Meeting transcript
PZC Regular Meeting
July 20, 2020 · Watch on YouTube · All meetings
I see myself present as chairman, Anne present as co chairman. I see Scott, I hear Leanne, And we've got Susan England, our alternate. We'll have her seated as the fifth member to give us a full commission this evening. Are there any additions or changes to the agenda that anybody has?
I do. This is Jim. Yes, Jim. The item for discussion 50 is listed, I believe is 52 Hendy Road. The actual address is 57. Okay. Thank you.
Any other changes to the agenda? Hearing none, I see we've got several members of the public here tonight. Would anybody like to speak on any topic that is not part of the agenda that we will get to under new or old business?
I would like to say one thing. The new webpage is great. So good job, Amanda. That's all.
Okay. And hopefully a little later here, we'll make sure that everybody's comfortable using it. We'll find out how that went. I agree with the assessment there. That is very nice. I am hearing no public comment at this point. I don't know if that is because we have you all muted or there is none. But in a couple of you, I don't have any picture of, so I won't be able to see if you're trying to talk or not. But at this point, I'm going to move on to new business. And the first item of business here is election of officers. The good news is since the last meeting, we have come up with a copy of our bylaws and we don't have to hold election of officers tonight. The
officers get appointed for a two year term and we do election of officers each year after an election or each other year after the election. And so Anne and I are fortunate enough to be the chair and co chair for the next year without any election. And I know Jim at some point is going to get a copy of those bylaws posted on our website and we'll put that under the regulations section there where we've got our zoning regs and subdivision regs. So that completes Item 5A. Item 5B is to receive application and set public hearing and that is on 12 Webster Lane in Bolton. Jerry, did you want to brief us on the application that you've provided to us?
I can tell you that it's a very simple split of an existing lot. It's about 3.6 acres. And there is an existing house that's been renovated, looks real nice. There's area for another house there, and the owners of the property would like to split that into two parcels. We've already gotten wetlands approval from Bolton. We have an application in before Bolton Planning and Zoning. And we are awaiting wetlands approval from Andover. And we think that our application is complete and pretty straightforward.
Okay. Do any of the commission members, well I guess Jim, I'll let you go first. Believe that the application is complete.
I'll go through the checklist in just a minute. And I didn't find it as simple as Jerry did because of the town line. But I mean, used the Bolton address because that's the street address that believe is correct. And if there's any discrepancies that you run into, it may be accounted for by the fact that the property is in two towns. For instance, there's certain portion of the lot is Bolton and a certain portion in Andover. And you may see a number somewhere along the line of differs from the total on a particular lot. And that would be the explanation. So as far as the checklist goes, I do have a copy of the deed and it happens to be in the name of the applicant, the LLC.
Did receive a statement of intent regarding future development, which I believe is posted. Now that I have it in the file. Estimated municipal improvements is not applicable. Sanitary report, I'm gonna have Jerry address that at the end. Boundary plan is here. I am going to add, it's my intent to ask for paper copies at such time as part of public hearing. Incorporating perhaps any changes that might occur between now and then. I know that a little easier to read paper print erosion and sedimentation control is on the plan. I do have some issues, minor issues, which I will make the applicant aware of municipal improvement plan is not applicable, nor the road and drainage plan local plan is in place, do you have a request for a waiver of the Topo outside the lot, the parcel itself. So you know, double plan is very hard to read. Topo's light. Perhaps you've had better luck darkening and there's very few contour lines because it's really a flat lot. But again, at such time, it's public hearing is set and we will get paper plans to distribute. No variances or special permits. Address the waiver, the one waiver request. Fees in place, dollars 500, the subdivision, 60 state fee. Yes, it is before the wetlands commission. And it's been it's been to a few meetings. Has not been approved yet. I don't see any major major issues.
That's all I have.
Okay. Discuss again the fees that have been paid. I'm just breaking this up to avoid any conflict like we had with the Grimaldi application and what fees are here. So I'm trying to get a figure feel for what fees.
Just straight off the chart, 500 for subdivision up to three lots. And then there's, and this falls under that $500 threshold, and there's $60 state fee on any land use application. And we did receive a check in the amount of $560 Okay.
And did we get the is the application signed by the
owner at this point? It is. Yes, that was I had requested that, and Jerry provided that. Okay. I thought I had posted that, but
I don't if it's that. When I looked earlier today, I did not see that we had a signed copy on there. As long as you have got one that is going to be signed, that is good. We continue to have issues with the Internet. Yep, I understand. I have a few of those issues myself. Is this a good time to have Jerry go through the sanitary report? Lieutenant Present, yes. Okay. Go ahead, Jerry.
I have approval from Eastern Highland Health District for the septic system as designed for the proposed new house, and also they approved the existing house had to have a septic system repaired. So that was also done and approved by Eastern Highlands. Now, we changed the location of the proposed septic system from the wetlands application to the planning and zoning. We flipped the the primary septic system to a 100 feet from the wetlands. I asked, Chad King, who was the Eastern Highlands reviewer, if that that was something he could approve. And he said yes, and he sent me an approved plan, his stamp of approval on a plan today. And I I don't know if I got it to you in time, Jim, but I sent it over there. I don't know. Forty five minutes ago. I did not see it. I left at that point. Okay. So now we have plans that are stamped as approved by Eastern Highland Health District.
Okay. Do any of the other commission members have any questions on the application at this point? I don't.
Okay. Hearing none, did have a couple of questions, Jerry. Is the property in the state that exists now one or two lots? Is it one lot in both Andover and Bolton or is it a separate lot in Andover and a separate lot in Bolton? No, it is one piece of property. Jim, because the driveway is longer than 200 feet, do we need to have the fire marshal approve that he can get a turnaround in that? Yes. I will pursue that.
Jerry you mentioned that the septic system that we're looking at on our application is different than the septic system on the inland wetlands? I would expect them to be the same.
They don't necessarily have to be the same. The subdivision regulations require that you have to have the septic system 100 feet from wetlands. So that's what we've shown to comply with the subdivision regulations. The soils are more appropriate and a better place for the septic system in the plan that was submitted to wetlands. And honestly, that if this comes to fruition and if they do develop this lot, that's probably where the system should go. So I I just wanna be upfront about that.
Okay. I just struggle to have two different plans to two different commissions in the town. I would think that if you wanted to put it where it is on the inland wetlands application, then you would ask for a waiver for that from planning and zoning because you've got some justification to make that a better case?
Be honest with you, Jed, I don't see I didn't see the opportunity to get a waiver for those things. I mean, there's as you know, I'm not real happy with our regulations anyway because I don't think they lend a whole lot of latitude. But if asking for a waiver is appropriate, I could do that. I think it's unfortunate that we have to play these little games to comply with the subdivision regulations. But, you know, this the subdivision subdivision application is really what we're supposed to be doing is indicating that the property can sustain another house, another residence. And there may be a whole you know, they may sell the lot after it's divided, and the next person may want a house twice as big. They may want it in a different configuration, and they're going to have to come back to wetlands at that time with a plot plan and get approval from wetlands because they're in a regulated area. So it's going to be addressed whether, you know, whether I like it or not, it's going to be addressed one more time.
