Meeting transcript
Planning and Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting
April 19, 2021 · Watch on YouTube · All meetings
Well, we're getting close to 07:00 here. I am going to go on mute and give Jim a call. I don't see him trying to get in yet. And I'd like to have him here before we start. I'd like to call the public hearing. Purpose of the public hearing tonight is to solicit comment on the application of 57 Hendy Road to deposit, fill and construct a single family home in a flood zone in accordance with section 10.4.9 of the down zoning regulations. There's quite a bit of background noise on the circuit. So if you're not talking, would ask you to put your phones on mute there. And thank you. The session is being video recorded and conversations from the hearing will be part of the public record. I'll start by asking the applicants or their representatives to discuss the application. After they've done that, we'll give Agent Halsey a chance to discuss the application, and then the Commission members will be able to ask questions. During the public hearing, all the commission members, including the alternates, will be able to ask questions. However, once we get into the deliberations at the meeting following the public hearing, only those
commission members seated will be able to participate in the deliberation. Members of the public will have the opportunity to provide comments or questions and I would ask that the members of the public state your name so we can get your name into the minutes from our hearing. The pending application section of the town's website for planning and zoning has a long list of documents that also make up the public record. All of those are available for use tonight. I'm not aware of anything that is not on the website that I would expect to be part of the public record. But we can show any of those documents tonight to support the conversation as need be, but I'm not going to go through each of the documents on there because everybody has had the opportunity to take a look at those. And that's all I have. Are there any questions before we get started on how the hearing will proceed? Okay, given that, I was looking for Mr. Phelps. Ms. Phelps, are you discussing the application tonight or do you have somebody who will be going through that for you?
Yeah, I will be starting off and then Andrew Bush is with us at Tom's office so he'll be able to answer any of the more technical questions that the Commission might have. Okay. And I do not see Andrew on the line at this time. He's in Tom's office. He's kind of behind the glare on the plexiglass at the end of the table. Pretty much appreciate the Commission's time considering our application. Since the last meeting, we provided all the items that were requested. We submitted a revised plan with John Ayeyani signature, a driveway turnaround, and made the proposed and existing lot lines more clear. We confirm that the utility ground, have the sidewalk to familiarize the commission with the lot and answer any questions from that visit. Last week, it was brought to our attention that the commission would be interested in seeing an option of adding 25 feet to the west of the lot and moving the lot width line forward. Janir worked through that option and provided an alternate plan late last week. We were able to gain 35 feet to straighten out the west line of the lot. It had a jog in it before. Now it's nice and straight. We were able to increase the square footage of the lot, 62,000 to sixty nine nine forty two. So we added almost 10,000 square feet to the lot. As you know from seeing the plans, the geometry of the lot is a bit unusual as the lot shape has been affected by the previous realignment of the road. So this can make it a bit difficult to interpret and apply the regulations. Our understanding is that there were some discussion of whether
the lot width line was perpendicular enough. The lot width line shown on both plans, the original and the altered, by calculating the mean angles of the two side lot lines. So the alternate plan submitted shows the lot width line moved as far forward as we possibly can and still be within the regulations because it can go in front of one of the front lines. And we've made every effort to meet all regulations, address all the questions of the commission and have the best possible configuration. So we're happy to answer any questions you may have on either on the plan or anything else and move forward with either plan that the commission finds preferable.
Okay. Thank you, Ms. Phillips. Did your engineer or your attorney want to provide any input at this point?
Yeah, Andrew Bushnell here from Bushnell Associates, the engineer for the project in Land Surveyor. Just kind of echoing what Mabryan said, you know, about we did widen out the lot by about 35 feet to get as much walk width as we could. You know, the limiting factor would widen me out is the existing well pump shed for 57 Hendy Road that needs to stay inside the 25 foot side yard setback for that zone. So we pretty much move the line so the setback is just about up against that well pump house. We wouldn't be removing the existing greenhouse of the existing 57 Indy Road residents to make that happen. You know, it does add about 10,000 square feet on most of the lot size.
You know, the thing here is really the lot width and how the lot is laid out. The lot was originally laid out based on the geometry of the old road there that, you know, we show. What I did on the alternate plan was I took the approximate centerline of that old road where I believe to be the centerline of the old road and did a 50 foot setback from that to establish a building line. The older plans we just we did a 25 foot building line from that property line along there. So this sets the line back a little further which is fine with us and I calculated a lot with, you know, using that line because you can see with taking 50 feet from the center of Hendy Road really doesn't put much building line on the on the on the property because as I said, you know, the property geometry, property lines were established years ago
by that old Mr. Portnoll, if I can interrupt for just a minute. And Do you have a copy of the drawing with the description that you would like to put up so that you can use your cursor to point to it so everybody can see or if not, I can put up the one that's on the website. I just won't be able to allow you to, you know, point to it as you might like. If
you can talk about that, that's fine because it's color coded so we can just talk about it by color. Okay. Mindy, you can
Mister chairman, I I can put I have it on screen. I can I can display it if you'd like? Okay. That would be great.
You should be able to share your screen. Anyone should be able to. Yep, and Attorney Branch, you are on mute.
All right, let's see if I see the screen. There we go. Okay, so I have this blown up a bit, but let me, that's actual size, if you need, Mr. Bushnell, if you need this increased at all, I may increase it one shot just because I think that's really what you need to show the commission. As long as you need it.
Right. So you can see the green on there, line going north to south, that's the median or the average bearing of the two sidelines. You know, the obviously, the the right sideline facing from the road in the east has three angle points in it. So you gotta take the average of that line and then average that with the with the westerly property line and you you end up with that that that bearing there. And then you take 90 degrees of perpendicular to that, and that's where you get the you get your 200 foot lock list. So that's what those green lines are. The red line, you know, establishes the 50 foot from the center line of the old road and purple color line is 50 feet from the center line of Hendy Road. So you can see how I, you know, in this interpretation of the lot, I use the old road center line
because that's how the lot lines were determined, you know, based on the old road, not on the New Or Envy Road. You know, I was able to get 200 feet that way on that interpretation of the reg. You know, it's a little difficult to apply that regulation to this lot because of the geometry of the right of way. How it's changed, you know, the Hendrie Road locations changed through the years. And then you can see the blue line is the new proposed property line which moved over about almost 35 feet to the West. And then you can see that existing well pump shedded there, you know, that we need to keep inside at a 25 foot side yard for 57 Henry Road. So, you know, that's how I determine this mock list scenario. And then there's still the scenario that, you know, I have on the original submission plan also, which is little bit different. And then this one.
Okay. Did you have anything else that you wanted to provide on the application at this point, Mr. Bushnell?
Just add, since last meeting we got approval from the health department for the septic system, letter has been put on the revised plans. I think, you know, we had a sidewalk out there with the commission. I think we addressed, we already got a few questions there that we addressed. You know, I'm not aware of any other outstanding issues, you know. You know, I will say that, you know, I think we feel that this proposal is in harmony with the rest of the neighborhood, single family, smaller sized homes. You know, we set it back about the same distance off of the Hendrie Road, existing Hendrie Road as the existing house at 57 Hendrie Road. You know, we've, you know, worked with wetlands as far as eliminating the areas of clearing and staying away from the wetlands as much as possible, you know, with working in the regulated areas, but also staying away from the actual wetlands as much as possible. So I think, you know, it's in harmony with the other houses in the neighborhood. Next story, know, even across the street. I wish someone had that.
Okay. Thank you. Agent Halsey, would you like to comment on the application at this point? Jim, you're muted. Jim, we're not hearing you. Jim, nobody's hearing you. You have to start over.
You hear me now? Yes. Thank you. I think I start over. Okay. But it's got an awful lot of reverb.
You'll need to turn down the volume. You'll need to turn the volume and you're listening because you're echoing yourself. Have an iPad going as well. That's better. All right.
Did go through the general standards in the regulation. Are you hearing me echo? Okay. Starting over again. You walked through the checklist. I did review the general standards that are in section 10 of the regulations for compliance with construction standards. And if you'd like it goes one through eight verbatim. You
can still hear me, right? Yep, I can. And we don't need to have you go through each of the items on the checklist, only those that might be of a concern to you. I am sorry, Jed, what was that?
We don't need to go through each of the individual items, only those that might be of concern to you.
Okay. I mean, generally speaking, all of those items are addressed either by the health code or the building code. Construction to is proposed for two feet off grade, you know building code does dictate that materials close to grade be pressure treated. And there's a there's a limitation on that. You know there's no construction in the flood way. The mechanicals are pretty much up out of the way. There's there aren't there's nothing I believe I had confirmed with with Andrew that there was no like air exchanger, which would be which might be on grade. That's not not the case other than that. I am good with. The compliance with standards. That's all I have actually. Thank you, Agent Alice. Are happy to answer any questions?
