All towns · swanzey

Swanzey Planning Board Meeting August 13th, 2026

Video

You are watching a Fact TV presentation
of the town of Swansea.
>> [music]
[music]
>> Heat. Heat.
Heat. Heat.
Hey, hey, hey.
>> Heat. Heat. N.
Heat. Hey, Heat.
Heat.
Hey. Hey. Hey.
Hey
everybody.
6:00.
I will call to order the August 13
meeting of the Swansea Planning Board.
Beginning with attendance on Victoria
Rec as I'm here. Scott Self
>> here.
>> Mark Scera
>> Richard Lane
>> Brandon Self I do not see yet. Although
that might be him. Michael York
>> Suckman's rep. Alan Gross
>> Stacy Goodo
>> Charlie Harbbeck
>> here. And I don't see Jane.
Um,
maybe that's not I'm gonna seat Charlie
for Brandon for for now. And if he
comes, he'll be unseated.
Okay. Um, our agenda for tonight is uh
beginning with the approval of minutes
of July 23rd, 2026.
Then we have se several public hearings.
Um PB 2610
site plan review Balev Holdings LLC
represented by Bryce Rener has submitted
a site plan review application for the
property located at 126 Manadnok
Highway. The applicant proposes to
expand outside storage by excavating the
bank on the eastern side of the
building, installing a small retaining
wall and paving the area. Additionally,
the applicant proposes utilizing the
excavated fill to level the northwestern
and southwestern sides of the building
to create more flat storage space. The
property is at tax map 103, lot 84 in
the business district, and the applicant
has requested a continuence. Just FYI
for now. We'll return to that. Um second
uh is PB2611
a minor subdivision. An application for
a minor subdivision has been submitted
by Lawrence land surveying acting on
behalf of property owner Richard
Whitney. The application proposes
subdivising subdividing the subject
property identified as tax map 255 lot
24 into three individual building lots.
The parcel is situated within the rural
agricultural district on the eastern
side of Rabbit Hollow Road and south of
Swansea Lake Road.
Then under discussions and other
business, we have a boundary line
adjustment. An application for a
boundary line adjustment has been
submitted by promised land survey acting
on behalf of property owners Chad
Fontaine, Alice Fontaine, and Deborah
Hamill. The subject properties are
identified as tax map 249 lots 49 and 50
with addresses at 102 and 110 Goodell
Avenue. Parces are situated within the
residents district on the northern side
of Goodell Avenue and east of New
Hampshire Route 32.
Then we have a site plan modification
from Environmental Alternatives, Inc.,
a site plan modification related to the
Dillant Hopkins Airport groundmounted
solar
and a uh brief zoning audit discussion.
So, uh first step is to consider the
minutes of July 23rd,
2026.
Has everybody had a chance to look at
the minutes? And are there any
corrections, additions, or deletions?
I'll make a motion to approve the
minutes from July 23rd.
>> Motion by Mark. Is there a second?
>> I'll second.
>> Second by Scott. Any further discussion?
All in favor? I
>> opposed. [clears throat]
The motion carries. Now our question
about regional impact. Does anything on
the agenda qualify as a development of
regional impact requiring notification
of neighboring municipalities?
>> I'll make a motion. Is there a none?
>> Motion by Richard. Is there a second?
>> Second.
>> Any discussion? No. All in favor?
>> Any opposed? [clears throat] Motion
carries.
Uh I guess let's see.
I'll reread the public notice. Our first
item is the uh 2610
site plan review for Balev Holdings.
Um represented by Bryce Baylor. Brainer
has submitted a site plan review
application for the property located at
126 Manadnok Highway. The applicant
proposes to expand outside storage by
excavating the bank on the eastern side
of the building, installing a small
retaining wall and paving the area.
Additionally, the applicant proposes
utilizing the excavated fill to level
the northwestern and southwestern sides
of the building to create more flat
storage space. Property is at tax map
103, lot 84 in the business district.
Now, we um
our public hearing is still open because
we continued uh we first uh received
this application on July 9 when we
accepted it as complete and then we
continued that public hearing to August
13. On July 10, three members of the
planning board visited the site. That
was Markclaris,
Stacy Goodell, and me. And we uh as a
result of that recommended additional uh
detail to be shown on the site plan
which Stacy documented in writing and
Mark and I met with Adam to give him our
ideas. And today uh we have a second
continuation
a request for a second continuation
which Adam are we going is he did he ask
for August 27th? Is that his request? I
have reached out for a date confirmation
and have not heard back.
>> Okay.
>> So, I think that would be that would be
prudent. I also advise to possibly
withdraw and reapply.
>> Um, but there's some obvious cost
downsides to that.
>> Um, so I think the 27th would be a good
idea.
>> So, that would be 49 days into the
application out of the 65 days that he
has.
uh we would need to make a dec decision
by September 10th unless he waves the
requirement for planning board action
and consents to an extension. So I guess
today we need a motion to continue the
public hearing to August 27th.
>> I'll make that motion.
>> Uh is there a second?
>> Any discussion?
>> And the date will be the 27th of August.
Correct. without further notice.
>> Yes.
Any discussion regarding the application
or the process itself at this point.
Okay. We have a motion second. No
further discussion. All in favor? I
>> [clears throat]
>> uh any opposed? The motion carries.
Okay.
Um, next is a minor subdivision and this
is an application submitted by Lawrence
Land Surveying acting on behalf of
property owner Richard Whitney. The
application proposes subdividing the
subject property identified as tax map
255 lot 24 into three individual
building lots. The parcel is situated
within the rural agricultural district
on the eastern side of Rabbit Hollow
Road and south of Swansea Lake Road. Who
do we have to represent this? Would you
like to come forward?
Yeah.
>> Good evening. I'm Charlie with Lawrence
Land Survey here to present a free lot
subdivision
uh map 255 lot 24. We're at Hollow Road
for Richard Whitney. Uh currently
Matt 255 lot 24 is 124.66
acres. We propose to create three lots
62.16
acres 56.60
acres 5.9 acres. It is zoned in the
rural agricultural district with a
minimum 3 acres and 225 ft of frontage.
At this point all lots meet those
requirements.
Uh the selectmen have agreed to allow
Mr. Whitney to extend the class 5
portion of rabbit hole road
uh to a total length
beyond the last property that's
developed of 450 ft which will give lots
2 and three their required 225 ft off a
town maintained road. The first lot has
frontage between two existing house
lots. It's actually has 450 ft of
frontage there and that is classified.
