to illuminate tonight that I haven't illuminated when we last talked in June. Other than to say I haven't watched the video from, I believe, April 17th, 2026 recently, but my recollection is that the planning board did base its decision based on the zoning ordinance, essentially establishing one duplex per lot in other sections of the zoning ordinance and then grafting that on to the Bay Street Limited Business District section. And the other part of the planning board's decision was that the Bay Street Limited Business District says duplex and not duplexes. to the extent mr murray you know disagrees and has watched it differently and that was not the planning board's intent then that just benefits really our position the bay street limited business district does establish dimensional controls as part of those dimensional controls however it does not establish any firm density of what is permitted in that district per lot The only dimensional controls are frontage, site size, and lot coverage, which is 60%. There is nothing in that ordinance, part of the ordinance, saying that there is a limit of one house per lot or one duplex per lot, which the people of Wolfboro have voted for other parts of this ordinance. And that is important. What we are talking about is a legislative enactment. from the planning board that the people of Wolfborough have voted on. And again, I would refer this board to the Kudret case where the New Hampshire Supreme Court said, and I want to get this right, that in the absence of language in one statutory provision that is present in another is a strong indication that the legislature, i.e. the people of Wolfboro, did not intend the same result. The court will not judicially supply this omission in the absence of a legislative intent to do so. So we can actually look at the ordinance and say, because the people of Wolfboro has sought to explicitly limit duplexes to one duplex for a lot and other parts of the ordinance we can take that information and say that does actually not apply here if the people of wolfborough wanted to do that same thing in the bay street limited business district they would have done so they know how to do it they've done it in seven other parts of the ordinance With respect to the argument of the plural versus the singular, there's no argument to be had there, respectfully. The board cannot make decisions as to density based on whether or not a term in the ordinance is in the plural or in the singular. The ordinances word usage requirements 175, 174 expressly says that the singular includes the plural, the plural includes the singular, such that a plural or singular word does not determine density. That would be an arbitrary and capricious way to determine density. A typo could determine density. And that's why we have those provisions. And finally, with respect to the funnel ordinance, disagree with what the planning board has suggested. I disagree with what Mr. Murray was just saying. This is not a funnel development. This is not a case where a developer came in, and I guess to use the word, the parlance, you know, chopped up the development, built out the waterfront property and then granted rights to the property and back. That's not what happened here. In fact, this is a situation where Taylor owns both properties. And generally speaking in New Hampshire, you can't grant an easement to yourself because you own both lands. And if you look at what the ordinance, I just actually clicked out of it, but if you look at what the ordinance requires in the funnel district, it has language of conveyance, a lease, a grant, something being conveyed. People from the other part of the Wolfboro facility of Taylor community using the waterfront, they are not being granted rights in their deed. They are not being granted rights in their lease. And so for that reason, the funnel ordinance does not apply because that is talking about language of conveyance. And here at best, it's a revocable license where Taylor owns both sides of this property and is allowed to use that property as it is allowed to use any private property so long as it is conforming with zonates. And it is here because this is not a grant or an easement that is running with the land, that is being recorded at the registry of deeds. That's what that part of the ordinance is talking about. And I'm happy to take any questions.

May I, Suzanne, while you ask a question?

Yeah, well, typically we let them finish their presentation.

He just didn't ask us for questions. Oh, I'm sorry. You were reading, though, not listening.

Yeah.

Okay. If I may, thank you, Attorney Bouchard. So just so I understand clearly, and you might not be equipped to answer this, maybe someone from Taylor communities, When you lease out these spaces, I don't know if they're apartments, studios, if they're shared facilities where it's two individuals in the same room. I don't know how exactly it's determined who lives in the spaces and what kind of written formal agreements you have, but as part of those agreements or if they are purchasing units in Taylor community, you're telling me that there's no conveyance of access to water access for that other lot that Taylor community owns, that it's inherent that they're allowed to go and use that lot in the waterfront because they are inhabitants and paying Taylor community to live there.

There is no express grant in any of the leases.

Okay. That answers my question.

Any other questions?

What are the size of the duplexes in terms of how many bedrooms are there?

Hi, good evening. My name is Jennifer Hoffman. I am a Wolfborough resident and I'm also on the senior leadership team at Taylor Community. I, along with the senior leadership team and architects, we decide based on mostly the people we're meeting with that come into Taylor and what we're hearing as far as needs, what they're looking for as far as accommodations for independent living while they move through the continuum with us. they were flexible right now it's really we've designed with an architect that's very talented who we work for a lot of you have seen actually all of you have probably seen most of what we built in Sugar Hill and the Back Bay campus which is stunning most people drive by Back Bay and see the recreation aquatic center And we get more calls about, can we please use your pool? Can we please use this? Can we please use that?

But surely you must have a size in mind. I mean, surely you must know, are you building two bedrooms, three bedrooms?

So surely we do not.

Really?

Mostly because, as you've seen here, we've been very flexible and trying incredibly hard to work with the town and our neighbors to be good neighbors, to also see how we can best utilize and serve the population that we have all taken an oath to serve and also best serve this town. Square footage? We're not married to that. I mean, you've seen us come down from five to be good neighbors to four. And the square footage is flexible. Nothing's built, nothing's designed, obviously. It's all depending on you. But as Michael, our CEO, has already pointed out to all of you, we acquired a very bankrupt Sugar Hill and came in to make sure that the residents there were not displaced. We are a nonprofit. And I'm going to say that again because I live here. I moved here from Massachusetts. six years ago during the height of the pandemic, because the CEO inquired on LinkedIn, would you like to come up and work here? And I went, no, it looks cold and it's also a pandemic. And no, thank you, I've never heard of Wolf Barrel. And I came up and talked to them and my whole job in Massachusetts, which you should all understand because it's important, was to move people out of assisted livings or any higher level of care when they ran out of money and when he told me that we take over their bill and you actually get to stay here for life and we pay 2.5 million a year in order to keep people here for the rest of their life so they don't end up in some terrible nursing home You had me. So this is incredibly important as a resident of Wolfboro to me and as an employee of Taylor community. At the end of the day, we're trying to make something that is usable for the people that we're serving and also that we are doing a good job. Thank you. You're welcome.

Jody. Jody. At the last hearing, I believe you said that you wouldn't be busing people in, people don't get bused in to use that beach? Correct. Was that correct? Yes. Okay, because ironically I drove by the next day and there was a bus park there with people getting off of it when I went down Bay Street. I just wanted to put that out there, but you know. Whether it was something else, I don't know. I just saw a bus park there with people getting off.

I mean, the aquatic center is right across the road, and I don't know if the parking was full of that, and there was a crosswalk that goes back and forth between the two. So you think they might have been unloading to go across? This is the first I'm hearing of it, but it was not part of the plan to bus people in from off-site locations. I just don't know. But also in answer to your questions, as currently configured, the buildings are, I think, approximately each duplex with each... is a total size of I think approximately 3,400 square feet. So each unit would be 1,700 square feet for a maximum occupancy of two bedrooms. But again, there's flexibility there. But I also want to make sure that I'm connecting your question to the appeal as to density. And if I could ask a question, I guess, in return, and that is, what is the board's concern with bedroom numbers or the bedroom numbers in the question of density?

