Meeting transcript
Planning and Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting
May 16, 2022 · Watch on YouTube · All meetings
Screen here. So we will call the meeting to order. First up is roll call and seating of alternates. We've got Anne Cremay, Steve Nelson, Leanne, and myself here. Scott Persson is not here, so we will seat Anne Blanchard for Scott. And Susan England and Kevin are both absent this evening. Next up are additions and changes to the agenda. And I would like to add an old business item and we'll put it at the top of the list. So this will be old business A, and that would be to vote and adopt the affordable housing plan. So the other old businesses will now become B and C. And when we get down to item seven discussion, would I would like to add a discussion on the common driveway at 580 Lake Road, just, you know, some thoughts on that since we had our last meeting and wrap that up. So I make a motion to add those two items to the agenda. Is there a second? I'll second Okay,
yeah, thanks, Anne. And that's Anne Cremay. I'll try and help you keep the Anne straight here, Abby. And so, vote to approve Anne Cremay. Yeah. Yeah, aye. Steve? Aye. Leanne? Aye. Anne Blanchard?
Aye. And I vote aye as well. Motion to add those two items. The agenda passes five-zero-zero. Next item is public speak, and I see nobody here from the public. So with that, was somebody saying something? Nope. Okay. Next up is the old business, and we'll start with the motion to adopt the affordable housing plan. And under the affordable housing plan, did give the brief Saturday morning. I thought the brief was okay. I thought I did okay. But unfortunately, attendance was not so good. So in addition to Eric, Jim, myself, and Leanne, we had Diane Grenier and Joanne, I think it's Hirsch from the Finance Committee.
Those were the only other people that actually attended. The good news is we do have it recorded, so that'll be available. I thought the feedback from both Diane and Joanne was very favorable on the plan. The one negative comment that Diane Greinier had concerned, She didn't think the people of Andover were going to be all that interested in having mobile homes and mobile home parks in town. And we explained how that wasn't an item up for debate. The state said this is the way that's going to be. We can put some restrictions on it to make it so that those mobile homes that are wider than 22 feet wide look nice and support the character of the town. But with regards to being able to just prohibit like our regulations currently do, mobile homes and mobile home parks, that's no longer a possibility. Joanne from the Finance Committee said that when I talked about the declining population and I found a couple of other statistics, and they were out of our plan, I just added them to the presentation that talked about, you know, where the population is going be in 2030 and 2040, you know, continuing significant declines in population. So that got their attention and essentially the seniors are moving out of town because they can't get, we don't have housing for them to downsize into, and the young folks are moving out of town because we don't have anything they can afford to move into. So that doesn't look good for them. But that was it. I did have and I can share, I made a couple of corrections
to Bill's final and they included, I put page numbers on the table of contents. There were a couple of typos in there, and I added maybe three or four comments. Other than that, I did not change the content of the plan at all. And so what I'll do, I didn't want to send that out to everybody at the last minute so you felt like you had a reading project before you signed on tonight. I can show you, well, I can't show you the changes I made because in the version I tried to do the track changes and I couldn't get it to show up there. I don't know if that's because, Bill, when he wrote the thing, didn't start out in track changes or not. But anyhow, so I added them and I'll send that out to everybody when I send it to Jim so that he can do with it what he needs to if we vote to adopt it. So anyhow, I will make a motion to adopt our affordable housing plan that was prepared by Bill Warner. Second.
Okay, thank you, Steve. Any discussion on the affordable housing plan? Any more you guys want to know about that? And I'm going to step back and close my sliding door back here. The range just hit our bird. Any discussion on the affordable housing plan? Jed? Yep.
I was just gonna comment that although I wasn't able to join the call on Saturday until later on, I also was surprised. I thought there'd be a good 10 or 12 people there. And I thought maybe there was an initial public speak before I was able to call in as I called in at the end, and I heard Joanne and Diane speak then. So, I don't know if some people were on and left the meeting, but apparently not. And I also thought it was an interesting point that Eric Anderson said that we might want to stress that it's also referred to it as workforce housing because for the people who weren't on the call to hear that part. Eric said, used, for example, he said, among the town employees, only himself and the maintenance team leader, public works, I think, whatever his current title is, under these guidelines will exceed the income limit for this. So, the rest of the town employees would fall under this definition income wise?
Yes. I don't know what the teachers do, but certainly store employees, you know, there's an awful lot of people. And I think when you talk about affordable housing, that does have a little bit of a connotation to it that is not always positive. And so I think the workforce housing is good and I will change my presentation to have that discuss workforce. We had the slide as we were going through it, know, meet Alice, and it talked about the asset limited, I forget what all the things were, but it was really plugging that into the workforce housing. In an effort to keep the presentation shorter, I cut a bunch of stuff out and Alice is one of them that got out because honestly I wanted to focus more on the seniors. We have more seniors in town than we do
Alice workers, but those workers who are eligible for the affordable housing that we're looking at are great people and we want them living in our town. And we wanna help facilitate that. So good point, Leanne, thank you. Any other discussion?
