All towns · brentwood

Planning Board Meeting 08/20/2026 Brentwood, NH

Video

All right, everyone. We will open the
open the meeting.
>> Um, can we have a motion to add our
alternates?
>> So, me.
>> Oh, sorry. Um, so should we do one at a
time like we normally
>> do? Yeah. So, I'll make a motion that we
seat Liz Fia as a voting member this
evening.
>> Second.
>> All in favor?
>> I
>> I.
>> And I will further move that we sit Doug
Finnen as a voting member this evening.
Second. All in favor?
>> I I
First up, we have a public hearing
regarding an application to alter a
stone wall on a scenic road at 175 South
Road. Property owner Brian Dennant, if
you are here, could you um
>> give us
would would you be able to just tell us
a little bit about what your
>> the mic? Um, yeah.
>> Thanks.
>> Yep. Thank you. Y
>> if you could just state your name for
the record, please, sir.
>> Thank you.
>> Name's Brian Denn.
>> Beautiful. Thank you, sir.
>> Somewhat hearing impaired.
>> Bless you.
>> Right.
that that might be a good thing in this
meeting because sometimes people get
tired of hear of hearing us. So,
>> right.
>> So, you are asking to alter the
stonewall boundary between your property
and the right of way to install a
driveway. Yep. Is there
>> I'll make a claim to you folks right
now. I built that stone wall. [laughter]
>> Okay.
>> All the way from Peggy Allen's property
to my driveway along South Road. in in
being a neighbor
>> work Tommy Land has helped me a little
bit.
>> Being a neighbor of yours for 53 plus
years, I can attest that you did make
some improvements.
>> You can you can verify that.
>> I can hear.
>> Sure.
>> Can you It's where uh
>> just for the audio. Yeah. Thank you.
>> So uh my name is Eric Dennett. I'm a
son. Um the reason being we want to move
this the driveway is because the
existing driveway is is far too close to
our our our building. Um the corner post
we were we were unaware of how close the
property line was down our driveway and
like my father said we've been taking
care of that driveway for 53 years and
it's just it's it's too close to have
people driving up and down there walking
their dogs. I understand that it's it's
a public way for them to do it. But we
want the liability. We want to move our
property, our house inside our property
line more to give you, you know, what we
recommended was to try and get like the
35 ft within our property.
And reason being is if we repl
our vehicles. My dad has a pickup truck
and it would just be enough room for him
to park in front of where the garage is
now. Now once we are able to get the
approval to move the house in the
existing garage will be torn down. It's
merely right now it's just storing what
we could salvage out of the house. Um
because again it is within I believe 20
ft of the property
>> right the building itself.
>> And just to clarify you correct me if
I'm wrong your your what you call your
present driveway is actually a class six
town road.
>> Yes. and
>> correct.
>> And in 1973 when the family moved in
that was a class five road. Then
subsequent to that the town voted at a
town meeting to declare that a class six
road. So the town still owns the
property. Anybody has the right to use
it, including the Dennis, but their
house is within just feet of that class
six road. So they'll have a place to
park. they'll have, you know, reasonable
privacy by moving the driveway out onto
South Road. And their address is for, as
far as I can remember, has always been a
South Road address, even though the
access was off from a class, excuse me,
a class six road.
>> Was Was there anybody else from the
applicant?
>> Yes, my name is Nancy D. Sharm. I'm
their daughter.
>> I also want to add that, you know, my
parents are living with me right now and
that's totally fine. They can stay with
me for the rest of their lives. I love
them. But one of the options that was
presented to them was through their
insurance company. They offered to have
a singlewide mobile home brought into
their property so that they could live
there throughout the process of them
rebuilding their home. They can't do
that because they technically don't have
a driveway on the property. And I don't
think you guys want any single wide
temporary mobile home put on your town
property, class six, whatever it is.
Okay? So that's why I'm here so that you
all know this and that's it. Thank you.
>> And probably everybody's aware of it.
Their their home was damaged or really
destroyed by fire about a year ago. So
they haven't been able to live
>> 14.
>> Um do we have any of Butters here who
would like to comment?
>> Do have a letter from
>> if if sorry if you can
>> if you could come to the podium sir. and
just push the red button on it.
>> I'm Dean Bowman, 174 South
[clears throat] Road, right across the
street. And I certainly would support
the town doing this. Uh it seems more
than reasonable to uh make this
modification
and u we might actually be able to see
that stone wall again because it's
pretty overgrown at the moment.
I'm a big yes for this. Thank you.
Come on up.