Mine was sheerly size and also just thinking about who's going to be living there and a younger population and adult kids moving in and grandkids and so on and so forth. And do you have four bedrooms and everybody's enjoying the beach because it's summer at the beach of grandmas?

No. No. I mean, these are individuals that are 62 years old and I think...

To answer your question specifically, who's going to be living there, we have a minimum of 62 move-in before you can move in. Our average age upon move-in is about 78 years old, 77, 78 years old right there. Our average age of people actually living in the community is pushing mid-80s. The only people that we allow to live there are the people that have contracts with us to live there. So grandchildren and children and friends and relatives are not allowed to live there. They are allowed to visit. We have pretty strict guidelines on how that works, but they cannot live there. So I think that's important. I just wanted to come up and answer that question.

How long can somebody visit for?

I believe it's no more than 14 days throughout the course of the year. Okay. But, you know, that's not a lot, not a long time. So people come up weekends, visit their children.

Grandma's got a place on the lake. I have a question. No, go ahead. I almost forgot it. The contract that you would have with me to live there, what sort of terms and conditions does that have? So I have to be 55. 62. 62. I just heard, yeah. Can you pull your mic down?

Your mic.

Oh, I'm sorry. So I have to be of a certain age to live there. What other... requirements do I have to have and what other services or fringe benefits do I get in that contract? Go over some of the things of the contract, please.

I'm going to let Michael jump in, but I do just want to note that...

I have a reason for asking the question.

I'm sure you do, but it just seems we're getting a little far afield from the question of density.

I don't think it's far afield.

Whether it is or it isn't, I'll answer your question and be happy to do that. So what we do is we sell a contract where we have to do a financial assessment and a clinical assessment. And what that means is we want to make sure that you have the financial resources to live there for approximately a certain period of time so you're not moving in and getting on charitable care immediately. right essentially the way it works is new people move in and give us an entrance fee which is essentially prepaid rent that helps fund the charitable care for people who have outlived their financial resources right and that is an insurance product that is very closely monitored by the department of insurance every piece of each language so we are ensuring your financial security and your clinical security so 85 percent give or take our residents live in either an independent cottage or an independent apartment until they no longer can meet the ability to live independently then we have access for those people to either assisted living memory care or nursing care depending on their their needs we do have some folks in independent residents that are not They're kind of in that gray area where they're not quite assisted living, but they still need a little bit of assistance. And we have a home care license that oversees that care. It's actually called Taylor Care. We were real creative when we came up with that name. So that's essentially the product that we have. As far as additional amenities, we have dining restaurants, we have a movie theater, we've got all kinds of different lawn games that we have available. More than anything, it's the social dynamic of people moving in at approximately the same age level are able to build relationships in social service programs. Most of them are resident generated themselves. In fact, Kathy, who is our director of resident life program, is actually here tonight. She could be more than happy if you'd ask some of the things that, we've got hundreds of activities that different residents participate in.

Thank you. In that contract, so to speak, do you advertise or in the contract do you say you'll have access to the bus? You know, the one that goes from...

They have access to transportation... Things like that. Transportation downtown and stuff like that.

Do you also advertise or say that you'll have access to the waterfront?

Not in our contracts.

Kayaking?

Not in the contracts, no. No.

But you advertise that.

I don't believe that we have, Jennifer would have to come back up.

That you have access to the waterfront?

As of right now, yeah.

Kayaking, swimming.

When sailing. So as the marketing director, I can tell you that we have photos of us because we're in the lakes region. Of course, we're on the waterfront or we've never been able to advertise the waterfront because we don't have it. And you are the litmus test to knowing that we do not. So no, we have water. pictures for advertising there's no verbal description of us saying you can go kayaking as Michael discussed already we have a 15 mile radius of transportation for our residents which is a wonderful thing for them to get to shopping and transportation and things downtown for them to take part in restaurants and all the things that Wolper has to offer but no we do not advertise that

okay thank you brody you had a question i do so so i i think generally we've established and i think someone asked a question better that and or at least your response clarified for me so this is like selling a contract an insurance product it's not a lease or a deed so the contra and the contract doesn't convey water access correct

Correct. There's no conveyance as that term of the ordinance.

And your stance is that the ordinance is written explicitly about conveying rights.

About conveying property rights, as you would in a lease, an easement, or a deed.

And a property owner can't convey rights to themselves, and you are not conveying rights to the residents who have signed these contracts, bought these insurance products, who live in your facilities.

Correct, there is no conveyance in the context of a real estate transaction, which is what that part of the ordinance contemplates.

Okay, my next question is, does Taylor Home Communities, because you currently own that lot that's across the street, correct, or the four lots, do you permit or do you prohibit residents from walking onto that lot, visiting that lot, recreating on that lot?

Presently, we do not. If this board does not want us to do that, I mean, that's not really what we had to talk about. At least I didn't think so. But if that is a sticking point for the board, I mean, for this committee, we could certainly.

Do you let the general public walk onto that lot and recreate?

At the moment, no. We do not let the general public do that. What we have done is the recreation in our aquatic center that has a pool that there was quite a bit of interest from the general community to have access to that pool so for for a nominal fee we have allowed residents of the community to pay a monthly fee to access the pool and the gym that is there we do have about 20 residents that access that we don't we haven't allowed access to the beach we have a peered down there in kayaks that some of the residents take advantage of. But if that's the sticking point, I mean... Is the lot posted?

Is the lot posted for trespassing?

i i'm not sure that it is i mean it's not yeah it's not no and it hasn't come across not related to this but somewhat tangential you can probably see the conclusion i'm reaching a bit certainly do that i mean no trespassing yeah i mean that'd be that'd be fine i mean we're not trying to be intrusive to the community or to our neighbors most i mean an example of that is we thought that or we had believed that we could build five of these structures on this property. And when we spoke to a couple of the neighbors, they were concerned because it was going to impact their waterfront view, which obviously would impact the financial value of their homes. So that's when we said, okay, we can live with four. And we're trying to be flexible, again. just to reiterate i know there's a lot of details that you folks need to work through but what we're trying to do is meet our mission that is our goal and we're trying to meet the demand of people who would like to live in our community

And we're just trying to interpret the ordinance. Susan, I have one question to piggyback off of Sabet's question related to the units. And that's specific... We get all night. Perfect. Well, at least till 9.

No, I mean, really, seriously, I don't want to cut anyone short. So if it takes us all night, it takes us all night.

I appreciate that, Madam Chairwoman. On your current plans, what is the lot coverage percentage?

I think it's 27%.

That might give us an actual substantive... 27.7%? 27% right now. And you're permitted up to... 60%. And that was my knowledge too. So you're using less than half the permitted log coverage. Okay.

I'd also note too, when we're talking about whether the lot should be posted or not, within this zone and on this property, you could build a waterfront restaurant if you wanted to. I don't think anyone on this board would say, well, actually, you can't build a waterfront restaurant because that would involve people actually who don't own the lot going to the waterfront to visit the restaurant and using the waterfront. It doesn't hold water when you're looking at the actual language of the ordinance, which is to convey, to grant, or to lease.

Well, and the folks you're representing are not proposing putting a restaurant there.

Otherwise, we wouldn't be here. No, I'm just trying to analogize what else is permitted in this district and what a reasonable interpretation of the funnel ordinance would include based on what else is permitted.