Ed, has there been any other feedback from anyone in the community on the plan?
No. And I suspect there was one other person that was tuned in and the screen name was three Bull. Okay. And I don't know if that was the River East reporter or what. You know, I'm looking forward to see. I'm sure she's going to write something about our plan one way or another. She'll either look at it after we get it posted on YouTube or whatever, but I would expect there to be a little story on that. Hopefully it's favorable and gets other people to do that. Joanne from the Finance Committee did mention that she recognized that she was at the meeting where I went to brief the Board of Selectmen on the town plan or economic development coordinator. And being on the finance committee, she said, yeah, we looked at that and
essentially they removed it from the budget. I didn't know that until after the town meeting when I didn't get a copy and I came home to check out if that stayed in and it didn't. But she is sold now on the need for somebody on the town staff to be working this stuff because, you know, with the declining population, if we don't do something, that is bad news for Andover. You know, if the taxes are high now, you lose 20% of our folks, that's not going to help. So she's a believer now, I asked her, I said, if she could take that message to the Board of Finance folks, and I would love to come over and brief them separately. Happy to do that. The other thing that was a little disappointing, there was nobody from the Board of Selectmen at the presentation. And I had sent out a personal invitation to the Board of Selectmen and the Board of Finance prior, talking about the importance to the town and hoping that they could come and get that. I also asked Diane Grenier to, if maybe we could get me on the docket to attend a senior luncheon and provide the briefing there so they know. You know, one of the talking points was, you know, it was kind of contentious for a while that we want the state trooper in the budget. It was very clear that seniors thought state trooper was a great idea. And so if we can get the seniors to understand the need for somebody on the town staff to be working on this project, that would be very helpful to us. Anyhow, I think that covers everything on that. Anything noteworthy that I missed, Jim?
Yeah, you are on mute.
I just wanted to point out I did contact Sloane Brewster from River East who was on vacation. Said she couldn't make it, but she would follow-up, maybe watch the YouTube and follow-up with an article. Okay,
very good. So that three bull was not her and I don't know who it was, but I tried to get them to provide some feedback or comment or questions and nothing was heard. Maybe I put them to sleep, I don't know. But anyhow, the plan's the plan. Let's do the June 1 and so the motion on the floor with a second is to adopt the affordable housing plan as presented. And no further discussion, we'll roll call vote. Anne Cremay? Aye. Steve. Aye. Leanne. Aye. Ian Blanchard. Aye.
And I vote aye as well. The motion to adopt affordable housing plan passes five zero zero. Okay, next item up, changes to the sign regulations. I did get the sign regulations back from Mark Branch. He had some comments on it. None of them were substantive to the thoughts that we were trying to put forward in there. Took out the window signs, we took out the 50 square foot total. There were a couple of places that I missed taking that out. He pointed that out to me. He, you know, put, he consolidated a little bit, that kind of stuff. I will send out to all of you that update, but my suspicion is you're all probably tired of reading about the sign regs at this point. And so what I would like to do tonight is to authorize Jim to send the sign regs out to Crogg and whoever else gets the sign regulations to review before we can go to public hearing. And then we would schedule a public hearing for our July meeting, which I think is July 18. So anyhow, with that, I would like to make a motion to forward the signed regulations for Crog and Town Review and schedule public hearing for our regular meeting on July 18. Second. Thank you, Steve. Any discussion on the sign regs?
Yes, this is Leanne. Just as I said last month, I think, for example, that I don't think it's particularly burdensome that the Shell station is almost completely covered in signs. I think it's a genuine business need and not really intrusive to anybody driving by. But I know you said they can they can apply to have that waived but again, I just don't think it's doing any harm, that's all. Okay,
yep. And I don't know that how aggressively we would go out and do that. I do think as we talk about maintaining the character of the town, maybe less signage is better than more signage. And so the other thing that I will send out to all of you tonight, and again, I didn't want to send something out when we had the special meeting coming up and all that. There's a presentation that Mark Grants gave down at Old Sabre, and it's called The Good, the Bad and the Ugly. And it talks about the latitude that in our case the Planning and Zoning Commission might have to require a commercial applicant to make his building look like a pleasant character, you know, for what the town is trying to maintain. And so he goes through, you know, and I'm not, actually I thought the, you know, the retail store that we're talking about putting in, you'll look very nice, so I wasn't concerned about that. He's got, he had some pictures. It's about a one hour discussion on his part and then there might be forty five minutes of questions and answers after that. I listened to the one hour discussion. I didn't do any questions and answers because one hour was
plenty of time to devote to that. But he also has some a section in there on signs and he talks about, you know, the little signs in Glastonbury in those stores. Actually, he's got, you know, some places probably overseas a little a little McDonald's and it's got a very small sign that you can't even see. But everybody knows McDonald's is there and they do a booming business and all that kind of stuff. So I'll send that out to you. I don't wanna overload everybody with work, but I don't want to not pass on the good information that we have available to us. If you're sitting around on a rainy day, nothing to do, and you wanna look at that, that would be great.