Even if, you know, once once subdivision, if subdivision is approved, it's still going to have to be reviewed and approved one more time before anybody could bill that.
Okay. I'll think about that. We're not going to act on your application tonight. It just causes me heartburn. I understand. Have two different plans to the same town on the same lot, and they're not consistent. And in fact, guess, Jerry, had you heard from the wetlands agent following our last Inland Wetlands meeting?
I had not heard from anybody. I happened to download the minutes this afternoon. I glanced through them. I haven't talked to anybody about them or responded to them. Okay,
then I will hold any further discussion on that until after you get a hold of the new wetlands agent. There were some expectations coming out of that meeting. I noticed on the drawing that you provided the existing house sits on what appears to be less than the minimum lot size. You've got it listed is 58,000 or something where the minimum lot size is 60,000 square feet.
I was not aware of that I will make sure I address that I know there is adequate space there for two lots.
I agree with that. And just need to have the drawing correct on that. Is the home going to have a basement?
No. The home that's proposed this plan and by this owner, he's talking about a raised ranch. Okay.
And if I'm correct, the rear lot setback, I think you've got it listed as 20 feet. I think from our chart it should be 50 feet for a conventional subdivision. Okay, I will check that.
This is Jim. There are a number of dimensional errors. I did point some of them out. When I say that the plan has been submitted, I'm not saying I've viewed it in full. There's one other item I failed to address, is solar access and energy usage. There's a requirement in the subdivision regs that the applicant at least address the minimization of energy. Spells it out in a statement. Not saying you have to use any particular form of solar power or anything in that nature that it was thought of.
And Amanda, would you be able to call up well, I guess I'll ask Jerry, if you can. There's several light dashed pan colored lines on one of the two subdivision drawings, and I was not able to figure out what those were.
On the subdivision plan, there are a few brownish, tan ish colored lines that indicate the soils, the delineation of the different soils types. Okay? One of the subdivision regulations requires that we show soils types on the drawing. And those are the soils are you talking about
Is this right here? Okay. Can you see my cursor? Is this the correct map? I'm sharing my screen, Jerry. Yep. This map shows the lines I think that we're discussing. Yep. Well, the fence line is a dotted dash line here. Then there's a
a there's there's a line between the existing house and the existing garage. Yes.
A dash dot line there. And to the left of that, just above the existing garage, is the number 51 B. Okay. Yep. Got it. Okay. So that indicates that soil's type there. And then
as you go south of that, just to the right of where it says Lot 1, it says 86 D. And
then just to the south of the proposed new house, it says 73 C. And there's the same brownish
dash line between those two numbers. Okay. Those are the dash lines that I was confused on and didn't know what they represented. Okay. Got it. Okay. And I would ask in an effort to improve our subdivision regs, just as you carefully go through our subdivision regs and you see things that aren't exactly the way you want it, whether it's the scale of the maps or the house being within 100 feet of the wetlands or whatever, if there's any waivers you need from any of those things, that would be my vehicle to understand where the hard spots are with our subdivision regs as we look at modifying them going forward because that would give you the opportunity to help me understand why you don't think those regulations are valid. I'd be happy to do that. Okay. And that would help us going forward to make our regulations That was those were all the questions
that I had on the application as it stands at this point. The I know Jim mentioned that we'd like to have any updated drawings or anything before the public hearing. I would ask that we get any updated information, anything we need to support a public hearing ten days prior to the public hearing. I think that's both in accordance with our regulations and our bylaws. I've got no problem with that. Okay, yep.
Sounds good. So I guess we've received the application. It says set the public hearing. Our next meeting would be on the August 17. The I would like to propose that if we get approval from the wetlands at their next meeting on the August 3, at that point we would notice the public hearing and have it at our next meeting on the seventeenth. Is that and if we don't get the wetlands approval for whatever reason, then we won't be able to go to public hearing on the seventeenth.
And our notifications and everything are such that we can do that after the wetlands meeting and that would be good to go. So is that an acceptable plan for you, Jerry? Yeah, I've got no problem with that. Okay.
And that's what we'll do on that. Any other discussion on the application for 12 Webster Lane before we finish that item?
Chad, I have a question. Yep, I don't know who's talking. This is Kevin. Yep, go ahead Kevin. When do the surrounding property owners get notified that a subdivision is taking place on the property?
That would be the first notification happens within ten and fifteen days prior to the public hearing. Okay. And so normally it wouldn't work. The plan that we just discussed wouldn't work with those time limits because it takes us a while to get notice to the River East. With the latitude that the governor's given us due to the coronavirus, we can post that notification on our website the day after we had the inland wetlands meeting and know that we're going forward. That still meets the ten day notification requirement. I think Jerry was planning to send out notifications to the surrounding property owners as well. Is that true, Jerry? Yes, correct.
Does that answer your question, Kevin? Yeah, thanks. That answers it. Okay.
With that, I'll close item 5B. And we'll go on to item 5C, which is just the subdivision versus the free cut discussion that we said we were going to have. And Amanda, if you can call up that, if you've got that, that I sent to you and call that up, that'd be great.
One thing, do we need to make a motion to set the public hearing date by the commission itself?
Thank you, Linda. Susan. Thank you. Susan? Oh, I got it. Linda concurs.
I understand all those procedural things. Yes, we do. Susan,
would you like to make a motion? Yes, I would like to make a motion to receive the application of Karma LLC, 12 Webster Lane Bolton, which is the mailing address, aka Andover's Assessor Map NineteenBlock SixteenLot 1 application for two lot subdivision and set the public hearing for August 17. I'll second. This is Leanne.
Any discussion on the motion? And I guess it goes without saying if we don't get the proper approval by Inland Wetlands, we can cancel that plan. But we should plan on having all that stuff and going forward at that point. Any other discussion? Hearing none, I'll call for a vote. Anne? Aye. Susan? Aye. Scott? Aye. Leanne? Aye.
And I vote aye as well. The motion passes five-zero-zero. Thank you, Susan for keeping me honest. My pleasure.
Okay. Now Amanda, can you call up that presentation? If you don't have it there, I'll try to call it up and we'll see how it goes. Doug, what time did you send it to me?
Maybe 05:00 or so. And if you don't have it there, I'll be brave and try and get it up. I see I have it on my screen here. Yeah, maybe maybe try it. We'll train right now.
Perfect hover over the bottom of your screen and look for the green arrow that says share screen. It says host disabled participant screen sharing.
Okay. Hold on one moment. So, Linda, since you are the host host, you have to allow him. So you can also make Jed a cohost. Linda? All set. Alright. Try again, Jed. Let's see. There you are. Okay, now let's see if we can. This is great.