The road agent has given his blessing on
this extension
and uh we've also been in communication
with him as far as the driveway
locations and um he says that once this
subdivision is approved the driveway
should be no problem.
>> Thank you. Sure. Um what we're going to
do, if you don't mind waiting, um what
we need to do is uh to review the plat
to make sure I know you've requested
several waiverss and we just need to be
sure that we have sufficient information
shown to allow us to open a public
hearing and discuss uh the subdivision.
Sure.
>> And if there's anybody here from the
public who would like to discuss it,
there'll be a moment later for for that
to happen. So, um
I'm trying to think the best way to go
through. We don't have a a display
version of this application, do we?
>> No, you can you can sit if you want.
>> Yeah, please sit.
>> This might be a while.
>> We're friendly. [laughter]
>> These are pretty. Okay. These are pretty
straightforward.
>> Um so, what come up and join us? Yeah.
Yeah. We'll be asking you more
questions.
So, what we're going to do is just go
through the plat submission checklist.
And there's certain items that you have
uh said that you've asked for a waiver
for because maybe they don't apply. Um
but we just the board needs to all be on
the same page with that. So, on on
number the item number three is a scale.
The request is for uh instead of 1 in
equals 30t, the requested for one inch
is 200 ft. And the reason for that is
that this is a large lot.
Uh continuing down, location and
profiles with elevations.
Let's see number eight. Location and
profiles with elevations of existing
water manes, sewers, coverboards,
drains. This is um
that infrastructure doesn't exist here
in the rural ag district and the project
does not you have stated the project
does not include any connections to
public water and sewer since they're not
there to connect to. Um and you also
note that uh de New Hampshire dees
approval is not required as all lots are
greater than five acres.
Uh
under 13 um the location of groundwater
has not been identified because test
fits were not performed.
>> And that would be for the same reason
that the perk tests aren't required
because the lots were required.
>> And likewise number 14 um
perk tests were not performed.
Um under 16 there are no deed
restrictions
and uh no under 17 no open space is
proposed to be preserved.
Under 20
um that refers to final road profiles
and crosssections and no new roads are
proposed to be constructed.
Well, it's not a new road, but it's
you're you're going to be improving.
>> We're upgrading the existing road to
class 5 standards.
>> Class 5 standards. Okay. So, does that
require profiles?
>> No. Probably not cuz that's not part of
the site plan. It's the town road.
>> True. That true that
>> right now it's a class six. Correct.
>> It's a class 5 for 150 ft beyond the
last residence.
Because we needed 450 ft of frontage,
we're proposing to extend that 300 ft
and give the town a turnaround at the
end of that 450 ft.
>> I knew that. I was just going to mention
that so everybody else. Thank you.
>> Uh let's see. 21 talks about drainage
and erosion control plans and you're
saying that that's not relevant because
no new roads are proposed.
And uh under 22
um state subdivision or septic approval
is not required. You're saying because
all lots are greater than 5 acres and
then you have pending the municipal
access permit that you described.
So the question before the board is do
board members feel that we with uh these
exclusions we have adequate information
on the plat to justify going to public
hearing.
I'll I'll first make a motion about the
waivers
>> that uh we grant them the waiverss they
requested that the because our wording
would be finding that the waiverss would
not have an adverse impact on public
health safety or our budding properties
and that granting the request is
consistent with the intent and purpose
of the rules waved.
>> Motion by Scott.
>> I'll second that motion.
Second by Mark. Further discussion.
All in favor?
>> Any opposed?
Motion carries.
Okay. Um then the next question is
whether we're prepared to accept the
subdivision application as complete and
proceed to public hearing.
I'll make that motion to accept the
application as complete and proceed to
public hearing.
>> Second by Richard. Any other discussion?
>> I.
>> Any opposed? Motion carries. Then I will
open the public hearing at 6:14.
[clears throat] planning board, do you
have questions regarding this plat
looks pretty straightforward. They've
got the appropriate and required
frontage
and they've got everything on there that
we're looking for and they're bringing
the road up. And it looks like from our
packet that the selectman said that they
would accept the road once it was
brought up to uh the class six I mean
five five rather and it is brought up to
class 5 now. Is that correct?
>> We have approximately 380 ft done. There
was some discussion between Joe and and
and Mr. Whitney. Um
so there's another roughly 70 ft to
build and we're hoping we're hoping that
gets done in the next two or three
weeks.
>> Okay. It would have to be a condition.
>> Yeah. Condition, right? On that last
sub.
>> I assume you guys have the 30-day appeal
period after an approval. Did do you
follow? Okay.
>> Um I'm this this extension. I'm I'm This
is just a curiosity on my part. So this
is in response to the change in state
law regarding uh that that um state law
currently requires the governing body to
approve construction on class 6 roads.
Um the that approval require uh it used
to not be required but now applicants
are required.
>> It never was allowed before but the new
law now they're allowed
>> as it is. So the municipality has
choices. We can the the sleman can
provide services can maintain the road
or be road or be liable for losses or
damages. Are they is the town going to
maintain the road at this point? Okay.
>> Cuz it's Yeah,
>> cuz that was for class six, wasn't it?
>> And he's they're bringing up
>> up to class 5 and then the town has to
take over. Okay.
>> Accept it.
>> Yeah. So that's good to know
>> the difference.
>> Okay. We we originally were were not
proposing to upgrade it, but
>> it was pointed out that in the
regulations it says 225 ft on a
townmained road, right?
>> So now
that's why we're going to extend that
out.
>> Good.
Once they
start or bring in construction on these
subdivisions, they have to u show the
drainage for the driveways on a platform
>> that that won't come before our board.
>> That's right.
>> That's what I'm asking.
>> Yeah. That's up to the building
inspector to make sure that that is done
because it's not a commercial
>> be kept just with the building
inspector.
>> It will be with the building inspector.
Yeah. If it was commercial, then yeah,
we'd see it before our board and look at
that. But if it's the building
department for a residential, then uh
it's up to the building inspector.
>> So these lots will be developed by the
people who buy them, right? This isn't
going to be a development of houses.
>> So the
current answer is the 5.9 acre lot Mr.
Whitney's grandson is going to build a
house on. the other two lots, uh, one is
going to belong to his grandson, one is
going to belong to his daughter. Uh,
they're they're not intending on
building on them right now.
>> Yeah. It's not relevant to our our
approval. We're just I just like to
know.
>> Yeah.