Jed, I just want to make one comment relative to the window signs. You know, I think one area of, you know, we've been looking at the window signs in terms of aesthetics and whether it's aesthetically pleasing or not, but I think there's a more important issue and that's public safety, right? If everything's covered up and there's an event at the Shell station and our state trooper has to go in there, if I'm the state trooper, I wanna be able to see inside the building before I enter. And also, if there's a crime being committed or something, if you're walking into it, you want to be able to see what's going on in the building before you enter. And that would be a concern of me if everything's plastered with signs.
I agree, Steve. I think that that is a good point. And again, know, so that that ties hand in to hand with, you know, we were fairly restrictive in the amount of signs and then I didn't want to blow it all out of the water by saying you could have hundreds of square feet of window sign when we're limiting it at 32 or 50 square feet to you know outside. And so all those things, yeah, I'm comfortable that the 25% of the square footage putting in signs is plenty. If somebody doesn't think that's enough, they always have the option of making their case with the zoning board of appeals. And so it's not like there's not a way around that if it were to come to pass.
I do agree that that's a good point. And I guess what my objection, and it's not really an objection, but I'm not that concerned about it, but it was just that I think the signage percent like you just mentioned, Jed, was cut back quite a bit from what they have now. But I have wondered why they've even wanted to have quite so much covered, like Steve said, because they haven't been broken into more than once. So maybe there's a happy medium where it is easier to see inside the store and let them still, you know, advertise the main whatever features, whatever they want that people can buy in the store. Yep.
So then, and I guess, you know, the point on, you know, the the Shell gas station signs, Leanne, you said, you know, they didn't bother you. Gotta have some, know, at some point, a sign is gonna go up that does bother you, and we gotta have some kind of ability to restrain it just a little bit, maybe. I know it was Steve Nelson and I, you know, shooting a breeze, we were talking about there was a banner on the baseball card shop as you head down Route 6. And we were wondering whether or not, you know, the new regs would preclude that. And I went back and thought about it and actually no, it's a political sign. Political signs we can't do too much with as long as it's within the rules and that's in the industrial or business zone, I think. And so they got the bigger rules than we have in the residential zone. So that banner probably remained in place for a while. Anyhow, so the regulations aren't perfect, but I think they're a big step forward from where we are today. And certainly with the exception of the political sides, nobody really gives a hoot about a mayhem. But in the retail store could live with our rules and so that was a test case, the only commercial business I've seen coming there. Any other discussion before we vote on the way forward with the sign regs? Steve?
Jed, going back to your comment on the political signs, I thought in the new regs we put a time constraint on those. We did.
So, you know, and I knew I shouldn't even brought the subject up here tonight, but not everybody thinks that election's over yet. And so we say you got to take them down within seven days of the election. Well, there you go. So I'm not sure that we'll have a lot of success on that issue either, but that might be the out there on that particular banner. Okay, but technically our regs, you know They do say, they don't say how far in advance that you can put them up, you know, you can put them up whenever you want, but within seven days of the election it would be nice to have them all down. And that's what our regs require. Any other discussion? Hearing none, we'll have a roll call vote on both having zoning agent Ford to sign rigs for review by the required municipalities and to schedule a public hearing to discuss the signed regs at the eighteen, prior to the July 18 regular meeting. Anne? Aye. Steve? Aye. Leigh Ann?
Aye. Anne Blanchard? Aye.
I vote aye as well. That motion passes five-zero-zero. Next up under old business is an update on the gravel pit operation and while I didn't see any trucks moving stuff, it looked to me like there was less material over there. All of a sudden something went away, but I can't remember when our extension and all that expired and when we expect it to be remediated. I asked Jim to give us an update on the gravel pit. So Jim, it's all yours.