Okay, so anyhow, we were talking at the last meeting what's the difference between a free cut and a subdivision application. And so there's two things that come into play here. Our town adopted our subdivision regulations on 05/10/1956. So if a lot was divided prior to that, they're not part of any subdivision regulation and can go about their business. If they divide after that date, they have to abide by the subdivision regulations going forward. And as presently defined, the subdivision means that we're going to break a piece of property into three lots or more. Anyhow, those are the two the date and the number three. So let's say we had a piece of property here and we broke it into two as shown on the screen here and we did that prior to the 1956 date. Each of these landowners for each of these pieces of property would then be able to go through and get a free cut if they wanted to further divide that property. And what that means is, since it's not, they're not dividing the land into more than three pieces, they don't have to comply with all the subdivision regulations. Now, somebody divided and took, broke this property into two after the subdivision regulations went into effect, and then either one of the property owners wants to go and divide it again, the property has already been divided into two. So the next division, even though property on the right and you divide it into, that's making three pieces of property out of the original
section that was in effect when the subdivision rules went into effect. And so then you have to abide by all the subdivision regulations. That's the difference. If you don't have a subdivision, you have to abide by all the zoning regulations, but the subdivision regulations are a lot more specific. So that's what you get into when you don't get the precut. So in both for the 12 Webster Lane, the piece of property that we're talking about came into existence after our subdivision regs were in effect. That's why Jerry's having to go through the subdivision piece as opposed to being able to do the free cut and just apply it by the zoning regulation.
That took me a little while to figure out, but that's my understanding of it at this point. Anyhow, that's how I think it works. And Leanne, you you were the one who I think asked for this and didn't get a chance to see it. You were just listening to it. Maybe I'll send it over to you specifically when we get done here. I guess I should have done that earlier on.
Ted? Yeah. I was just wondering, as you know, had a very good explanation of this. I don't know if it's even possible to reconstruct, but wouldn't it be helpful for us if there was somehow a map of parcels in 1956?
It might, but it's and I guess I'll ask for feedback from Jerry if he's still on the line here. You go back and you look at the deed for the piece of property and that's one of the things that's on our checklist for the subdivision checklist. Can tell when that parcel was made. After that date, you know you have to go through all the subdivision regulations. If it's not, you just have to go by the zoning regulations. And you don't have to do the public hearing and all the other stuff that goes with the subdivision.
No, was just thinking in terms of our review, if there were some way too difficult to do. It'd be very helpful to start right off and see what things look like then, what they look like now.
This is Jim. I can check the assessor. That's the only individual I could think. Provide that. I don't know if that It's just a thought. I mean It's a good idea. I don't know if that's possible or not. You know, if I could just interject from Ted did a great job explaining it. When, when folks from practical standpoint, sometimes can be difficult to make that determination. It's not as simple as just reading the deed. It won't get complicated.
Actually Mark Brandt's in his in a memo to Jed explaining it, used the term something have required to have the engineer draw a historic picture map or it was some term I had never heard, but basically giving a history of of lots. And from experience, I mean, I've seen attorney spend hours searching to make this determination. Sometimes it's simple, sometimes it's not. That's all I got.
Okay. Thanks, Jim. I think that completes all I wanted to say about the subdivision versus the free live.
We're in Thank good you. This is Leanne. Is this something that you when you say you're going to send it over to me, is this something that you just put up tonight?
Well, it's just a little PowerPoint presentation that slides that I made to help illustrate that. And so I'll email it to you. If you have any questions, let me know and we will go through that. Thanks.
Jim, I am going to go let you tackle the next item which is 5D application of lot width definition for 57 Hendy Road.
Okay, I'm hoping that I have both a memo from me and a copy of a plan from Andrew Bushnell depicting what he's proposing to do as far as reconfiguring a lot. Mandid. Hoping you had it.
I know Jim on the email that you sent to me both documents were the same. I got two documents. Susan
had sent that but I know that there are people in the audience that have the ability to put the plan up. This one, Jim?
The site plan? I don't think so. No, this would have been sent more recent.
I just spoke to this at the end of the meeting. Yeah, this was on the website when I checked it out just prior to coming up. Okay, let's take a look at it. Okay, then that must be it. Okay. Okay. Here's here's the pro. Okay. I can zoom in if you need.
Yeah. Is it possible to have the definition by memo on the screen at the same time? Not simultaneously,
but I can pull that up instead. Could we do this? Could we could we go over the definition first and then come back to the map? Yes. Okay. Give it a second. Here we are.
Especially what it boils down to is is the we use the term lot lot with. We don't use frontage. And the definition of lot width is down here on the bottom. Basically works off the center of the center line of the road. Building setback line does as well. Two definitions really work in concert. And if you go to go to the plan.
I'm gonna go to the plan right now. Well, let's
give everybody a minute to just read the definitions. Oh, okay. And the text basically says that the commission has some discretion to interpret the regulations. And that's the intent of my memo, to give the applicant direction and safety or where to go with this lot as far as is the engineer on on the line?
Are you speaking of Andrew Bushnell? Yes. Yes. No, he's not available tonight. This is William Phillips.
Okay, William, when when the plan comes up, maybe you can help me explain what he's trying to do. Go ahead. Are you there, Jim? I'm there.
If everybody's had a chance to read the definition, can we get the plan up? The 57 Hendy Road plan.
You can always hold that in front of the camera too for now. Should I switch now, Jim? Please, yes. Okay. Here we are.
Okay, yeah, if you could maybe. Okay, what's unique about this property and the reason in fact that I'm bringing it to you is if you look over in the right hand corner, there's kind of handover property. What happened is Hendy Road, which actually was known as Burbank Road, believe at the time, was realigned. So the property property stayed in the hands of the town, and the road moved south southeast. So if you apply the lot with the centerline, the building setback line from the centerline of the road, you're not even on on the right side of the property looking at it. You're off. You're not on mister Phillips' property. Bill, is that accurate? Is that an accurate depiction of what's going on? Yes. So
I'm looking for a way to deviate, apply that definition so that it works, quite frankly. There at that point, Jim? I'm sorry? Is it 200 feet wide?
Bill, can you address that? Yes, it is 200 feet wide. We have two eleven feet from the old Okay, you're saying two eleven. Now,
carving to address as frontage. Like, how about the existing realigned, we lost our front.
Right. How much are you leaving the existing house with?
Well, I think it's like all roads do have a snow shelf along the side. And in this particular case, because of the road realignment, we just have a wider area on the right than we would normally have because of the realignment. So what they did next door, I also own the house next door was they did use that for frontage when they cut that house off for me. And I purchased that house from Steven Blanchard. That's how they allowed that to be used in the town of Andover for my road frontage. Okay, but just looking at the lot next door.
Yeah, you're we're talking about the proposed home site. Right.
I'm sorry, Jim. Say again. Talking about the post on-site. Yes.
I mean, Amanda actually has frontage elsewhere. Amanda, could you please blow that up a little bit?
Yeah. Do you have a better manner that shows it more clearly that it's outlined? Yeah.
