Meeting transcript
PZC Regular Meeting
April 20, 2020 · Watch on YouTube · All meetings
But at 07:01, I'd like to call the public meeting, the regular public meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission to order. My name is Jed Larson. I am the Chairman of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Seated on the board this evening are myself, Scott Bersaun, Anne Cremay, Susan England and that is it. So that's the first order of business on the agenda which is the roll call and the seating of alternates. Moving on to the third item which is additions or changes to the agenda. And does anybody have any additions or changes to the agenda for this evening?
I don't.
Okay, the one change that I would like to make is I think just a Yes,
Jerry. I don't know how you want to handle this, but the first item under the public hearing is the application for rear lots. And our application is not rear lots because under the open space requirements they have enough frontage that it needs not be a rear lot.
We discuss that when we get there because I was not sure why we were applying for a rear lot either. Okay, good enough. I understand
your comment. Only change to the agenda that I would make is after the line where we discussed the two applications, where it says close the public hearing, the next line should say continue the regular meeting, where we will go in and the Commission will discuss the applications.
Hello, this is Leanne. Can you hear me? I can hear you Leanne. Yep, thank you for joining. Can you see me? Can you I see can you. Nope. Okay, this is only the second time I've done this so I can see everybody else but I don't know what to do to make myself seen so as long as you can hear me and maybe Amanda can help me at some other time so I can be seen but anyway as long as you can hear me. Okay, very good. I was actually on before and I could hear you calling the meeting to order but I had to call in separately, apparently. It says videoaudio, but I needed to call in separately. It said told me for the audio. That's what I was doing.
Okay. Yep. Then I will not be so bold as to try and help you from memory. I did
get there, but I understand that there are some tricks to it. Leanne, if you move your mouse around the screen and go to the bottom, do you see where it says start video on the bottom left hand side? Now I lost the picture. I'll try to help you on the side, Leanne.
Okay. Okay, now I have it back. So am I seated? You are seated, Leanne. Yes. Okay. Thank you.
Okay. So we're on to item four on the agenda, which is public speak. Is there anybody from the public who would like to speak on any of the items on any topic other than the items that are currently on the agenda for this evening? Please raise your hand. Any hands up there Amanda?
Let's see let me double check. I see one. Liz?
Yeah, I'm not I don't I'm not sure I understand the question. Anything that's not on the agenda you're asking for feedback on? Yes, there could be some members of the public who join the meeting and they want to
say whatever's on their mind as opposed to when we go to the different agenda items, we'll give you the opportunity to speak directly onto that. Okay. Gotcha. So Thank having heard nothing on the public speak, we will move on to new business. And the first item is to open the public hearing, which I will do now. So at 07:06, we will open the public hearing. And with that, Jim, would you like to run us through the first application?
First application is a special permit 353 Lake Road, property of application of Vincent Grimaldi. Permit under section 4.9 rear lot and common drive. Now I purposely, I told Mr. Grimaldi that a special permit was needed and I'm standing by that. Yes, in fact, real it does meet the rear the application, the dimensions meet the rear lock criteria, but nonetheless it's a rear lock. The rear lock requires special permit. It's me it was that simple. The rear the rear lot and the common drive special permit requires action prior to the subdivision application. And the application as we know are it's open space application. The applicant is proposing to deed over open space, not to deed over to grant a conservation easement on a portion of the property.
Okay. Spoken at length with, the applicant engineer, and he's prepared to address this matter. I have no issues with the application other than there were a few minor details that were not in compliance, but I know that Jerry Hardisty is prepared to address those and that involves actual document for open space to address an issue with the septic system requirements. I believe that's it. With that?
Okay, now, so we've got two different applications. The first that we're talking about now is for two rear lots served by a common dry. Correct. The second application is for approval of a two lot subdivision. And I think we're going with the open space subdivision regulations. Yes. And so I'm still curious if we have the sufficient frontage on the road to meet a normal lot, why need to call it a rear lot. And I don't think it's going to change the outcome any. I'm just not sure I understand the thought process if for the lot you have to have, and I forget exactly how many feet it is for frontage for a normal open space subdivision lot. I thought the Grimaldi's lot had sufficient frontage to make two regular lots.
I'm looking under interval. Interval Lake Zone as well as ARD rear lot. But there's my point is they're still called rear lots. So he does meet the requirement. But there's still rear lots period that that's. Can I jump in here? Sure. Yes, please, Jerry. Sorry.
Our original application was for a conventional subdivision. We didn't have 200 feet of frontage, so we applied for rear lot status. And the rear lots allow you to shrink the frontage to 40 feet each lot, but you have to increase the required size of the lots, which wasn't a problem because this is a big parcel. When we met and talked about alternatives, we looked at the open space requirements and the ARD open space frontage requirements, if you comply with the open space design, the frontage requirement is only 40 feet. And we have much more than that, so so it no longer is a rear lot situation because we comply with the frontage of an open space subdivision.
Okay. Now, Jerry, this is Jed, and one of the things I forgot to say about the public hearing tonight is one that is recorded. And two, if you're going to make a comment, please announce your name so we know who it is because there are some people who are on the phone and not looking at everybody. Anyhow, going back to the comment you were just addressing, Jerry, when I look at the chart from section 11.2 space requirements, which is what I thought you were referring, I see an Andover Lake open space subdivision lot with a required minimum frontage of 50 feet. Correct.
And the open space rear lot with a minimum requirement of 25 feet. And so as I understand, we've got 50 feet for each of the lots for a total of 100 foot of frontage. I did not think that we needed to have a rear lot specified. No, I agree. They've
got two thirty feet of frontage essentially, which is more than compliant with the open space requirement.
Okay so Jim I'm coming back to you to help me understand.
Okay first of all, as far as the application goes, special permit application was still needed, the fees were the same. It was just the difference between requiring a special permit for both common drive and the rear lots. I'm sticking with my call on it's still a rear lot, period. It meets the criteria, but it's a rear lot. And a rear lot requires a special permit for exception for 4.9 of the zoning rates.
What what again, Jerry Hardisty. Jim, what constitutes a rear lot? What's the the definition of a rear lot? I was on the impression that a rear lot is a lot that does not have the required frontage for a standard lot. Correct. And it's not a standard lot.
So because we have an open space subdivision, we meet the requirements for lot frontage. Under a rear lot? No,
no. It's a Okay, if I had up and over rural design, 200 foot lot width.
That's under Andover Rural Design, correct. But we are using the open space subdivision requirement, which is 50 feet.
Okay. I mean, I it's semantics to me. I mean, elsewhere in the regulations, does perhaps you're right. Elsewhere it's a real lot. It's a lot that doesn't have 200 foot width.
Jerry, just to be clear for everybody here, what is the frontage along the road? It's two thirty.
So we About two thirty feet. I think one of them is 99 something and one of them is 131 something. So
if I go to our regulations under section 4.9.2, the definition of a rear lot is a lot in one of the foresight zones with less than the required lot width on an accepted town road. So my conclusion is that with the frontage that we have, we are not discussing a rear lot tonight. I will accept that. That's fine. And
so I don't know what the point of order might be here, but I think we have met, I know we have met the requirements for the special permit for the driveway for a rear lot. And so I think it's really a moot point and we've really got the second of the two applications is what we really need to discuss tonight, which is the open space subdivision requirements. So before
we proceed to the second one, is there anybody in the public that would like to speak on behalf of the rear lot discussion? Hi, this is Sue and Roger Bristol. Okay. Hi, Sue, Roger. We've
been following the progress of Vinny and Pat's project here and we feel that they've environmentally been meeting all of the asks for the project and that they're acting responsibly and doing everything they need to do. Okay. I understand the comment. So
I don't know if this has to do with the real life situation or whatever, but as abutting neighbors and Patty's lot, we support this and they have gone above and beyond what has been asked of them. So we think this should be approved.
Okay. Thank you for your input. Anybody else from the public that would like to make a comment on the rear lot application? Yeah, I would, yes. And who's speaking? Andrew Hoglund. Okay, go ahead. I was wondering if I could see a site plan of the proposed design of what they're doing, I suppose. Will bring up the site plans when we start talking about the second application, which is for the Open Space subdivision.
Great, thanks. So we'll have a chance to go through all those. So I just wanted to point out, my name is Amanda Gibson. I'm the admin assistant for the town. All of the documents for this meeting, for these applications are on the planning and zoning site on the town website at anniversaryt.org. So there's some site plans as well as some other supporting documents. If anyone would like to view them, I just wanted to point that out for everyone. Thank you.