Okay, thank you. I did speak to Chris Bell today, who is here for the owners of the pit. He indicated he would be coming before the commission at their June meeting with an updated restoration plan for approval. I did walk the site also and the silt fence seems to be in place. And Chris agreed to meet with me and Hank if Hank is available prior to the next meeting. Let's go over the plan. As far as the the extension, there I'm sorry. The the period extension request status, it's actually approved through 09/1722. The original approval was back in June of nine two thousand nineteen. There were two three approvals, two six months, one ninety day brings it to 09/17. Okay. In previous discussion, the Commission actually indicated that restoration could extend past past sixty days past the expiration date of the permit. At that time, it was a tighter schedule, and the Commission may have just had a lighter, different interpretation of that matter. I don't know. Nonetheless, September is the deadline for permit.
Jim, as a clarification, what you're saying is they can technically go to sixty days beyond 09/17 with the restoration? Yes. Okay, thank you. And why is that?
Well, they're not actively removing material at that point. They're simply restoring the site.
Know my thought that you know when we approved it that way Leanne was I thought it was in the town's interest to get as much of the material out of there as possible, but I wanted to have restoration done while it was still warm enough to facilitate the the, grass germinating and get a little roots in the ground before it was wintertime. And so I thought that by that period of time, if they got the grass planted in September, that would be okay. So that was my thinking, right or wrong, but I just wanted to be not putting down grass seed in December or January.
So I'm sorry Chris did indicate that they had buyers for this material project going on. So hopefully in the next few weeks we'll see some activity. And what you see stockpiled there I think is earmarked for filling the drainage basin there.
Tim, could you say that first part again of your explanation? Are you saying that the way we approved it, they have sixty days after they finish removing dirt to do the remediation or is it something else?
No, that's I agree. That's what was represented in the meeting. Yes,
that was. So they have 09/1722 is their deadline for removal of anything. Correct. Yes. And then they have another sixty days during the fair weather to plant. Yes, the reseed and then it expires.
Well, it expired. I mean the way it is the expiration. The permit expiration is is 09/17. No more material will be removed. And restoration should be complete within sixty days of that of that date.
Okay, so it is it's the re the. 09/17 is the deadline for the removal of the dirt and then they have another sixty days to remediate? Okay, thank you.
Okay, that takes care of old business. Now we're moving on to new business and first item up is receive application for zoning amendment change in text and set public hearing. Maybe we've already done that Jim. Much yes. Okay,
very good. Moving on to other regulatory amendments. So, if you, as you recall, I had a little chart that talked about a bunch of little changes that we'd run into problem areas like, you know, frontage and width and making sure that we got special permits for any kennels in town and just some things that were in air wanted to get fixed up. Oh and the cannabis and alcohol regs that were in there too. Since you know as I was working with Mark Branch on on those particular regs and he did give me some comments back that that had a little more work to him than I was hoping, he is he has now provided a complete review of Andover's zoning regs. And I was surprised that all of a sudden that came out. I know we had that as a goal about two or three years ago that we were looking to do that. And of course, in planning a zoning world, nothing happens really fast, but that is done now. And so I made it, well, I've been sort of busy trying to get ready for the presentation on affordable housing recently and getting that done. I haven't done much looking through there, but there were some things that Mark said didn't make any sense in the regs And I agree with them completely, you know, and there's there's things like when we're talking about
open space subdivision regulations and calculating the number of lots that you can put in open space subdivision. And and I just didn't have any feel for what those words were trying to get at. Mark Brandt said the same thing and so I'm trying to figure out how much energy do I want to put in all those things or do we want to get the 90% solution and get everything that's done recognizing that some of the words still aren't going be perfect there? So anyhow, I'm holding the other stuff in a bayonet because I've got to get caught up on a few other things, you know, family wise and around the house and all that that have been taking a backseat to everything else. I'll figure out where to go with the rest of the regs. But the next thing on my plate and our plate is got to be to opt out of the accessory dwelling unit requirements that the state put on us. They give us the ability to opt out. And that's the issue of if we don't do anything, the state regulations automatically go into effect and they allow everybody in town with a building lot the as of right opportunity to put an accessory dwelling unit on their lot. So if we have, you know, an 8,000 square foot lot on the lake, they would be entitled to put an accessory dwelling unit on the lot as long as it passed public health code. I don't think that's what we want to do on those little itty bitty lots on the lake, and so our plan that we just adopted recommends that we opt out of that, which I intend to do, and that has to be done before the end of the year.
And so first priority is to opt out. And then in conjunction with that, I may work on modifying our accessory dwelling unit breaks just a little bit so that they take the good things that the state had and we put those into effect. The trick is, if you remember when Bill was talking to us about accessory dwelling units, if we want them to count as affordable housing, it takes a ten year deed restriction. And so what do we do to make somebody want to put a ten year deed restriction on their accessory dwelling unit so that you know they take the financial hit for doing that? And I don't know the answer to that yet. But those accessory dwelling units, you know, there was an article in the newspaper over the weekend. I think that, you know, that is going to be a big solution, especially for the seniors. Well, the seniors and the young folks starting out both.