The newer one. Not like this. Yeah. Okay. Hey, Jim. We have a map that's highlighted better than the one you're pulling up there. If it would be helpful if we we put that up. That'd be great. Okay. Why don't we do that? Go ahead, Meg.
Oh, great. Of course, my battery is running low. My my screen's gonna die. Hold this one. Yeah. My laptop's dying. My battery's dying. Sorry, guys. Okay. But, Jim, it's the same one that was emailed earlier earlier, and we've got this one as highlighted if you can see.
No, but I think we're better off with the previous drawing that Amanda put up there at this point.
Alright. Okay. If she can yeah. Shows you maybe where you can zoom in though. Jim, did you email me that other map?
Susan did. Okay. Hold on one second. But I think that's I think she sent you the same document twice. That's I think that's what happened. That's what I thought, and that's why I didn't post it. Okay. Alright. So we we can I think we can make do with what we have? Okay. Thank you. Can you explain to me again what you did with the how you use the frontage? I think it's the term you used from the rancher's property.
They just used the it was the it's right next door, of course, and used that that old road, old existing road for the frontage on my my land because it needed road frontage. So we actually do we just have a wider snow shelf in that area because the town has an easement along the sides of all roads. Right. But it's just wider here, and then everyone still has their frontage, though.
Right. But see, because our our definition works about the center of the road, it becomes hard to to apply that definition. Right. About 50 feet, Jim, you're referring to? Well,
on the right side of the plan, it I mean, I I can't really scale it with what I have. But yeah. I mean, a little more than 50 feet at at. Right. It's it's more on the right side. Yeah.
However, I mean, you have to lock I'm thinking about this. You have a lot with I'm I'm also concerned about the existing house. Does that have are you that have the 200 feet mesh the lot width, or are you are you shrinking it?
Hey, Jim. This is only getting part of what you're saying. He wants to know what this is. What should be left with? I think what we need to do Well,
that's gonna be left with, we're gonna combine that. We're gonna take away the lot line on the left side of the stone house. So we will have plenty of frontage over there. I see. Okay. That'll go right down to the brook. Who who who divided this lot?
Was this ever a lot that was divided out? Yes, it was. It was done by Holmes and Henry. And who approved it?
I don't think anyone approved it. It was never submitted. The Mylar was never submitted. The plan was drawn and I brought it up and submitted it to John Valenti and he told me we were all set. And then when we went to move forward on this project, it was right before John left. We found out that there was a couple of snags and John said, Oh gee, sorry, Bill. And he said, I thought we were all set with this, but apparently we're not. So that's when we picked up the ball and started, going through this process.
How much road frontage does it have on ND Road?
Right now, it would have, 211 and then I'm not sure how much this is on the left side that's budding the stone house. Absolutely. There's another little piece right there. No. I'm talking about on that's 11 or the 2 11.
How much frontage does it have on Hendy Road? Not on the town's property, but on Hendy Road.
Just this piece right here. And I don't have it. Let me look for a scale right here. This is 47 right there. So Yeah. It's all you exactly. It's across from Hole 652. Mhmm. The floor frontage.
Right now, have about 46 feet and that's where the line bends and then we have another two eleven to the corner. So it's about 46 feet that we have now that's still has a little bit of an easement in front of Handy. It's about seven feet.
And again, what's the required what's required dimension on the town road?
200 feet. Well, it's 200 feet lot width. That's kind of complex definition that was presented that, you know, that it's Yes. We were presenting
use that additional 211 for our additional frontage because it's just the only difference in our opinion is that it's just a wider easement that all houses have. And that's what they ended up doing on the house I purchased from Steven Blanchard, the house next door. They ended up using that frontage and making it a lot. And Andrew Bushnell did the work on that.
When you say the house next door, is that the one to the left of where you want to build or the one to the right of where you want to build? It's the one to the right, the greenhouse and that's Number 67 Hendy. I purchased that about three years ago
and we were okay by using that frontage just in the same situation as we're proposing here.
Amanda, could you slide the print over to the left, please?
So actually, we're wanting to do the same thing we did three years ago.
And I see that Andrew Bushnell just joined us so we can get his input. Oh, you did. Okay. Good.
This way? Yeah. I think basically what Bill was just saying No. The other way, Amanda. It's kind of it's kind of an interesting site. That's it, Amanda. That's good. Okay. That's good. So,
basically, I think we'll spend, you know, you can see the path of the old Burbank was Burbank, old Cobham, South Coventry Road, which is now Hendy Road, taken from one of the old maps. You know, if you stand out there, it's gotten pretty overrun through the years, but you can kind of make out the old path looking at the mature trees there too. Know the road was just straightened out because of that that that nasty curve in it, you know I'm sure that was. Really hard to navigate back in the day, so they straightened it out, So you know they'll said really. My opinion, our frontage is you know that the 4,608 and then the two eleven feet that's that's our frontage that's along the town owned right away of Hendy Road, which as I said, used to be Old Burbank Road or South Topinshew Road, you know?
Andrew, you're saying Burbank and it says Burnap on the plan. Oh, Burnap. Sorry. Burnap. Yep. That's fine. It's not a big deal. Just I was using that Burbank. Yeah. Burnap. Thought you named it after the the former commissioner.
And does the existing gravel driveway that is depicted on this drawing go to the house at 67 or is that just an old driveway that goes to nowhere? Nope, that is the driveway to 67. That's established, used everyday driveway.
Okay. I think we have briefed the Commission on what the issue is. What I would like to do, Jim, is we should review this with the engineer and the property owner at the preliminary application meeting that our procedure talks about where we can make sure that we know all the facts so that we can when the application comes in, we can present it clearly to the Commission and act on it. That point, we'll all have a chance to think about it a little bit now and the time we get together there.
Well, okay, I just want so we're not we won't be coming to the commission because this won't be this won't be a subdivision. It's just going to be a lot line modifications. Don't think we have to come to the commission. That's typically just a staff review, I think in Andover. I got you. Okay. Yeah. And it is before. The lot hasn't been divided.
It hasn't even been divided yet, right? No, it is. It's a lot standing on its own. It's a vacant. It's a vacant lot vacant parcel. Which one is that you're talking about? This is this is where we have the proposed house and then 57 is a is a piece cut out in the middle of Lot 2 which was cut out years ago so there's there's two lots here 57 Hendy Road with existing house and then what's called Parcel 2. It doesn't have an address, but that's in that is a vacant lot that goes around. Gotta
go back a look. We gotta go back a little bit because that's not a vacant lot that was not even cut yet. It's this is a preliminary. Nobody has cut that lot out yet.
I mean, you you cut it out on paper, but it's not approved by the town yet to be a lot. No. It's a it's a lot of record. It's a separately deeded lot as of right now. It's been that way for years. No. I
I I don't believe that it is. It is. If you guys come No. They got no. The guy cut it. The guy cut it, and then he put it up on the market to sell it.