I'll move on to the Commission members at this point. If any of the commission members have questions or comments.
I noticed that that line that Andrew was talking about is coming off of that old Burbank Road, the center of it. Why did it come off the center of a non existent road? I'm just curious Jed, do you know that answer to that?
I I would prefer to hear from the the applicant's engineer. I have I have some thoughts on that, but they're only, you know, supposition because I have not spoken to anybody about the drawing and I just saw it for the first time this afternoon. So I guess I would ask Mr. Bushnell to address that if you would.
Okay, well, as I mentioned, you know, it's hard to apply this lot with regulation to this lot because of the road geometry and the fact that the road was moved, know. If we go back to how the block geometry was originally came about was because of the location of Old Burbank Road, not because of the location of the existing Hendy Road. So that's how I, you know, that was my thinking here was let's go with what was originally the if this regulation had an effect way back then, what would have been the starting point to establish your building line? When
was that ever a lot? There was never a lot there. It's a always piece of property.
Well, was never a lot. Was a piece of property.
That's all. Well, I'll say, you know, a lot piece of property, the property I don't think that makes a difference, but it was a piece of property based on the existence of Old Warbeck Road, you know. If Old Warbeck Road had been where Hendy Road is now, our property line would have been way out along Hendy Road, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Mhmm. So yeah. We're not trying to establish a lot. Sorry. You're left. There's two of my. First
first, we have to talk about what that the fact that it wasn't a lot. It's because you you've you're you're I've heard this before. There was a lot and it wasn't a lot. It was a a contiguous piece.
No. There's there's a separate lot there. There is now a separate There was there was there was never a lot. No. No. There was never a lot. Yeah. Think it was speech.
Yeah. There is. We got two tax bills. We got two tax bills on this. It's parcel one and Parcel 2. Right.
But but it was never never a lot. It was it was cut off there hypothetically. I I don't know if this really has any meaning in what we're talking about here. Hypothetical, I might have had two lots, but it never owes a lot and it certainly wasn't a building lot.
There's deeds that indicate it's a lot. There's a survey and file that cuts it out. What are the what's the date on the date?
I don't know. You're going back. I think it I think it was cut out back in the in the mid eighties. I mean, it's been yeah. It was like the mid eighties. That's like 1985, the lot was cut out. No. There lot. There isn't a lot in the back of the fifties. Yeah.
Agent Halsey, I know you spent a lot of time researching the issue of whether this is a lot or not. But what was your conclusion on that? Okay.
I'm defining a lot as as a personal land. Seems to be some confusion as between a lot and an approved building lot. It was never an approved building lot. That's part of the reason that applicants here before us this evening. It seems to me that the lot was cut off was cut off. The larger lot was created in 1947. The larger lot, I'm sorry, two The pieces of land were cut off of the larger parcel back in '47 as I understood it. Right? To be honest, I thought this was resolved. He realized this was an ongoing issue. And that that parcel two, the parcel that's supposed to have was in effect the free cut, which would appear to be legitimate free cut based on its create the date it was created and the date of the previous
cut. Okay. Mr. Chairman
the record Mark Branch, counsel of the commission. I know that at one point I saw what Mr. Hallisey is describing where there were two pieces but they've been extensively reconfigured. It might be helpful if Mr. Bushnell walks the Commission through that. That I can't quickly call up on screen. I'm hoping he can, but I think what is being said is correct, there wasn't a lot here, but I think that they did a lot line revision is my understanding and that they basically redid the lot blinds and maybe Mr. Bushnell could display that and show you what he's describing. Any chance you have that available Mr. Bushnell?
Okay. Can you hear me now? Yep. Okay. So right now it encompasses that the house of 57 Hendy Road that that is is is is about you know, it's a I'm looking for the number here. Yeah. One point o three acres. And then the land around that is the parcel that we're dealing with Parcel 2. Know, and these lots were configured that this way in 1985 from the overall piece of the two lots. So it is a lot. I'm standing on its own by map and by the and, you know, it was never an approved building as far as for having it lacked having a approved septic area. So that's one thing we work through as part of this application to get that done. Know, part of what we're proposing, which doesn't really have to do with special permit. Special permit is because we're in the flood zone, But part of the proposal is to adjust the lot lines of the two lots to basically make this the smaller lot but within the tolerances of the regulation and then make the 57 Hendy Road lot that's an acre now, we're gonna make that lot eight acres, and we're gonna make our lot about an acre about an acre and a half as parcel two lots. So that's what we're doing. We're not we're not making any more lots, any less lots. We're just gonna reconfigure lot lines.
Yep, okay. So I've got that and the zoning board of appeals already decided that the applicant could build a house on the lot. So I think that is not the topic for our discussion tonight. I would, however, like to go back and if attorney Branch could show the diagram that he had earlier on the width discussion. So and I will confess that what was not intuitively obvious to me until recently, the light bulb came on and I see things differently today than I did, at the last meeting, for instance. And so I would like to ask the question of what I was confused on last time, and so I'll ask the question of the engineer here tonight, where would the definition of the building line be?
Well, by the by the regulation, it's 50 feet from the center of the traveled way which would be Hendy Road. Right. But in this instance, you know, the the the sketch was just up there. I I I'm taking it from the center line of the of the old road because we can't, we can't we can't apply that achieve the 200 foot plot with using the Hendy Road Centerline.
Right. And so I guess that really is what I think will end up being the most significant discussion point for the night is whether or not that is consistent with our regulations. And without any, you know, having come to this conclusion, just it's always good when you have a specific example to look at. I was under the impression until recently that the problem was with our definition of width. Now I come to the conclusion that our definition and our regulation on width is very satisfactory and if we were to apply that to the existing lot, it would be very easy. I go back to when we started our discussions on this lot and we were concerned about lack of frontage. And then we all breathed easy when we said we don't have a frontage requirement, we have a width requirement. But now my takeaway is that the problem is not with the definition of width. It's a problem with the configuration of the lot not supporting the definition of width, just like it didn't support the definition of frontage. And I think that's where I am trying to come to grips with making sure that we are consistent with our zoning regulations as they exist today. And that's where I'm not seeing the picture
is consistent with our regulations.
It looks to me like it's very clearly, if you look at it from the old road or the new road, both ways you've got over 200 feet width.
You do. But if you look this is what the question brought up to me at the last meeting, you know, and I thought we had met it, but for lot width it says perpendicular to the mean direction of the side lot lines and touches but is not in front of the building line. Right. So the building line is 50 feet from the center line of Hendy Road. And so the width line does not touch the building line. And that is where I am struggling to make sure that we are in compliance with our regulations. I don't get that.
Well, as I say, I'm sure well, I know I have spent an incredible amount of time over the last this first came up last July trying to make sense out of it. It wasn't until within the last week the light bulb came on to me I felt comfortable understanding the definitions and our regulations. And that's where I am tonight. And so that's Where was that definition? Go ahead, Vice Chair Cremier.
Where was that definition again? What was it? You had it up there a minute ago. Yep.
It was well, that's the building setback line. Setback line, yeah. And then if you look at lot width, which is here.
Line of measurement of width perpendicular to the mean direction of side lot lines and touches but is not in front of the building line. So
we're going to go over we're going to start with where they become perpendicular to the two lines, Jed?
Well, so if we were to take a look at the existing house lot line there, which is a rectangle, easy to get your perpendicular lines and have the width measured. And it's right at about the 200 foot point from the building line, which is taken as 50 feet from the center line of Endy Road. So on most lots, our width definition works equally well with frontage. It's the configuration of this lot in the fact that the town owns this piece of property up against Hendy Road that might seem to make it, well, it does make it very difficult to comply with our regulations. I think that's fair to say. Whether or not it complies might be an issue for the Commission to determine. But that's the lot width that's proposed here on green does not touch the building line if we take the building line from the center line of Hendy Road, which is the travel path yeah it is it
seems like this is the time we need to have a variance because otherwise this is a perfectly good lot and just because it doesn't fit that particular thing due to the road change I think it should be a variance.
And that's a possibility. The other thing that came into play here and it was a situation that I was not fond of, but I thought met our regulations, was when the lot proposed connected to the lot on the west side of the existing house, we could use width or frontage and we had plenty of both to say that this lot met our zoning regulations. Now that we're trying to cut that western part off from the eastern part, we no longer have that latitude. And I thought that was a bit of a stretch, but I felt that that was in compliance with the regulations where now that we block this off, we have to make width work on this eastern part and I'm struggling to see how that could be. So I wouldn't be having this conversation if it was still the if we weren't changing the lot line. But we are. At least we're considering it.
That's the proposal. And if I'm missing something from any of the engineers or attorneys present, I'm happy to be educated but I think I finally understand what our regulations mean. Mr. Chairman? Yes, attorney Grants.