My other comment or I guess general question is the planning boards, and I asked you about this last time you came before on the board on April 17th. The planning board's interpretation is that meeting all the other spatial controls and the ordinance, you could put in a 25 unit apartment building or a two unit duplex. What is your take on that interpretation?

Our interpretation is that, let me just get the section of the ordinance correct here. I don't think it's a 25-unit apartment building, but I do think under Section 175.144 , if Taylor wanted to, it could build two apartment buildings per acre And each of those apartment buildings can have five dwelling units in it. So as long as the 60% coverage was met, you could have 10 apartment buildings here, each one of those having five dwelling units, so 50.

If I can read that section of the ordinance?

Yeah, please, because I don't know if that's...

I'm going to be remembering it correctly.

I don't know if that's the math I was getting to either, Shawna.

So Section 175.144B, which is density for multifamily, and it does include the Center Business District. Is this the Center Street Business District? Back Bay, sorry. So it does not include the Back Bay Business District, but it does say... all commercial districts except the Central Business District in the Wolfborough Falls. So that does include it. Under Section B, density, it reads, for lots which are served by both municipal water and sewer, the density shall not exceed two units per acre. For any other lot, the density shall not exceed two units per acre or as required by the high intensity soil survey standards, whichever is less. So long as the density requirements are met for all units, more than one building may be located on a lot of record.

So about how many units would that be for this four acres? Or sorry, five acres but four lots?

So for lots which are served by both municipal water and sewer, these lots have water and sewer?

Yes, correct. Yep.

The density shall not exceed two units per acre. So if the lot has an acre, it's allowed two units.

So that's 10, so a 10-unit apartment building if they were allowed to converge these lots.

Did you say it was four acres?

I believe it's five.

Five, so yeah, 10, yep.

Okay, so they can put in a 10-unit apartment building or...

It's only four acres.

It's only four, so an eight. Thank you. Okay, so now we got the interpretation.

But I think there's another part of that section that says multifamily dwellings with no more than five dwelling units per building are permitted. So I read that, I mean, to the extent we're talking about it, as two apartment building units per acre, and then each one of those building units can have five dwelling units inside. But I'm trying to pull up that section.

So... Section A of that section entitled unit number says multifamily dwellings with no more than five dwelling units per building are permitted. So what they're saying is you can have multifamily units up to five. You cannot have larger than that.

Got it.

That said, there's a density requirement that says for lots which are served by municipal water and sewer, the density shall not exceed two units per acre. So you may be able to have those five-unit buildings, but you must have the land to support that.

So, but I guess the point I'm getting at, which has, it's again, tangential, but gives us a general idea is that if we permitted these lots to be combined, right, to become one lot on four acres, they could put two four-unit buildings by right.

Correct.

And right now their current proposal is for two-unit buildings that they're requesting on administrative appeal for us to agree with them versus the planning board's interpretation of the ordinance. And the planning board's interpretation of the ordinance is they can either do by right two four-unit apartment buildings or one two-unit duplex.

I'll go back to the four. So it's a four-one-acre lot, so they could put a duplex, duplex, duplex.

No. If we let them combine the lot under...

But they haven't.

They haven't.

They have not legally combined. They're four separate units. So hypothetically, if you're doing the hypothetical, they can put four duplexes, one on each acre lot.

Mm-hmm.

Right?

Correct.

Or if they combine it, the planning board is saying they can put one duplex on that four acres. Yeah.

Well, I'm also pointing out the interplay with the multifamily. I guess my point is that they could put two fewer structures, but the same number of housing units and even the same amount of if they don't exceed the 60% lock coverage.

Yeah, but that's not elderly housing.

Separate question. We're talking about structures and number of units, which I don't disagree with on the elderly housing stuff, but that's the next agenda item.

Well, it's not apples to apples. It's duplexes to duplexes. That's apples to apples.

Well, I'm considering number of units and intensity of impact on the proposed land.

My understanding of the ordinance is if we were to go the multifamily route, we could have a more intense use of the land that is just permitted by the ordinance.

I guess that's kind of my point.

So if you did multifamily, you wouldn't have to comply with or you would not offer to do the elderly housing. You just do...

If these weren't duplexes and these were triplexes, we wouldn't be here. This is my point.

There we go.

If we just said, hey, we have 3,400 square feet. Instead of doing 1,700 square feet per unit, let's divide that by three, create triplexes, and this would be permitted under 17544B. That allows a more intense use of the land for multifamily, but multifamily is defined as three or more. So that's really what we're talking about, is we can have a more intense use of the land that's allowed, but Taylor really wants to do duplexes. And if we have to go the triplex route or something else, then we'll evaluate that.

Okay. You know what? frustrates me is that you can now put a duplex on each one of those four lots and have your four duplexes which you're asking for now is four duplexes in the center of that lot but the lots are already separated you can you could now go get a building permit to put a duplex duplex duplex duplex i don't know why you're so focused on having to combine the lots and put one what I would consider large massive structure in the middle. You could have one at one access point with the four driveways. Why are you making it so hard?

I'm going to let the engineer speak to that.

But I think the lots are, number one, irregularly sized.

Number two, for the purposes of ease and maintenance and dealing with an elderly population, it makes more sense for Taylor to have everything congregated together. But I'll let the engineer also talk about the lots.

There we go.

Sarah Wordy from Du Bois and King here on behalf of Taylor Community. So the four existing lots are non-conforming lots. They have skinny flag shapes. They don't have the required frontage. We did look at that. We've been through quite a process and a lot of meetings with both boards. So if we could have just done a duplex on each lot, we could have saved everyone some time. Additionally, there are some natural resources that we specifically designed this project to avoid impacts to. We had some correspondence with the Conservation Commission and specifically positioned the homes so that we wouldn't impact the wetland buffer. Particularly in the first lot, a large portion of that lot is wetland. Another factor that we had to take into consideration is that these lots are subject to shoreland protection rules. In the shoreland protection rules, you have to preserve a certain amount of the woodland buffer. That's the hatched area that we have here that we have been trying to conserve. the road, the buildings, walking paths, everything has been positioned to try to preserve some of those natural resources. Whereas we would probably be before you for special use permits to impact wetland buffers if we were trying to put a duplex on each individual lot.

Can I ask, Suzanne, about... Go ahead. So I understand with the plan, basically, they're non-conforming lots, so it'd be highly unlikely. You'd need to get a variance for frontage, and it would be highly unlikely to have a tasteful-looking structure placed on lots like that. It would look irregular. And also, by combining the lots, you're able to place all the structures in a better envelope, farther away from natural resources, more compact and more regular-shaped buildings.

We wouldn't need a variance for the frontage because the lots exist. But it's very likely we would need other variances due to their shape. So we'd have to turn the house sideways and perhaps have a variance from a setback. And then definitely the special use to be within the buffer.

Okay.

So my question's not for you. I guess my question would almost be for you guys. In this conversation, these two things are married, it seems like, the duplexes and the funnel. Are we going to make a decision about each of those individually? Can we make a decision about the funneling effect of this and perhaps have concerns about the funnel versus concerns about duplexes and the size of the duplexes.

Yes, so there's two issues in this one application. You can break them up and vote on each of those specifically.

And for Taylor's, from Taylor's perspective, these are not married. As I think I said last time, the board could grant the density appeal while denying the funnel appeal or deny the density appeal while granting the funnel appeal. You can have that disjunctive result. I think in summation, as my, Mr., Mr. Pearson.