And then No. They So he never he never cut it. So long story short. About just a lot that we're talking about now. But we're talking about the again this is Bill Phillips. We're talking about the whole piece that wraps around the existing stone house that is a is a lot of record because we do get two tax bills on this. And it wraps around and it totals almost eight acres. So the part is getting cut The piece we're addressing now.
The the part that's getting cut off will be combined with 57 Hendy Road. So 57 Hendy Road is gonna get bigger in the vacant or parcel two, whatever you wanna call it, is gonna get smaller. Right. That's true. Right. There'll be no wraparound.
Right, no more wraparound. Yep, that's right. Just that just that little bit will jog behind 57 just to get our 60,000 square feet. To get your to get your area. Okay. Yeah.
But so somebody divided off and you're getting two separate bills, but it still has not even been. It hasn't been discussed whether or not it's a building lot right now. It's just a separate line.
That's correct. And we're working on getting it approved as a building lot. That's why I got so you
were just saying excuse me for a second. But you were just saying that it doesn't have to come before the commission for any of this?
I don't believe so. Don't think we're proposing a subdivision.
To become a building lot it has to become it has to come before the Commission. I don't
I don't know. I It doesn't it doesn't meet well, it doesn't meet the front frontage on Hendy Road for starters. Well, that's Well, that's why we're discussing this. That's why I to get here. There's no front there's 40 feet of frontage on Hendy Road is what it looks like to me. Well, rest of it's on the town of Andover's property.
The Hendy Road right away extends to that two eleven line.
That's what you know, that's frontage on the town of Andover's property. I I I you know, I they're you're just gonna have to go over the formalities there, I guess.
Right. That's not like a separate town in Andover parcel. That's part of the Hendy Road right away.
Right. But the town of the end of our owns that property.
Right. They own Hendy Road too. They own the Hendy Road right away. That's what that's part of. Right. Yep. It
seems really silly that the town has that little triangle. Why don't they give that up or sell it?
It's just been there all those years. Nobody ever thought of it. You know? Nothing like this ever came up. You know? Would make this whole lot easier.
I don't think That's where the town dumps their sand when they when they sweep the roads. They could find another place for that.
Yep. With the I'm trying to understand we've got the 47 feet of frontage with the driveway that goes to 67 Hendy Road be in the 200 foot frontage lot line that you're proposing?
It would be well, it wouldn't it means it's on the town property right away. I mean, I don't think that should interfere with our frontage. It's not going to interfere with our driveway, obviously. Yep. It's just a unique situation that's just been there all these years, you know.
Okay. Well, I still am of the opinion that the Commission should take no action on this tonight. Because we were only presented with it this afternoon and haven't had a chance to think about it really. So I guess I'll get back with Jim and we'll figure out what we think the way ahead is on this and go from there. It certainly is unique. Can see a case with this third driveway going through there. It just kind of makes it a little bit more difficult from what I was initially thinking if that weren't part of the frontage. Well, it'd just be a second drive. Where's the third? There's only two. There's Well, your drive there's the existing driveway, the proposed driveway, and then there's the existing gravel driveway to 67.
Well, that's yeah. But that's that's right off of you know, that's it's a simple way with and that that existing gravel driveway isn't the 57 isn't isn't really utilized anymore. I mean, that could be easily blocked off. I mean, that's yeah. I don't think that should play into the into the mix. Andrew, which driveway are you talking about The one that kind of teeters the line between
57 and the proposed house line. That the If could slide back so we can see more of the right side of the drawing. I see what you're talking about. I'm sorry. No. That's good, Amanda. Thank you. Right there? Yep.
How much frontage would you have if you went from the the lot line on the left hand side to the existing gravel driveway, how much how much frontage would you have then? Let's see. Can see. I a bill right here.
You have about, I don't know, 165 or so. 160. Yeah. 165. 165 from where? Where? From? From the corner pin to the existing gravel driveway.
Okay. What do you have if you measure if you measure side yard to side yard at 50 feet back? Like
Yeah, mean, so that's if we went side yard to side yard at 50 feet back, that's well, that gets to be the tricky part. We were talking the other day. Where's our building line now? Right. But let's
separate it and see if it goes anywhere. What would you have? Do you have your 200 feet? I think we would have the 200 if we went Let me mark 25 off of here quick.
Well, if we just use the the lot with definition.
As it equal 50 feet back, you have to have two. It's 200 feet, right? Yeah. But 50 feet back from 50 feet back is to count that side yardage in count proper, right? That's why we're here. That's that's that's so yeah. Our 50 foot you could. I have the 50 foot line from the edge of pavement marked on the plane see it. Because of extends past the law. You'd see how the 50 foot line goes through the town and over property. Yes, I know. For the most part that 50 foot rule works, but in this it's not conducive.
Wouldn't another option be to classify it as a rear lot and then build using that?
Yeah, that's so then you get into I think you need more area. Step backs are different. It opens up more more challenges, you know. I mean, You know, like we're fighting wetlands here we're trying to keep the House is compact and towards the front as possible away from the wetlands, so I think that would. Forces to push the House back and open up a lot of issues. Like did I did think of that.
Okay, so Jim, what are you expecting to get out of the commission tonight?
I wasn't sure. It I was hoping for someone to come up with a a concept
Has that to make it work. Has this has this this been through the wetlands approval yet? It's in process. It's Yeah.
Because the house is gonna be how far away from the river?
How far away from the river? I'm here about one hundred and seventy five feet, it looks like, roughly. What
application entails is bringing fill in to bring that site up Mhmm. Above floodplain.
The buffer is 200 feet, right, from the river? Mhmm. Right.
That that the skunk about yeah. Yes. Buffer. It's it's regulated areas. And I believe it's been identified. Mhmm.
It's right it's right there on the print. Yeah? Yeah. This is all above above grade.
All the building is above grade? Right, it has to be because of the flood regulations.
Okay, we are getting bogged down here. Out of respect for the other commission members dying, I don't want to be creating the plan here. We've been briefed on it. I'm not sure you know, it comes to the commission, we'll talk about it. Jim, you and I need to get together and then guess you'll figure out the way ahead. But as looking at the plan and brainstorming it here, I don't think there's an obvious conclusion where I would be able to support saying, yep, that sounds great. Let's go ahead and proceed that way. It's just sort of a confusing issue to not have thought about it and expect to come away with a decision on something that we might not even be required to make a decision on. I'm just not ready to act on that at this point.
This is Bill Phillips again. I'd like to add that I could move that existing driveway up the hill. It's at about 165 feet now to get it to 200. It would not take much to do that if that would help. So I wanted to offer that before the meeting ended. I think that would help.
Yep. That I could do without too much trouble. And that would give this a little more squareness at the road. So I just wanted to let let everyone know that.
Looking for any more comments but it looks to me like you've got a lot of frontage if you include the town property section there. So it should be plenty wide for any requirements that we have.
Yeah, it should be because it actually is just a no shelf. It's just wider there. It's the town easement. Yeah. Right. All things.
Other than you'd have to go before the board of selectmen for an 08/24 referral because any property that's owned by the town of Andover has to go through a referral.