Yeah, for the record Mark Brantz, the Commission has discretion here in a couple of different respects. The first one, the one that's probably the easiest is, is this green line perpendicular enough? Recognizing it's an unusually shaped lot both because the lot sidelines are not parallel to start with, the fact that it has this cut off in the front, so one of the reasons I know the applicant increased the width on this west side was because that allowed them to get this line more perpendicular, and what the engineer is saying is I took the mean of the two sides and I'm perpendicular to that mean and so issue number one is is this perpendicular enough and I think the Commission definitely has discretion there as to whether it is sufficient or not. The second question then is that line has to touch but not be in front of the building line or building setback line and for that I'm going go to the regulation Okay, because here again you have discretion. The building line is a line parallel to the street to be located by setting back from the centre of the travelled portion of the road. Let's stop there. Anything you do here of course will set precedent so we want to be sure that whatever you decide you will apply going forward. You have discretion here. I will tell you I am hesitant to deem a traveled way something that isn't
travelled, something that isn't a road, travelled portion of the road. I don't know if there's even a road there anymore, you would know that, I don't, But the idea of using a discontinued portion of a road as a centerline of travel portion, although in this case it really doesn't make a whole lot of difference, going forward it could. You generally, a discontinued road isn't a road. Period. Exactly. It's not a traveled way. Not a road. Although you have discretion there that bothers me. However it says to be located by setting back from the traveled portion. Now here's what I'll call the wild card. Regulations like this would say set back at least the depth of front yards required by 11.2. This says to be located by setting back from the centerline as required by eleven point two. Now let's go back to the drawing, Okay, so one of the questions before, and I think really the key question in this instance is, assuming we use the existing traveled handy road, which is here, does the regulation when it says set back 50 feet in this case, if it's set back 50 feet does that mean at least 50, or does it mean exactly 50? Because if it means at least 50
then that means the engineer could set this purple line, he could set it back here. He could put it right in front of the house, right? I guess the question is then, maybe you push the house back a bit, and this is really a question for the engineer, but if you say it means 50 or more, you use the minimum of 50 and it has to be at least that, that allows them to shift this purple line as far as they need to go until it touches the green line. Now like I said I don't know what that does to the house, I'm not quite sure where that falls, but it certainly does give them another option if this purple line can go back to here, Chris that's not 200 feet, well no, I'm sorry, no it might be. You see if this purple line
you know or how would it be? I mean it is an oddball thing but if the purple line were back to here, then have 200 feet of lot width? Because then it would then be touching, and by the way, there's a drawback to that as well. That would mean technically, alright, that means that the applicant could put a building here, which in fact you wouldn't I mean there has to be some setback along somewhere, right? However, that may depend on where he draws the side. So here is his side set back here, is following that wafer side, maybe part of this is side. I think there are options here and I do think if you decide this line, this purple line doesn't have to be exactly 50 but is at least 50, alright, that does give them more options to get that 200 feet and still have the green line touch the purple line. The problem with purple line is it's so far forward it's off the lot. They have a setback on land they don't own, which isn't fair to them and isn't
carrying out the purpose of the regulation either. We don't want their buildings set back from a line that's not on their property, and that by the way is why the engineer drew it red. I mean I understand his logic, understand why he did it. He figures that he should set back from his own property line which is logical. It's just this isn't a traveled way, but I think you have discretion to apply it in this case and there may be ways of doing this. Don't envy the engineer, a application of the reg, but one thing that may offer the key is I think it's reasonable to to say that it's at least 50 not 50 exactly and then maybe that lets you shift this up. I hope that's helpful, it's just options. Maybe confuses it more but I hope not.
I don't think it confused us more. And since we're talking about options, as I tried, you know, and again, the Commission's job is not to solve the problem. The Commission's job is to say whether or not the proposal complies with the regulations. But one of the options that the applicant might consider is not adjusting the lot line at this point and proceeding with the discussion on does the House meet the requirements of Section 10.7. Speaking for myself and not the town of Andover, the best solution to this problem would be for the applicant to purchase that little bit of land from the town of Andover, which I see is no use to the town. And it gets rid of all these discussions that we've agonized on over the irregular shape. I think that makes a lot that is very consistent with regulations. I know that is not a quick process to get that. But if you took it as a two step process, leave the lot as it currently is while you're pursuing that. And even if you ended up finding out that for some reason you couldn't buy that land from the town, I think that bolsters your case for making a difference like you're trying to show here. But I would love to see the applicant get that little piece of property resolve all these issues that we've agonized for a year on over the unusual shape. Because not every lot can comply with the regulations. And I don't know that, well
that isn't an expression as to whether or not to go down that path. The other thing Mr. Chairman that sort of might give them and again you're right it's not our charge to solve this but we try to work with people. When we first saw this, when GM and I first saw this and I think when you first saw this Mr. Chairman, you're right the configuration was different, someone had a map of the whole property shared, I'm going to stop share, Someone had a map of the whole property displayed whoever that was can you share that again? I think that was Ms. Phillips that you had it? Yes. Shrink that in a bit, there we go and why don't you just show us
it's like a horseshoe right if you can just sort of walk us through yeah that When we first saw it the land above the word 'Hendi' on the left was a part of this slot so basically 57 Hendi was surrounded by this new lot As the chairman was saying, you had plenty of lot width, tons of lot width on that westerly side, but now a new line is being suggested, a different line, and that's what created this issue that we didn't have before. Since the owner owns both pieces, maybe that's an option for them, to, right exactly, to leave that. This is how we first saw it. We first saw it with that green line, okay. So that meant that there was plenty of lot with, we didn't have to worry about it. So one option would be for them to go back to that configuration,
get this lot approved, then if they're able to buy the land from the town they can put it back to the way they really wanted it. Those are just options, it is an unusual situation but I think part of this is that the proposal changed from when we first saw it. It did, yep.
So those are options. So anyhow that I think covers all the issues tonight that I wanted to discuss with regards to lot width. Do any of the other commission members have any other questions? Because I know this is somewhat newer information to you than it is to me because I've been wrestling with this for a long time trying to figure it out. And what's clear now was not clear at all a month ago. And so I want to make sure that before we ask the Commission members to vote on something, I want to make sure that everybody is comfortable understanding the regulations as they are in the couple of options that Attorney Branch mentioned that we might be able to consider with regard to that.
May I ask a question about the flood map, the FEMA flood map?
Scott, I was just going say one other thing about the lot width before we moved on from it. Okay with you. Yeah, yeah. Yeah, ahead. This is Kevin, Kevin Arneson. So I do think that it's important that we keep a lot with, I know Mark was saying that you know we could start looking at adopting at least 50 but I think it's important to keep it how it is if because if we were to do at least 50 then we start running into you get a gray area between a rear lot and a normal you know 60,000 square foot building lot. So if you can move this set, if you can move that lot width line as far back as you want, then you could basically have a really narrow frontage and a really wide rear of your lot and then you essentially would have a rear lot. I think that's in my opinion and I don't know if this is relevant but
that's what Lotwith is trying to differentiate is a standard building lot between that and a rear lot. You know what I mean? If you can just move it all the way back.
No, I understand your point exactly and it is a good one. And as I say, one of the things that we came through, we thought when we didn't have to meet a frontage requirement, we were in great shape. And then we kept looking at it and not true. And one of the options the applicant could do is to use the regulations for a rear lot. And I'm sure there's some valid reasons why they did not choose to go that way. But a rear lot with this configuration is an option.
Can I just make one more point too about just because one of the commissioners Yes, go ahead?
Thank you. One of the commissioners mentioned the variance and part of our variance application that, you know, and we went through that process does have a single family home where there's a Laden. I'm using an iPad. We already
Jim, can you go on mute while Ms. Phelps is talking? Please start again.
One of the commissioners mentioned going for a variance as an option for this. We already had been through the variance process, but one of the things on our application was approval to construct a single family home where there is a concern about frontage and lot width. So it was part of our variance application that was approved.
I'm hopeful that that's helpful. For the record Mark Branch, do you have a copy of do you have is there in the record a copy of your variance approval? Jim has not posted that yet. It is on the ZBA website. Oh, is it? I'm sorry.
The ZBA website. It was was the application for was it a variance for lot with also?
I didn't know that. No, it was not. The application itself and we've gotten ZBA application referenced non conforming lots, I believe is what Megan's referring to. I think there was a conscious decision not to pursue a variance for the setback for two reasons. One is based on our site walk, thought it might have it. Secondly, as the lot itself is you can't create a lot and then ask for a variance. So you'd have to get a variance to create the lot and they have they basically be cutting taking their lot width away by redrawing that lot line.
I mean one of the unusual features here is that when we first saw it there was plenty of lot width because the lot went around sort of a horseshoe around 57 Hendy, so there was tons of lot width. It wasn't usable but it satisfied the regulation.