>> My name is Richard Coney. This is my
wife Florence. We live at 173
South Row. Now, when my house was built,
it was a gentleman that worked for the
post office in Exor and he must have got
approval to use the road. And my
driveway comes off from that road,
Hey Road, I guess they Hey Road.
Also,
the town
uh gentleman that took care of the town
roads, I believe, was Bill Pinkham
back in those days.
>> Red,
>> huh?
>> Red Hubert Wendle. Well, what they did
for me,
we were building all the stone walls
back around the house
and the section where [clears throat] my
garage is built.
It's lowered at my house quite a bit and
back into the woods.
What they did the town, they were
remodeling the whole South Road. They
needed place to dump the rocks, the old
gravel, old tar.
So my part of the land floods
from the pond that the town uses as a
fire, thank God, [laughter] for their
house. But
they came to Florence and I
and asked if they could dump where the
flood area was from the culver towards
the h road. I said, "Sure, do do what
you want." And they filled it all in,
gave me a nice from the town to build a
nice garage set way back. and I and this
gentleman and his son helped me build
stone walls. Those stone walls weren't
there. They were all distributed all
over the place. So, I support
Mr. Dennet and his wife to have that new
driveway. Thank you.
>> Thank you. So, these aren't historic?
>> No.
>> Stone walls. Well, I I will assert that
there was a stone wall visible, but they
they greatly improved it. They added to
it, made it taller, but the uh stone
wall does show on some old tax records.
>> Oh, okay.
>> And the just the fundamental basic
>> Well, you have to have a driveway.
>> Are you restricted with scenic road as
far as removal of it? Can
>> are we able to make this decision?
>> That's why we're having these.
Absolutely.
>> And there's no opposition with the
conservation.
There's a letter in your
>> submitted a letter.
[clears throat and cough]
>> Um it
>> I was just going to say are there any
other public comments?
>> I just one of our neighbors.
>> We got their letter.
>> We got it.
>> Yeah.
>> Yep. We have um
a letter from the conservation
commission that they voted and didn't
have any objections to this application.
And we have a letter of support from Jay
and Lorie Hipkkey at 180 South Road
and both are in your packet.
>> I'll I'll move approval.
>> Any other board discussion or questions?
My only question is how are you
accessing the house now?
>> Right now we are only have our garden
which is between our old house and we're
using the new driveway.
So I don't have to have my mom walk
from the old again. She's 77 years old.
She got diabetes and I don't want her
walking uneven ground.
driveway is the new driveway. I park in
there. We unve
I've seen
when he was looking at the house always
in the yard
and the last
>> it it is a little confusing Paul because
>> is the driveway
>> already built? It's already built and
actually you signed the permit or the
town the town engineer signed the permit
and the town building inspector code
enforcement signed off but they were
just not that there was any malfeasants.
They were just unaware of this law
that's been on the books for over a
quarter century. It's rarely used.
Traditionally we hear requests come in
for uh utilities cutting trees. But of
course it also applies the RSA applies
to stone walls and trees. So, I just
thought it would be cleaner if we had
this meeting so it wouldn't cloud title
down the road. It's very clear if we
pass this that they have a right to use
the new driveway which is already in
existence.
>> Kind of cleaning
>> cleaning up a little mess.
>> Yeah. So, so it's it's sort of a
retroactive, you know, in order to clear
the
>> we're dotting eyes and crossing tees.
again.
He actually had
the approved
question and he put it in, placed it in
there. Everything seemed [clears throat]
to be up to your
>> Any other comments, questions? We had a
>> We have a motion and we have a second.
>> Second. All right. All in favor? I
>> thank you everybody for coming out
tonight and
>> save for the rest of the show but thank
you [laughter]
for us
So this is one step in the process.
>> All right. Thank you everyone.
>> Good job.
>> Well, this is just offensive. [laughter]
Thank you.
>> Thank you, Bruce.
>> Thank you for the blueberry pie.
[laughter]
>> Don't forget mine. All
>> [laughter]
>> right, we'll um
>> we'll need to wait till Mark comes back,
but um you're up next.
>> It only took about 15 minutes.
>> I promised you. I promised you.
>> All right. Um
next up, we have Robert Tuttle, our fire
inspector. talk about
>> looking sharp
>> changes to our site plan review
regulations. [clears throat]
>> Um, and I will be upfront. I have
skimmed this, but I haven't had a chance
to read it in detail and I was hoping
you could kind of
>> walk us through it a little bit.