Any other public comments? Okay, with that, I will close the discussion on the first application and we will move on to the second application, which is for the open space subdivision. Jim, do you want to discuss that please? Again,
this is a two lot subdivision, 23 acres approximate totals. Originally came in as a subdivision and after discussion with the applicant their the applicants and their engineer, I need to go with the open space clustered provision provisions in section 5.5 of the regulations. With that, I guess I would like to turn over to or I'd like to turn it back to you, Jed. Okay.
So is the application complete that we have for the Open Space Subdivision, Jim? I believe it is, yes. Okay, very good.
Jerry, would you be willing to walk us through that application? I would be willing to try. We'll see how
inept I am at sharing my screen. That's why I'm asking you to do it rather than me.
Nice move. Okay I'm gonna hit share screen and I think that my stuff will come up here. Okay can people see this? I can stay at good yes.
Okay. So this is the location map. The Grimaldi's have a nice piece of property on the East Elbow of Andover Lake. It's about 22 acres. It's on the hillside. Everything slopes down to the lake, which makes sense. This was initially submitted, as Jim said, as a conventional subdivision, the whole thing of which you should be able to see in just a minute. So as I said, 22 acres. Their existing house, nice house, is up on the hillside overlooking this area, looking to the excuse me, looking to the west. And the Grimaldis want to downsize like a lot of us, and they have a lot of acreage here and they wanted to build a new house to the north of the existing house. But they didn't want to sell all of this property with the existing house. So in order to keep that we had to keep it contiguous with the newly formed lot. And that's why we have this strip of land that goes behind the main house the original house. So the stuff to the right on this drawing and the stuff to the left on this drawing is connected and is all one parcel. You can see that we have the existing house is going to go with about four acres, and the remaining land is about 18 acres. When we met with Jim and Eric and Jeb and talked about options for this, we realized it was better to go to an open space subdivision, so we did that. And that plan is here.
The only thing that changes about this is that the Grimaldi's will put a conservation easement over this segment of land that's highlighted in green here, and this is about nine acres because they have to turn over what is it, 8% of the land, 4% of 40% of the 40% of the land has to go to open space. That land also can't have more than 30% wetlands. This is going to have a little less than two acres of wetlands, and it has no slopes in excess of 25%, so it meets the open space criteria. Everything else remains the same as what was with the conventional subdivision.
Jerry, can I ask you what made you or the Grimaldi's decide that the open space was preferable to the standard subdivision? And if it's none of my business, I understand that too. I'm just trying to, for my own knowledge, is the first time we've gone through one of the open space subdivisions and it wasn't clear to me that this turning over 40% of the land is advantageous to the Grimaldi?
Well, turning over you have one of two options. You either have to present open space or you have to pay a fee in lieu of. Now the open space in in this instance and Vinny and Pat jump in if you wanna correct me on anything. But they had no intention of developing this land anyway. It's really nice land out there. Yes. It is. And since they have no no reason to develop it or no desire to develop it, it it made sense to make it open space. Okay.
Okay. And I guess it avoids the issue of having to designate it a rear lock.
Yes. Yes. Obviously, the development part gets a little bit easier in this case. Yes. Okay. Sorry for the interruption.
And Jerry. Yes, sir? Why did you pick that space on the South Side of the property down by that granite monument on the town line? Why did you just, why right there, what was the, I mean, follow the green line to the Columbia boundary? Line Why that spot right there
where it's nine acres. It because it's just nine acres right there? Yeah, because it was convenient. There's a monument here, there's a pin down here, so it's easy to define the line. It fits the requirement. We needed 8.8 acres and nine is pretty close to that. So it could be defined pretty easy and would save time and effort with that.
Also Is there a monument at the excuse me. This is Scott Personigan. Yep. Is there is there a monument at at at the end of that green line or is there a monument to the Southeast?
The monument is a 100 feet from that line. Alright. But it gives us something that we can find in the field.
Not just to say if you put it at the monument, wouldn't have to change anything.
Well, that's true. Except for I think that just makes us a little less than what's required. Oh yeah.
That is a beautiful piece of land to put in conservation. So go ahead and continue, Jerry.
Okay. So this is where they wanted their house. They've been planning on putting it here for a long time. So that's what we did. So the next step was to design a septic system and the house layout, etcetera, which is shown on another sheet, which I'm going to pop to right here. So we did the development of this. Actually, did put the cart before the horse in this case and did the testing out here before this. Eastern Highlands Health District was there for the test pits. All the test pits were were pretty consistent. It's it's it's decent as it's as good of materials as you get in Andover, which is always a little bit problematic. But we tried to make this as small an area of disturbance as possible. We kept the septic systems away from the wetlands by more than 50 feet, which is the health code requirement. The main driveway, the main part of the driveway across the wetlands has already been accomplished, so the driveway up to the house will be done at the time of the house construction, obviously.
So this is our septic system design sheet. And then we added a erosion control measures sheet, which is a requirement of the subdivision regulations. This spells out the plan of attack for this thing, the sequence of construction, time dates, etcetera, the responsible person for the maintenance of the plan and checking the silt fences, etcetera. We've got a proposed topsoil stockpile area here. We've got a settling pool designed below that so that the fines, if anything washes down here, it'll settle out here. And of course, the silt fence is already in. So I believe that this erosion and sediment control plan complies with the subdivision regulations and fits the design also. Mean, this is where the house should be. It's where it best fits, and that's what we got.
Okay. Did you have anything else, Jerry, that you wanted to say about the three maps that you put up for us?
I would be happy to answer any questions that anybody has.
Before we get to the other questions, I would like to make sure that however we do that, Amanda or Jim, that these three maps are part of the public record that we have that we make our decision on. And then Jerry, I know you've got several other documents that I think are part of the public record and I don't know if you can call those up or if I need to have Amanda do that but I know there's, you know, we've got, I'm not sure if you've got your comment from the fire marshal, you've got a letter from the neighbor, any other supporting documents that you have that you would like to have entered into the record before we get on to further questions?
I was under the impression they were already in the record because I saw them in the list of things at this meeting. I don't have them on this computer,
unfortunately. Okay. Would you like me to get them up on the screen? I would just like to show them so I can make sure that if some people did not get a chance to go to the website and take a look at them, that they've all had a chance to see the information that's in the public record. Okay.
Jerry, I'm going to stop your sharing. Just give me one second. Okay. Can everyone see my screen?
No. Not yet. Looks like it's headed that way. Here we go. Yep. Okay.
So just let me know which document you'd like to see. Okay. Let's start
with the statement of intent. We'll just work our way down. Everyone may have to tilt their head.
Okay. Well, it's not a very long letter. Okay, got that. If you could go to the next one please. I'll see what it says. Nope. Do you like this? Letter of support.
Of support for the St. James. Oh. But whatever one comes up, we'll take a look at it. I've got my list that I'm expecting to see. Okay. Got it. Amanda, if you can go to the next one then. And if anybody needs more time to take a look at the documents as we're scrolling through them, just let me know.
And just for the record, Linda McDonald is on the meeting tonight. She's clerking the meeting. I am just here for some moral and technical support.
And I appreciate that. K. And for the record then, this is the letter from the St. James who are the neighbors of the Grimaldi's there. Okay, thank you Amanda. Like to see the Eastern Highlands approval?
Yep, that's good. Okay, so this letter provides the approval for the septic system and the private well. Okay, thank you Amanda. Looking for the inland wetlands summary ruling. And if you can scroll down a little bit on that, Amanda. This is going take a little time because I have not seen this document prior to now. So if you can go back up where yep, hold on. That's good. Hold on there for just a minute. Okay,
yep, scroll down to the top of page two. Okay, so it looks like by this letter we have the approval to install the 18 inches culvert, fill approximately nineteen sixty square feet of wetlands and disturbance by grading and filling of 0.45 acres of the Upland Review Area. House well and septic inside the Upland Review Area. Okay, if you can scroll down from there Amanda, please. Okay and I know the Grimaldi's are anxious to get started on this so we do have a typo in paragraph four. We've got five brackets two years for the duration of the permit. I don't know which of those two numbers was intended. My expectation is that probably you would be done, you would hope to be done within two years.
The standard approval length is five years. I will tell you that.
Okay. And I'm fine with that. I didn't I know Grimaldi's are anxious to get started. Okay, if you could scroll down to the top of the next page, Amanda. Okay. Is there anything below that? Okay, I'm ready for you to scroll down just a little bit more. Okay. I'm all set. Is there anything else or are we done there? Okay. So now you turn it back over to Jerry, we'll go back to the maps and we will entertain questions from the public. Unless there was anything else you wanted to add, Jerry? No, I'm good.
Mr. Mizgrimaldi, anything you would like to add before we get back into asking questions on the application? You have anything you want to add?