That's a great But I don't know, so I don't want that to delay us getting this done by the end of the year. I think there's plenty of time for both, but I want to make sure we opt out before the end of the year so we don't have that come back to haunt us. So anyhow, that's the next thing that I think we'll be working on. And so that's my discussion on other regulatory amendments, unless any of you had any questions on that.
Jed, one question you just mentioned on the accessory dwelling units and how do we incentivize these folks to deed restrict for ten years Is giving them some type of tax incentive an option? Is that something we can work with the, I don't know, the Board of Selectmen or something like that?
I think it is. I don't know for sure. It makes sense that that would be a very good incentive. Sure. And so, you know, I'm trying to keep up with the land use regs. We get into the tax abatements and that kind of thing. But yes, I think that would be a great way to incentivize putting in that ten year requirement. Bill Warner's comment was when we were talking about this, the ten year restriction is not really that big an issue because a lot of people will be building this for their parents to live in or something. And that'll be hopefully close to the ten years that their family member would get to live in the accessory dwelling unit. And then they're going on after that. But I've read where, you know, and our plan mentions this too, accessory dwelling units can provide seniors who choose to put those on their lots a little extra income so that they can do some of the other stuff as well. But I would hope that, you know the tax abatements and that's an issue for the affordable housing committee
to to wrestle with and figure out how that goes. Okay. On that note of the affordable housing, is there anybody on planning and zoning commission that would be excited at the opportunity to go work on that affordable housing committee? I'll do it. Okay, well, you, Leanne. Sounded like that? Unless somebody else wants to do it.
I didn't see a lot of hands volunteering and it might be possible that we could have more than one from planning and zoning if that were the case. I appreciate the fact that maybe I won't have to do it. And Joanne, who is at the from the finance committee, it sounded like she was interested in doing it, and I thought she would do a great job with that. So, anyhow, we'll see when the Board of Selectmen put the little notice in the newspaper about if you got any interest, please let us know in that that'll come up. But I appreciate your willingness to help out on that, Leanne. I know you're busy with, you spend a lot of time going to town meetings. I appreciate that. I actually like meetings.
Okay, well, I don't mind them, but I just run out of time as I'm trying to get ready for them. Yeah,
a lot of people don't like them for the No, most
it's nice to hear what's going on. It's nice to have a say in what's going on too. Yes. Okay, anyhow, that's Oh,
okay, so now we're moving down item seven discussion. And this is where we're going to talk the common driveway. And think, Abby, if you can allow me to share my screen, I've got a photo or two, I think here.
You should be able to. Let me know if you can't. Let's see.
Okay, just just to go back a little bit, I had some thoughts on this talking to Mark Branch after it was all said and done and he said, really, what the commission should have done was we should have made that a condition of approval when we did the subdivision. And looking back, correct. You know, that would have been just so easy. And I told Mark, I said, not a chance in the world I'd have stumbled onto that when we were going through that subdivision process. It looked so easy and you know, so, and I asked him, well, what else did I miss going through there than that? You know, it is what it is. Couldn't have, I'm surprised that I stumbled onto it, you know, when late in the game when we did. But anyhow, that would have been the right way to do it. As we had talked at the last meeting, the applicants could have pursued a variance from the zoning board of appeals. That would have been more work on their part for something maybe they weren't interested in. I started looking and there's a lot of lots around off of Route 6 that aren't corner lots. And so if the applicant would have taken the approach that well, don't need an entrance off a Lake Road, he wants to do that. I thought we had much to gain by having that entrance and exit off onto Lake Road. Moving
the driveway closer to further away from the Ben Franklin entrance, I didn't like either because it's already too close to coming around the corner there. And Ben Franklin certainly wasn't going to move their driveway up to the other end of their lot so that they could do it. But there was a couple of questions that came up in. You know, the regulation was no proposed driveway closer than 100 feet to any other existing or proposed driveway. Unless the site is of such width that compliance with this requirement would preclude access. And I didn't think it would preclude access. It would have delayed things for the applicant to go to the zoning board of appeals. They chose not to take that route. And then down here in the interest of public safety, the number of driveways onto public streets shall be minimized. And I really like the thought of the common driveway. And in non residential zones, access to adjacent sites shall be by common driveways wherever feasible. As for why it wasn't feasible, we didn't get any feedback on that because the public hearing was closed. The Commission may require that any driveway be designated and easements to adjacent properties be conveyed in order to facilitate present or future sharing of such driveways. So I felt the best we could do was to move the proposed driveway a couple of feet closer to the Ben Franklin driveway in hopes that one, if the Ben Franklin owners ever want to do anything to that property, then we can force them to move their driveway down to create a shared driveway with the retail store.