>> So, I I wanted to clarify. You keep
saying minor subdivision, but in your
regulations,
>> the [clears throat] only way it can be
considered a minor subdivision if it's
not further subdividable.
that is in there. Yeah, you're that is
so we we do not want it to be tagged
with that. So that's why I submitted it
as a major subdivision.
>> Well,
my understanding is that it comes in it
is defined as a minor subdivision based
on the number of lots that you propose.
If you return again um and seek to to do
another subdivision of the lots,
wouldn't that be a new application?
>> But what he said, that little caveat is
in there. It's It's kind of hidden in
there, but it says that about the minor
subdivision.
>> If when you're done the rest of the lots
cannot be subdivided further,
>> okay,
>> then u then you're you're near the
minor, but if they can be, then you're
the mayor.
>> But the public hearing is the same like
we're doing right now.
>> Okay. But but what you're saying is that
you would like to reserve the option,
>> but what would change in terms of
>> um
>> I I'm just quoting your regulations.
>> Wouldn't that require uh future
improvements to the road?
>> It just says it's minor subdivision is
anything less than anything 3 acres or
le any three three lots or less in the
remaining lots are not further
subdividable.
>> It also says though requires no new
streets, utilities or other municipal
improvements.
>> So I I think I think it's correct to to
this as minor.
>> Okay. So they're not they would would
not be restricted. If somebody wanted to
take say that first lot that has 450 ft
of frontage
>> and subdivide that into two building
lots, they would be able to do that.
>> You would have to improve the road
again.
>> That's already on class 5.
>> Oh,
>> that portion already has frontage on
class 5. It's it's the one in between
the two.
>> I I think you're taking the definition
like very face value. Um, essentially as
long as you have the frontage and the
dry acreage and you meet the other
subdivision requirements, just
>> should be okay.
>> That would be correct.
>> Just doing due diligent for my client.
>> Absolutely. Totally understand.
>> Any other questions from the board?
Questions from the public? Is anybody
here to speak to this?
Hearing no other questions. If we're
ready, I'll close the public hearing.
Ready? All right. Closing the public
hearing. 6:21. Um.
Any further discussion?
Hearing none, I would entertain a motion
to approve the three lot subdivision.
>> I'll make a motion that we accept it
with the condition of the extension of
the class 6 into a class 5.
>> I'll second it.
>> Second. Any other comments?
Motion carries. All set.
>> That the road be upgraded to the class
five,
>> right?
>> For the I guess the rest of the 75 ft,
but anyways, beyond where they have it
located on the blank. Can can we also
add in here that it's it's approved by
the ODU.
We're in the middle of a motion here.
You can't you can't uh add into that
stuff, but it it has we know that it has
to be approved by the road agent
anyways. The selector already said that
they'd be okay with it as long as the
road agent signed off on it. So, if the
road agent doesn't approve it, then it's
not going in there regardless of whether
we approved it or not. So, and they've
already talked to the road agent.
All right, all set. We're almost set
with that. Uh, our next item is what did
we not vote? I thought I thought we
voted.
>> So many votes. All right. All in favor
of the motion as um with conditions.
Not for sure.
>> I kind of
actually heard um that lot beyond this
might have some activity and that this
road might end up being extended.
>> Uh heard that last night. You heard it.
>> Yep.
>> I heard it this morning.
Next on the agenda is a boundary line
adjustment and this is for an adjustment
Fontaine, Alice Fontaine.
Thank you for coming.
>> Um
>> identified as tax map 249 lots 49 and 50
Avenue. The parcels are situated within
the residents district on the northern
side of Fidell Avenue and east of New
Hampshire 132.
Who do we have representing this
location?
>> Um, we're not going to have anybody here
tonight. Sorry, I forgot to notify um
you guys. The applicant is away. Um, and
the surveyor is not available without
substantial charge. So,
This is
>> uh does the board would board like to
continue with this without the
applicant?
>> Um I I I should be available for some
some basic questions.
>> Okay. Why don't you present to us Adam?
Tell us tell us what they would say.
>> Sounds good. Um so they propose
adjusting the shared lot line between
102 and 110 Goodell Avenue. Uh the
required lot size for the residence
district is 1 acre. The required
frontage is 150 ft off the town or state
maintained road. Um going over the uh
existing conditions, uh we're looking at
tax map 249, lot 49 and lot 50. Uh the
current area of 249449
is 5.89 acres and the proposed area is
5.79 acres. Um the existing area of the
other lot, which is lot 50, is 1.8 82.
The proposed new acreage for that lot is
1.92.
Um they are both staying above the
required minimum lot size. Uh the
frontage is also staying um above the
minimum. Um so
lot 49 is going from 230 ft of frontage
down to 186 ft of frontage. uh lot 50 is
going from 146 feet to 190 feet. So that
[clears throat] is becoming compliant uh
from non-compliant.
Um that's pretty much the gist of it. Uh
if you look at page 23 of your packets,
you'll see a uh you'll see a triangle.
Um I don't know if you can see the
shading. Um but that line is just being
straightened out. It's it's kind of kind
of wonky right now. Uh it's just being
straightened out north to south. Um so
both lots will be a bit more even. Um
and again, uh lot 50 is becoming
compliant with frontage.
That's kind of it. Um pretty pretty
basic. Um if you have any other
questions, I can try to answer them. Our
our general practice has been uh when
we're improving a situation that's
simple um we tend to be in favor of it
and this looks like an improvement
greater compliance.
>> I make a motion. This is one of those
simple things.
>> Okay. [laughter]
All right.
We have a motion by Mark to approve the
boundary line adjustment.
>> I will second that motion.
is there anybody here? I I should have
asked this before, but um I can't do
that now, can I? Never mind. Just
>> You can if we resend our motions because
we haven't done anything.
>> I don't know that anybody is here from
the public to speak to this. So, um,
then please don't resend your motions.
>> Okay. Um, so any further discussion?
>> All in favor? I
>> opposed. Motion carries.
Mr. Nunan,
>> moving right along.
>> Have a site plan modification
from environmental
alternatives.
At our prior meeting, we
took a we quickly reviewed what's
proposed and determined that in our
estimation, this is indeed a site plan
modification rather than the site plan
revision. So, if you will go through the
changes that you've that you propose.
Yes. Good evening. John Nan for the
record. Fieldstone Land Consultants here
on behalf of Environmental Alternatives,
Inc. Um, as mentioned by the chair, uh
we had come before the board in July and
just it was determined by the board to
submit a site plan modification for the
following changes. Uh the building that
has not been built has been enlarged to
40 feet wide by 100 ft in length. Uh
where 40x 80 was approved previously.