>> Yeah, sorry that it's it's a little bit
of a lot um that a guy sent you, but
having a discussion with Mark um
basically from our last conversation
while I was here talking about things um
started to go through our actual zoning
to see if things matched like we
discussed.
>> Um, and there was some things that
match, some things that aren't in there.
And so this is more or less trying to
clean that up and figure out within your
um so I kind of more or less looking for
like a work session with you guys more
than like voting anything in tonight
>> because that's the way Mark described it
to me is
>> more of like a work session with you
guys than a actual like voting in things
because I don't understand fully yet how
things get voted in.
>> Yeah. Because we need to have a full
public hearing.
>> Yeah. And will this end up being a
warrant article because Oh, no. You're
adding
>> the most changes to
>> uh I think there was I think there was
one that might have been a warrant
article.
>> Yeah, correct. There is one. There was
one and I think that was specifically
or when I was looking for like NFPAs and
building codes, it just basically sites
like SF SAF600
which is
>> I mean if you want to go digging you can
dig, but I think this that cleans that
section up
>> to be very more specific. So we
>> but for most of it we'll at least have
to have a noticed public hearing and
give people opportunities to comment.
But this was more of a like a work
through
>> um red pen night. If you don't and if we
don't need to go through it all tonight,
I'm okay with that, too.
>> Maybe highlights or things that you
think might be a sticking point.
>> Yeah. Uh is there another
>> Yep. Right over there.
>> Yeah. I I think that's a good idea
because if we do end up doing a work
session later, it might be good to know
in advance what some of the what some of
the quote unquote problem areas might
be, if there are any.
>> Yeah. It's just more like revising and
cleaning things up, trying to figure out
like
>> things that to make the town a little
bit safer for
people coming in because there's a lot
of construction coming into this town.
Um a lot of projects coming in. We don't
our biggest thing in the firehouse is um
the water supply in town. don't have it
in this town. We just don't. Um like I
just found out we had a fire pond that
almost no one knew we had in town on
125.
>> Well, that inoperable.
>> Well, it's got that little just a little
bathtub.
>> Uh no, out behind suburban propane.
>> Behind suburban propane.
>> Oh, it's tied into the water system.
That's a water system.
>> Sure is. that that's also tied to the
Gersie property which
>> is how this really got exposed. Um
>> it'll be it'll be
>> and that's what triggered that resolved.
I got I got the site plan for that and
and no one really knew that was even
back there.
>> Well, it's the source of the water
supply.
>> It is.
>> Was that the thing you showed us, Mark,
where we went into like Okay. Yeah.
>> How that's supposed to operate? There's
supposed to be pressure in those lines
all the time. When the pressure drops,
that pump is supposed to kick on.
>> So, there's some electrical issues
there. There should be some inspections
being done on it.
>> Yeah, it's currently being fixed right
now.
>> It's current it will be fixed um by the
time Gersie comes back to this board.
>> Um before you jump in, I did have one
question. I think I I saw you had
written somewhere that um we have a lot
of buildings that we don't know exactly
when when they're approved who the
tenants will be.
>> Correct.
>> And I'm wondering if you have any
recommendations for the board.
>> So that actually there is I think a
section in here for that specifically.
Um
>> and I probably should have labeled it a
little bit better. Um but there is some
of that in here because early detection
>> shells speculative and multi-tenant
buildings.
>> Yes.
>> Yep.
>> Because it is you're getting we're
getting those multi-bay
just they're building a a cookie cutter
metal box and then they're just going to
rent it out to whoever.
>> I'm Yeah. I'm wondering if you would
recommend that we limit that somehow.
like we we say you can have this type of
business but you can't
>> I wouldn't say limit it because it does
bring a lot of stuff into this town.
>> Um but we just need to be able to get in
there. So like when these guys come in
to site plan for you guys they're just
saying hey I want to build this building
but once it's built there's nothing that
says what you know for us to go back in
or they need can't there's nothing in
there for them to come back even to you
where it says okay well now I want these
tenants in there
>> and certain tenants trigger
>> there actually is
>> there is there
I think most all this is covered by our
existing rigs but you won't believe this
but personally I gave you a very hard
time last time, but I I kind of like uh
the fact that you're, you know, maybe
cleaning up and condensing it.
>> Uh, you know, we have that note on all
plans always on upon approval. It says
that uh the build out before building
permits issue that uh you know, plan is
submitted by a licensed fire
professional
>> detailing what aspects of the codes are
to be addressed. Uh, and I think it's
great to have It's just too much if
people haven't had a chance to read
these.