Well, how we do have to do that for the greenhouse.
Oh, this is that's town of Andover property that's all That's the only reason I'm saying that.
Oh, no. I understand what you're saying, but we didn't have to go there to be this is and that's what what did on the property next door so that would be a problem to this again because it's a united precedent of what I feel.
Well, I certainly have no knowledge of what we did with green property prior to this. And that would be another issue that I'd have to go educate myself on before acting. That's
Oh, okay, we just lost you. Okay, we're back. Yep.
So I am not smart enough to provide an opinion on the different alternatives. It seems like it would make some sense. It seems like it would make more sense to me if we move the existing gravel driveway over to give us 200 feet of frontage. But there might be some rules that Scott was alluding to with town property that provides some extra requirements in there that I'm not aware of at this point. And so I don't want to make any commitments that I can't, you know, execute because I'm not aware of what the rules are. Okay. Andrew, did you have any more? No, I'm good. Good.
Okay, Jim, did you have anything else on this particular item?
No. I will take a look at what was done on the Blanchard property. That was pointed out to me before, I didn't although I suspect there's gonna be little very little history in the file. I will research that. I
would hope we could get through it and help the property owners out. But I just am not smart enough to make any conclusions one way or another at this point. I appreciate the opportunity to have a look at it so that we're smarter and can start. I
brought it as a sort of a for discussion and somewhere where the commission had some discretion. Would it be possible to just grant that to the chair? He's comfortable with an application of that, then so be it. That is that a possibility? I don't understand the question, Jim. I'm saying, can the can the commission just simply delegate the decision to the chair If there's a solution that the chair is comfortable with.
We need to get more facts before we can make that. And we don't have wetlands approval yet. And so, you know, I just don't think it's reasonable to take an issue that's as convoluted as this one and make a decision on it with a one hour lead time from proposal to
No, I wasn't looking for a decision tonight. Was just suggesting that Yeah.
So let's get some facts and then we can come back to the commission if need be and we'll go from there. Okay. Thanks, Jim. Thank you.
Item 5E is the Planning and Zoning Commission annual report. And I have prepared one. Haven't sent it out yet because nobody's asked for one yet. And you're always working on something until, you know, somebody asked for it. But I think it's it's pretty much ready to go and when needed, I'll send that out to everybody so you can have a chance to look at it. I think that was pretty straightforward. That completes new business. I'm going to move on to old business. And the item under old business there is to revisit the draft lake regulations. And so a couple weeks ago, the Andover Lake Management Association and the Andover Property Owners Association had either a semi annual or an annual meeting and I sat in on that. And as they were reviewing the minutes from last year's meeting, they reported on the effect that the Planning and Zoning Commission had approved the lake regulations, were now in effect, and they were expecting great things from them. And so I felt obligated to, as a member of the audience, chime in and say, nope, that certainly was not the case a year ago and it is not the case now. And we have had some issues come up where we haven't spent a lot of time working on that lately. But they were all excited
about handover lake regulations. And I am too, quite honestly. I think it would be a good thing for the lake. I just think there were, you know, I recall, there were an awful lot of questions that we didn't have the answers to as we went through that last time before John retired. So anyhow, I said that was one of my goals is to get that done within the next year. So before the end of the meetings, Diane Grineer made a comment on how it would be so nice if I came and briefed the organizations at their October meeting on what it is that we're looking at so they'd have a chance to think about what's coming their way and just start to have an understanding of what it is that we are looking at. So now that we've got Jim back as a full time zoning guy, he's not over being the wetlands agent any longer. That's one of my goals is to at least have a concept that we understand well enough by October so I can brief these guys on it. So hopefully before next year gets here, we might have that be a done deal. But I would, any new regulations would have to go to public hearing and it would sure be nice to have people from Alcoa
and Alma show up at that and support us. And so we got to give them a little clue what it is that we're doing. So anyhow, I
spoke to Eric about this in the last couple of weeks. And I want to hire John Valenti back as a consultant to formalize the lake regulations because we spent too much time on them not to get this done. I think that's a great idea. And know, he agreed.
Okay. Now it would take, well, it would certainly be easier if we were able to have a little face to face meeting time or mask to mask meeting time with Jim, myself and John so that we can make efficient use of the commission time and bring something here that I can at least answer my own questions to and hopefully stand a chance of answering your questions as well, or having John or Jim do that. But I think having John's assistance with that sounds like a great idea, Scott.
So We need to make that a reality. We we have to we have to do that. It's very important to get that done. Yep.
Jed, we're I'm new. I never saw the draft regulations. Is it possible for a copy to be sent to me? I'm fine getting them via email.
It is? Okay, Jim, you'll send those over to Susan? I will. Okay, thank you, Jim. Thank you. Maybe we should just send it out to everybody. Yeah, I don't know that I have it either.
I do have it, but if Jim were to send that out to us, we would all be studying the same piece. That would be nice, for starters.
Think that it's just the report the actual report that you they have to fill out and what did they call that? Nutri nutrition Yeah. The worksheet.
Yeah, that's the only thing I have. Allocation worksheet. Allocation worksheet. Right. So
one of the issues that we were struggling with is, so a person's gonna go pave his gravel driveway. The significant perturbation on runoff to the lake. And what's gonna flag that to the Planning and Zoning Commission or anybody to get this worksheet going.
That part of the regulation, I think, is formalized, isn't it? It's
formalized, but that doesn't mean we understand it and it works. There's a concept out there, this is what we'd like to have happen. But a guy who wants to go pave his driveway, he just goes out and paves his driveway as far as I know. Right, you're asking where the red flag is. Yes, I'm asking how do we make it work so that we that guy has to come to us and so that we can even hand them the worksheet so he can go fill it out and agree to it. Right. And it wasn't clear to me. It's gonna take, I think it's going to take zoning board of appeals, it's going to take the inland wetlands, it's going to take us, it's going to take Jim as the zoning official, the building official to get all those pieces. And we have to have a mechanism to make that work. And that's the piece that I was most not understanding. I think I got a pretty good concept on the rest. I just don't know how we get the people that are doing things to come to us in all cases.
I don't want to be rude and interrupt, but I was just wondering if you need any more of my help this evening for the meeting.
I don't think I do, Amanda. So I appreciate your help here getting us to this point. And we'll let you sign off if you need to.
And thank you for taking care of this. It's really important. And I appreciate all you do. I'm just simply trying to make best use of my time.
Yep. I got you. Thank you, Amanda. And and just make sure that we don't all crash when you you sign up here.
Linda signed in as the town, so we're all good. Okay. Thanks, Amanda. Good night. Night.