Nope. Just to reiterate what you said Jed, just want to get this moving. You know how long we've been working on this. We're coming on a year's time. And I'm just about to blow my patience. And I will add that in all this to find out a week ago And because of the COVID nineteen, now the banks aren't even looking at construction loans. So this year long process to get us to this point has been agonizing. So anybody on this call, I plead to every one of you, anything that you can do so we can be proved and move on with our life and not have to worry about this ever again. Please help us. I'm going to put the SOS out out there. Thanks to Liz and Ed and Jerry and Roger or I'm sorry. Sue and Roger. Our neighbors next door that wrote the nice letter, Chris and Chrissy,
And all the other abutters to this property. I think some of some of what you're doing is you're you're making a mole of, you know, a mountain out of a molehill. Let's just get to the verb and get it done with.
Okay. Did anybody in the public have any questions on the application at this point?
I'm going to unmute. Please speak up if you would like. Andrew? I'm good no no I just want to
say Ed and I want to say you know in furtherance of our approval this just helps the town, okay? This is an additional tax revenue for the town. Not to mention all the other issues that the Grimaldi's have had to go through to get this approved so let's get it done. Okay?
I understand the comment. Hearing no other questions from the public, do any of the commission members have any questions? I hear no questions from the commission members. We commenting on the plan. Yes, Scott.
Are are the septic requirements in the ARD the same as subdivision septic requirements, Jerry? Yep. There's no mention of them in the ARD section.
Distance to wetlands and the rest of it all 50? Well, that's what the state health code is.
You didn't find anything in the ARD to specify that nothing in the ARD Jed, do you know anything about that?
I don't. What I do know in the point that I had a bit of a concern about is that in the subdivision regulations under the sanitary authorization, it talks about doing the test pits between February and May. And I know from the map they were done in August. And that's why I wanted to make sure we got the letter from Eastern Highlands Health District because that's their purview. If they say that they're satisfied with it, I was not going to take any issue. To the contrary, that's that's their area of expertise and that's theirs to decide. Okay. We've
had that. So what are we what are we doing here? What are we talking about? We've got we've had the letter. It's been in the file.
I understand. And and we're just making sure that the questions that we have are answered. I agree that you've got the letter in your file. It's a non issue. The Eastern Highlands Health District has approved your plan.
I have to say something, you know, from the town's end of this, you know, this may have seemed like it took a long time and it probably did take a long time and, you know, the town apologizes for everything that went on, but there's reasons we this didn't get it didn't take so long because of no reason there was no the biggest reason was you know our zoning enforcement agent left he retired and your frustration is you know warranted but there's there's reasons for everything that happened here. This is the first time that the Planning and Zoning Commission has seen any real information on this plan so everybody being up in arms about how long this has taken really needs to take a breath. We don't have any problem with any of the things that we've seen here just just take a breath this will all come through and now we have this COVID thing we still don't have a zoning agent you know the one that we had left now we have Jim and he's doing the best that he can to get everything together. We understand that, Scott. We understand it. I I I don't, you know, we're we're trying to get this done. We really are. Just want you to understand our side.
The question I had is in the area that's cleared in support of putting the house in, was any clearing done through the wetlands themselves just because as I look up the hill it looks fairly open? I know you were given authorization by John Valenti to disrupt 0.54 acres, think it was, in the Upland Review area. I'm just trying to satisfy myself that we did not go in and clear through the wetlands themselves.
Jed, the wetlands that was cleared was exactly what was proposed and approved by Inland Wetlands. And this whole area, if you drew along the outline of the where the silt fence is proposed and the edge of the tree line comes out to 0.45 acres. That number wasn't arbitrary. Produced it based on the drawings that we had. Okay.
Very good. All right. Can I make a comment here, please? Vincent Cromalvy. You remember me, the applicant. Right? Right. Right. Alright. If you take a look at the maps, all three of them, the wetlands are clearly delineated on the maps. Alright? I'll be happy to describe it for you. The only disturbance we did was putting the driveway through the wetlands. Of course, we had to disturb the wetlands to get the driveway through. Had approval of that back in July 2019. Where that house is situated, there's no wetlands cutting through that house or where it was cleared. Alright? This has been since July 2019. You know, and as far as Scott's comment about not seeing anything on this, I have no idea what you're talking about. I applied to planning and zoning in September 2019. This planning and zoning commission discussed this project in September 2019, then they discussed it again in December 2019, then they discussed it again in February 2020, then this commission discussed it again in March 2020, and here we are in April discussing it again. You guys tell me it's the first time you've seen anything?
Extremely frustrating. Okay. So, mister Grimaldi, just just for the record, I think several of those meetings you're talking about are with the Inland Wetlands Commission. Exactly. Did you not just say what I said, sir?
Check your minutes. Planning and Zoning Commission discussed this five times already. Go back to the minutes and read the minutes. We're all over in you've documented our names multiple times in the minutes. We've had multiple discussions. Planning is
Let's get back to can we get back to questions on the drawing itself so we can finish this, Please.
Okay. Any other questions on the drawings? Jim, did you have any comments to make? No.
Okay. And I'll go back to Jerry for any concluding comments before we bring the public hearing to a close.
Well, I will tell you that when we were talking about the possibility of an open space subdivision as opposed to the conventional, I think it turned out for the best for Rimaldi's and the town for that matter. And I think that this is an appropriate and a good use of the land and a good application of the open space subdivision. That's all I got. Okay.
Mr. And Ms. Rimaldi, any closing comments? Or do I take it that your previous comments were your closing comments? Do you have any closing comments? I don't know where we are in this meeting.
Jerry, just We are we are I've heard yeah. I've heard that. Public hearing.
One one thing I would like to say because this has been going on for almost a year now, we've experienced some financial hardships because of this. Because we were told we were approved back in July 2019 by the zoning agent that all it had to do was have a administrative approval, which never happened. So because of that, we moved forward with the bank. We've lost hundreds of dollars with the bank. My contract my excavation contract, his machine's been sitting there all winter. I don't even know what that's gonna cost me yet. So this committee's inability to act on this has caused us much hardship. I'd like you to take that into consideration, please. Okay.
Understand, and I will provide the following feedback on that, is that when there was an understanding that there would be an administrative review to approve building the house, it was not recognized that this was an already subdivided lot. We thought that this would be the first cut which would take no Planning and Zoning Commission approval at all. It turned out that when we look back at the deed, that it had already been subdivided once in the past since the subdivision records went into effect. And that is why you had to bring an application before the Commission. It's unfortunate the timing that required that, but that is the reason that we had to come to the Planning and Zoning Commission after you initially thought that that would not be required. Okay. And with that, we will close the public meeting at well, one other thing before I close the meeting. And Jerry, I was interested in where we stand with the draft open space conveyance instrument that's required to be submitted as part of the application?
I would like to have that a condition of approval and allow them to work on that afterwards, because obviously if this thing doesn't go through, then they're not going to waste the money on having that drafted. I believe we've done that in the past on previous applications. So that will Yes, Jim.
I'd be happy to speak to that if the commission so wishes. Please do. In about round twenty ten, there was a subdivision off of Long Hill Road and it involved a conservation easement. It was in fact a condition of approval that that the the document language of the conservation, the de restrictions be approved prior to issuance of occupancy, certificate of occupancy. Would it allow the developer to move forward.
Okay, so my question before we close the public hearing to Mr. Mizravaldi is it your intention that the open space be left in the pristine condition that it is today? Yes, it is. Okay,
thank you. And with that, at 07:55, we will close the public hearing. The next order of business is to open, reopen the regular meeting. And so we will recall the regular meeting to order is 07:56. I was looking for my copy of the agenda here and I know the next item on the agenda is to discuss the first application, which was a special permit for two rear lots served by a common drive in accordance with section 4.9 of the town of Andover zoning regulations. Does anybody on the commission have any comments that they would like to make regarding that application? Okay, hearing no comments. And based on our discussion that we had in the public hearing, It seems as if the requirement for a rear lot did not exist and therefore this application is unnecessary. And I would like to have a motion from one of the Commission members that the application for rear lot is not necessary and will allow the Commission an opportunity to vote on that.
I'll make a motion to get rid of the application for the two rear lots. Vincent Grimaldi, 353 Lake Road. Special permit for two rear lots, Common Drive, accordance with Section 4.9 of Landor zoning regulations. Anybody, I'm looking for a second. Second. And who was that? Ann. Ann, second. Any discussion
on that motion? Susan England here. Would we like to modify the motion to indicate that the reason why it's not necessary is because the two lots have adequate frontage and do not meet the definition of being a rear lot? So moved. Okay. Any other discussion?