Uh the second change being the parking
has been modified based on the larger
building configuration.
The drainage has been revised based on
the larger building configuration.
Although all areas drain to the same
storm water management system as
approved. There is no increase um to
imperous area. We basically just shifted
where parking lot was before is now
building coverage for an additional 20
ft in that length. The edge of the
pavement adjacent to the north wetlands
does not change. Uh that was a planning
board concern when we when I presented
in July. And then the 50oot wetland
buffer has been added to the plans. Uh
that was also requested by the planning
board at the last hearing. And really it
wasn't on our plans just for the record
initially because that was not a setback
for the town. So being a new setback and
I'll point out on the plans where those
are. So this was the previously approved
plans where we had the 40 by 80
building. Uh we have two parking spaces
here to the north and then parking here.
So now with the
additional 20 ft of building we move
those spaces that would have been where
the building is to this side here.
So there is no change to the approach
towards the wetland on the eastern side
[applause] and there is no it still
exceeds
the setback of 50 ft. We're 77 ft from
the wetland at the closest point to the
building.
And then this impervious area where we
have our paved parking lot edge here did
not change from here. Side is still
where it was.
So basically we've swapped parking
spaces to this end um on this plan set
versus what was submitted. We're
designating now is the size of the
office on this end. And the client would
like to have or what the plan is for the
office is to have that elevated 4 ft
higher than the the warehouse and
workshop area where they have the
equipment in the building. So we're
going to have that office 4 ft higher.
Um, we're coming in on the right here.
Um, and an exterior door with stairs
over on the left hand side here. We have
stairs and sidewalk further down.
Previously on paper planting about the
midpoint of the building. Now that's
about 20 ft through the doors and the
office is smaller than what they
originally anticipated.
So those are pretty much the the
changes.
the building growing 20 ft longer and
now that's office area on that 20 foot
extension.
>> John, where are they at with the actual
construction? I I know the big buildings
there is the
>> Yes, they constructed this building. Um
the area to be paved is all gravel. It's
to rough grade now with their subsurface
gravels in the drain structures are all
installed. The
>> when you say installed, are they
functional?
>> The catch basins are not well, they they
have a plate over one of them. The other
ones have silk sacks in them because
it's it's not paved yet. So, we keep
gravels and anything getting into the
catch basins at this time. There's kind
of covered up on these on these two
catch basins.
Everything in the area here, so the
grass treatment swale and the detention
basin are constructed
and They're growing grass. They're in
the midst of
coming in right now.
speak.
>> Does do any members of the public have
thoughts about this question?
>> Yes, I do.
>> Would you identify yourself for the the
taker?
Join
>> got a microphone.
Um, we've had a terrible problem with
drainage coming off
their property somewhat. Uh, they had
some sub drains that dump directly into
the wetlands. Uh, the contractor took
care of that within a couple days of the
problem. What we have now is the road
water coming off Saffford Drive runs
directly into the wetlands through the
wetlands is washing out the banking of
my pond creating an immense amount of
silt in my pond running over the dam
directly in Wilson pond every time it
rains.
>> I've been I've owned the property since
June 22nd of this year. I've been on
that property for 55 years. I was
standing on the man's tractor front of
his tractor pulling stomps out.
um I've been on the rust page pretty
much my whole life.
So based on uh Scott's comment, I'll
make the point that we did water testing
today and I actually met Scott today
along with Jay Word. Um and the spot
where we were testing is uh we get our
worst test results. So there is some
leakage. I don't know how I don't think
it has anything to do necessarily with
the property but um if it's coming off
the road it's we want to make sure it
has nothing to do with what's being
built here.
>> Um that's my point. Sorry. So I guess a
question would that I'd like to know the
answer to is at what point if if the
drainage system is not operational
at what point uh does it it seems like
we should that should be operational
before
it shouldn't be causing problems during
the construction phase.
>> I'll explain what happened. Um so as
everyone knows we've had torrential
downpours
>> 7.4 in over 10 days.
>> Yeah. So
Sapper Drive runs down there's a a ditch
line along Sapper Drive. The ditch line
ends at at the property here. And on the
existing road before any of this was
constructed, that same gravel ends right
here. So all the ditch line comes down,
it just it just terminates. So there's a
ditch and then it stops. And there's an
under drain out that's right here. So we
have it all out. It's a 6 in line right
here. So that way just came down and
then came across the property into the
wetland.
So
with the proposed plan,
we we [clears throat] took that dish
line cuz we had discussed initially is
do we what do we do with that runoff?
>> Sure. Cuz you don't want it on your
property neither. So we bypassed our our
hard drainage and outlet it because it
was ran to this wetland is we come under
ours and outlet to the wetland when the
large storm had happened. Um the
contractor had initially so we have a
pipe and stone that runs behind the edge
of the retaining wall here. There's also
pipe and stone as a drip strip along the
back of the roof so that that water
comes down into the stone is picked up
by a perforated pipe and then outlets
over into our treatment soil in this
area.
The contractor had outleted in three
spots
pipes like that directly. So the water
obviously took the path of least
resistance came off the roof and was
going directly right here. Um so when
Mr. governor reached out to us. He had
called me um in our office. I I went and
met with him. I said, "Yeah, this these
are absolutely not for plant." Um the
contractor didn't realize
[clears throat] that. He said, "I didn't
know where I was supposed to run them."
I said, "Well, we have it over here." He
said, "Well, I did install it partway to
there. I didn't run it all the way into
our treatment swell." So, that same day,
he removed these pipes.
>> Mhm.
>> Um restored the loom and sealed it. And
then he cleaned out where there was
silt. So he had um mulch burn all along
the the wetland edge.
>> So wood chips that are mulched up and
burned but so that it stops the
sediment. It had watched it had washed
sediment and some of the well it was the
lom a little bit of the lom at these two
locations with
the wood chips kind of went in. I mean
it was literally a couple shovels. He
cleaned that out and restored the mulch
spd all the pipes these three pipes and
made that so it's tied into the swale.
Now um at that time even with the large
amount of of water that were going on
the water was
bypassing the catch basin here and
coming across and getting into the swale
where it was supposed to go anyway on
this upper side. The sediment for bay
and the the pond as designed were
functioning. I mean small amount of yet
more than enough capacity. I mean there
was probably you know a foot of water in
the main basin and about 6 to 8 in of
water in the sediment for bay which is
what it's supposed to do is sit in there
settle out and then the water was nice
and clear in the pond itself. Um so this
was all functioning as intended
um after the the contractor had fixed
these these three pipes. Um that was his
error. He fixed them immediately the
same day. He started on it the same day
that we were called. Dees was notified
also by the butter. Uh dees came down
and looked at it and said there's
there's not really sediment in there. He
had already cleaned up the cut the the
shovel poles at each of these two pipes.