Anyhow, that's the old business where we stand on Lake Regs. I think we all recognize that we would like to have the lake continuously get a little bit better as opposed to continuously and slowly get a little worse. And so we'll take that on. Scott, if you can help us make it so that John is a consultant to us, I'd appreciate that. All right, thank you. Okay, any other questions on the lake regs? Moving on to the inland wetlands liaison report. Jim, is that you? That's you, Jed. That's me, okay. Before I forget, the thing that we forgot to do on the 12 Webster Lane, and I'm going to back up there, is we need to set a site visit. So when I get down to miscellaneous items, nobody let me forget that. Now I'll go to the Inland Wetlands Commission. We did discuss 12 Webster Lane at the last Inland Wetlands Commission meeting, there was a letter from a, I guess Megan had a engineering review done by another engineer in his recommendation to the Inland Wetlands Commission was to swap the septic system to be just like it is on our drawing so that the actual septic is outside the 100 feet there. It also discussed repositioning the house to an area that they got it outside of the 100 foot review area. So the wetlands agent is supposed to get with Jerry to discuss having him take a look at that. And I think that's a good idea that the wetlands was surprised that what was being proposed to them was different than what was being proposed to us as well.
And that's I guess, that's all I have for the liaison there. Administrative report, Jim?
Yeah, lots going on, a lot of additions. Production. I'm no longer serving as wetlands agent. Should be able to focus a little more on zoning. I hope. Just wanna touch upon the website Amanda would, she's still here, she would tell you that it's a working document. It's a work in progress. If there's any suggestions, I'm sure the website committee will entertain them. The one thing that that caught me when I was talking about the reports that were submitted to wetlands, there should be a a link or a direction from planning and zoning website from the up from the 12 Webster Lane application for a subdivision to the Wetlands website. A lot more information there. And that could be done pretty easily, I think. That's pretty much all I have. But no, I have one other big issue. And it's the ZDA. ZDA needs members pretty soon. We're down to maybe three. Need four affirmative votes for variants. Five best. We need people who will serve in that, we have advertised it and gotten little response. Appreciate whatever
anybody can make suggestions, unless the chair. So would be the chair would be perhaps reaching out. Karen Osborne and she's pretty much left town, I believe, or in the process.
Whatever. I think the wetlands come up with two alternates. Where do they just send in letters and say they want to help?
I don't know, but I have a feeling that Megan reached out to school, to Eastern, because the two young ladies were both students, both young students. I have a feeling that was an initiative, that's a guess. Okay, certainly. Who reached out to Eastern
students from Andover? I believe this is just speculation on my part. My guess is Megan reached out to local school. They were both students. And we had discussed, I mean, that's trade idea.
Jim, this is Linda. Has anybody reached out to the Democratic and Republican Town Committee? Yes. Okay.
Carol Lee does that routinely. I'll just touch base with her as well and make sure that there's no harm doing it again, doing whatever. And she does post the outreach in River East and on the website.
Especially since I can't meet now until I get at least one more member. Right, that could be tough.
Hi, this is Leanne. I just want to mention that there is a specific procedure outlined in the Charter and the selectman recently made a change to it which to make a long story short I think they made a little bit I made it they made it harder than it had to be instead of just changing a sentence or two. But I don't know if it went into effect yet. Maybe Scott can tell us. But there used to be a procedure for going to the the Republican and Democratic town committees and also advertising it to the public and notifying the board selectmen and the town clerk. There was, the way I read it, some ambiguity about when the clock started as far as how long a given commission had to since we're elected offices now had to fill their vacancy. So it may be here nor there anymore, but there is a procedure and it may have changed, as I said, a month or two ago.
I think that it was I think that it was the changes were made to who who was going to be on the different boards and commissions and where where those people that were interested in being on those board of commissions where their letters of interest were going to. They they're supposed to be going to Carol and apparently, went somewhere else and that's why the board of Selectman made that change. I
believe that missions have the ability to replace one of their members for sixty days, at which point the Board of Selectmen can. But that's a problem with CBA. They can't replace, they don't have enough members to replace them to vote,
I don't think. Okay, well, I'm worried about getting more members in the planning and zoning. We had a couple more here. I'd like to see that. I beat the bushes on people when I'm out walking around the lake. And I have not gotten any takers yet. So I'll keep working on that. I was surprised, pleased that Megan came up with two alternates that were both very well qualified to do what she was looking for. So great news for her. We need do that too.
Do you suppose it would be worth it? Because we've been advertising for so long and we're down, we're regular member and two alternate. And I know the Selectmen have made some changes and this commission discussed it last month about meeting in person or not, I think these virtual meetings are still definitely preferable because as I said last month, the situation changes every day. So do you think it would be worth it to add a sentence in the River East that for the time being the meetings are held by Zoom? Do you think that would up anybody's comfort level?
It wouldn't hurt. And so, yeah, I think that's probably a good idea. And Jim, do you I know I've seen it on our website we're advertising. I've seen it the this and that. Well, I guess Diane just pulled the plug on this and that she thinks the websites got all that stuff covered. But I
can certainly check on that. That brings up a point that I mean the commission may want to entertain allowing members to attend virtually really in perpetuity. I think warrants discussion. I mean, some people are going to feel more comfortable in a group setting than others. Certainly, bylaws could address that thought. I mean, assume other commissions are going to at some point, I don't know when. Some point, you know, some of these restrictions are going to be lifted. That's not to say everybody's going to be comfortable.
I think that's not to for the way ahead. But I do think this point Leanne's point is well taken that we all let folks know we're meeting virtually so they don't have to worry about that. And we got nothing to lose because we haven't been flooded with people wanting to come be alternates for planning and zoning.
You know, as far as the bylaws, I researched the records and the ones that I found, I believe are the most current and they date back to '93. Anybody has any that are more current? Great. I'll get them out. I will send out the '93 ones. Thought I had posted them.
Jim, I didn't think those bylaws were in bad shape. If somebody were to make that into a Word document so that I could modify it, I would be happy to update them and present it to the Commission so that we could take a look at them. But I don't want to have to retype that whole document in starting from scratch. Okay.
If I send it out, you like it on the agenda for the next meeting for discussion?
Well, first send it out, see Susan or somebody can type it for us. Or maybe it is in a Word document, I don't know. I know is I typed something for Inland Wetlands and it was in a PDF. We couldn't get it over into anything and I wasn't going to start typing from scratch.
Okay, I'm assuming that you want the lake regs on the agenda for next month as well? Yes, yep. Okay, Progress fine if there isn't anything else that I should be picking up on the agenda for next month's meeting? This is August meeting. I'm assuming there is one schedule. Wait, a meeting next month?
Yeah, years ago, they used to, I remember correctly they didn't have a meeting in August. Yeah, we used to take August off.
We're not correct. Probably gonna have a public hearing in August. Yeah. Okay. Yeah, don't think that's realistic anymore. Okay. Anything else, Jim? Oh, you have anything to add about Extramar?
No. I will be down there this week. See check on progress I have been remiss of getting down there. Okay, thank you. Moving
on to approval of the meeting minutes from June 15, our regular meeting.
This is Leanne. I'll move to approve the minutes of June 20. June 15. June 15. I thought you just said that, but I'm still on this two agenda thing. So, okay, June 15, not twentieth. Yes. I second it.