Yeah, is Jim Nalzi, can I chime in? Go ahead Jim. If the Commission acts on that motion presented, you eliminate the common drive and you couldn't approve the subdivision without the common drive. Also, I just want to point out that it was the same application. The common drive and the rear lots were part of the same application. It didn't make the Grimaldi's go through a lot of extra work on that. I understand. Okay. But if you want,
you wanna act on the, wanna remove the rear lot, I mean that makes sense, but if you remove the common, you don't approve common drive, then you don't have a valid subdivision in my opinion. So we we have to redo that.
Okay. A question for you, Jim. And I am looking at our subdivision regulations, Article 7.7, item 12, which states common driveways may be allowed provided the driveway serves no more than two dwellings. And so as I read through the subdivision regulations, I thought that what the Grimaldis were looking to do was per our subdivision regulations.
It is. But we also have zoning regulations. If you look at section 4.9, it states that deals with driveways. Commission may grant special permits proving the construction of common driveways to a maximum of two adjacent rear lots.
I understand, but this piece of property does not meet the requirement of a rear lot. And so we don't need to get into the rear lot regulations.
Regulations don't distinguish between they talk about common driveways. All right, I mean that's the way you read it. But we've got you need a special need an easement on a common drive. That's the way the regulations were written. I did I did notice that they talked about we're lost, but I still think anybody went back and revisited this section of the regulations when the when the open space subdivision component was written. If
you don't if you don't grant a special permit and you don't have any conditions, then you have a common drive, no maintenance, no provisions for maintenance, no sharing of costs. Mean, it's a common drive requires an easement period. Easement shown on the drawing, Jim.
And the document The easement's on the drawing. What's that gonna do for the for a buyer? Excuse me? I mean, an easement is a document filed in the land records. Right. Okay. Well It doesn't do anything on the drawing. Especially people what they want. I mean, I don't understand it.
So as I was preparing for this meeting, I looked at three different places to find driveway requirements. One was in section 4.16 of our regulations, which is just basic driveway requirements. Then I looked at the rear lot driveway requirements and then I looked at the subdivision driveway requirements. And I do recognize your comment that there needs to be some understanding of who is going to plow the driveway and I can't put my finger on exactly where those words are in there right this minute, I do think that our regulations do not preclude the common driveway going to two lots that we're trying to to do. But that should be in the motion so that the commission members can vote on that and that's not just me making that decision. So I guess I would like to ask Jerry or Mr. And Ms. Grimaldi, what were the plans if you eventually sell the house
that exists there now for maintenance of the common section of the driveway?
There's gonna be a shared cost between both owners on the common portion of the driveway. Was discussed when the plans were drawn up.
Okay, thank you. So is there any other discussion on the first application? And I'd like to go back, somebody brought up a good point that the reason that we're not requiring this application is because of the sufficient common frontage. I'm not sure that since the application doesn't discuss driveways we need to add these maintenance rules to that discussion. Think we just say that we have met the requirement for standard subdivision, standard open space subdivision frontage, and so the application was required. So at this point, we had a motion, we had it seconded, we had an amendment to the motion to add the words that it was not required because of adequate frontage. And I'm looking for a second to the motion amendment. I'll second that too, Ms. Ann.
Okay, thank you, Ann. So at this point, we are going to vote on the amendment to the motion. And so, Anne, how do you vote? Or approve. Scott? Aye. Leanne? Aye. And I vote aye. Oh, and I vote aye also. Okay,
thank you, Susan. So the motion carries five-zero. Now we're going to vote on the amended motion in its entirety. That is the elimination of the application because it had sufficient frontage. Anne, how do you vote on that? Aye. Scott? Aye.
Leanne? Aye. Susan? Aye. And I vote aye as well. The motion passes five-zero that the application for the rear lots is not required. Moving on to the second application. For approval of a two lot subdivision in accordance with Andover subdivision regulations in section 5.5 of Andover zoning regulations, which is the open space subdivision. Jim, do you have a proposed motion drafted for that article? I do.
Is it possible that we can call that up on the screen so that we can take a look at it? Yes. Amanda, do you have that? Or Linda? Give me a minute. Sure. Okay. Okay, direct me on where to scroll here.
Well I'm not seeing a motion, just see please find the attached draft motion.
Okay, hold on one second. Let me try again. Okay. Oh, I see. Can you see it now?
It's working on it. There we go. Okay. Okay. If you scroll down on that a little bit, Amanda.
I'm not sure the draft motion actually calls for filing of the covenants in the open space. I
see that. I'm not positive. Is there anything below this, Amanda, if you scroll down more? Is six at the end? Okay. With Jim, it looks to me like item three would be scratched because and then scroll up a little bit more, Amanda. I'd like to the driveway easement. There's got to be language for that.
Okay, go ahead and scroll up again some more there. Okay,
so I am under the impression that we would scratch the first paragraph because that let's see. Yeah,
the first section discusses the rear lots and should be eliminated. The second section looks good and then there's the one section on the conditions. I think it was paragraph three down below. Yes.
Okay, so I'm looking for somebody to make a motion based on the second paragraph up for the lead in in all the conditions with the exception of number three. Is
there anything else? Can can we speak about anything else? What when did the pin get put on this?
When did the Below pin that. Scott number four. And again, if there are extra conditions that we need to, this is just a draft that Jim prepared for the eventuality that we got this far. If there are other conditions that anybody would like to see included in this, now's the time to discuss those.
Jerry who who just as well as we can take away. Jerry who is the person that's responsible for finding the the pinther put in there? I'm sorry. Who's responsible for It says building inspector responsible for that because he's the one that's gonna give the CEO a right?
No. The zoning enforcement officer typically is the one that checks something like that but honestly they they typically ask for a letter from the surveyor saying that all the pins have been put in. Okay and you're gonna put that in there? If I'm the surveyor.
Think the prints that you did, Jerry, look very nice. Thank you. Thank you. Any other comments, Scott, pertaining to the monumentation?
No, because I've seen other things that we've done along the way and nobody ever put the pins in.
Okay. I'm sure Jim will make sure that we get those there. So I'm looking for somebody to make a motion for the approval of the application for Open Space Subdivision. Mr. Chairman, this is Linda, your clerk. Yes, Linda. Someone has to read the entire record.
Should something be added? Should something be added to number four who's responsible for that? Shouldn't shouldn't just be open. It's too open.
You you Scott, it says before the CEO, so that should be a CEO standard.
Should be. Just Jim Hellenstein, what I I do is required on the. Typically, plans show proposed monumentation and it's up to the engineer to modify the language on that to say install, as far as I'm concerned. But again, you're right, Gary's right, it is the CEO responsibility. But that's how I
So I would expect that Jim, you would be making sure the monumentations installed prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy. Yes. Okay.
That's how I do it as opposed to going out and field check them because it's just not practical.
I'm not smart enough to know how the actual gets done. I just want to make sure that you as the zoning officer satisfy yourself that we've got the monumentation installed. And so you're going to do that, Jim? Yes. Okay, thank you. I can't remember if we had somebody that made a motion. Is anybody willing to do that? When you will, you will end up having to read it. Somebody has to read this whole thing. Scott, was that you making a motion?
I guess I need to be able to read the whole document.
Well, it's not very long. I know. I've been a lot longer. I'm not in charge of that, cursor.
Okay, yep. I just tried moving it myself and did not. Anyhow, is there a second to the motion? And Scott will read the entire motion as soon as we get a second for it. That was Anne? Leanne.
Leanne. Okay, thank you Leanne. So Amanda, if you can roll up to the top here, Scott will read the motion into the record.
Amanda you're gonna have to move it as I read it okay? I got you Scott.
All right I move to approve the application of Minsinkramaldi 353 Lake Road Andover application for two lot open space cluster subdivision in accordance with section 5.5 of the Andover zoning regulations and Andover subdivision regulations in their entirety. As shown on a plan entitled open space Subdivision Plan, Grimaldi Subdivision 353 Lake Road, Andover, Connecticut prepared by Civil Engineering Services LLC dated oneseventeentwenty twenty with the following conditions: open space covenants. Amanda. Number one, the applicant shall provide planning and zoning commission with a document detailing the proposed open space covenant subject to approval by the town attorney and the planning and zoning Commission prior to the issuance of any certificate of occupancy number two driveway easement. The applicant shall provide the town with documents detailing the proposed language for the requisite driveway easement and shall be subject to review and approval by the town attorney. Special permit required for the rear lots and common drive shall be filed by the applicant along with the final mileage. Scott, we're not taking that
That's the paragraph that we're eliminating Scott. We're taking that one out? Yes. Okay, I'm gonna strike number three. Okay, number three monumentation, all monumentation depicted on the plans installed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Number five signing of mylars, Mylar plan shall be endorsed by the chairman of the planning and zoning commission prior to filing. And number six, filing costs. This is expressly understood that all costs associated with the aforementioned filing requirements shall be borne by the applicant. You need a second. Okay,
that is the motion. It's in the record. Any further discussion on the motion? Hearing none, we'll call for a vote. Anne? Aye. Scott? Aye. Leanne? Aye.