Or I keep, you know, holding out hope that they will choose to do the right thing and make a combined driveway anyhow. Not a lot of hope on that, but that would be nice if that were to come that way because I really do think that's the better answer. And so here, you know, and I know this drawing, you know, is not the easiest to see, but right in here is the driveway for the Ben Franklin facility coming in. This little dash line here is the property line between the two sites. And a couple of options that we said at the last meeting, you got this little bump out right here that the two property owners could agree they were just going to extend this up here, come into this, and use that as a shared driveway. I like that the best as far as keeping it further away from Route 6. Or the Ben Franklin folks could have modified their driveway to come down into this little section and out through here to Lake Road. And that would have created a shared driveway on the retail outlets property. What we did in our condition of approval was we asked that this driveway be moved up adjacent to this property line here. And so we've got something that says their driveway can't be any wider than 30 feet, so they'll make it 30 feet wide here. And then our sidewalk will go, you know, across the road right down there before you get to that. That's what I think will probably end up happening and I think that is consistent with our regulations. Certainly, if we didn't go with that condition of approval,
it would have been very straightforward to deny the application. My concern is the applicants would have come back with nothing on Lake Road, which I think we couldn't demand at that point. I was somewhat satisfied and still hopeful that everybody will do the right thing and we'll get a shared driveway. But we are in, we're consistent with what our regulations allow us to do there. But going back, best answer would have been to have been smart enough make that requirement when we did the subdivision. Any other questions on that particular issue?
I think, Jed, you brought up a good point and obviously that was something that, you know, we wouldn't have picked up unless you went through every regulation line by line. I'm wondering for future reference, if we should put together kind of a quick checklist of items we need to review as part of a commercial application. Now, for example, if the gravel pit, if they sell that and a commercial business wants to go in there, if we have a quick checklist that we can go through regarding sidewalks and driveways and signage and, you know, all the things that we need to look at, it might be easier for us to make sure we cover everything.
We tried to do that when we came up with the, what I refer to as the Heinz 57 checklist. It's in our section 23 for special permit site plan application. Maybe that needs to be expounded on. Time we've had a site plan with a site plan review, there's there's been significant differences in each of them in the checklist just doesn't really do it. And when I talked to Mark Branch about that, he said the only way you'll be able to do better than you did is if you had a professional town planner who's in there that familiar with all these things.
And he would have known because he knows what's going on in the other towns of what to watch out for. He said a commission of volunteers is going to be very tough to do that. And we count on Jim to go through with that. In fact, you know, this particular case, the only reason I stumbled into it at all was our engineer, Brandon, in his letter brought up the 100 foot thing. I said, you know, where in the heck is that? And so I dug in, you know, I spent some time going through the regulations. I finally came up with it. And not easy to come up with, know, it's one of those funny sections and there are those funny sections all through our regs. So maybe a better checklist could do it, but there's just a lot there and we're just going to miss something from time to time. I think that's we'll keep doing the best we can and that's where we're at.
Okay, thank you. One more question on this particular application. If we were waiting on the DOT study, has that been completed? Do we know the status on that?
I don't know the status. Have you heard anything on that, Jill? No,
we do not. Early in the in the application process, it became apparent that we had no control over or DOT review period. And it was clear that would not be a condition of approval. It would be that the part of the building permit process. Sure. It is required. It would be required. I believe that was actually in a condition of the subdivision approval.
Yeah, I'm just curious. There's the right hand turn lane from Route 6 onto Lake Road. I wouldn't be surprised if the DOT wants to extend that to start before the new entrance into this facility.
I wouldn't be surprised either. Obviously, that has a cost associated with it that would be borne by the state. Don't know, you know, when that would be in there. You know, Leanne had mentioned a couple of times the, you know, the starting of the 40 mile per hour speed zone. You know, one of the things that I did after this is, you know, driving downtown Willamantic on Route 66, which is their main street, you know, and there's adjacent driveways all over the place. But they've also got a 25 mile an hour speed limit down there so that you're not going so fast through there. And the guys go, you know, whipping fifty-sixty miles an hour down Route 6. Not exactly what we want, but that's
that's the state ballpark. There's a there are a couple of things that they can do there. I I kind of like you know if you go into the CVS in Hebron. It it would have. This is a right turn only coming out of here and not allowing you to go across here. It would force that traffic out and around. I would like to see that in place too, but that's not ours to vote on. Sure. We'll see what the state comes up with. But certainly they can't start building until they have an approval from the state on what they submitted. It'll be very interesting to see what they do. Yep. It is. Ted? Yes.