Just to follow up on your question. Your application, what we're discussing is the planning board's administrative decision. But I look at your application, and it was for special exception 175-107. And that's special exception.

That's the next application.

What's that?

That's the next application. Oh, okay.

I've got the wrong one in front of me. Sorry. It's okay.

It's all right.

Okay. Jody.

Are you still labeling these as high-end elderly housing?

I don't think we've ever labeled them as high-end elderly housing.

I did read it. I thought I read it somewhere.

I could be wrong, but... Well, it's not workforce housing.

I mean... It was... The wording was high-end...

I mean, I think Taylor provides a quality and premier service, but I don't think we've ever used high-end, nor do I think that that, whether this is high-end or workforce housing, that doesn't affect density as we're talking about it right now.

I'll just comment. I'll wait till deliberations, actually, because we're supposed to ask them questions. But I have some comments on that, and I hear the concerns, but I don't know if it has bearing on the application.

Can we ask the audience if somebody else would like to respond or rebut or agree? Roger's been wiggling for a while. I see, yes, I see.

I would agree.

Yes.

Are we allowed to ask these folks questions too, Suzanne? Like if Roger comes up to a but? If Roger comes up to a but, are we allowed to ask him questions when he comes to?

Just hold on. I have questions for you.

Okay. Good evening.

Yes, Brody.

Thank you. My name's Kathy Fairman, and I am coming to you tonight as a small business owner here in Wolfboro for over 42 years, and I've worked in town for over 52 years. And I own a small business, a mixed-use commercial building where I have apartments, businesses, and a restaurant here in town. I've served on the town's Economic Development Committee for the better part of 15 years, I stepped down last year, and I've served on the Wentworth Economic Development Corporation. So I'm familiar with some of how the economics and issues that go around in our town, in our state, and as was mentioned earlier tonight, I think by Michael Flaherty, about the fact that New Hampshire has a demographic of an older. older communities, certainly here in Wolfboro, we probably get our distinction as the oldest summer resort in America for more than one reason. So here we are, and I also have to tell you that tonight I wear another hat, and that is that I, and this is, you may perceive as a conflict of interest, I am an employee of the Taylor community now. So I accepted a position there last year when I was approached, and I learned, and so I've been there for a little over a year, and I've learned a lot about the Taylor community that I did not know about. And so I'd like to touch on that. But first I want to touch on the business of housing. And this all goes to the reason why I'm going to ask you to please send this back to the planning board. Even as I sat here tonight, I realized that the perception and our understanding of the Taylor community and how it works we don't know enough about it in this town. And I'm a little embarrassed to say that, honestly. My experience with Taylor had been as I asked them to purchase a sign on Molly the Trolley, and they did do that, which I was appreciated. and we would use the trolley to do a program with the Governor Wentworth Regional School District to deliver their pumpkins every year and to various businesses in towns where the kids had worked in the community through the Lakes Region Technology Center. And they painted up their pumpkins and they'd ride around and we'd drop them all off. And the two places that we went to, among the many, were the Taylor community here in Back Bay and then the one up on Sugar Hill because the kids were involved in the CNA program and in the culinary arts program through both of those programs. So I realized and I thought, well, that's a really good thing. I mean, there are lots of other businesses and towns involved in that too, everything from Goodhue and Hawkins to the hospital to other businesses, but anyway, That was the extent of what I knew. So since that time, I went up there, and I'm the activities person, so I like to say I'm in charge of fun, which really is a lot of fun. When I got up there, I discovered that I knew where all these people were, who were about 10 or 20 years older than me, where they live now. And the Taylor community is for our senior citizens, the people who have worked in this community for many, many years, for decades, and that's where they're living, and they're choosing to live, and their friends are on wait lists, and there are other people in this town on the wait list for Taylor. Now, that's not unusual. There are people on the wait list for every single one of the communities we have in Wolfboro to help take care of our elder citizens. We have Christian Ridge, we have the Ledges, we have Genesis, and we have the Taylor community. And within the Taylor community now, since Taylor expanded with the, I call it the blue building, they call it the RAB, Residence at Back Bay, where we have the, Taylor has a, the memory loss. We didn't have a memory loss. We have an assisted living. There are apartments in there, modest apartments, where couples can go to. You can go there when you, say, step down from Sugar Hill. And I know people up there that are in the process of getting ready to do that. Because one of the couples has memory loss, and it's becoming difficult for them to manage together. So they're saying, well, we'll get an apartment in the assisted living. And they have an apartment where the couple can go together, and they have the services from memory loss. They dovetail like this. And it's a myriad of things. We have couples. We have lots of... Lots of single women, widowed women. We have 25 veterans. I looked this up only because we do a Veterans Day program and we do a Nurses Day recognition. We have 15 retired nurses. Most of them are now single. They're widowed. And they may have come there 20 years ago. But they're dovetailed together. So Taylor plays an important role in the care of our elder citizens in this community. And we have... Christian Ridge, that's subsidized. The ledges are subsidized. Taylor Community is self-subsidized by this program that they put together for the eventuality that someone may need financial assistance. But it's not coming from some of the other sources that other facilities, excuse me, and institutions are doing. Going back to the reason why I think this is so important is housing is important on every level. And what we have the potential of approving here are four duplexes which give us eight apartments. I own four apartments, one-bedroom apartments in downtown Wolfboro, and I choose to occupy them with year-round leases. An awful lot of people in town don't. We know the short-term rental issue. We know that that impacts. But we have the opportunity here to create eight apartments. That's the bottom line. You have control over deciding. I'm hearing them say, tell us you want them smaller. Tell us what you want. We'll do it so that we can do it. Because they know there's a tremendous need. The wait list is there. The wait list of our own people. So I asked a few of the folks up there if I could just mention their names so that you could be in touch with them if you would like to. And some of you know them. Some of you may know Dr. Damaris. Paul Damaris was a dentist in town, and his wife is Edie. She founded the Wolfboro Area Children's Center. You know Judy Cole. She's ARNP, worked for years at Huggins, and, well, worked with Huggins all the way through from one point to another. And her husband, Peter, who's a teacher. You know Peter Mann, who worked at Brewster Academy. You know Carmen and Joe DeCaro of DeCaro's Furniture. It's terrible when you can't read your own handwriting, isn't it? You know Gordon Hunt who owned Bradley's Hardware? His son still does, it's still in the family. These are among the people that live there, and their friends are on the wait list. And those are the ones that I contacted and asked them if I could use their name today. There are some others that would have agreed, I'm sure, if they could have. These are our senior citizens we're talking about. They're everyday people. They're not wealthy people coming in from outside. And the bus you see, Jody, is a 12-passenger that says Taylor on the side, and it's primarily going back and forth between Sugar Hill and Back Bay. And once a week, we're going out and doing something out of town. But other than that, it's bringing people down to the rack, where the people up there do have privileges at the exercise and the classes that we have there. And then, oftentimes, bringing people from Back Bay up to Sugar Hill, where we have programs for music and activities and concerts for the residents, and where the restaurant is. See, the only restaurant is up at Sugar Hill. And so they come up there to dine, because that's part of their program as well. I just want to touch on the other thing that Taylor does for our community, and that has to do with employment. Jobs are important in our town. And I was on the committee to help put together the Christmas program. Lo and behold, we had 70 full-time working in Wolfboro, and then about another 20 that float back and forth in administrative positions from Laconia over here. And those people, they live in Wolfboro and Tuftonboro and Osby and Evingham and Wakefield and Alton, and they're people you know. People that have been there, one of the head people in our maintenance department has been, he started at Sugar Hill when he got out of high school, he graduated in 1997. People stay with Taylor, my observation, I've seen that. And the people who are working there are some in their 20s, but mostly 30s, 40s, and 50s. They're good jobs. The person that you would see if you went in to find out about it and you were thinking about going there, her name is Alyssa Pickowitz, and she lives here in Wolfboro. Her twin daughters will be seniors at Kingswood this year. These are everyday people, they're Wolfboro people. I understand it's kind of confusing to understand how it all works. I'm still figuring that out. I wouldn't feel qualified to explain to you exactly. All I know is the people are there, they're happy, they're local people, and the company seems to be doing a very good job. So if you have any other questions, I'll see if there's anything else I had mentioned here. I don't think so. I think it would be wise for you to send this back to the planning board because there still seem to be a lot of questions about it. And I don't necessarily think the planning board had all their information either. Just in observing and what I've listened to tonight, that it would make sense for you to do that and say, you guys got to take another look at this. And in terms of any special exception that you might need to grant, and I don't remember what that was for, if it comes back to you, take another look at it too. and go around and talk to them. And talk to these people that you know and ask why. Why are you telling your friends to come here too? So you can learn more about it. Thank you. Thank you.