So I do have a copy of the application in front of me and a copy of the minutes for approval. And as Ms. Phillips expressed under the paragraph, state the appropriate sections of the zoning regulations you wish to vary or appeal. It says 10.5 use in a flood zone in accordance with 10.8 and 4.1.2 AD nonconforming lots. So she is correct when the application requested that. Now when I go to the meeting minutes from the zoning board of appeal that approved that, it says Applicants seeking relief from section 10.5 and in accordance with 4.12a of Andover zoning regulations so as to allow for the deposition and fill in construction of a single family dwelling in a floodplain district.
So I did not recognize that until right now because I wasn't looking for it. But the zoning board of appeals did approve building. I don't think they did. If the map that they were looking at, and I've got to go back you know, and take a look at that now, was the one that shows they redrawn lot lines. It very well could. I just did not do my homework homework on that prior to coming to the meeting tonight. I thought, you know. Okay, can I address that? I don't
if the variance was for 4.1.2, is that correct? Yes. 4.1.2 is non conforming lots. This parcel is not a legal non conforming lot. It didn't exist. That's a lot that existed on 08/09/1950. I'm looking at section four twelve. It's true that it's non conforming as to flood. So yes the non conformity was the flood but a lot of this shape did not exist in 1950. So I don't think they could have gotten, and they could not have gotten a variance under four twelve for lot width. That would have been a variance under section 11.2 which is the minimum lot width in a zone.
Good point, I agree. Yep. Okay, so we're back to where And we were the issue of lot width is for us to address because it's a special permit, you know, my initial thought was that the redo of a lot line was something for the zoning agent to do since it's not a subdivision. But when we come to the special permit, we're approving the site plan and that has to ensure that the lot dimensions in areas are per the section 11.2.
Jack, I was can I weigh in on the variance issue? Go ahead, agent Halsey.
The app, the application alluded to the non conforming, but it had no bearing on what was shown on the on the plan. And so it was really left out of the legal notice, for instance, was not part of the request that went before the commission.
I got you. And that's consistent with what attorney branch was just exactly. Yeah. That's the reason why the issue of which
is not was not approved by the zoning board of appeals. And that is left for us to do. But do all the commission members understand the nuances of the discussion on what the building line is and what the lot width definition are? Because I do want to make sure that we have some time to go through the other part of what I really thought we were voting on or asked to weigh in on, which was the construction of the house in the flood prone zone. Okay, hearing no other questions on width, I'm going to set that aside for a minute. And I will ask if there are any questions on the construction of the home in the flood prone zone?
I just wanted to look at that FEMA map. Attorney Branches, do you have that FEMA map that's in with the package or?
Phelps, if you close out your screen, I will try to go to the website and see if I can bring up the map that Mr. Persson is asking for.
I'm sure what's on the front is fine, but it just doesn't match No, and
so I did have a question on that myself. So is this map you were looking for? Right.
Now on the map it shows that the flood zone goes down ND Road and on the FEMA map it shows that it's it would come down through the Parcel 56 Henvey come down off of the Skogamook River the floodplain would come down and be right in the middle of that lot right there. But that's not what it shows on actual print. I'm just curious. I'm sure there's a reason for it.
So Andrew Bushnell here again. So we did a detailed study. So that that's a that's a flood map. On top beyond that, there's a there's a what's called a flood insurance survey, FIS, survey of the of the Skunkamong River. And it's a more detailed it gives you, you know, stations up the river every 100 feet cross sectional areas, elevations, all that kind of stuff to do a more detailed determination of the flood. I mean that's kind of just an overview there. It's close and not always accurate. So we use the FIS information to do a more detailed analysis of the actual flood boundary and actual flood elevations. So that's why you're seeing some difference there.
Mr. Bushnell, I'm not sure that I would be able to find on the long list of things there the other map that I looked at Well, it's not
oh, go ahead. But from my recollection, the place where you were looking to build the house was not in the flood, not where you expected a flood. Is that correct or am I wrong on that?
We're in the area where it would flood theoretically at one hundred years more. Got it. The final elevation is three twenty three and a half. Or wait, is it 329? Hold on. Yeah. 323 And A Half. And that's why we have a house over three twenty five and a half. We're raising the house above the flood elevation. Yep.
Okay, any other questions construction? I know the letter that Mr. Bushnell put out going through the requirements of section 10.7 of our regulations that were what I thought was going to be the heart of the matter for us tonight. I thought it was a very well prepared letter And so I appreciate you giving us that. But if there's so I have no questions on the actual construction that they want to build. But if anybody else here, any other Commission members has a question on that, now would be a good time to ask that. Okay? Hearing none on that, do any of the Commission members have any other questions they would like to ask at this point before we open up to the public? Okay, I have one last question and it is probably a technicality. But on the drawings, each of the drawings, it talks about the Andover property
that is in that little triangle is being an Andover right of way. And I was curious as to where that designation came from.
Well, my opinion is it's part of the Hendy Road right away. Know, every roadways up is a right away. It's a town town right away. Hendy Road has it. So that's just part of Hendy Road. It's wider than most, you know, most are fifty, sixty feet wide and straight or more or less symmetrical.
Okay. I understand and I know there's probably precedents that the Commission could consider it LICA right away. I just wasn't sure that it was actually designated by somebody telling the Commission that it was a right of way. And it's a little bit of a subtlety, but I just want to make sure that we were clear
on Can you please explain that I own the house next door and you did this and just say that? And then it doesn't come in there.
Well, it's the same type of thing. Could you do that for me? Explain that you did that? The president is from the next door. Right? Next door, we had a block.
Well, I understand that. But it's about the frontage up there.
So is there another comment that we wanted to make on the right of way or are we done on that topic?
Yeah, I'd like to say something, Jeff. Bill Phillips speaking. Go ahead.
I also own the house next door on 67 Hendy. I understand, yep.
Yeah, I didn't know if you knew that. We did the same type of thing with the driveway there, that and we didn't have to purchase the land?
I understand that as well and that was what got us into the initial discussion where we found ourselves where we made the incorrect assumption that we needed frontage and we were just we weren't going to comment or take action on what may not have been done exactly correctly in the past, but just because something was done in the past possibly incorrectly, we weren't going to necessarily we were going to follow the regulations, I guess, even if we didn't always do that meticulously in the past. So I am aware of the other lot over there. None of us were there when that happened. So we don't know the logic behind that. And so we're left with trying to follow the regulations as they exist. I
understand what you're saying and trying to follow the regulations, but this is why we started out on this project over a year ago. And when we we thought that this wouldn't be a problem because it had been done when I bought this house next door. So having done that, that's why we started this process and we've been through wetlands and then we've been through the ZBA and now we're here. And, you know, I had a big expense for a house for my daughter. I understand. And that's why we're here and trying our best. We've done everything we possibly can to try to get this thing through. It seemed that attorney Grants gave us some leeway here, that there was a possibility with some leeway with the regulation. That's why I'm bringing that up at this time just to talk to you. I
understand and I will go back to the fact that when we started this discussion almost a year ago, as you say, it was a horseshoe piece of property and while I was uncomfortable with it at the time, I grew comfortable with the fact that it was in compliance with our regulations because we had sufficient lot on the western side which connected to that. And it was only at the last meeting was my first inclination that we were not going with that plan any longer. And we had a different plan.
That was always we were going to break off that lot line from Wesley. I disagree with that. With that. I
have to disagree with it, too. That is not the map that I saw, that is not the map that I saw. Can tell That's you the map that's posted online. And it is not, I I was on-site as you recall and that is not what I saw. And I have to take some exception to what Mr. Phillips just said, the Chairman is not saying that you have to buy that land from the town of Andover, you don't have to, but you're the ones drawing these lines and have been changing these lines since we first saw them, and you have to draw them in a way that you meet the regulation, and yes I'm trying to give you some flexibility here, but it is not correct say that you've been working on this for a year and
that it's been there all along, it wasn't. I mean I know it wasn't. And I mean you have the option to draw these lines where you wish, you still have to show that they're in compliance, and it has changed since when I saw it. I know that.
Excuse me, this is Tom Fiorentina. Today's purpose is advisory council for the Phillips family. My suggestion is that the board and attorney Grants and Jim Halsey have given us some options to consider here, and rather than have the board continue down this path today, my suggestion might be that for purposes of allowing us to consider those options and maybe approach the town about the purchase, that we table this or continue this matter until at least the next meeting if that's feasible for everyone.
I do think that is feasible. I don't know if there's anybody from the public who is looking to comment on that, looking around. The only person I don't know is Mr. Parkington. I don't know what project you were coming to the meeting on behalf of. But I would certainly entertain a motion from the commission to continue the public hearing at our next meeting a month from now.
I move that we continue this hearing a month from now at our next meeting.
Okay. Is there a second? I second. Okay. So Vice Chairman Cremier made the motion. It was seconded by Commissioner England. Any discussion? I'm looking for an affirmation vote. Are there any opposed? All in favor say aye. Aye.