Do you think if we were to request the kind of thing that Steve just mentioned and also an extension of the 40 mile an hour speed limit, where would we start? Do you or Jim know? Would we have to go through the Selectman? I I'm I'm just guessing is it just assume that the DOT study of the curb cut that they want on Route 6 is mainly to do with the traffic volume, and I'm just guessing that they wouldn't incorporate these other things unless they were asked at the same time. Do we have to ask the selectman first? Does anybody know?
I don't know. I don't know, Leanne. I mean, it seems that the Planning Zoning Commission could make that, you know, make a request on its own behalf, but but I I can double check. I mean, perhaps such requests do have to go through the board of selectmen. I don't know. Or the chief governing body. I I can find out. Okay. Thank you.
Okay, so anyhow, I thought it was worth taking just a couple of minutes. And I think that's something we don't do enough is, you know, there's always some little oddity on every application we have and if we're going to learn as much as we can from it, worth taking just a couple minutes after it's done where we can shoot the breeze on it and not be worried about affecting the outcome so much.
Jed, can I just weigh in on the common drive element there? Yep. The applicant, first of all, it did come up early on the game and it didn't bring a lot of, there wasn't a particular amount of concern. But in retrospect, I mean, I can see, I don't know whether this was their strategy or not the applicant strategy, but they wanted the subdivision approved before the special permit. And I have to admit, I didn't give it a lot of thought. But in retrospect, I mean bottom line is if it was a sight line approval, I'm sorry. It wasn't a special permit, but a site plan approval, then
the commission wouldn't have had as much jurisdiction, the commission had much less jurisdiction with the site plan than a special permit. So that might have been part of their strategy. I'm sure
it was because And we did ask it went over my head. Mean, I have to admit, it didn't occur to me, that may have been their line of thinking all along, I don't know. I wouldn't be surprised, but. Pretty clever.
It was in. I do recall that we were trying to ask some questions about the. Lot coverage and all that kind of stuff and the feedback we got hit the subdivision. We're just trying to break this into two pieces of property. That's what the subdivision is. We'll show you a site plan after we get the subdivision.
We might have been outdone on that one. Yep, well,
but I do think the common driveway would have been a great condition of approval to put in when we did the subdivision. That would have been the appropriate time to get it in there. Exactly.
So then at the special with the site plan approval, it have been a non issue. So it would be discretionary versus regulatory. Just thought I'd share that.
Okay. Approval of the minutes from the special meeting of 05/03/2022. I'll make a motion that the minutes from the special meeting on May 3 be approved. Second.
Thank you, Steve. Any comments by anybody? And my only comment is that under member absent, Kevin was also absent from that meeting in addition to Anne. I
know I wasn't there even, but I'm looking at this and it says Monday, May 3, it was Tuesday, May 3. Yep,
you're right. I'm just used to always being on a Monday.
Yeah, I realized that I couldn't make it on Tuesday. So then I'm looking at this and it says Monday, that's strange. I'm also used to being on a Monday clearly. Yeah.
It seems like a Monday. Any other comments on the minutes? Okay, so Abby, you got those two changes? Yes, thank you. Then
we'll vote on the motion to approve those minutes. Ann? Membership abstain, I wasn't there. Oh, okay. So you're abstaining. Yep, got it. Steve? Aye. Leanne. Aye. Ian Blanchard. Aye.
And I vote aye as well. Motion carries four zero one with Anne Gramey abstaining. Next up, the administrative report from the zoning agent.
Okay. I've spent a fair amount of time dealing with people looking at various parcels and subdivisions and somewhat time consuming. Dealing with some enforcement, have made some progress. The removal of the RVs on Route 6, and I am working with the gentleman, mister Barnett across the street. Forget the street numbers offhand, but around the the corner with a junction with 87. I will be issuing Bridge don't you mean? 6 And 87.
Don't you mean the Route 6 and Parker Bridge for the Barnett property?
Yes. Well I just think of that as the 687 Corner, but yeah, it is closer to Parker Bridge. You're right. Okay, yeah. Yeah, it's just that end of town. I'm sorry. 12 Center St I had. Been working with the owner who pulled the permit and is in the middle of demolishing that, but I have seen no action in the past month. So I will be issuing a issuing a formal citation under the blight blight ordinance on that one, hopefully, either later this week or early next week. I have a few other complaints that I hope can be dealing on in the next week or so. That's pretty much it.
Jim, how long? Not that I am in a hurry, but you know the house that caught fire on Lake Road where I think it was Jim Anderson used to live, and I forget the number over there, like two twenty something. That certainly looks bladed at this point.