Clean those up. He already had them
removed. Um and was working on just
small areas of loming and seating. Dees
had checked around the wetland said
everything looks fine. None of this is
impacting the the basin is all
stabilized and and functioning as
designed. Um and then and I did not meet
dees of the site contractor and um dees
Um they went over Mr. Govin had met them
out there as well and they went over and
looked at his pond dees of theirs. Um it
didn't look like substantial outfall
from the wetland impacting into his
property. Um and he did note that the
dam that is in question is not permitted
with the state. Um so then it was kind
of left as well we're not we're not
going to open up or push that can of
worms with the state.
The contractor on our site has remedied
the problem. So the only thing that's
directing water now is the under drain
from from Safford Drive road runoff
where the ditch ends.
Um so that that's where it stands.
Southford Drive where where the ditch
ends to the wetlands.
>> Correct. And there's it outlets about 8
ft from the edge of the wetland. There's
a
rip wrap apron that's here that was
shown on our plan.
He has put straw bales at the end of
that field too to try to just mitigate
anything that's coming out.
during the high flows. But, uh, it's not
run off from from this site. It's run
off from Safford Drive.
Probably when Sapper Drive was done, the
the ditch line should have probably been
extended down to where the catch basin
is at this area
or at least got under tied to it
possibly would have been our solution.
But we signed it, you know, we we had it
here. There was uh when Joe Caruso had
done the inspection for the driveways,
he said, you know, I'd like to see
culverts put in cuz initially we just
had it as a low point so that anything
came in on our driveway went to our
drainage. Um and Joe said, I'd rather
see just in case, you know, is to have
driveway culprits. We added driveway
culprits at that time. Um
this ditch line tends to be dry. I think
it the water comes down south and then
soaks in. I mean, there's, as everyone
knows, there's a lot of volume of of
wetlands up below this. The day that
that happened, I mean, the dork that
runs into Mr. Goblin's pond was raging.
>> Um, there was a lot of water on that for
sure. He had a good video of it, you
know, when the the pipes were running
here. I mean, absolutely, this was
contributing at that time, but it was
fixed that day. Really, I mean, seated
the next day.
Further questions,
>> please. But please come forward.
>> You got a motion.
>> The contractor did a fine job to repair
his problem with the water coming off.
The problem is what comes off staff
drive runs directly in the wetlands. The
dam was permitted in 1972.
I just spoke with the dam from guy from
dees today. They are bringing in DS back
into the picture. Uh they seem like
there is a lot of silt and a lot of wood
chips in the wetlands area. Wetlands
area cannot contain any contaminants at
all. Once you destroyed one square foot
of wetlands, you destroyed miles of it.
It changes the entire ecosystem. This
muddy water, which I have some good
videos of directly in the Wilson pond.
We want to clean up Wilson pond, too. We
don't want to develop Swansea and
destroy our natural habitats. We can't
be doing this. We have to stop this
pipe. The contractor tells me the town
gave him permission to run that pipe
over there. I've done a forwarding
request because I want to see the permit
where the town actually wrote it down,
put it in plans to run it. I think the
contractor may have gone above and
beyond the print I looked at that showed
that pipe running maybe 3 ft from the
wetlands. Now it's probably 20. He ran
20 which gave it a little but it swailed
directly into the wetlands area. We have
to protect our wetlands. I have a a
picture from July 19th showing my
property in the area where the water
runs across perfectly level. I mow it.
Now there's a probably a 3-foot swale.
The side of my pond is washed out.
I just want the town to fix their road
problem. We can't be taking all the
brine, the salt, the oil from the trucks
and dumping it into my pond, in the
Wilson pond. It's something that needs
to be done fairly quick. It It happens
every time it rains. It's not just that
one big 3 and 1/2 in storm. If we have
an inch of rain, it's running into the
wetlands and running through. I have
videos from a week and a half ago. We
had a small rain shower, water running
direct directly in it
process. Would is this um did you say
did you meet with a selectman regarding
this? Did I
>> Bill came up?
>> Okay. So,
>> yeah.
>> Um because this the road issue is the
domain of the board of selectmen, right?
What what are your thoughts?
[clears throat]
>> Well, my thoughts are thank you, Mr.
Gabbert. Is that it?
>> For coming in. Appreciate your concerns
and particularly your care for the
wetlands and the pond. And um yeah, we
So, as I'm understanding it, the problem
is not from this uh piece of land that's
being developed, but it's the runoff
coming down the road. Correct. So, we
need to go to I mean, Adam, the um DPW
needs to figure out a solution to this.
>> So, I've been in contact with Joe. Uh
so, a couple notes from this meeting
that I'm hearing is that a covert was
required um from Joe. So, we need to get
some paperwork on that,
>> right? Just at the driveway crossings.
Yes.
>> So, I I can pull the driveway permit um
to see what it looks like.
>> Well, that was just a call for going
into the driveway.
There's there's a a square running down
the side of both sides of Safford Drive.
It's stone. 4T under that stone is a
preferated pipe to carry water down.
It's that pipe that used to just dead in
natural soil. So, it would just back up
and leech back up through natural. What
do we do now? That pipe is exposed. That
water has no place to go. Straight up
the path of least resistance. Straight
up again. And there there is a lot of
debris in the wetlands. There is a lot
of wood chips. There is a lot of silt
in the wetlands. It it's I guess it's
opinions. To me, it's zero. I retired
from the United States Environmental
Service. I was on a chemical industrial
side of it, but I do have a little bit
knowledge of wetlands and whatnot.
You can't put anything in the wetlands.
And we have heavy trucks pumping oil on
a saffron dryer that's coming in. uh of
course the brine salt for a limited time
and and just the damage to my air and
it's called drainage trespass when
drainage goes across person
you know let's say let's save our wet
land it's great we're putting industrial
factory I don't understand why in the
first place we put on the ground so many
wet hands in my personal opinion that's
the worst thing you could have done but
If you create a third of roof space,
concrete, asphalt, you've taken away
that much natural leeching ability. And
to run that water just directly
anywhere, you have to see the
consequences down the road. It falls.
The water doesn't stop.