Susan? Aye. And I vote aye as well. The motion passes five-zero-zero. Thank you everybody. I know it was hard getting to this point and I appreciate everybody's patience. With that we will move on to the next item of new business which is the subdivision pre application review for 26 Old Farms Road. Is there somebody present that wishes to speak to that application?
Yes, my name is George Correa. And what myself, my family and my sister and her family are looking to do is to purchase this 13.94 acre piece of land there in Andover and divide it into two lots and basically build, you know, two houses.
Okay. And we did get your preliminary discussion, but I did not see the drawing that your preliminary discussion referenced. Do you mind if we share our screen to That show would be fine. Yep.
Okay. So, what what you're looking at there is outlined in red to the left side of the page is the 13.94 acre parcel.
I'm not sure that I see. Oh, okay. I do see. Yeah, I've got the red now. Okay, thank you. Yep.
And so this particular parcel of land is unique in that it has road frontage on Pine Ridge Drive, but it's actually accessed from 26 Old Farms Road through a shared driveway that will lead in access into the lot.
Do you know why it's accessed that way? That seems
strange to me. I do not. This is the way that when it was originally subdivided back in the late 80s. This is how it was done. Okay. Yeah,
I do not know the reasoning why it was done this way.
But the area outlined in red is the property that you're talking about. Yes. Okay. Go ahead.
Yes. So what this what this drawing here is, is a conceptual idea that we had, and it's not to scale. But this is just a rough idea of what we were thinking about doing. So at some point between 2000 and and 2004, the previous or the current owner was able to get a was able to get a buildable area approved, which is highlighted in orange right there that is being circled. So that's a buildable an approved buildable area. What we would like to do is we would roughly divide it in half right about here. Okay.
And we would add a second buildable area in the southwest corner of the lot. There in, in the green hashed areas. Those are wetlands that have been delineated during the original subdivision or during the original when this was originally or this building?
Oh yeah, when that building was approved. Yes, a buildable area was approved.
Do you know if those wetlands were delineated by a soil scientist?
Yes, they were. Okay. So there's two, have two options into entering the lot. Option one would be to have a three way shared driveway, which would come in from Old Farms Road or we could keep the two way shared driveway coming from Old Farms Road and come in to access the rear lot through Pine Rich Drive.
Okay. Anything else? Yeah, anything else you have at this point? No, that's pretty much it in a nutshell.
Okay. Now, Jim, I know you had some concerns about the plan in
Yeah, George spent terrible amount of time researching this to his credit. And every option we seem to look at, there seemed to be obstacle. My recollection is that there was an intermittent stream. I don't know whether it's the extension of this wetland along the property line. I thought the stream itself was further, further back, but nonetheless. Assume the reason that Pine Ridge Drive wasn't utilized in the subdivision, which was approved back in the eighties, mid eighties as I think Woodlands 2 was the name of it. Right. You're right, As a requirement was the wetlands, was the stream, the stream crossing. There's
an intermittent stream that crosses that he's that. Easement or I don't know if it's an easement right away, right right away or whatever from Pine Ridge Drive crosses and goes down to a bigger brook that comes down to the, south. And then that that brook, there's a, I don't know if it's a perennial stream, but it's close to a perennial stream down here. It's intermittent goes into a almost a perennial when it goes to the hop right down here. So crosses that that blue line there. No subsequent, I mean up a number of things arose,
a number of issues arose during the review. That was, I mean the number of driveways, the number of homes served by a common drive. It's both in the subdivision and zoning regulations limiting a driveway to two dwellings short of a waiver on the part waiver of the subdivision regs and a variance of the zoning regs. In addition, subsequent to the to the approval of this subdivision, I'm talking Woodlands Woodlands, I believe the Planning and Zoning Commission adopted a maximum number of homes served on a cul de sac, cul de sac being Pine Ridge. And to add another home, utilize that right away, land. I'm staying away from the term rear lot here.
Well, think in this would add real lot is exactly the right term
because there is Except it's an open space subdivision, I don't know. Okay. Whatever. It it would be too many homes on that street. Cul de sac starts at Pendy Road.
Now it it would seem inconceivable to me, Jim, that they would put this driveway off of Pine Ridge Drive and not expect somebody to build on that lot back there. Now is the question building one house versus two? Or do you think that the number of houses would be exceeded on the cul de sac by just putting one house on the property?
Well, at the time it was approved, the time Woodlands was approved, there was no cap. Okay.
And mean, it only comes into play if the house is served off of Pine Ridge Drive. If there's frontage on Pine Ridge, but it's not served by, it doesn't, it's not utilized. That piece of land is not utilized as a driveway for access or some other way to get there from Pine Ridge Drive that wouldn't be counted against that cap, the number. What section of the and and what regulation that
would I believe it's somewhere in this in the subdivision regs.
And I am not familiar with that. I got heavily involved in the subdivision regs with respect to the last issue. There's enough regs there that I'm not familiar with all of them. I don't know offhand. I mean, haven't reviewed the plan because there's no application.
Okay, no. And certainly one of the things that I would like to do better than we did on the last application is to have a complete application in place before we go to a public hearing so that the commission can have a good understanding of what it is that you're asking to do there. And so Jim with the wetlands on there, I'm assuming that this would need a review through the wetlands commission before it comes to us.
Yes, it would. Okay. George, let me, I don't mean to speak for you, but I think quite frankly, the applicant just wanted to get a feel for what, how the commission might view it, what issues there were before he moved forward, incur a lot of expense which is certainly understandable.
Well I know in the letter, I think it's this one that it says that time is an important factor. And I'm not sure what those time constraints are, but I do know that by the time an application comes to planning and zoning, we have to wait fourteen days to see if anybody in the public objects to the application. Then we schedule, we have sixty five days to schedule a public hearing. We've got thirty days, I think, to conclude the public hearing. Then we've got another sixty five days to act on it. And that's been extended by an additional ninety days because of the coronavirus crisis making virtual meetings more cumbersome to do than if we were all to be able to sit down together and look at the documents and work our way through them. So as I was talking to Jim about this idea earlier today, I think you might be able to get through all those issues. I don't think that it's going to be quick. And I don't think that it's going to be without cost to you. And so that's a decision you guys would have to make wanting
to Yes, and I totally understand where you're going with all that. And real reason why we wanted to talk to you guys first is if this is to confirm that this idea is feasible. If it is, then we're going to move forward in purchasing the land. But if this is something that's going to have too many roadblocks and something that cannot be done, then we will not, we will stop our moving forward and purchasing the land and we will look for something else essentially.
My recommendation, and I'm open to second guessing by any of the commission members or Jim, would be the next step, if I were you, that I would do is I would take the same presentation to the Inland Wetlands Commission because I think probably the more significant issue to get through is the wetlands proximity to where you're building there. But I have not been out to the property to take a look at it or anything. I think the wetlands might be the tougher leg of the journey. Do you agree with that Jim or is that off the mark? Oh, you're probably right.
Don't know if the building areas are going to fit inside the wetlands there. They're outside the wetlands. Outside the wetlands, yeah. Oh,
just keep in mind Scott that this is not the scale this is just something that we just drew up.
Right and the wetlands would probably have to be delineated again. And my first thing right off the bat is why was two houses not put in there in the 80s when that was subdivided? You know if a developer could have put two houses in there he would have put two houses in there. I'm certain of that. I know the developers that did that.
Yeah, well, you look at Lot 1 and Lot 2, they're comparable sizes and it's the same. It's just one house on each one of those lots. So
I guess that reinforces Scott's comment that if those lots are about the same size as yours, why didn't, well, the developer probably would have put two houses in there if he could. He just, for some reason, and I don't know what it is, maybe,
thought he couldn't. What is the what's the width of the driveway down there off of Pine Ridge? It's 71.34
feet. Could you put that print back up on there? Amanda? You're measuring it at an angle, you measured it across, what did it?
I can only say what's written on the drawing. The drawing says 71.34 feet.
That's at a, you know, 45 degree angle or something. And imagine why there would be there would not be a house in there if there could have been a house put in there.
Well, from what we gather about the history of this property, it was inside the current owners. The property has been in their family, I think, for a while.
So I'm not sure. Yeah. Twenty five or thirty years, I think, because I yeah. A long time. And he never put a house in there.
They started construction on that first house there, that first buildable area. They got some of the road in place, and then they got their erosion and sediment control in place. But then for whatever reason, the construction stopped. Right,
very steep going down into that first house lot there. The driveway isn't going into here.