Any abstentions? Okay, the motion carries. And I guess I will ask Attorney Branch as long as you're here. We didn't seat members of the Commission, so I don't know if I go if it's a 700 or 500 because we did not seat anybody yet.
And because the public hearing is open, you do not have to yet. It is only when you reach deliberations that it becomes important. During public hearing any member or alternate can speak or ask questions, it's only deliberations where it matters. So your motion to continue, you don't even need a motion to continue public hearing, A chairman can do that on his own. Okay. So you don't have to worry about who's voting. Thank you. Mindy, for the record,
the motion was passed unanimously. And that will close our public hearing for tonight. We will move over to the regular planning and zoning commission as soon as I can find the agenda. And thank you for your patience. I knew it would be lengthy, uncomfortable discussion.
Mr. Chairman, we're gonna close out and thank you very much for your time and we'll be in touch over the course of the next month. Thank you very much. Thank you. Okay. Yes, dear.
I apologize for taking that phone call, but just for your information. It was Mindy who had lost our board clerk who had lost her internet connection. I'm just hoping she's back on. I think she is.
She. Okay. I didn't. I was trying to check the screen to make sure that it was recording for her and I kind of forgotten that I was interrupting things there. Okay. So, not a problem.
Sorry. Yeah. My my internet went out so I didn't know if I was missing everything and if I would be able to go back and watch it on YouTube. But I wasn't off for long. If I have any questions or if you need to add anything next time, just let me know. Very good.
So it is 08:17. I'll call the meeting to order. First item on the agenda is roll call of seating and alternates. And so I see Vice Chairman Fromei is here. Commissioner Persson is here. Commissioner England is here. Commissioner Hutchinson is here. And I am here. So we have all the members of the Commission and we will be seating. No alternates this evening. Next item is additions and changes to the agenda. One change, I would like to move the new business discussions up ahead of the old business because I see we've got some people in attendance here that are looking for the
new business and I want to finish them up just as soon as we can here. So that would be a change to move new business ahead of the old business. And I would like to add an item, new business delta, low income housing plan. Agent Halsey, I was thinking is it an oversight that we don't have an application for 26 Old Farms Road on the agenda tonight? And I didn't see anything posted online so I am assuming
we will not It is an oversight on my part, yes. Did you expect that to be on there? I did. Okay. Then before receipt of application?
I did not see anything posted online in the application section on theirs.
I had received it digitally and sent it forward. Did not check to make sure it was posted.
Okay, unfortunately, I think for tonight we will not put that on the agenda. We're running late enough as it is. I apologize to the prospective applicants there that we did not get that on there but I saw no information prior to the meeting. We got all the plans. We do have the plans. And I
never think on my feet very well even though I'm sitting down. If the application went into the office, we have no choice but to receive the application. So we will receive the application tonight to start the clock. Might not discuss it very much, but clock is running as of today for us to act on the application. And we will probably get into most of the discussion on that at the next meeting. But the application is received. And it's not an issue that we have to vote on. By virtue of the fact it's in, it's in. Right.
And is this something you need to set a public hearing on?
We will need to set a public hearing on because it is going to be an open subdivision application but it is not completed. It's routing through the inland wetlands until I was going to hold off on setting the public hearing until after we resolved
the wetlands issues. That's fine, I'm just gonna say if I realize it was omitted from the agenda but if you wanted to set a public hearing that's not an appealable decision anyway so you can do that if you wish but as you know you have sixty five days to open that hearing so you don't have to deal with it this month. Right. Do you need me? Do you want me to remain Mr. Chairman?
I do not. I appreciate your attendance here tonight Attorney Branch and
thank you for attending. Well, I'll plan on being here for the next one on this handy road matter. Okay, thank you very much. Thank you. Take care. Bye bye. Thank you, Mark.
Then going back, the last comment on the agenda is on Section seven under approval of minutes, it has the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission agenda, which I think is a I think that's just the extraneous line from a title. Yep, I think so. We're going cross that out. So that's it for my changes. Anybody else have any other changes to the agenda? Okay. Moving on. Next item is public comment. Anybody from the public want to comment at this point in time? Hearing none, we'll move on to new business. The discussion of the application of 57 Hendy Road, will defer to our next meeting. Moving on to the next item is item B under new business is the application
2102 of Joe Mott 142 Wales Road seeking site plan approval for an accessory apartment per section 4.11 of the Andover Zoning Regulations. And I see Joe is with us tonight. We will not act on your application tonight. We have to allow fifteen days before when we get it to when we act on it. So we will be acting on it at the next meeting. But did you want to discuss the application with us while you're here tonight?
Yeah, so basically I'm applying to build a 26 by 38 foot garage with an apartment above it attached to my existing house here at 142 Wales Road.
Okay. Agent And healthy anything you want to discuss on that application with us.
Well, two things. I just wanted to make sure that it's clear what the applicant is looking for. He's looking for a site plan approval from the commission as opposed to a special permit approval. The regulation, it was rewritten a number of years ago, I believe it allows it doesn't require a special permit unless the Commission chooses provided of course that it is a it's within the existing structure is existing dwellings, which is the case here. Okay.
And I did prepare. I did review the plan that I sent out comments.
Which I trust you have. I did see those. Yep. Okay.
There were a couple of deficiencies, which I did share with the applicant. Would you like him to address those at this time?
If he is ready to, I'd be happy to listen. Absolutely. Okay.
So the first one that I noticed is the 800 square foot maximum. Jim mentioned that to me today and I realized that we had slipped up on that. We have a couple options. One is there is a closet that is going to be extending into the apartment that is not accessible from the apartment. It's actually going to be a closet for the existing house. This is my father here he drew up the plans we talked about expanding that to make it larger but the easiest thing would be just to take the front two feet of the apartment and move it back into the structure, the exterior wall into the structure two feet to just shrink that front room a little bit to make it fit the 800 square foot maximum.
Would that require you to update the drawings a little bit in one of the I know you asked for an exemption from the A2 survey. Yes.
And we can make a motion and take care of that tonight to vote on that. When we scanned the drawings, I don't know how dark the pencil was that the drawings were made from. I think they are certainly they appear to be adequate for what we need to see of the accessory apartment. It's just that the site drawing itself and the dimensions on the drawings, I was not able to see so I can't do my own you know, measurements and calculations of square footage in that So I would like to get a darker copy. Maybe what you have, Jim, is is darker and it just didn't scan right or.
Actually, it would be helpful to see the calculation. Itself. What
which calculation are you asking about for the square footage Just to the commission, in all fairness, it was only this afternoon that I spoke to Joe. I mean, so he didn't have a lot of time to read. No, understand.
And then what I don't think I see here and I was expecting to see is there will probably be some jimmy: Construction grading of the property. I was looking for some form of erosion and sediment control plan, someplace where we might stockpile the topsoil that was disturbed on that in those kinds of things. So while we don't need the cost and expense of the A2, that doesn't mean that we don't need the information to be provided so that we can make sure that what we get is what we're all expecting. Okay,
so you're gonna have to have something with the parking adequate parking on a plot plan? The
apartment will be adding one bedroom and the addition of the garage will provide for two parking spots.
Yes, and I it seems unusual that one of the garage doors doesn't have the driveway next to it.
That that was an oversight on our part. We missed that. Okay.
So anyhow, we've got your application in. Our clock for running is going on that. You can get us a little bit of a darker drawing so that we can get that scanned out or Mr. Halsey, if you can just make copies of whatever you've got so we're not running them off. Maybe it's my printer that just came out real light. I'm not sure but most of the other stuff I can read. I just couldn't get the dimensions on that, if you will.
Okay. If I may. Go ahead, Jim. Go ahead, Joe. So I just wanted to be clear that the few things you were looking for were the driveway going to the other garage door, the square footage of the lot, the movement of the wall in two feet on the front to fulfill the maximum square footage?
J. Yes. And I do not have the, you know, well, do have the regulations in front of me. I'm not going to go. Is normally on figuring out the square footage of an accessory apartment, it says a given percent of your house, your existing house square footage or this other number, whichever is greater in the top end or whichever smaller on the top, bigger on the bottom, I think. So I have not verified that 800 square foot is the right number for your application because I couldn't read the dimensions on there, but there's not a lot of requirements that we're asking you to go through for accessory apartment, especially when it's on the house. Just
make sure and validate with Agent Allisi that you've got everything there that you need.
Okay. And Jim, I know that in our new regulations that shows exactly what they need for additional parking. And I think it has to do with square footage and the location of it.
I think a house needs two parking spots and the accessory It's Adds one, yeah. All right. And that's per our regulations.
Yeah, I think once the driveway is added, the additional driveway to the rear garage, there'll probably be some of that that will be addressed as part of that modification.