Okay, next I see Roger.

I would like to bring us back to why we're really here. This is an administrative appeal of the planning board's decision on an application for four duplexes. Acting on this, the Board of Adjustments steps into the planning board's shoes. It means that you're bound by what the terms of the ordinance are. That is what you have to interpret. um speaking for myself i think taylor holmes is a great asset i think that i've delivered lions club poinsettias in there and looked at how nice it was i know people who live there And they seem to be very happy. But for the planning board, that's not the question. This isn't like a special exception. It isn't like a variance. It's not whether they're a good organization or a bad organization. It's do they meet the requirements of the zoning ordinance, and the decision has to be based on that. Discussions about multifamily and whether they could put something worse there, first of all, there's no reason to approve an application, but second of all, it's totally irrelevant. And when this came before the planning board, one of the planning board's concerns is that these are residential duplexes. I know that Taylor Homes would not do this, but the planning board was asked to approve duplexes that would be used for short-term rentals. There would be no restriction other than self-imposed on age. number of people there, visitation, anything else. The concern was that this was opening it up for any developer to come into town and say, okay, I want to stick as many duplexes on this lot as I can without violating setbacks or density. And that is, from the planning board's perspective, why this decision should be upheld. One of the functions of the planning board on an application is, if you don't approve it, is to try and work with the applicant to try and come up with something that works. And I think I can say the planning board is ready to work with Taylor Home on this, but what they came in with violates two different sections of the ordinance. And getting back to the duplex, singular or plural, this is basically boilerplate. I think it refers specifically to the definition section, but assuming it pertains throughout the ordinance, that's basically boilerplate. And as Attorney Bouchard stated at the June 15th, it's basic to address Scrivener's errors. Well, going from one duplex to multiple duplex is not a Scrivener's error. The board should uphold the planning board's decision. And I think that pretty much does it.

Thank you. I have some questions. Roger, are you willing? So I wanted to ask you these at the first one. I was surprised no one had additional questions for you, otherwise I would have asked them earlier, so my apologies. So is it the planning board's, is it their interpretation of the ordinance and their position that the word usage section of the ordinances is not applicable to throughout the rest of the ordinance?

The planning board did not make a decision on that. I read over section 175, 174, and it seems to me that it refers to the definitions that follow. But irrespective, I think it is the planning board's position that when the zoning ordinance says duplex dwelling, it means duplex dwelling, one.

If I may continue. Go ahead. So, but I mean, obviously, I have to say the applicant brings forward a very, very not significant, a valid argument that in every other district, there's this per lot qualifier added to the end of the clause, but for some reason in the Back Bay Limited Business District, that per lot is not added, and they read it as if the word usage

applicable to the entire ordinance and how you would read it that you have to interplay and that because of that lack of a per lot and I want to get a better understanding though because part actually the verbiage of one up duplex dwelling is the same in the Wolfborough Falls Limited Business District the South Wolfborough Limited Business District as well as the Bay Street and and the way at least this is the way it works in wolfborough when people look the board looks at a specific section of the ordinance if it is going to make a change in that ordinance they look at that they don't look at the rest of the ordinance or look focused on that particular zoning district and the fact that in other districts the uh there's other language does not mean, it may mean simply that the planning board hadn't looked at the other districts that have different language.

I understand that, but I'm trying to see part of the planning board's argument that you had brought up in your initial presentation had to do with ambiguity, and I'm trying to better understand where...

I don't think there's ambiguity. Your word, not mine. I think it's perfectly clear. I think it says duplex dwelling, and duplex dwelling means one duplex dwelling.

I have a question.

I have questions about the conveyance, but I think it's good to stay on the same topic. We have questions about interpretation of the word usage section and how it interplays with what's permitted in the Bay Street Limited Business District. I'm going to wait. I think I should ask questions.

I think it's kind of in line with this. I want to make sure I understand exactly what we are upholding or not agreeing with you on. Right now, it doesn't matter that they have four lots and they could put four duplexes, as Suzanne asked, like why aren't you just doing it that way? What they've asked for is make it one lot and put four duplexes on one lot. So it doesn't matter that they could put four duplexes on the individual lots. The only decision we are paying attention to, or the only thing we're supporting or not supporting you on is They want to make it one lot with four duplexes. And then we've got the funnel piece, correct? So it doesn't matter that there really are now four different lots and they could come in tomorrow and without any decisions from planning or zoning, just put in these random four duplexes and apples to apples, how many apartments, how many numbers, whatever. It's just one lot, four duplexes, correct?

And the current application is for four.

Duplexes. And the lots converged.

At one point, there were five. I'm not sure. Reading Attorney Bouchard's memo, he seems to suggest you can have an unlimited number as long as they meet lot coverage and setback requirements. The planning board disagrees with that. But when we looked at this, one of the things we ran aground on was under our cluster ordinance, which will allow clustering, you need to have 10 acres. This is four acres. So under the ordinance, we can't approve this because it doesn't meet the cluster and it... There may be another provision that you may talk about next that would allow something to take place.

I'm just trying to kind of simplify it and talk only focus on what's in front of us tonight, not all of the other things that could happen, whatever else could be out there. But right now, they want to make it one light, one lot, and they want to put four duplexes on one lot, which is not, the planning board does not believe that that is in our, it's not permitted in our ordinances. Okay, thank you.

I have a question about the conveyance. So in light of what you've heard from the applicants, do you believe that there is a formal conveyance of access to the waterfront as part of these? I think they specifically described it as a contract that's part of selling of an insurance product that they provide, but not, you know, that's not a lease or a deed.

The language of 175.52 states it's the granting, leasing, or otherwise conveying. It does not require a deed. It just means a granting of the right to use it. And when they came out and they said we intend to bring in people from across the street, 15, whatever it is, they were gonna bring people from another lot which would violate the provisions of this section.