Well, guess then, you know, I love the concept of two families being close together on a piece of property like that. But Jim, would it be feasible for you to, now that we've gotten through the last application and looking ahead, can you go through and see if you can get clarification on will the driveway off of Pine Ridge Drive by our regulation support two houses back there? And with the number of houses be consistent with with the current subdivision regs for for cul de sac loading? Sure, can double check that. Hey
Jed, just to be clear, if if we were to come in from Pine Ridge, it would only service one house. That would be the house closest to Pine Ridge. The house that's, you know, closer to Old Farms would stay that way. So we would access from both sides.
Is there a reason that you wouldn't want to take both houses access from the Pine Ridge side if you could? Perhaps it's too steep going up that hill.
Yeah, right there. Well, I think the regulation is we cannot exceed 15% grade without it being paved and just going off of the original drawings there, it would be right at 15.
Right, I think it's 10 for pavement. You don't have, You can have a grade up to fifteen, ten to 15 and it has to be paid, yeah. Yeah, yeah. Okay, well, so again,
yeah, I like the thought we'd have to go through it And maybe, Jim, you walk them through the site plan special permit checklist and so you can see what kind of flags that might show up with them if they were to continue on and then go to the wetlands and see what wetlands would require if you were to make an application. In and then you can you can make the decision on whether or not you'd want to move forward with the plan or not. Can do that.
Well, great. Thank you so much for listening to us and, and, you know, in contemplating this idea with us. It's really
Thank you. Well, wish you the best of luck and I appreciate your initiative in trying to get a plan developed before the train leaves the station and we're running to catch up to it. Right. That makes a lot of Thank you very much. Great, thank you. Okay, moving on to the next item is Mr. Devine still with us? I think Amanda you have him on mute maybe? I just unmuted him. Okay. Thank you.
I'm not sure whether I am muted or not. We I hear you. Welcome.
I'm an old broadcaster and not being able to control my mic is a huge However, first, really would like to commend you, Mr. Chairman and the members of the commission for your patience, your attention to detail and your whole demeanor during this hour and hour and a half meeting. You've been involved in a lot of town meetings in previous lives and I know how tough it can be. Thank you for allowing me to chat a little bit about the project that I hope to put before you in time for your May meeting. This house at Bearswamp Road is my wife and my tenth house. It will be our fourth restoration of the historic home. We left a wonderfully restored one in New Hampshire and specifically chose Andover for a couple of reasons. The obvious, you all know, you live here. In addition addition to that, it provided us with enough land to have a detached accessory apartment for our son. Our son is a currently unemployed Baltimore here. City. He wants to get back to the land and he's going to be our caretaker. You can tell by this space, right, that I'm going to need a caretaker before too many more years go by. One of the contingencies, in fact the contingency of buying our house in December of last year was checking with zoning to make sure that the, what we were calling at that time a caretaker cottage, would be permissible under the Andover zoning regulation. Told in fact that it was and Jim has confirmed that in some subsequent discussions. As I've read the zoning regulations, Section 4.11.3 does require a special permit
for a detached accessory apartment. As you all know, the special permit regulations are very, very detailed, require a lot of time, effort and a pretty big expense to prepare an application that completely follows that. My reading of those seems to indicate that those regulations were written to cover any and all eventualities which could be permitted by a special permit. In that initial run, the detached accessory apartment is not even mentioned. The detached accessory apartment references those requirements for a special permit under Section 411.3 that we would be required to meet a number of items. We can meet most of those items quite handily. Requirements by Section 4.11.2 that can all be met. In fact, I've already done a checklist for myself and we meet all of those. Architectural plans to be submitted, those are in progress. They're being done by Don Teranelli. We should see our third and final set this week. That brings me to Section 23.2b, that's the site plan. First, let me tell you that what we are proposing is detached accessory apartment which satisfies
all of the other requirements including the maximum of 800 square feet, which includes the porch. So we're really talking a foundation that is half the size of the meeting room that you folks would normally be meeting in. That foundation is 20 feet by 30 feet and then the balance is a porch. It seems like a very, very minor improvement to a lot. We have 6.96 acres here at 84 Bearthorne Road. We plan to locate the accessory apartment well behind the road. In fact, it's way over 200 feet, it's about 300 feet off the road. Its closest neighbor is 131 feet away and that is to the east. Our neighbor to the west is about two fifty feet away. If you were to drive by the site and you look there was an old barn which at some point is going to get the divine restoration touch to it located pretty much beside where we are proposing to build. If I may, I'm going to call it a caretaker's cottage. I know that's not literally correct. It's up here at the moment. That's where we want to build a caretaker's cottage. It can hardly be seen from the road. What I am proposing and I do understand because Jim has made sure I understand
that the commission cannot issue a waiver without seeing the application. I understand that. But if I don't have a sense that the commission is willing to entertain the kind of site plan proposal that I would like to make, partly because I can do 90% of it myself and partly because it will save me a lot of time and partly because it will save me thousands of dollars. What I am proposing to do is to provide the Commission with a site plan drawn on our A2 survey from 1985 which is on file with the town. Adding to that the attachments which would include approval obviously for septic system and the driveway and the other things that I know are required to do that. That would allow me again to demonstrate. I know that Section 23.2 H, you certainly can waive most of the sections if not all of whatever pieces of Section 23.2, yes, sections one, sections four, five and six. Those are the site plan sections.
And I guess I'm hoping that I can find you open to accepting as complete an application which would include site plan drawn on the A2 survey. Jim, and I thank him for this, has been out. He's seen my property. He knows where we want to build. He saw it this past weekend. He saw what appeared to be a little bit of a wetland closer to my neighbor on the West Side, which appears to be well away from the requirement that it be at least 100 feet away from any construction. And I guess at that point, I'm ready, willing and eager to have the Commission's guidance.
Okay. So you are going to be the first person who has taken advantage of our accessory apartment regulation that we drafted a year or so ago. And we labored over those extensively to try and provide exactly what you're looking for, but still put adequate controls into place so that we didn't have people building two houses on single lots. And I went and reviewed the articles four, five, and six of what, 23.2, I think. And while there's a lot of stuff in there that probably is not applicable to you. There's a lot of stuff in there that I think we would like to see. And I think 90% is in what you were planning to do anyhow. But what I would expect Jim to do with you on our special permit checklist
is to go through each item on our checklist with you and just verify that we've got a complete application. And he does have latitude to make recommendation to the Commission on things that you think are not applicable and then it would come before the Commission to decide whether or not we agree with that. So I would not I would prefer to not discuss a complete waiver of sections four, five, and six at this point, because I think there are some things in there that we would need to look at. I absolutely agree with that. Just
so you know, the way I would do it is the application comes in, I would go through each of the items in section 4.11 of our regulations see if we meet the intent of that. And then I would go through the special permitting site plan thing to just see if there's anything else in there, and then we would go from there. But I would be intending to do a pretty thorough review of each of the items in there just to convince myself that yes, we needed it or no, we didn't because it is the first time we've gone down this path. But your situation is exactly what we intended when we put that article in there. And your size of a lot is exactly what we were looking at when we put the article in there as well. So I think the likelihood of success is very high. I don't think it's very hard. But when we talk caretaker cottage, we view that more as another house on the lot as opposed to putting a shed on the lot. We want to make sure that the town is protected in that nature. Jim or any other commission member have any other comments that you'd like to make on that?
I think that was pretty clear. It's the house, it's not a shed.
Yes. It will be a seven ninety two square foot building which will include 22 by six foot covered porch and the covered porch needs to count towards the 800 total square feet of the property. So in effect our son's accessory apartment will put him in approximately six sixty square feet. That sounds good.
It's an observation. It seems that throughout the regulations or at least a few places, it does suggest that folks come forward with looking for preliminary feedback. And in this particular case, it wasn't clear whether waivers would be discussed prior to the submission of application or not. I don't think the regulations are particularly clear on that. If the Commission has wanted to provide me some direction on that, I would be happy to to be more specific as to what I bring to the Commission.
My thought was, as I looked through this, I did not know what waivers we might expect. It looks like, and again, you know, there's a couple of things it talks about parking spots by the cottage and that kind of stuff. But I would think that the next step might be to come to us with a drawing that has what's there currently and where he would like to put the caretaker cottage. And at that point, we might choose to even go out and do a site visit to just make sure that we don't see any other stumbling blocks to it. But right this minute, it looks like what he wants to do to me is pretty straightforward.
Is it going to be a separate well and septic?
It will be a separate septic and that's from a time standpoint that's my one concern right now. I made the application last week. I'm hopeful that it will be the test for the soil test will be scheduled in time for me to have my application completed and in Jim's hands at least a week before your May meeting. The well, I did have a pressure test and a flow test done on our existing well and we will be using the the existing well to satisfy the water need for the detached accessory apartment. Right. And like Jed was saying, there's parking requirements.