If we just get on it, just fix the
problem. Plug that pipe into the
contract convention. Just plug in the
pipe and that will a temporary fix. And
that way at least the water will back
uphill and naturally leech out through
that the lesions in the pipe. Um it was
buried before it didn't go anywhere. It
was dead ended just into the ground and
now
you know it was verbally from what I
understand even move that pipe where it
is now.
>> I wonder if anything can be done to
mitigate the damage done to the
wetlands. You say there's materials in
there that shouldn't be in there.
>> Oh yes. six or eight inches of silk, a
lot of wood chips. I
>> I wonder if we should talk to the
conservation commission if there's
anything can be done if we could go in
there and maybe remove some of those
materials.
>> Yeah, that would take expertise to see.
They may say that it's not enough that
it will actually break down the wood
chips. No, that those should be removed.
But the
>> balance there is whether or not removal
does more damage than what's already
there, too. term.
>> I'm hearing some conflicting um dees
information. Um so dees was out with
you. Um
>> the dam inspector came out.
>> Dam inspector.
>> Yeah. He had the permit 1972. The dam
was permitted in 1972. The inspector
everything was fine. I spoke with him
again today. He thinks that u the
wetlands people dropped the ball on it.
He said somebody probably just
overlooked this problem. Do you have any
written communication with them that you
could board to the town [snorts]
>> because I I think that would help.
>> Today was a a phone call that I do have
on
>> some emails. Yes. That the wetlands
people just blew it right off. The
watershed people blew it right off.
Nobody with the state wants to even
touch it.
So, if we can have um uh the name of the
person that you're working with, um I
can coordinate with them and Joe and we
can kind of just work together to to fix
it. And I think that would be faster if
if we could get their contact info. That
way, I can pass that info along to Joe
and make sure that it gets worked on.
>> One thing the damn inspector did tell
me, even though we all work in the same
building, he goes, "I don't know anybody
from wetlands. I don't know anybody from
Watershed. We don't communicate. We
don't talk. So here we're we're
butttheads again. The wetlands I I think
the contractor has been been very good.
He sees a problem. He's been taking care
of it. Uh if he sees some few wood
chips, he'll probably pick those right
up and uh and go from there. It's the
water. We have to stop that water that's
going to continue to damage the
wetlands. He can put keep put chips in
there every time it rains. They're going
to wind up in the wetlands and he's
going to put them back. Uh
he's got I'd say 90 99% of the water
went off that property. They have
control. It goes into their pond. It
goes where it's supposed to be. There's
going to be a little erosion and new
construction. Grass hasn't quite set in
yet good and and that's expected, but we
just have to fix the drainage outside.
Yeah, thank you very much for bringing
this to to our attention and to staff's
attention because I know Adam will
circle the
>> Yeah, it's it's it's been brought so it
was brought to our attention a couple
weeks ago.
>> Um around the time the contractor fixed
the issue with the roof drainage.
>> Um we are still working on it. Um
>> if I could have the name of the dees rep
if you have it, that would be helpful.
Um
that way I can just contact them
directly. um and get and get a report
from them and then I can work directly
with Joe. Uh my my role in this is is
kind of as a mediator it would seem just
because this has to do with Sapper Drive
and um
>> Okay. Do you mind if I write down his
email? Um
>> thank you. Thank you very much for
coming in.
>> Thank you, Scott. Oh, okay.
We talk to the conservation commission
about this too. This is a big
contributor to vegetation growth in I
remember you saying that before. I
didn't understand that why but now now
we do.
I think that brings in a lot of salt as
well.
John, would you like to proceed?
Thank you again. I just want to say this
this board is very much concerned with
protection of wetlands and and I
appreciate your your articulate
explanation of the values that we're all
trying to protect. So I know Allan will
get on the board of selectmen and Scott
will not as siloed here in Swansea as
>> I also want to talk to the conservation
commission about this plugor
>> simple solution. Yeah.
>> I will legitimately bring it up to Joe
tomorrow.
>> Yeah. I I I'll meet with him tomorrow
ASAP.
>> Thank you.
And
>> I'll try to get um I did not meet dees
out there. It was the site contractor
that met with them the day it was the
day of uh
it was the Thursday that that it
happened. Um they have like inspectors
of the day. So I don't know who it would
have been, but I'll talk to the site
contractor and call DES and see if they
have a report of what they wrote down in
the in the report as well. Um
cuz they had said, "Oh, everything
looked good." And I believe it was wet
the wetlands inspector that said we
don't have record of the dam. So the
fact that he has the permit and the dam
bureau had, you know, has record of it.
That's um
>> that's that's great.
>> Yeah. And we appreciate your
explanation, you know, on paper of
exactly what was happening and how it
was rectified.
>> It's uh
>> yeah, it's ultimately it is that that
under drain coming from the road. Um,
and you know, if we can just work with
Joe, I think
>> it's easy enough to figure out a way to
remove it or direct it elsewhere or
something.
are there any further questions about
the um, site plan modification
at this point? Any other discussion?
>> No, I think we really really went over
it. Sorry. at the premium. So
>> I would entertain a motion to approve
the modifications as presented.
>> So moved.
>> So moved by Richard.
>> I'll second
>> by Scott.
Any other further discussion?
>> Any opposed? Motion carries.
>> Thank you. Thank you very much. Just for
clarification,
that that you're water that you're
talking about,
is that
going from the south to the north
towards the pond? There's a little bit
of a dip on Wilson Pond Road
to the west. [clears throat]
>> I'm I'm just confused as to which where
exactly you're referring because I know
where this project is. There's a as you
come down to Wilson Pond Road, there is
a small pond there that's
many many years ago was a collection of
bed bed springs and things of that
nature. All kinds of metal in there,
etc. But I'm I'm trying to figure
>> west of their old
pond will overflow into that pond.
>> Into that pond. Yes.
But does that pond then go underneath
underneath the road in that dip? There's
>> I believe that naturally leeches and
eventually makes it way. I don't believe
there's an outflow to that pond into
Wilson pond. The only flow of Wilson
pond is directly out of my pond which is
a stream that
broke that runs through my pond. You can
drink the water.
I don't know if I would, but
>> that's goes across Russell page bas.
[groaning]
>> Very good. I just wanted to be sure
where they're where we're talking.
>> that
right here.
>> Okay. Um
and then this is
a dam.
So when the roof went up
come out the other end.
>> Thank you very much.
Scott, you'll hear from me tomorrow.
Okay. Tomorrow.
>> Yeah. Um,
I'll reach out to I don't know when
Joe's free and I don't
come after.
Appreciate it.