In maybe your opinion or the planning board's opinion, whichever is most appropriate for you to answer, do you believe there needs to be some kind of formal written agreement for there to be a true conveyance of land rights?

They're not conveying land rights. I always talk about a license which is... You and I can't go down there and use the waterfront if this is approved.

Which I think they made clear in my questioning, yes.

That means they're being given the right to go down there. I think that's sufficient. It doesn't have to be recorded in a deed. It doesn't need to be a lease. It just needs to be something that gives them that right. Otherwise, you're circumventing the final development provision.

Okay. That's all my questions.

There's one more guy out there. You all set? Oh, I'm sorry. Yes. Come on up, please. State your name for the record.

Ken Gerber, 61 Bay Street. I bought her. I'm sorry.

Say the last part again.

Ken Gerber, 61 Bay Street. I'm going to buy her. I think wife and I are looking at the bigger picture here, not looking at, you know, duplex, whether it has a hang an S on it or it doesn't, or whether there's other regulations that says if it's singular, it's plural and vice versa. If you're allowed... multi-family, more than one multi-family unit buildings. It doesn't make sense in our heads that you wouldn't also be allowed more than one duplex which is just a two-family multi-family building. Just because we've drawn a distinction between the two and the three I think is I don't know, it's not a significant distinction to me. I think the current plan with the four buildings, the four duplexes, eight units is reasonable. We wrote a pretty strong objection letter when they came in with five units and the five units carried, or five buildings carried a road that was literally almost touching our property boundary. It was really close. Those two pieces were really encroaching on the usability and peacefulness of our lot. They removed that, they rolled it back to the four building design that we have now. I think if you're looking at alternatives, we've heard condos thrown out, we've heard apartments thrown out. I don't think any of that's in the interest of Wolf Borough and the taxpayers and the citizens. Taylor, I don't think it's in the interest of anybody. So to me, it seems like a reasonable plan that we generally support it. We did have some minor adjustments that we wanted to see take place as the project progresses relative to parking and lighting and that kind of thing. But in terms of the big picture, duplex duplexes, it doesn't seem like a pertinent argument to us. Thank you.

I have one question for him. In the original plans in your application, you had mentioned concerns about headlights going into your property and into your dwelling and snow removal. Have you had conversations where written commitments, anything from Taylor community to address those concerns?

We have not.

Okay. Thank you. We have not.

Okay.

Any other questions?

Okay. Any other questions? all right now you want to have one last crack at it one last crack all right attorney bouchard you're gonna summarize i'll be quick i will conclude and go sit back down

From Taylor's perspective, this is not controversial. The planning board's position is that there's one duplex allowed per lot. As this board has talked about, Taylor could build a duplex on each of the lots already, which would result in a more intense use of the land with four driveways instead of just one. It is a better product, a better development to have everything together on one four-acre lot. Mr. Murray just told you that it's the province and obligation of this board to follow the ordinance. And then he immediately talked about the concern of the planning board is that a decision allowing this development would open the flood gates and would allow a developer to come in and stuff an area with duplexes. Interpreting the zoning ordinance doesn't involve engaging in that type of supposition and speculation, respectfully. And it is Taylor's sincere request that this board just follow the ordinance. And the people of Wolfboro have adopted parts of ordinance that expressly limits development to one duplex per lot, and they have not done so in the Bay Street Limited Business District, which is a meaningful distinction. Thank you.

You all set.

Roger.

Okay. All right, then I'm going to close the public hearing. Roll call vote to close the public hearing.

Aye. Aye.

Ryan yes trucks on there yes okay so now this is two parts section and we either concur or do not agree with the planning board's decision and they had two decisions one is dimension controls and the other was the water access I would like to make a motion to move to not concur With the planning road's decision on section 175, 50, should I get the right one? 52, waterfront access. I think the applicant has made, Taylor Homes has made a compelling argument. that they own both sides of the road, that they're not leasing or otherwise conveying. I do have a little issue with the word granting, because in the ordinance it says granting them permission. However, I think that the testimony received from Taylor Home outweighs that. So the motion is, again, so you understand, move to not concur with the planning board's decision of, if I had the date, I would insert it, I guess it was 4-7-26, on specifically section 175-52. Second. Second the motion.

Second for discussion, what? 175.62 is which? 52. 52.

Waterfront, I'm talking about. That's what I was trying to understand. The funnel, the one with funnel effect. Yeah. Okay, any discussion?

I think to your point, Suzanne, there wasn't a formal conveyance.

Okay. A roll call vote.

Brody.

Brody, sorry.

That's okay, aye.

Jody. Just the waterfront now, we haven't got to the other one yet, just the waterfront. We're saying that the planning board erred, and they're saying that they couldn't use it. That they couldn't use it, both sides of the street couldn't use it.

So a yes is...

Yes disagrees with the planning board's interpretation of the ordinance.

A yes is we do not agree with the planning board.

I'm a no.

Okay, Sabet.

I agree with the planning board. So which, is that a yes or a no? I agree with the planning board.

And that's a no.

I uphold the planning board's decision.

That's a no.

Ryan is a yes.

Chuck Sumner, yes.

Okay, so the motion carries three to two. Two. So we're good. uphold the planning board's decision. Okay, the second part of this is more difficult. And the second part is section 175.104. Let me get to that page. This is under article 17 Bay Street Limited Business District. The purpose of this district is to provide for transition from existing village core to district providing professional, institutional, cultural, limited retail activities and mixed commercial and residential zone. And that would be 175, 104 dimensional controls and Make sure I get this right. 104.

So it's 175-106, the permitted uses?

Well, it says here on my paperwork. Wait a minute.

It says 175-104 in their application.

On my agenda.

On the agenda and in their letter.

And it's on my legal notice, 175.104. So if there's something wrong, we can continue this portion. And people make mistakes.

So 175.104 is the dimensional controls, which is minimum lot area, minimum lot frontage, and minimum shore frontage. And what we've been asked to consider is the permitted uses in Section 106 and the definition of duplex dwelling.

It's not on this paperwork. It seems like that's the other one, the special exception one.

No, the special exception is actually 175.107, which is called special exception uses. So perhaps we continue this and properly notify it for section 175-106.

The legal notice and the agenda has an incorrect citation. It's 175-104, which is only dimensional controls. so that's not applicable to what we've been talking about tonight so i make a motion to continue this until we can do the proper legal notice for the second portion of this application i will second suzanne and i have one comment i just want to flag their application also put the wrong wrong

Yeah, so it wasn't, I don't think it was just on our staff to do justice to that.

Okay. All those in favor, continue to. Thank you, Bernie. Somebody got a calendar?

Well, next one is.

I need a calendar.

September 21st.

On your iPhone?

I'll double check, but I haven't memorized.

So we can set a date certain on this and not get behind the time frame?

I am looking, Suzanne, I promise. It is our next regularly scheduled meeting is Monday the 21st, the third Monday of September. Now the first Monday, if you want to continue, is Labor Day. So we got to do the 21st. Where are we?

We're here. We can meet again at 8.31. The next regular one is 9.21.

Yeah. Let's do 8.31.

You want to do 8.31? Yeah, it's okay with me.

Oh, yeah. 8.31.

I can do it.

August 31st.

I have a hold of my calendar in case we had a spillover. So, yep, I'm available.

That's our next fallback position date.

Yep.

Okay. Thank you, Chuck. Okay, so we'll continue the second portion of this application to 831. You've got to take a vote.