Okay, any other comments for tonight on the 142 Whale Road Mott application?
I do have a comment. Okay. All of the regulations, all the items contained within four eleven are pretty objective with one exception. And that would be number I, and it has to do with the basic character of the dwelling. And I just, I'm trying to, if at all possible, give the applicant some feedback on that as early as possible. I don't know whether the commission had an opportunity to look at these plans. I realized they just went up. Had a lot lot of trouble getting these on the website and I wasn't able to. So I did, I mean, one thing I did notice is that he has a single car single door he's adding a single door to the front and bringing a single garage door around the side sort of breaking up that along continuous stretch of garage doors, which I think is helpful. What he's proposing, may or may not be clear is to shrink the unit to shrink the square footage is to step the 2nd Floor of the trip the apartment back without shrinking the garage, the footprint of the garage. Hence you'd have a small, small roof there, which would be essentially a band and architectural visual band, which I think would be very, very helpful. That's just my opinion. What do you mean by visual band? Well, aphasia,
there'd be small like rafter tails right across the dimension, the front dimension, the front elevation across the space where the garage is. There'd be rafter tails with roofing, you know, sheathing in a roof. Yep. A small roof, about 18 inches, 22 feet, something of that nature. The fascia, assume and it would break up the line. I think you do a nice job. Would you would aesthetically would be a nice addition perch. That's just my opinion. But again, is subjective. I just was trying to avoid. I was trying to get your input as early on. I'm sure he appreciates that as do we.
Okay. Anything else on this particular application? Okay, thank you. That's all for tonight on that. Next item up for discussion is new business. Charlie, the gravel operation route 6 update and request for extension of existing permits. And I see we've got Mr. Bell, the engineer here with us tonight. Yes, sir.
I did see Whatever we sent out I saw your letter that I can't remember if it was posted on the website at this point or if Agent Hallisey sent that out by email to us. And I have read through that. What I would ask is that you reviewed with Agent Halsey section 16.6 of our regulations that discusses a couple of things specifically for permit renewal that I didn't see addressed in your letter. I don't believe I brought those to his attention.
If there's only about two things there, but I think they are fairly important. So anyhow, 16.6.1, three copies of the Planning and Zoning Commission application form. I'm not worried about that one. We'll get that. Sixteen point six point two grading plan showing the entire area of excavation and indicating which areas excavation has been completed. The plan shall show the grading plan of the remaining area to be excavated and shall include existing and proposed contours. So that's and then the third one is just paying a fee. So really it was that $16.6.0.2 that I thought we needed to have before we
could address the application.
Okay. I'm sorry. I didn't read that section before I gave him the letter today. We kind of did this in a last minute type thing. I can give you a revised plan for next time.
Okay. If you could get that submitted a week ahead of the meeting, that would be helpful. That way, we're not trying to digest it on the day of the meeting, which I know we all work to deadlines. But I find I have a hard time getting through all the information to support the meeting when it shows up on Monday afternoon. I would imagine so sir, yeah. Would a markup of the original plan suffice? If
that's what you and Chris come up with as the best way to show it, I think there is a lot of different ways. All I know is the letter didn't have a drawing with it and that was the one thing that was specifically requested in our regulations.
Yeah, did not notice that. I will play Yes. Out
Jim, this is Leanne. Would a colorized markup show like existing and proposed activity and dimensions and things like that?
Well we can we can show a marked up plan to scale relatively to scale. It would be difficult to resurvey it because the gravel pit is active and whatever I survey is going to change the next day. Basically we're only in like, one phase, the back, back full phase from 400 feet to 500 feet back. And the last part that just, ties into the existing section in the rear. We're like a phase and a half of work right now with the various areas of storage on the site of, you know, topsoil stumps and large stones and gravel in a in a process area that has been has been sifted already. Can bring it up to date. At, you know, maybe in a couple of weeks when we we finished clearing out a lot of the site in the back that would probably be the most appropriate and I'll get it to you, you know, much further than a week before the meeting. And I can give you a colored up version which might go well to understand the site. You know, I can do it on a full size 24 by 36, if that works for you. That would be great. And
I would also call your attention to that little introductory paragraph 16.6 before you get to what they're looking for. It says the Commission shall not renew or extend any permit unless the operator is able to show through the report of a registered engineer that the excavation already completed conforms with the plan of operations as approved. The applicant shall apply for a permit renewal at least forty five days prior to the expiration of the current permit and then it talks about that grading plan. So, we should look at the original thing, where we're at, where we're going.
I mean, have no section that's 100% complete. Yeah, I mean, we're down to the grade that we want for about half of the the rear section. And hopefully in a couple of weeks we'll be, you know, a lot more complete so we can show what is complete into grade before we start the restoration.
Okay, yep, just make sure we're in compliance with the regulations. Yes, sir. Okay, thank you. Other question? Oh, go ahead, Leanne.
Yes. As far as the phases, I believe there were several phases in the first place. So, is Mr. Bell saying that they're about one and a half Did I understand you say I think you used the term one and a half. Say I don't know if the word percent is correct, but through this section in the back of the property? Yeah. If you you want me to get up a plan?
Would that help? I think you said one and a quarter of the phases.
Yeah, we're in back phase through the commission's recommendation two years ago, we started in the back instead of the front. And we're basically 150 feet from the back limits of the gravel pit. The last 50 feet is an area that's goes from the proposed grade up to existing. Slopes up on a two to one slope. We are in the phase between the 400 foot mark and the 500 foot mark. The five fifty foot mark is the end of the project. So we're in that last full phase and we're grading back to existing in the back. We've got various piles of material in that phase we were working in And that's what we hope to get out of there, you know, by the next meeting. So it would look like more like a completed first phase of a completed phase, plus the half a phase in the back. I say half a phase, it's about 50 feet. Well, every phase is 100 feet coming from the road.
Thank you, Sophie. Does that answer your question? Someone just mentioned the more, you know, whatever is more detailed, the colorized map or, you know, an upgrade. I understand what you mean about if you're excavating there now, it changes every day, but if you could show whatever is the most detailed?
Yeah. I can I can do that? I I think the color code would help more because, you know, I could show a lot of AutoCAD and a lot of notes and everything, but I I think, you know, a good color code, you can get a definite C. And, you know, if you want, we can take some pictures so you can see what's going on too. That would be great. And
it does, one of the things you said, I thought I recalled that we were going to complete one phase before we started the next and you had made the comment that none of the phases were actually complete.
The goal was because if you do one phase and then try to restore it, you're gonna damage it as you go into the second phase. You basically have to get the first, you have to get one phase completely graded, which the phase what we're working on is pretty close to that. And then you get a ways into the next phase, so you can start restoring the phase that you've completed. That's why we had a bond for a total of two phases bond as you you would only let us work on a maximum of two phases at once. We won't be completing the entire two phases. You know, we're we're we're, like, gonna be, like, a a phase and a half, start restoring the back, get that restored, and then start going towards the front and start going into that phase as we restore the completed phase that we're working on now. That that's the plan. That's what it's always has been. Well, instead of going from front to back, we're going from back to front. That's all. Has all the erosion control been
fixed?
Yes, as of We had a meeting about a Thursday and they immediately fixed everything on Friday. The stumps will be probably start going out this week. We hope to have all of them out within three weeks and probably And we'd like to get as soon as the stumps out we can complete that back grading so we can be ready for our restoration meeting on-site. Does
that restoration meeting have a date or is that when you complete what you want When we complete the grading in the back, yeah, we don't have a date yet. Got a, you know, things are going much slower than we had hoped. Really, we lost all the contracts as soon as the COVID pandemic started and everything just went to a grinding halt for quite Is a a
six month request going to be enough to wrap it up?
I can honestly say, I hope so. We have enough contract to finish the project. They believe they're going to be done by first, second week in June. I don't think they will, but think a five month time frame extension should be plenty to get the, you know, the grading out, and then the final month would be, you know, restoring the final phase. I think that should should be enough time as long as we can hold our what the location where they want the gravel. As long as that holes, we should shouldn't have a problem. Is this? I hate to come back for another extension.
I'm not proposing one way or another, but I would ask the Commission, is this something that you would like to do a site visit on to just to see or are we ready to rely on photos and an updated drawing at the next meeting to allow us to make our decision? I think it might be useful. I'd be okay with the drawings I think. I would go if you requested one Jed.
Okay well I would first request a motion that we do a site visit and we'll see how many takers we get. So Leanne, did you want to make that motion?
Yes, I'll make a motion that we schedule a site visit.
Okay. Is there I'll a second. Scott, was that a second? Yes, sir. Okay, thank you. Any discussion? I know we normally do those on Saturday morning. I do have a conflict this Saturday. I would be available the following Saturday early on. I think we normally go at 09:00. Later the better.
Good I'm assuming you're kidding revised plan in hand at that time. I don't know if if yeah.