Oh, the parking requirement we have space already with our existing garage for three or four cars and that's what the plan is our vehicles there. I know I need to provide access for an emergency vehicle and I will also need to provide access to that back part of our lot to do the construction. So there actually are two pathways to do that. I've already had some work done to get rid of a mess between our garage and Bears Swamp Road. Ron's landscaping came down and did some extensive cleaning out. Get rid of an old dog house and a bunch of rubber tires and even a tailgate from a pickup truck that had been thrown down. That will take a little bit more grading and that will be a place to be able to drive the vehicle down behind the garage and then along the tree line on the grass.
I really don't have any desire, plan or perceived need to do anything in terms of permeated driveway or a gravel driveway or anything like that. I don't think it's needed. It's a long walk back there, but he's 51. He's 24 years young, 23 years younger than I. Yep. And I just
I went back and looked because I thought it was going to tell us that you needed two parking spots by the caretaker cottage, but it does not. It says off street parking shall be provided for both dwellings, with at least two spaces for the principal dwelling and one for the accessory apartment. Right. It sounds like what you're looking at there meets our requirements.
Meet, as best I have read everything, we meet all of the requirements of 11.2 I think, which is the base requirements and so forth. We meet everything for 4.11.2 already and what I really need to do, obviously, is provide you with a plan, site plan, that will allow you to do the due diligence that I know you need to do and that I applaud as a matter of fact.
Okay. I don't have anything else on this unless you have something else for us, Mr. Devine. I think it sounds like a good plan and
look forward to seeing it. Are there wetlands on the property? Pardon? Wetlands on the property?
I I didn't think so. No. When Jim looked this past weekend, there is a wet area, that is probably, I'm guessing, a 100 and well, the area to my stone wall is like a 130 181 feet. I'm I'm guessing it's in the ballpark of between a 125 and a 150 before you hit anything. So Jim, would this need a wetlands review?
It would would fall outside the Upland Review area. I mean, that would have to be determined, but no, I don't think we require wetlands. Okay. It's outside the Upland Review?
Yeah. Mike, I mean, I I guess, I'm not gonna tell you whether was wetlands that I was looking at, there's an intermittent water course that follows the north side of the property. It's more than a 100 feet away than the proposed site. Wetlands associated with that intermittent stream?
They seem to be confined. I mean, I'm guessing, you know, like, not a lot of wetlands will be confined to that stream area, In my opinion. Wetland soils. Right. I only looked at that just so case came up this evening. I know that Mr. DeMine has a time frame. And he's got a lot of, he's got to put a lot in. It's still a lot of work. We've got to do the soil test. Have the engineering work done. The Commission accepts patients at the public hearing. Typically, you know, there's there's time inherent in the process. Right. Yeah.
We're just trying to bring up everything that could possibly come up.
Yeah, and that's a that's a gray area on how do you determine whether it has to go to wetlands when you think it's well clear and I'm not sure the best way to handle that. Did you look, Jim, on the Crogg diagram to just see if anything was, they had any wetlands in the area? I did not. Okay, that might be something you or Mr. Devine could do. If there's nothing there, I think it's pretty clear. If there is something there, then it would take some assessment to get a ruling for wetlands that gets outside, no application required. And I don't think that would be very hard or lengthy either.
They could do a site walk down there real quick.
Yep. Now, did I hear Mr. Devine say he has submitted the application to us?
No, not yet. The only application that I have out there is for the soil test and I can't do the site plan fully until I know that I have an approved site for the septic system and that will come about with soil test. I'm hopeful that that will be in hand before I have no idea how backed up Mr. King might be, but I'm hopeful that that can be done between now and sometime in the first week. I plan to give him a call tomorrow to see where things stand. Do have one other question, if I might. I was listening to you Mr. Chairman talking with the previous discussion about timetables and I want to make sure that what I'm understanding in terms of timetables is correct. I know that at least under normal circumstances, I would present the application, it would go through Jim, it would come to the Zoning Commission and when it came to the Zoning Commission, if it were accepted as complete, it would be at that meeting that the public hearing would be scheduled, which could be as early as the next zoning commission meeting. If that hearing is held and there's no problem, then the commission, as I understand it, can can vote to issue the permit at that time. And then I know that there is, I believe, it's either a twenty or a thirty day delay before construction can begin. If I'm right on that and I am able to have this in Jim's hands with sufficient time before your May meeting to give everybody a chance to do at least a preliminary review, Is all of that possible? That would allow me to start construction
in July and probably be done by early fall.
I do think the timeline you discussed is accurate, with the exception of after we make a ruling on it and it gets the ruling gets published. If there's a newspaper like the River East, it would be noticed there, current with the coronavirus, it's noted in our website action. After it's noted, there would be, I think it's fifteen days, not thirty, before just to allow anybody to raise an issue that they might have with it. So I think your timeline was correct with the exception of that last thirty days is really closer to fifteen days. And if we had a good complete application on this project at the start of the next meeting, I think that's all very doable.
Excellent. Excellent. Thank you for your time, for your guidance. You've made me feel really like I can get this done between now and I'm shooting as Jim knows for the end of the first week in May, but certainly by the second week in May to be done. I got some good help from the town clerk's office who has sent me a digital copy of the A2 map for here. And I'm going to go to town. I'm going to start. I appreciate it. I appreciate your time, attention, your willingness to work with me. You're
going to like what you see, I'm sure. Thank you. You. Thank you. Well, and I appreciate having the opportunity to work on it upfront as opposed to late late in the process. So good luck to you, Mr. Devine. Thank you. Welcome to town.
Moving on the next item on the agenda is the approval of the meeting minutes from March 26. And hopefully everybody had a chance to read through the minutes before we got here.
This is Leanne. I'll move to approve the minutes of March 26. I'll second.
Thank you, Leanne. Thank you, Scott. Any discussion on the minutes?
I have two minor points. I don't know if you want to include them or not. The first one is on roll call. I don't know if you want to indicate that Jerry Hardesty was seated because he was an alternate. That's item number two.
What do you think Linda? Is that the best way to handle that? Yeah, I can
do that. That's fine. Okay. Okay. And then the second item again, it could be considered minor. But when you start off in item number one, Anne opened the meeting. And then you were elected under 5A. And you took over the meeting. I don't know if at that point it should be indicated that upon election, you assumed the position of the chair for the meeting?
I did have a similar comment where on roll call, it's got me as the chair and I wasn't the chair at that point. So I think your comments, a good one, Susan, it should reflect that I was just a member when we seated and that under the election of officers you can put that I assumed chair for the Commission. I have two items. Are we done with that? Yep.
Under number six, administrative report from zoning agents. If we could the second sent second sentence says the gravel operation has been currently dormant. I'd like to have that identified as the operation at the Extramart. Okay. And also,
Jim made a couple of remarks about that project. Jim, if you could repeat them so that they're included. I think I I thought I saw a version of it somewhere, but it's not in the one I'm looking at now. I know something some things were sent out as a revision. Jim, do you see what I mean? No. No. I do recall, Jim.
What what I had said was that the first phase of the project had been completed, which essentially the 100 feet to the rear of the property, the first 100 feet from the river. And that at that point, operation, it was easier to turn vehicles, equipment around. Okay. Some changes could be made. Didn't you say I something about the
think I said that it was site was draining well. But I mean, I've taken a look at it after a few storms and it has has drained well. Oh, what I said was okay. What I said was that the owner would would take a look at redefining the drainage along the adjoining property after we now move around, right? Up until now or up until he finished that first phase, he was just kind of using the property for travel, using the property near the, where the proposed swale was, which ultimately ended up as a stone. A berm. Not as it's more of a berm right now. And it had been originally there was some discussion about more of a taking a literally taking a bulldozer heavy equipment and and picking the property back, picking the grade back towards the extra mark.
I'm not sure I understand.
Okay, right now if you walk into the property along the right hand side there's there's a berm and that berm was was installed in lieu of. Of carving a a road, taking heavy equipment and pitching grade back towards Extramart. Mhmm. And and the reason the reason that was done is it was trucks were going over that that area and eliminating any any pitch that that was there. It just wouldn't hold up. Hence the berm. And now they said they would revisit, especially about regrading that area back into the site. And that's for purposes of trucks going over it? I'm sorry, Leanne. That's for purposes of trucks going over it?
Well, what I'm trying to say is that they couldn't maintain that pitch towards, towards Extremart from the, from the south side of the lot because of truck traffic. They couldn't maintain the berm?
No, they couldn't maintain the the pitch in lieu of the berm. That's why they ended up with the berm. The berm is on more towards the perimeter of the of the site. And they would revisit that.