Next up, we have a site plan
modification presented uh pursuant to
Dylan Hopkins Airport Groundmounted
Solar Array.
Would
you like to walk us through the changes
evening?
>> Sure. Sure.
>> Apologize we don't have a a display. I I
wasn't uh
wasn't expecting to uh
present it, but um the changes
the changes made to this site plan are
submitted to
>> Can you hear me? Okay.
>> Almost. Wait till they
>> loud.
>> Sure.
>> So, we're here tonight to bring our site
plan approval up to date with some
changes that were made over the course
of the AOT permitting process and the F
FAA permitting process. Um, the updates
that I outlined included primarily
shifting the storm water detention basin
that's associated with the north array
150 ft south of its original location.
And so it basically it just it slid
south and that was um based on request
from New Hampshire DOT planner as part
of the FAA permitting to create a bit
more separation between the tax QA
object area and that particular feature.
Um there are some minor grading
adjustments that went along with that um
and that were recently approved as part
of our A permit.
And we made some minor adjustments to
the fence line around the north array.
Um it it followed a kind of strange
course in the south near the equipment
pads initially with a uh triangular uh
bend in the fence. So we straightened
that out and um we brought the fence
line a bit closer to the array in the
north um and clarified interior versus
perimeter fencing for both of the
arrays.
Um the plan was also updated to reflect
a small area of wetland that straddles
the north property line um that was
unfortunately unintentionally emitted
with our original application um because
of a discrepancy between the
tax maps that were used as the basis for
that first step of doing the delineation
and the uh final surveyed boundary
lines. And so we have reflected that on
the plan and have ensured no impact to
that. And then the final update was just
removing the color-coded phasing plan
that we had originally included. And I
think we talked about that during the
meeting that you know our process is to
go through and do a simple phase and
then we come through the foundations the
racking and the array in sequence and in
coordination with AOT. Um we removed
that color coding plan colorcoded plan
that was a bit misleading I think in
terms of how it would be phased. Um so
those are
those are the changes that that were
made to the site plan. Um we've since
gotten all of our no objection
determinations from FAA and we just
recently received our AOT permit
approval
and now we are here.
>> You were going to wait until
uh August I thought to begin
construction. What is the expected
construction date at this point? Um,
with approval of the modification, we
would be expecting to submit our
building permit imminently. So, we would
like to start very soon.
>> I'm sorry. What did you say? Start when?
>> Starting September within
>> this year.
>> Wow. Okay.
>> Questions from the board about the
proposed modifications?
They seem pretty reasonable and uh
nothing
>> necessary,
>> nothing major to
what we consider.
So, it's just keeping that, you know,
that pond there, the north detention
pond we see in our plans here. I'm not
sure if that's this the old plan or the
new plan or not. the new plan I had
included and
>> in our packet. Okay, that's probably
>> there's a big copy behind me, too.
There's only one big copy. So,
>> if you guys need to look at it, uh, feel
free to
>> I'm just going to take a little for a
second.
>> Take as much time as you guys need to
look at that.
Yeah, the the north pond was originally
kind of tucked up in the corner um
alongside the taxiway object-free area
and I just out of a a precaution, they
wanted to provide a bit more space so
there wasn't a feature directly against
that area in case there was an over
something of that nature. But um
the new location resolves resolves that
concern.
>> Sorry, Megan. I should have had you
print off three more copies.
>> I apologize. I was uh I guess uh not
totally uh sure that I would be kind of
presenting if I
>> It's probably my fault. I looked in the
bag on Tuesday and I'm like crap coffee
in here.
>> I should have known better. I apologize.
>> No, you're it's all great.
>> We'll just give them time as much time
as they need to look at it.
>> Okay, that's fine with me.
Yep. It's still okay with you
overlapping into the center line on that
southern array.
>> Overlapping into the center line.
here
>> so this is
>> could you could you clarify I guess I
when you say overlap
>> in your southern array
>> you have on the very southern southern
part of your array
to the east side
of the array that overlaps into the
center line. The FAA is okay with that.
Well, um so yes, we are outside of all
of the object free areas underneath all
of the visibility surfaces. So the um
there's no there's no restriction uh
height restriction in that area that the
array exceeds. Um, and there's no object
restriction in that area that the array
exceeds. Um, if you see on the uh,
I guess it might be a little bit hard to
see, but on C2.1,
it shows the colorcoded surfaces. So, we
stay completely outside of that inner
center line box, which is where you
cannot have any construction or objects.
The reason I keep asking about that is
it appears that the most southern
approach light
is, you know, almost into your array.
>> Um, we have a good um I believe we have
200 ft past that, but um we are we are
outside all of the required surfaces and
FAA did review and approve the solar
panels. So um so I guess they yes they
are okay with this plan.
>> Questions? Looks good.
>> You said the construction might begin
September. What is your approximate end
date for the construction?
>> We expect the construction will be
September through April uh 27 and that
we'll be back next fall after the pause
um for the bird nesting season um for a
few months. So, August 27th through um
>> you're going to work through the winter.
>> Your hope.
>> Any other questions or comments from the
board?
the site plan modifications as
presented.
I'll make that motion to approve the
site plan modifications I presented.
>> Further discussion?
>> Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you
for coming in and bringing us up to
date.
>> Thanks for coming,
>> Adam. We have a zoning audit discussion
>> and there was none. Thank you.
Thank you for coming in.
>> Um just a brief update I suppose. So
tomorrow
or at the very latest on Monday, you all
will be getting some documentation
on the um first draft of the reorganized
ordinance and what it would look like.
>> Uh meaning the document or or an outline
of what to expect?
>> Both. So it's a whole document. It's the
whole ordinance that uh the the proposed
the proposed reorganization.
>> And then reasonings behind the
decisions. It's not changing any of the
language. It's just making everything
into the new format.
>> Nice. Um,
and so the reason why uh we're getting
this out to you all so early is so we
have a couple of planning board meetings
to discuss.
So you all will have a couple weeks to
look through these documents and have
your comments ready before our meeting
on the 27th.
and then that'll give us the 27th and
the 10th to discuss
um these proposed changes.
Um along with the proposed changes,
there is a
kind of like a five-year outline for u
zoning amendments. we would need to make
various compliance issues,
um changes to to language and
definitions that would need to be passed
uh at town meeting.
>> And that's I'm guessing that's a 5-year
outline sort of based on uh urgency, I
would expect.
>> Yeah, it's it's a rough 5year, so it
could very well take longer than that as
>> but the most important things are
sequenced towards the beginning.