Don't know if you would need a revised plan because you're gonna actually go see it in person. I thought the idea was the revised plan was to cover the section before the next meeting. Was I was gonna, like, try to wait till the the week, a week and a half before the meeting so it'll be most up to date. And if I do a revised plan now, it's it's gonna be what's out there today. And then I don't know when your meetings will be in two weeks. Good point.
Yeah, I'm not sure what we gained by doing a site visit either. I just wanted to bring the topic up to have the discussion on it so we didn't come to after we're done saying, gee, we wish we would have gone over there. But it sounds like things are once again moving we might want to have our site visit after it's all done and see how it was wrapped up before we close it out.
I mean, not that much material has been taken out. I think if you have a site visit, you're going to find, I mean, you could see from one site of the property now to the other. It's it's all an elevation five ninety four, but it's kind of a narrow window because we've got, you know, stockpiles there. I'm I'm what do you think, Jim? I you know, of course, if you wanna cite that plan out, cite this, I'll support it. But, you know, I could I could submit pictures that that might be be as helpful. I can go with either. Why don't we do
yes. Why don't we do get some pictures, we'll put them online, and at the next meeting, if we need to do a site visit before we vote to feel comfortable, we can make that determination at that point.
Okay, so this is Leanne. So we could do that procedurally if we have enough questions about the drawings or or and and photos or whatever submitted by mister Bell at the next meeting. Could still go
on from there. Right. We just wouldn't actually act on the application at the May meeting. That would put us up against the wall, The application that's currently approved I think expires the end of June. But we could do that at our June meeting vote. And my sense is we would probably approve an extension. It's just a question, what are the conditions that we would want to put in there to approve it. That's only my guess. Okay. Well, go ahead, sorry. Nope. So I guess at that point, Leanne, if you want to withdraw your motion, we can do that and take that up at the next meeting.
Yes. Without understanding, then I'll withdraw my motion and I guess Scott needs to agree as the seconder. I agree. Is that right? I agree. Then motion is withdrawn.
Chad I'd like to see it after two phases are done and complete. Okay. Maybe that could be one of the conditions, right?
Yeah, and we'll talk about that at the next meeting as we figure out when to schedule it. But again, there's hoping to be a lot of progress made between now and a month from now, So that's good news.
I would say, the commissioners, that by the next meeting, we're going to know how successful we are on getting material out there. Hopefully, we've already had the restoration meeting and that's underway and everything else. If we're not much better shape than we are today, then we've got a problem and we'll have to address as far as timing goes, because maybe this is going to get drawn out longer than we anticipate.
Okay. I think that's all that we'll cover on the gravel operation for tonight. We'll continue that at our next meeting. Thank you. Thank you. The next item on new business, I added the low income housing plan. And every town in Connecticut is required to have a low income housing plan I think sometime by 07/01/2022 in order to get state funding. And we do not currently have one. You look on our I think it's under the regulation section of our website, you'll see something that's talked about incentive housing or something. And in that, there's a lot of information that provides the basis for development of a low income housing plan but it never gets to the end and wraps it all up and says what our plan is. I have been in discussion with a fellow named Bill Warren who's a certified
planner, if you will. He's the guy that's done I think our last two plan of conservations and development. And I'm working with him to help us out on coming up with a low income housing plan. And I am not aware right this minute of what the Commission's involvement is in that. I'm sure there'll be some. Scott or Leigh Ann, on your previous experience going through the planet conservation and developments or Susan, do you have any insight into how much our involvement is on that or are we just reviewing what he gives us or how does that work?
This is Leanne. Bill Warner used to be our zoning agent. And then we hired him as a consultant. I believe we had to go to town meeting to request the money for Yep. It not just last time, but, you know, anytime because it's it's not inexpensive. And I think Bill did it last time. I'm not sure Susan or or Scott can can remind me if he did it the last time also. He
did the first two. Did the last two. When he did the one previous to the current one, he was our agent. He did that as part of his job when he was our agent. He worked on the plan of development in addition to the other things. Then when we had to do the second plan, we were coming up against the time constraint, did put out a bid and we had one or two others who came in and we felt he had the experience, he knew us, and his price was the best. And that's how we got him the second time.
Think we'll be able to get through the cost. Talking with Eric Anderson, he was looking to possibly use this as a first step, if you will, on our next plan of conservation and development, which will be starting next year. And he says the town has been putting aside money to support that endeavor for a while. So there is a pot of money I think that's available to support doing this. And so I'm hoping that's not going to be an issue. It's just a question of how much time we put in with that. It did in my conversations with Bill. It sounds like he was very familiar with Andover. I didn't know he used to be our zoning agent. I guess
that helps with that familiarity and we'll go with that. But I just want let everybody know that that was going to end up being a fairly high priority thing for us because we have to get that done. We have plenty of time to do it but it's very important to continuing our funding. So it's really a
year and a few months though, right? Right. I mean maybe you can do that and then add it to the new POCT.
That's what I'm hoping we do. So this is just really the first step of the POCT.
And my recollection is that he, once we did the initial agreement about, he knows what's expected. So my recollection is that it was kind of done in phases by him and then he would come in person to one of our meetings and kind of do a PowerPoint presentation. Right. Yeah okay let him that know with pictures sounds and text what he how how far along he was. Okay,
nope, that sounds good. Anyhow, that's all I wanted to share on the Low Income Housing Plan.
And that completes Yep, go ahead, Leanne. Leanne again. I have another question. What you started out talking about the Delta something low housing plan. Is that something that's in place or I know there's something in the legislature. I have no idea what stage it's at or if it's even still a thing about affordable housing all over the state and zoning laws and I have not followed it. Does that have something to do with this or is this something that you were saying something is in place but you didn't see a conclusion to it or something? So if you
I'm going to try and share and see if I can pull up what I was referring to. Okay. You mean now?
Now. Yeah. Okay. So it's everybody see my screen now? Yeah. Okay, so under the planning down here, handover incentive housing zone. Okay. And if you look at that, it's a very extensive document. We don't really have a lot of good options in our town for the low income housing. But I think that's probably the majority of coming up with a plan. He just We need to get him to Come up with a That
takes all the data and what are we going to do with all that data? So that's what I'm going to be asking him to do. But if you look at this at your leisure, I think that's all the basis for what we need to do.
Oh, is there some sort of criteria, Jud, that he's going to have to follow?
They're looking for each town to have 10% low income housing. I thought it was 5%.
Well, think it used to be 5%. As you say, there's an awful lot of activity going on in Hartford right now about low income housing and all that. So I'm not sure the dust is all settled on where that's going. But the view is that every town needs to do their fair share to provide for low income housing for the population. And so we'll see how that comes out. But the first thing that they're going to do is make us have a plan and then there's going to be a requirement that that plan gets updated periodically to keep up with all the changes that Hartford's coming up with.
So this is something that's in place. Is this something that we're behind on or is this something We the bill just got
are behind on it. I'm not sure. Well, I know Eric's been following a lot of this stuff, he's looking for where to get grants and all that kind of stuff. At that land use seminar that we had back in March, they were talking about that during a couple of the presentations. And I started pulling the string on that there. And it soon became clear that the plan that somebody would be looking for was much bigger than anything that I was going to be able to do. And so looking through our website, I looked at this Andover Incentive Housing Zone. As I say, I think it's a very good write up. It just doesn't generate a plan. So we've got to have a plan of what we're going to do with all that information to increase our fair share of
incentive housing. And one of the options is that a lot of the low income housing can be for older folks. And Andover does have a fair share of older folks. And so maybe there's a way we can help out that community. Not exactly sure. But I do know that Bill Warren has done it, created plans for several other towns. So this is something that he knows how to do and I'm sure he'll do a good job for us.
Does anyone know what percent we're at right now? I think it's like 5.8
if I was to guess. And that incentive housing thing talks to that number. Okay.
Let me just Yeah, it's not going to jump out at me. Yep, I'm not even going to try to find it and all that stuff. Guys are all invited to look at that. There's probably ten, twelve pages full of charts and good reading. But it's a hot topic and we need to get caught up to speed on it. Is there a deadline? There is. I think it's the June 2022.
Okay. I don't know. I'm sorry if you mentioned that earlier. We've
got a year, but a year goes by very fast. And so we're not late probably getting Bill involved in it, but we're certainly not too early. Okay. Thank you. Yep.
I'm going to go up into the old business now. And the first thing on the old business is sign regulations. And so I have not worked too much on sign regulations lately. I've been working on a couple of other things like trying to understand lot width. But I got two inquiries and I'll pass on to you guys and I would expect that Jim might have the lead on these before all is said and done. But the first one involves, if you read the River East a week or two ago, it talked about Jerry Wright getting some monument in the Veterans Memorial Park out on Route 6 And 316. And so he's looking, know, that ceremony is coming up in June. He's looking to put a big sign out there. We came through, no signs in the memorial. Then if he wants a sign it probably needs to go where I have seen the sign for the Andover Historical Museum posted on the other side of Monument Road there a couple of times. He also wanted to put a big banner up somewhere in the memorial and I told him that banners were signs. And I told him that if he wanted to pursue it any further, the ordinance states that the town of Andover decides or puts up any signs. Signs are prohibitive except those put up by the town of Andover.