Doesn't it show a dozer cut to the south end of the property next to the adjacent? Shows it right on the print, I've seen it. Shows up a dozer cut to the south of the property. Yep, that's right there. To the adjacent landowner's property, 50 feet away, the cut, the angle, the water that comes off that property back towards the X Mark property. Right. Clearly on the print, and it's never done in the field.
I mean, what was explained to me is this was what was agreed upon. The berm was agreed upon in lieu of that because of travel way, it was a travel way. And but now at this point, they were going to revisit that. But, I mean, I've seen very little activity there in the last I've seen equipment moving, but haven't seen trucks leaving.
I think when the commission put that on there they were worried about what was gonna happen after the gravel operation. Now there's gonna be, you know obviously something's gonna happen there and they wanted to make sure that any water that comes after whatever is being done there now is mitigated and put pushed back towards Extramart and not towards the south adjacent landowner's property.
Right. And that's what the owner indicated they would they would look at doing at this point. There hasn't been anything there going on. Right. Last few months.
So Lee Ann, was the purpose of the conversation we just had because you wanted it included in his remarks in the minutes or just because you wanted clarification so that you had a better understanding of what it was we were talking about?
Well, mainly I wanted to include it in the minutes of last month because I think he made a couple of remarks about the drainage and just the general status of the activity. But I think what he's just said now is in lightning too, so I'm not sure where that belongs. But I think if that can be part of the record, let me see, looking at my agenda. If that can be part of if that can be kind of made part of his record for this meeting that we're in right now, if that's okay, I think that would be very helpful. Both.
Is Linda. What I could do is add it under zoning agent report.
Yep. Yeah. Is that okay with everybody? Because I think that's what Jim just said, I think, elaborates on a lot on what he said last month and also gives a report for this month, and so I think it does both. So if we could apply it to my original question about him repeating his remarks for the minutes of last month. And then also, as I said, he's just expanded on it, if that can be included for this meeting. Okay.
Thank you. Who I wonder who decided on a berm when the print clearly showed a cut by a dozer?
My understanding it was a discussion between Chris Bell and John that I I don't know that for a fact. I'm sorry Chris Bell and who? John Valente. Chris Bell being the engineer. Yep.
I don't know why they would expect, you know, to be able to make a berm, a hold up after, you know, trucks are driving over it. It's gonna knock it down. The berm is out of the way. I'm sorry. Berm is you repeat that? Go ahead.
Berm is not where the dozer plate would have Just to the right of that. Yeah. Where the dozer plate would have would have been pitched the water back towards X-ray.
I'm sorry, Jim. Could you repeat one more time that your explanation about the difference between the berm and the alternative?
The berm is along South of the property, so it's the right hand side of the property as you're looking in from Route 6. And it's it's a raised berm. And it was. Apparently an alternative to. Installing is to running a bulldozer along. Along that perimeter just inside of the berm as I understand it. Berm is out. It's not in the same area. The berm's not getting crashed by traffic. No. It's remained pretty much intact. Okay. Okay, thanks. Okay.
Okay, so Linda, do you have an idea of what Jim's initial comments were from last meeting that you can include in that section and then put the rest of the discussion in the zoning agent report for this month?
Yeah, I can actually probably go back and listen to the audio from this meeting and get his words. Okay. The amended minutes.
To me, it all sounded like one sort of big discussion. So I think we talked about
Well, Linda, how about A portion and you have a second and you have amendments.
Yep. And what were specific amendments that you have recorded there for us? They have to do with
I guess you can go back in Yeah, I have to bring it down.
To make note that you took over the meeting as chair after you were elected. Yep. That Greg Hardisty was seated as the alternate. Then Yep. Verbiage regarding the gravel pit from last month. Okay. Very good. So I don't know there's any others.
So we've got a motion, we've got a second, we've got a couple of modifications thereof. Linda, do we need to make a motion for the amendments or can we do this one with just approved as amended?
You can approve them as amended. Okay. So we've got
the motion. We've got the second. We'll take a vote. Anne? Aye. Scott? Aye. Leanne? Aye.
Susan? Aye. And I as well. The motion passes 500. And so now we're moving on to the rest of the zoning agent report. Jim.
Spring's here, fair amount of activity. Couple of COs issued for new homes recently. One by the lake and one one on Lakeside Drive and one on Skinner Hill Road. Activity's a little slow because trying to work out who could sign off on wetlands permits right now, which was just the issue of the bill or sign off on wetlands permit applications. Projects, not necessarily projects that go to the commission. Other than that, things are moving along as well as can be given tunnel closure and such. That's all I have. Okay.
Well, me thank you, Jim. I know you have been working very hard to get us applications ready to go, and I appreciate all your hard work on those. Moving on to item nine, miscellaneous item. I am not aware of any miscellaneous items. Does anybody else have any? Hearing none, we'll move on to public speak. I'm not sure any of the public are remaining. But if there's a public person that wants to speak, please speak. Hearing none, we'll move on to item 11, Commission open discussion. Is there anything that any of the Commission members would like to discuss this evening?
This is Leanne. I have two quick things. Yep. Excuse me. One is for purposes of the record, should we acknowledge Jerry Hardisty's resignation between now and the last meeting? Yes. And so I think that you just did.
Okay. Just to put it on the record because I know I agree. Good For
example, when George Knox resigned as an alternate, I personally didn't know it. I had the impression that a couple of other members didn't know it. So just so that we know in what timeframe Jerry resigned.
Okay. To comment on that, Leigh Ann, I know the agenda for the last meeting started out with accepting the resignation of Bob Hamburger. When Amanda was going through and updating the names on our website, she asked me should I take George Knox off? And I said, well, I don't know that he's resigned. And so I asked Amanda to leave his name on there for the time being. I was hoping to twist his arm as we went out to the St. Patrick's Day seniors thing that got canceled because of the coronavirus. I haven't had a chance to run into him yet to ask him why he was resigning and whether or not he would reconsider. So we have left George's name on our website for the time being. Amanda, did he give a letter? I
never saw the letter. So that is why I was asking Jed. And I actually asked Carol. I'm waiting to hear back about George. But This usually is Linda. Usually Carol sends out the letter.
Yeah. Scott, this is Linda. I believe one of the one of the last times I was in town hall, I went went and I did find the letter at the town clerk's office of his resignation. Was it in the commission binder?
Was ask Carol where she's where it is, but it's in the it's in the vault room. It's it's part of the record of his his resignation, I think as of January 1 or something. Wow.
January 1. If in fact we find that there is a letter, we will accept it and then I'll go twist his arm. But until we see a letter.
Follow-up with Carol and Carol did provide me with Susan England's
being sworn in. And he obviously has not come to any meetings so it's kind of like maybe he thinks he's resigned but anyhow we'll look for the letter and act on the letter if one exists.
And along the same lines, have we received I know the River East hasn't been publishing for two or three weeks or what have you, but have we received any responses to ads for other members?
Not that I am aware of. And I would encourage each of us, I know I've approached a couple of guys to ask them if they would like to be on the commission and I haven't gotten any takers yet. Oh, so I did run into Bob Hamburger who was driving down the road, stopped to say hi the other day. He is feeling a little better, struggling, said that he was considering if he could come back on as a regular member after he gets back to battery. So there has been a little interest. I told Bob, be happy to have his experience on the commission if he were to choose to take that route. That might happen. Anybody else have any other open discussion items? Hearing none, guess the last open item is just to thank each of you for hanging in there as I got my first public hearing under my belt and a rather outdated application hopefully done without messing up too many regulations there. And Amanda, I really appreciate your support on getting all the documents up. I certainly could not have done that. So I appreciate everybody's help in making tonight's meeting a success.
Thanks for stepping up Jed. I know everyone really appreciates it. Yes, definitely. Really Jed, thank you. Well I'm
sure there's one or two people out there that probably don't, but there you go. Well, we'll do the best we can and that's all we can do. Moving
I do just want to point out that all of the meeting documents will be uploaded to the town website.
Okay, and so that's what makes it part of the public record? Those stay there forever?
You know, that's a good point. I think what we'll do with our new website is have an archive of everything.
Yeah. And I thought I saw something on the how to do virtual meetings that suggested that once town hall is open again, we have to take all those records, and it almost alluded to we were required to maintain a paper copy in a file. But I'll go back and take a look at that. But I think we can have the public records online, but it's always good to have that hard copy paper in the file cabinet for that. Okay, moving on to adjournment. Nobody wants to adjourn? I'll move to adjourn at 09:31, Ms. Leanne.
Okay, second? Who is the second? Ann. Ann. Thank you. Thank you all very much. Meeting's adjourned at 09:31. Good night, everyone. Good Leanne, I don't know