We can't predict what the state requires
us to do.
>> True that.
>> Exactly.
>> They are beefy. They are very dense.
There's a lot of information. So, take
as much time as you need. Send me as
many questions as you need. Um I'll pass
along everything to Sarah. And then
before our meeting on September 17th, um
you all would have had two two full
meetings to discuss.
>> So these these two meetings we won't
have Sarah. These are just internal
meetings. The 27th and the
>> 10th. Can you make us some hard copies
of that?
>> Oh, yeah.
>> Yeah. It's going to take me some time.
>> Yeah. It's going to take some time, but
um once I get once I get um the the
handouts, I will immediately start
printing um copies for pickup.
>> Right.
>> So, you guys will have what you need to
take hard notes, you know, download them
on onto your computer, tablet, whatever
you use. spend a spend as much time as
you can with this because it's it's a
lot.
>> But it's it's it's looking very good so
far, but very promising. Sarah's doing a
great job.
>> Great.
>> Now, no pressure. No pressure. But are
you thinking the the handouts would be
available on Friday, which is only a
half day?
>> It depends on when I get the the rest of
the information.
>> Maybe wait until Monday to knock on the
door.
>> Yeah, I I think at the very least uh you
would have digital copies at the end of
the day tomorrow. Agreed.
But unless there's a delay, in which
case, Monday for both.
>> Wonderful.
>> Sounds like it'd be a good thing to read
if I'm having trouble sleeping.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. It's it's um it's a
lot, but I think there's going to be a
lot of positive changes in there. Um but
again, first draft, so we're wanting a
lot of feedback, a lot of red lining, a
lot of notes.
>> Great. Thank you.
>> That's all I got.
>> It's exciting.
Other business
Now he scared me. [laughter]
Some updates updates
>> updates on our sewer water committee. I
think since the last time we are
may have told you we're focusing now on
the water company end of it, water part
of it for the town. Uh the sewer part of
it is in engineering right now. I may
have told you last time. I don't
remember what I told you last time, but
it is in uh the engineering is
preliminary to see exactly what uh route
we're going to take. So that's where
that stands. And we'll know in in the
fall probably what the the best route to
take.
And so we're now we're looking at the
water company and funding through
Northern Borders possibly to either
purchase that or partially uh purchase
an upgrade. Uh it's a it's a complicated
process. The deadline for the preapp is
the 21st of this month. So we're on it
pretty pretty heavily to get a preapp in
um in time. So then we can get the uh
application in in the fall and we would
know in December I think [clears throat]
if we're going to be awarded anything.
So the northern borders are awarded up
to like a million dollars per project.
Uh and usually half of that has to be
with construction and the other half can
be with purchasing of assets and things
like that.
In this case, we may we're thinking
about breaking up into two sections
because the purchasing of the actual
assets of the company will not meet that
50% construction part of it that's
required. So,
if if we go for Northern for a grant for
that, actually it's a matching grant,
50% matching grant, they would all lot
up to 500,000 for purchasing without um
any construction in there. And again,
that's a 50% match that the town has to
match in there. So, it's all
preliminary. We had a meeting last week
with uh
Sarah Sarah, but with Northern Borders u
on the uh on the phone actually, or on
the computer, whichever you had there.
And that's what that's where we're at.
We're moving along with that. Trying to
get to so I'll have more later next
meeting maybe know if we have time.
So also on that note, if anybody can
think of um any um benefits, real
benefits, economic benefits to the town
that the water company will will give
us, we would definitely need that input
because the northern borders relies
heavily on that here moved more further
up the list if uh economic the
development part of it is uh is higher.
So, you know, we've got the homestead
woolen mills down there that they'd like
to put on. You know, I don't know how
many units are down there. It varies up
and down, but I've heard like 80 or
something like that. So, we've got that
could go on if the water was there. Um,
we could develop more on Route 10 if we
had the water there. So, those are two
things. Um, fire protection is another
thing because the town really doesn't
have adequate fire protection. They've
got some of them bagged off. If you may
have noticed in town
>> at least half the fire hydrants in this
part of town don't work.
>> They put the bags over there.
>> Oh, I don't know about that. I think
they're all the fire.
There's no water there.
>> Yeah, they there's water there because
those those high hydrants run off the
same lines that the residences run off.
>> Yeah, 50% of them know where
>> Yeah, I know. But doesn't really know
that. But either way, the water company
is saying that we are not covered under
fire protection. It's just for
residential. So even though the hydrants
are there, the problem being if they
hook a fire truck up to the hydrants as
they are now, if they only have one pump
running, we'll say that that fire truck
pumps 400 gallons a minute and that pump
only pumps 300 gallons a minute, then
you're depleting the system. So that's
that's where the problem is right there.
If they run two pumps,
>> two pumps, not a problem because they've
got all the water on the ground there.
But
>> depending how it's set up, so I think
that's one of the things. and they have
only have a 10,000gallon storage tank.
So, anything you can think of that would
help us with that application there that
it would improve Swansea and it's again
it's just in the west part of town here.
Yeah, let us know. We can put into that
application.
>> One drawback I see though is a couple of
those large lots is we have water and
sewer there. You're going to get low
income
because that's what it's required.
>> Yeah. You might [clears throat] um we
won't have the sewer there for like
another 3 years, but yeah, the water
went in there. Yeah, you probably would.
They rely on the sewer more than the
water, it seems. But both would be nice.
Yeah, if they were both right there on
Route 10. Yeah, they might take up some
of that property with with housing.
>> Don't know.
Funny thing is though, if somebody
bought Nick's restaurant, they could
that field they could build something
there because they could if they bought
both those lots, they can hook up to
Nick's cuz he is on sore and water
>> cuz he ran it over from his north
Winchester.
>> He is, but it I believe that's a 2-in
line that's pumps over the hill there.
They have a holding tank right in the
like the middle of that lot. I know what
you're talking about. And for the
restaurant, I think it was a 2-in force
man going over and hooking in the back
of where one of their apartment houses
was. And if there's something big going
in there, that 2in line isn't going to
cut it.
>> We'd have to have something a little bit
different.
>> Well, there is some plans for that, but
I can't say what that mean.
>> Well, they better look into that before
they get going too far.
>> Well, but the person that wants to
develop that is going to be a home to
account. So
>> good.
>> Thank you, Scott.
>> You're welcome.
>> Thank you for doing that work, too.
Gosh,
>> touching you and the committee.
>> You guys,
>> I'll make a motion to adjurnn.
>> Is there a second?