Aye.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Okay. Well, that stinks, man.

I say no, but I know it's academic. I'd just like to get this over with, but no.

Okay, it's just an administrative error. Oh, wait a second, wait a second.

The hearing's been closed and we've made a decision.

That's it.

Okay, so the second application on this is, let's make sure before we open it, we've got it right.

He's citing case law that Mr. Murray, you could permit him to speak.

In the case of 74 V. Cox, or 74 Cox Street, you can actually hear what Mr. Murray wants to say.

I move we hear what Mr. Murray wants to say.

He said under Chase law, we can still let Roger speak.

I move that we let Roger speak.

I'm going to second that just for Roger to speak and briefly.

Under extreme circumstances, we can reopen the hearing. So I would accept a motion to reopen the hearing.

I'm not trying to reopen the hearing. I just want to address.

Well, wait a minute. We haven't voted on reopening the hearing.

Suzanne, I seconded Sabet's original motion to permit Roger to speak.

All right. It was duly seconded. I moved to reopen the hearing. And do we have a second?

Well, he doesn't want to reopen the hearing, so I'm not going to second that.

But we have to reopen it in order for him to speak. We have to reopen it if we want to allow anyone to speak after we've closed it. So your vote would be no.

I'm going to second it. I don't entirely agree procedurally.

All right, you don't have to go into a long thing.

No, that's fine. I'm not going to go into a long thing.

Okay, all those in favor of reopening the hearing?

Aye. Aye.

No.

Okay. No.

Three to two, it passed. Go ahead, Roger, speak.

Okay. If, in fact, you have to re-notice the hearing, you can't continue it to a date certain, but I think the notice was sufficient. It had 104, which is the lot size. I don't think there's any question about anybody not understanding what was before us. And from the planning board's perspective, we felt we got just fine notice. We understood what the issues were. It's been before this board on the 15th of June. It's now been heard a second time. And for us to re-notice this and have you sit here and listen to all of this all over again, I don't think makes sense. No.

Excuse me, Roger. through all of this. Yes, you do. If you have a failure. You would just be taking care of this correct. We have to use the correct citation. You know that.

You are in, it's 104 or 106. They are both applicable. 104 is.

It doesn't address duplexes 104. That's the crux of the issue. So, no thank you, Roger, for the offer.

It means that we sit here and go through all of this all over again.

No, thank you.

You cannot continue it, though. If it's a failure of notice, you have to re-notice.

Sorry, he made a joke.

There is... no reason to believe based on the information that has been submitted to this board that anyone was confused as to the issues that are being presented here tonight and part of the problem here i think is that there technically is not a specific part of the ordinance to cite to because there is not a density control in the bay street limited business district um The board can absolutely proceed with entertaining this and making a decision. If a member of the public somehow feels like they did not get appropriate notice after reading everything that was publicly available and that includes additional citations, they can certainly file a request for a hearing if they so would like. But I would also note for the board that this matter is already beyond the 90 days by which this board is required to make a decision. And Taylor does not consent to a continuance.

Thank you. What's the statute for that again? Hold on, hold on.

674.33, I'm gonna get the number wrong after that.

Okay, that's fine.

May we ask Jeffrey's opinion?

Wait a minute, that's what I'm gonna do.

Can we close the hearing?

Okay, between Shawna and Jeffrey, let's talk about the 90 days. I was of the... I can read it.

Please.

Upon receipt of any application or action pursuant to this section, the Zoning Board of Adjustment shall begin formal consideration and shall approve or disapprove such application within 90 days of the date of receipt, provided that the applicant may waive this requirement and consent to such extension as may be mutually agreed. ZBA determines that it lacks sufficient innovation to make a final decision on application and the applicant does not consent to an extension. The board may, at its discretion, deny the application without prejudice, in which case the applicant may submit a new application for the same or substantially similar relief or request.

So, if he chooses not to agree to an extension, we just have the authority to deny the application and start all over again anyway. Correct. So the compromise is to continue this until the 30, whatever it was, the 31st. That's a fair compromise. It gives us a chance to really digest what we've heard tonight as well. And if we have any issue, we can talk to the attorney again.

I hear that. It sounds like both parties, though, feel as if they've given us sufficient justification and that there's been sufficient public notice, and they want us to take action tonight. I'm personally ready to take action tonight, and if both parties feel as if everything's been sufficiently noticed...

But we put the wrong legal notice. I'm sorry. It was the wrong legal notice.

Well, I'm here...

Jerk. Since when have we ever continued on with an incorrect legal citation notice. It's wrong, that's all, at the bare minimum fact of it.

Should we close the public hearing?

No, it continued it for that second portion.

You just had us vote to reopen the public hearing, to let both of them speak.

We already took a vote to continue. That's already been voted.

We voted, because I seconded Sabet's motion, to open up the public hearing.

Just to hear Roger.

Just to hear Roger. Oh, OK. Can we close the public hearing? I'm going to make a motion we close the public hearing.

I did make a motion to close it. And you made a motion to reopen it. Now we need to close it. We need to close it again. So I make a motion to re-close it.

I'll second. OK. You think we're all in favor? Aye. Now I'm going to make a motion to reconsider our previously approved motion to continue the public hearing on this application.

Thank you and second. Any discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor of continuing until August?

No, that wasn't my motion.

I thought that's what it was.

It was to reconsider our previous motion.

Oh, reconsider that motion to continue?

Yep. Second.

Discussion?

My only discussion is I think if both parties are ready and they feel they've given us proper documentation and they feel as if that we have done our due diligence in posting it, it's time to take action on this. They've been waiting over three plus months.

Okay, so my question to you is action on what specifically?

Take action on what we've continued.

What?

THE SPECIFIC APPLICATION AS IT PERTAINS TO THE APPEAL OF THE PLANNING BOARD'S DECISION OF ORDINANCE 175-104.

THAT DOESN'T ADDRESS THE DUPLEX ISSUE.

THEY FEEL AS IF WE CAN TAKE ACTION TONIGHT.

HOW ARE YOU GOING TO ADDRESS THE DUPLEXES ON 175-104 WHICH TALKS ABOUT LOT SIZE AND FRONTAGE? It doesn't mention duplexes.

Suzanne, can we ask Jeffrey to weigh in on this, or Shanna, one of them?

That's why I said we need to continue it to get a legal answer.

I understand. I was hoping to be able to close this out tonight. So is there a way we can do that?

Well, there's a motion and a second on the table. I mean, somebody could call the vote.

I'm asking an opinion.

I'm not a lawyer. Sorry. I think we would be better to err on the side of continuance.

I don't see the benefit or what legal protection we're providing ourselves.

The other option is to deny it and start the whole thing over again.

Who says we're going to deny it?

And I'm certain you don't want to do that.

No, we don't want to do that. So the vote really, the vote comes down to either Agreeing with the planning board or sending it back to the planning board. So it's going to get legally noticed correctly in the end. We don't get to change what the application and the legal notice says.

We've had it hundreds of times, and we have to go by what the legal notice was. Now, if there was somebody on the other side of this that was opposed, they would be taking it for a re-hearing.

I get it.

You're putting us in a position that... How do you justify it when it happens again? And it will. We simply have the policy of not holding and continuing when there's been an error in the notification. That's been our policy. It only means, today is what, what did we say today was? It means what, 10 days?