I have no information about that. I can make an inquiry. I'm not sure
who I would inquire with, but I can ask around. Yeah, and it's so soon after the event. I'm just trying to make myself smarter on when is that a condition that the plate ordinance is pertinent to? So I guess I know how we're going to go forward if it doesn't look like it's going to be torn down or done something with. And maybe because they've got all the doors blocked off, know, and that maybe it doesn't fall into that. I don't know. Think about that a little bit. Don't need an answer now. I guess as we were talking, I said, Oh, this is interesting.
I do. I do anticipate an application for a special permit from the folks up on on Hebron Road that had were looking to put in an in law apartment. I was told it was in today, but I did not and I was assuming I would find it in our new permit link system or new software system, and I did not. So I I'm not having you receive it this evening, but presumably it will be next month. And I guess the way things work if it had been. It actually had been. Submitted the clock would start what the statutes read if it was submitted prior to the meeting. Unfortunately, that that would mean anytime prior to the meeting and with permit link. I'd have to I have to go in there and see it. So I'm gonna have to change the way I do business a little bit and and monitor that a little more closely.
What I'm talking about is the Commission has thirty days, I believe, well, with special permits, thirty or thirty five days to set a public hearing, But the receipt of application commences either at the next commission meeting or I believe thirty five days out. I just have to throw it out there. Gotta be careful about this in in moving forward in the future. That application we should see presumably next month. Okay. Some of you probably remember last time around.
If it ever maybe it never maybe it never made it to plain. I don't think it did. Yeah. I think it was only a wetlands issue and That
that was my brief tenure as wetlands agent and that Yep. It was a blur.
And speaking of the Inland Wetlands Water Course Liaison Report, there were no activities that are pertinent to planning and zoning going on there. Town's working on some road drainage over on Shawty Mill Road in that vicinity that's going through the wetlands, but that doesn't have anything to with planning and zoning. Looking around, from the public has showed up, so there's no public speak. Next question. Yes, go ahead, Leanne. I
didn't know whether to ask under discussion or not, just a brief question. Mostly for Abby, the last meeting of any kind that seems to be posted on the town YouTube channel is from May 2 of any kind of meeting. And I was looking to watch our special meeting about the 580 Route 6. And then I also wanted to watch the town meeting. I know that the affordable housing meeting was just last Saturday, but the meetings usually get posted more quickly than this. Then you usually see a handful or eight or 10 people going in and looking at them. Do you know just from being in the town office building if it's just something that I don't even know who usually does it that somebody hasn't gotten around to doing?
Yeah, good question. Usually it's Amanda and I think it's just, I think it's just a, it's in the queue of things she needs to get to, and it's just not quite gotten to yet. Can send her a message that you're looking for some specific meetings if you want me to.
I can do it. That's right. I was just wondering, but you, you know, you that's probably why. So, no, I'll go ahead and just ask her if they're going to be posted soon. Anyway. Yeah, access
to the YouTube. I can't help there specifically, but yeah, just for the record, I'll
send and hours have changed. So so the things are not posted in in the same they're not only gonna be posted as quickly as they they used to be. Amanda's hours have changed? Yes. Okay.
All right. I actually missed something that I should have brought up and that's the feeling of the board clerk. As you know from the last meeting that, Debbie is moving on as a full time job. I did check with Eric today about any, any chances of filling those spots. And he indicated he hasn't doesn't have anybody in mind, doesn't have anybody lined up for interviews, nothing of that nature, but is discussing the matter. And I think it has to do with compensation before it's on the agenda for the Board of Select in this evening. I will follow-up on that. Personally think we did we did very well with, well, our last our last few, and I think it's a very important role. But I like the idea that we make a connection with with one of the local universities and and see if we can get a student in there to it's a great opportunity for environmental studies or public admin student. And I'd be happy to to do some outreach to that effect.
Jim, is that Lynn? I think it was still in the office other than clerking for the board.
Lynn is still in the office. She does not clerk for the boys. Right, okay, thanks.
Any other discussion type topics? Hearing none, the next meeting's on June 20, 7PM. Still planning on doing by Zoom at this point. And I'll make a motion that we adjourn. I'll second it. Thank you, Anne. Any discussion? Hearing none. Call for vote. Anne Cremay? Aye. Steve. Aye.
Leanne. Aye. Anne Blanchard. Aye. And I vote aye as well. Motion carries five-zero-zero. I will send out you a couple of documents for all of you to take a look at the affordable housing, the sign regs, and the good, the bad, and the ugly, just to keep you amused between now and June. And everybody have a great evening. It doesn't sound like the rain lasts very long out there. Nonetheless, enjoy summer. It's right around the corner. Good night, everybody, and thanks for your support. Good night. Good night, everyone.