And if he wanted to approach the beautification committee who looking through the different things to see who had cognizance over that park, I thought they did. And if he could convince them to request that Jerry put up a banner on behalf of the town of Andover, that might be a satisfactory way to go. But I just told them our zoning regulations did not allow him to put up a banner. So Jim, if you hear any more on that, that's what I told Jerry. The second inquiry that came to me today was out doing my walk and Diane Grenier the town is coming up with various grants for various things and I guess we're going to get a couple of good sized welcome to Andover signs. And I think that's a great idea. She asked me, did planning and zoning get involved in that at all? And I said, most likely. And so she did not know where she was looking to put up those signs. And I know the rules are probably different along the state routes than they are all the other places. But I told her that she would probably need to work with the Planning and Zoning Commission and I wasn't all that familiar with how that would go but I did think that it would be nice to have a nice Welcome to Andover sign out there on the highway.
So that's that. I'm not going to talk anymore about frontage requirements at this point. We'll see how this example plays out. But I'm more convinced that I understand wit. It's not all bad. It's maybe a little different than frontage, but it's awful close. And it can get us what we're looking for. I'm not opposed to changing width to frontage after we get done with this. But I think now that I understand width, we can work with it. Any questions on either of those old business topics? Okay. Moving on, the next is approval of minutes. And first on the list is the regular meeting of 03/15/2021. I'll move to approve the minutes of March 15. Is that Leanne? Yes. Okay. Thank you, Leanne. All right. Yep.
Is there a second? I second. Thank you, Susan. I second. And any discussion on the minutes? And I had none. Going once. Going twice. Going three times. Hearing no comments. Anne, how you vote? Scott? Aye. Susan? Aye.
Leigh Ann? Aye. And I vote aye as well. The motion carries five-zero-zero. Next up are the site walk special meeting minutes from 03/20/2021.
I move approval of the site walk special meeting minutes of 03/20/2021.
Thank you, Susan. I'll second that. Thank you, Scott. Any discussion on those minutes?
And just for the record, I did go on sidewalk. Okay. With the landowner there.
And I, this is Leanne. Just for a general discussion, I was not on the sidewalk, I'm going to abstain. I just went up there just driving by the road to make sure that it was where I thought it was, which it was because I was, friends with a family who owned it a long time ago. And somebody passed me on the left on the Hendy Road bridge while I was approaching the property. Did
you say you would need to excuse yourself from this issue?
Not from the whole issue. Well, it's up to you. I was not on the sidewalk.
Okay. No, I got you. And that would not necessarily be a reason for recusal unless you felt that it needed to be. I think you heard all the discussion tonight and the issues that we were discussing tonight certainly were not anything that popped up on the sidewalk.
Okay, well, that's good to know. I think that's valuable. And the discussion tonight seemed to be things like, again, discussion about width and frontage, which is not a well, people had different opinions tonight, but I guess, I'm not sure how to say it. But people, it's kind of an either is or it isn't kind of thing. It it's not something like you just said that was came from the sidewalk. And then I think Scott brought up the I know about the flood plain. So as you just said, doesn't sound like those things that were changed by not being on the sidewalk. Right.
Yep. Okay. And so the people present at the sidewalk on March 20 are listed correctly in the minutes. I understand that Leanne and Scott both went out there to take a look but I will leave the participants as is in the write up here. Least that would be my proposal. Guys will all vote I up here in a
it was. I didn't get out and go on the property. Yeah, okay.
Any other comments on the minutes? Hearing none, we'll call for a vote. Anne? Aye. Scott? Aye. Susan? Aye.
Leanne? Same. And I vote aye as well. The motion carries four-zero-one with Leanne Hutchinson abstaining. And there we go. I misplaced my copy of the agenda. I know we're getting close to that adjournment thing. So I don't want to lose it now. Moving on to item eight correspondence. Agent Halsey, you got anything for us there? No. Okay. Item nine, enforcement action, 44 Wales Road.
44 Whales Road, there was a cease and desist set out several months ago for someone regarding someone living in a trailer. And I was informed that they have ceased to live in there. And I've been by the site several times and haven't seen any activity. I did not ask them to remove the trailer because it's not a violation, but it appears that they're in conformance, but I will continue to monitor that. As far as additional items to report, it's just busy time of year, a lot activity, probably spring related. House is under construction over on Lake Road involving the new lake Regs. And a few other applications are pending that will require the nutrient allocation plan to be prepared. We're operating on kind of a skeleton staff in the building office with few hours a week. The land use administrator position is still going. About ten hours a week right now hoping that will change in the near future and we're still transitioning with the town hall. As far as coverage with the with the building inspector. Hopefully that will go smoothly as well. That's all I have. Thank you. Would it be appropriate
to go back to the person who made the complaint about Whale Road and ask them if they're satisfied with the action that was taken? They would give you a Absolutely. I know the
person who filed the complaint and I will follow-up with that, yes. Okay, yep, I think I do have a couple other things going on. The gentleman that trains dogs at the Post Farm has inquired about a possible kennel permit. I don't know if anybody has any history on this, but apparently a permit was issued a number of years ago and the site was never built out. But he's looking to do something on a different portion of the farm. And actually it's been operating I think for thirteen years. So a gentleman recently purchased or is in the process of purchasing Scott Tree Farm or at least a portion of it on Balkan Hill Road and is interested in doing some creative events there. And I asked him to put together a plan and approach the commission on an informal basis and get some feedback. And I haven't heard from him as yet.
He have any in or you know for his home business or business business that he is doing now?
No he does not. I'm not positive. I don't know whether that's a use of what he's doing is a use of right or not. I'm going to check and get back to him on what he's done is approaching the commission.
Okay. Yep. Because I did notice as I drove down Route 6 the other day, the sign out there, something about dog training or whatever as you would Oh, that gentleman. I'm sorry.
I was thinking of Bunker Hill, I'm sorry. Oh, yeah. No, I will be contacting him tomorrow as a matter of fact. Okay. And if that guy
that had the kennel permit, he is dog training knows, Does he have a permit to do the dog training that he has going now? No. He's also a dog warden. Right. Apparently he doesn't. Urge him to rectify that. What is it that he needs to do
to get that? He needs a special permit. I mean, you have to apply for a special permit. Oh, he's doing it now?
He's been doing it for thirteen years apparently. The post war is mostly gay. He doesn't operate a kennel per se. It's it's doggy daycare and training. But I don't know what else would fit under. So is he applying for something?
Hopefully, I mean, I indicated when I met with him, he had indicated he had a special permit. When I went back to check, it became apparent that it was it was for a different portion of the post farm. So I thought he might have the option of coming back to the Commission and getting a revision, and then he's gone for a week. He's out of state for a week. That was only out there. Go ahead, Leanne.
Thank you. Jim, what's the status of it right now?
It's operating without a permit, without benefit of a permit.
Okay. And is this the same person for clarification with purchasing or doing some activity on what was or is Rob Russell's property on Bunker Hill or Route 6 or No. Different things? No. It's two separate individuals. Okay. So this has nothing to do with any activity on Brooker Hill has nothing to do and it's not the same person as the dog count? Correct.
Okay, thank you. Oh, so you're asking him to fill out his home based business application?
Special permit application, yeah. I believe. I mean, doesn't fall in your home base as far as I know. I'll double check that. Actually, doesn't. He doesn't live there. He rents that house kind of back there, think, though.
He rents it and his mother lives in it. And he apparently lives on Route 6. That's what he told me. I'm not questioning it. Okay,
we're following that. Something's not right. We'll have to get that resolved. Yeah, let's talk about the way ahead on whatever we're going to do there at the next meeting on that. Anything else, Jim? No. Okay. Moving on to Item 10, Commission discussion miscellaneous. Anybody have anything they want to talk about tonight? Oh, okay, I think we'll move on then. I don't see anybody else from the public that hung around. Everybody's gone, so no public comment. And I'll entertain a motion for adjournment. So moved. Thank you, Scott. I'll second that. Thank you, Ian. Any opposed? No. All in favor, aye. Aye. Aye. Motion carries five-zero-zero. Thank you very much, everybody. And
sounds like next month's meeting. Jim, do you have the date for that? I don't have my calendar with me right this minute. I think it's a regular Monday. May 17, I think. May 17, that sounds about right. Sounds like we'll have another big beating then. Thank you all for your time and energy and we'll see you then. Good night. Okay.