I hear you, but we didn't have a meeting in July, so it has been a while, and both parties are prepared for us to make a decision tonight. I understand that there could be a motion for rehearing. If there's new substantial facts where it warrants it, then we may, but I feel as if there's nothing that will change between now and August 31st.

You have tried to be finicky about crossing the t's and dotting the i's and you're violating one of the rules of the ordinance of our by saying we can ignore by we can ignore on a legal I can't make that decision you just did by a motion by your you proposed the motion I'm sorry that's your motion you can talk over me all you want the board makes a collective decision I've made a motion Chuck has seconded and we're having discussion

And you can't put, it's not my burden, it's not my cross to bear if the board makes a collective decision.

We're having discussion. Correct. It's your motion. You have to justify it. And I'm countering it, saying I cannot see a legal reason to justify what you just motioned. That's a violation of a legal notice.

Suzanne, can I offer something here?

Yes, you may.

As what we got, we're asking to weigh in on a planning board decision. I agree with you that if this were an application from the public and it was wrong, we'd have to send it back and get it corrected. In this case, it's an internal error almost. We're judging what we were given by the planning board and the question is do we send it back to them or not? I don't think that in that case it's going to be a problem legally. That's why I support the idea of voting tonight.

Good way to explain it. I ditto what Chuck just said. That's my intent. Good way to explain it.

Can we call the vote?

Yes, you may. All those in favor?

I was going to ask him to make it again.

Just reconsidering our motion to continue the application.

So we're not deciding, we're just agreeing to re-debate.

To re-vote. We're going to consider the decision we made. Not just the motion, but the entire decision.

No, we're reconsidering the continuation. We voted to continue. We're just reconsidering. We're going to reconsider that vote.

Yeah. And then let me ask the question. So under what criteria are we going to decide to send it back to the planning board or not?

Well, we're just voting to reconsider. Then we get to vote on whether or not we're going to continue.

Under what criteria, though? What section in our book are you going to make that decision?

I'm confused by your question, Suzanne, because we're just motioning. There's a motion on the floor to reconsider a previous vote. If it prevails, we go back to the question of continuance, and then we discuss whether or not we want to continue the application.

Call the question. All those in favor, roll call.

Aye.

Aye. Aye. No.

Yes.

Motion carries.

So now we're on the question of reconsideration again. Sorry, not reconsideration of continuance. I don't think we should continue the application. I think both parties have said that they're prepared for us to act. And I think Chuck has summarized very well what exactly why we can take action and why it's reasonable. Suzanne, I perfectly respect the points you're making. I just view this as a different circumstance and that this applicant has waited 90 days for us to make a decision on this. And I think all the facts are in front of us for us to make a decision.

Okay, you're done?

That's it.

Well, the thing of it is, is we literally could deny this and should, and follow strictly the black and white letter of the law, or continue it to the 31st, which is far less timely, much quicker than if we started over again by denying it. I don't want to deny it. I'd rather just continue it and then then make the decision on do we want to uphold the planning board's decision that felt that duplexes belong on their separate lots, or do we want to, you know that's what this is about, just the duplexes, although the application doesn't say that, or do we want to not uphold the planning board's decision and then they'll have to come up with, go as back to the Planning Board to come up with something.

I think, to your point, Suzanne, I think whether, I don't think we should make a decision on whether or not to continue it contingent on the assumption that the applicant who's appealing the Planning Board's decision is going to fail either way. I think We need to decide if we want to make a decision tonight based on what we've heard or not, and if for some reason the procedural error that's been identified would have such an impact on public participation and things of that nature, or would change somehow the facts of this entire appeal in front of us. And I don't think the public participation is going to increase by sending out a new I think the notice was sufficient in knowing what subject matter is coming before us. And I believe both parties are ready.

Correction. There doesn't need to be a second notification. When you continue, you set date and time place certain. We don't notice it again.

Then there's no benefit to continuing.

I thought the purpose of continuing was to legally notice it correctly.

That's what I was under because you said that.

Right. That was my understanding of the vote. Was that you?

You're using the word continue, but it's not an actual continue. The whole substance is still here.

You know what I mean? So if we're not going to re-notice, and we're not required to re-notice, then either we have to, as Roger mentioned, which is why I wanted to speak, we either have to re-do everything, or we can just make a decision.

Quite frankly, I've not been through something quite as bizarre as this. I mean, I've had... I've had incorrect notices whereby the attorney has told us, several different attorneys have told us the same thing. If it's advertised and posted, the legal notice posted wrong, you must redo it, re-advertise it.

So a continuance really wouldn't do us any good because we'd be using the same... Well, I think you used the word continuance so that they did not have to resubmit on the resubmittal date. We were going to see them back sooner than the next available meeting, right? We were going to see them back on the 31st, which... which mean, you know, we were going to re-notice it as if it was a new application but not have them resubmit all over again. So that's why we use the word continuance. If we do deny it, I don't know that, I mean, we would give them preferential treatment to submit specially outside of the published ZBA calendar so that we could advertise it and get it on the 31st. Most likely they'd be pushed to the regular meeting in August. So I think we use the word continuance in order to speed things up for them.

Suzanne, can I pause at something? Let's say it doesn't matter which way.

Don't do any hypotheticals. I'm not doing any hypotheticals.

I'm saying it doesn't matter which way it goes tonight. If we make a decision tonight, there's a rehearing. No matter what, then, we're going to have to consider the rehearing either at the 31st, if we get it in time, or on the 21st of September. or there is no rehearing, we make the decision tonight because no one requests it.

I think the issue on the table is, is the notice sufficient to meet the letter of the state statute about noticing? And if not, do we want to continue it to the 31st and allow us to re-notice it properly? Do we want to deny it, allow them to resubmit and start this thing all over again? And then second, if we decide that the notice is proper and we can continue, then we should make the decision tonight.

Yes.

So there's kind of three options on the table. But the fundamental is, was the notice sufficient or not as posted?

I move that the notice was sufficient. Can we vote on that?

I'll second.

All those in favor of accepting the notice as printed? As sufficient?

Yes. Aye. Oh, sorry. No, that's fine. Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Yes.

No. Motion carries. Okay, so now we're back to square one.

So you can make a decision tonight.

To make a decision on the planning board's actions now. What was it? Tell me in my ordinance the criteria that the planning board said did not pass muster, that they didn't approve of. What are we going to say we agree with or don't agree with? Because I don't see it here.

What's in the planning board's meeting minutes? Because that's what's being appealed, whatever that motion is.

What Roger gave us is not the planning board minutes.

No, but someone else has access to the planning board meeting minutes.

That's the wrong case. That's not it.

The planning board meeting minutes are in the Taylor Homes submittal.

So they made a decision.

Where do you have it in the minutes? Notice the decision or something?

The minutes are in the Taylor Homes submittal. So their request for rehearing attached a copy of the planning board minutes.

Well, let us take a break here and find them so we can read them.

I found it. Is it?

No?

Okay.

It's page 3, lines 93 through 95 is the motion.

Hold on. Let's take a minute, all of us, the same time, a break here, and read this and collect ourselves.

Got it. I'm just letting you know where it is.

I don't think I ever had the planning board minutes.

So, Suzanne, are you taking a five-minute break right now? Yeah, let's take a five-minute break.

Do you have an extra copy of the planning board minutes?