Okay. Thank you, Leigh Ann. Thank you, Anne. I think that was you, Anne? Yes. Okay. Very good. Any discussion? And on page four, I have three two minor comments. And so the first sentence on page four says prior to the issuance of a building permit, the application shall file. And I think that should be applicant shall file. And then on the very last sentence, it says, J Larson, S England, A Creme and S Person requested hard copies of the updated zoning regulations. I think Ann, said you had them? I have them, yes. That one. It might have been Leanne.
One should be It was me. I haven't had one in a long time.
Yep. So Thanks. So the list needs to be everybody but Anne needs a copy of those Jim. Have we made any progress on copies? I haven't.
It's something I will work on this week. Okay, thank you. I was gonna mention that also to you Jim.
And those were the only comments I had. Else Zoning and subdivision. Right? Say again, Jim?
I was gonna try and send out both zoning and subdivision.
But we don't want them sent out electronically. We want hard copies. Oh, yeah, don't mail. I'm gonna mail them. Very good. That'd be great. Okay, whatever. Can do that.
Okay, Any other discussion on the minutes? Hearing none, we'll vote. And Anne? Aye. Susan? Aye. Scott? Aye. Leanne? Aye. And I vote aye as well. The minutes are approved. Five-zero-zero. Miscellaneous items, we should have nailed Jerry down while he was here. My thinking at this point is because Jim will have to coordinate that with Jerry maybe this weekend might be too soon for you to get a hold of Jerry, see if it works, get a hold of everybody else to let us know. Should we go for Saturday, August 1?
Jed, I would suggest sooner rather than later. I don't know how long Jerry's moving. How long Jerry's what? Moving. Jerry's leaving town, moving away.
Oh, didn't know that. I thought that's what you said, but there's a little bit of background noise. So I just wanted to I thought that's what you said. Okay. How far is he moving away? California. I kinda figured that.
I don't know. I think Connecticut's got some advantages over California right now.
I think both of his daughters are in California. That's a good reason. Don't want to speak for him but last I knew which is not recent they were both out there.
Would everybody be available if we can get Jerry out there to show us around this Saturday at like 09:00? I
am. Leanne or Scott? What what date is that again? Saturday, the twenty fifth.
Yeah. Early is not my preference, but I'll do my best to be there. If it's fine with everybody else, that's fine. Okay.
Like what time? Well, was saying nine we could make it ten and get an hour later.
Well, I don't wanna hold other people up. If that if nine works for people, then fine. I'll try to be there. That's at 12 Webster? Yes. We should be able parking along the roadside there. That interferes with Scott's going to the dump time.
Now it is. I will check on what is staked out. But the house has staked out. And
he's got the septic tank is proposed to the inland wetlands staked out now.
We have the floating septic system there. We can nail that down somewhere.
Yep, it would be nice if he had it staked out where he's talking to us for it being. But he'll be out there to show us that stuff and I will tell you that the field is fairly high at this point so you know come with long pants, socks and that sort of thing. Okay. The subdivision regulations are a 100 feet
from wetlands for septic, right? They are. And in fact it's it says that the lot should be designed so that the house is a 100 feet from the wetlands. Right.
This hasn't been approved by wetlands yet? It is not.
But I just want to be ahead of things. I don't want to be doing a site visit after the public hearing. I want everybody to know what it looks like ahead of time. That's good.
Is there space there to put septic in the house 100 feet away from wetlands?
There is and the house is a little harder. For the drawing that he showed us, he's got the septic system outside of 100 feet. So that was my comment about why is it different when he's showing us and he's showing wetlands. It's harder to get the house totally out of that, but you could reorient it and move it. I think puts that the house a little bit closer to the house that is already concerned about him building way back in that corner. And so there's probably some trade offs from what the adjacent property owner would like and how we should do that based on what wetlands approves. We haven't approved anything yet. I don't want to speculate on what that's going to come out. But I do think it's important that we go out, see where he's looking to put the septic, where he's looking to put the house and where the adjacent house is that's in that back corner that's going to be fairly close to him. Was a fellow that asked the question early on when the abutters were going to learn about the public hearing. Think that might be his concern, but I don't know that for sure.
I I have his email address. Can let him know. Okay. On the sidewalk. He attended the Wetland sidewalk.
Yep, he did. And do we need to make a motion? Because this is sort of a special meeting that we're going to do to hold the sidewalk? Yes, excuse me. Yes. Okay.
So would somebody like to make a motion that we have a sidewalk on the twenty fifth at 09:00?
A motion that we have a sidewalk on the July 25 at 09:00 in the morning at 12 Webster Lane. Thank you, Anne. I'll second that. Thank you, Scott. Any further discussion? Hearing none, we'll vote. Anne? Aye. Susan? Aye.
Scott? Aye. Leanne? Aye. And I vote aye as well. So if you can coordinate that with Jerry, Jim, I'd appreciate it. I can do that. I don't know if there's any notifications we need to make. I will post it with the Amanda for the website and the clerk. Okay.
For the clerk's office. Thank you. And send it out.
Any other miscellaneous items anybody wants to discuss? Okay, moving on to commission vacancies. Anybody have any people they know that would like to join us? I encourage you to solicit help. That would be appreciated. And I appreciate each of you showing up. We've had great success getting five members to show up each meeting. It's only a question of time before we're not able to be there and it's nice to have a full commission as we vote on things. Thank you.
Public speak, I don't think there's anybody left from the public on the line. Hearing none, any commission open discussion items?
Jed, I have something. I'm not on the commission, but I didn't know if I could speak or not. Go right ahead, Linda. When we had the wetlands commission meeting, I believe that Megan was looming from the community room. She was. Okay.
Having a regular meeting in the community room, the acoustics are really bad. Having a Zoom meeting in the community room, the acoustics are really bad. It made transcribing the minutes somewhat more difficult because there was an echo and the quality wasn't good and I missed some words. So just an FYI, if you decide to start Zooming from the community room, It's not the best place. It's been that
way since it was built and it's never been remedied.
Well, certainly agreed. I know we attributed some of that difficulty due to the fact that her and the new Wetlands agent were both logged in sitting next to each other and there were some feedback issues. But I agree that the acoustics there aren't great and probably zooming from there. In your case, having to type up the minutes makes it even a little more difficult. So we won't head that way in the immediate future anyhow. Thank you. I do think there's some merit to what Jim was talking about, about having some people meet together and some people Zoom, but we're not at that point yet either. Any other comments, discussion from anybody? Okay, I guess the last item on the agenda is adjournment. Like I'll to move to adjourn at 08:54.
Thank you, Leanne. I'll second that. Thank you, Scott. Any discussion? Stay safe. Thank you, Leanne. We'll vote here. Anne? Aye.
Susan? Aye. Scott? Aye. Leanne? Aye. I vote aye as well. Motion to adjourn passes five-zero-zero. Again, thank you all and thank you Linda for a great job of getting those minutes down. Five or six pages in one little typo, pretty outstanding. I appreciate it. Thank you. You. Night. Good night everybody.