>> No. And I
>> pages. It's too much tonight. Maybe I
just would suggest we maybe not hold the
public hearing for a month because I'd
love to see FFC as our PE, our
professional engineer fire consultant,
uh, review this and maybe make some
suggestions as well. We might have to
make sure we have budget for that
because our budget is
>> quite tight and I we might I think we
have a small line in there for
>> we we do
>> well again we don't have to address
everything in this packet tonight.
>> Um just it was given to you know talking
with Mark and how things worked, right?
We didn't want to form a quorum or
anything like that. So what I did is I
forwarded to him so he could forward to
you if we have to come back to another
night or look at one or two tonight and
come back. I'm but I can work with that.
>> I'm looking for nothing in stone
tonight. This is more of like a let's
>> work together work session.
>> I think a lot of these things are going
to be addressed through better
communication between the planning board
and the fire department. Getting
applicants into their purview into their
review earlier within the process. I
think the fire regulations and the
amount of gallonage that is required
when you don't declare a use. I've heard
some comments from some engineers to say
that they will never submit another plan
unless they can nail down a use because
you'd be wildly surprised with the
gallons per minute required when you
don't declare a use and when you do.
>> But that would come into play that would
be reviewed when the building
application is submitted. So when
another either instance
>> and I'm looking
>> applicant can come in very with an idea
it's easier not to
>> right but a lot of cases they don't
>> but what Mark is pointing out is that it
may be easier in the short term not to
but when they find out what the
ramifications can be on the other end
>> they should have they should have talked
with someone
>> because most of them have an idea when
when they have five units they know of
one person that's talked to them.
>> Um, they just don't know who the other
four people are going to be
>> and they should think about that more
>> practically.
>> Y so blows don't cash when it absolutely
does.
>> And if it does,
>> we have an applicant that came before us
and we approved the plan and then they
found out because they didn't declare
use they were required to put 80,000
gallons.
>> Uh the which one?
uh Revolution Real Estate,
>> I'm trying to think of that. Uh 180
>> 180,000 gallons of water.
>> And I'll point that out right now
actually with the very first page here.
Um with regards to the system, uh it's a
very short two-page one. Um basically it
would revise because right now what your
zoning board says
it says it um the use the minimum usable
capacity be 30,000 gallons.
Now all developers anywhere I talk to
they're like oh well that's what your
thing says. It's 30,000 gallons. Well no
that's the minimum.
>> And when it comes to NFPA1
all buildings have a fl a fire a flow
requirement when something
[clears throat] happens. So any building
from zero square feet to 12,000 square
foot building comes out to the 200 uh
the 1500 gallons a minute
um for two hours.
>> I could be a little disingenuous in
telling you that because every town and
city in New Hampshire is governed by
these same rules. So they all know it's
based on load and other various factors.
>> But if we the problem with us in
particular as Brent where we don't have
the water supply. So, for me to meet
this as uh in instant commander, right,
I've got 30, let's say I've got 30,000
gallons on site minus the 180,000,
right? Or 180,000 minus the 30. I have
to bring in 14, 15, 16 tankers into this
town, which this area does not have. We
have a staffing issue across the board
in New Hampshire. We don't have the
water supply for that either. that would
be taxing the the water tower or any
what little ponds we do have in town.
>> But but our existing ress if you declare
that they need x number of gallons based
again on the use
>> then they have to comply. I mean they
they can't they can't go back and say
well your ordinance is a minimum of
30,000. I mean because this would make
it clear right yeah that it's but that's
what every developer does.
>> They may try that. You just go, "Okay,
your your thing says 30,000 gallons."
>> Yeah. So, this this would make it more
defensible.
>> This will make it more precise based on
the buildings you have coming in.
>> And or they have other options because
you do have in your thing that they have
other options. You can just sprinkle the
building. That changes things completely
with the sistern size or the tank size
that they need.
>> Is this like an impediment to
development though? Is that
>> you know in terms of
in terms of like the uh lack of water,
you know, and and now putting regulation
in place that will expand what what
what's necessary. Is that going to be an
impediment?
>> I don't
>> I I thought so, Paul. And I don't know
that you were here at the meeting when
um when the chief was here, well, he was
here last time, but I started right off.
I went after him on that basic issue.
The town of Brenwood hires SFC there.
professional engineers authorized or
license to do fire inspections. So the
only other thing I really I don't feel
there's going to be any impediment to
business because it's just following the
law that's already on our books. There
really is nothing really new. The the
idea here is that it would be more clear
to applicants. But I mean the basic law
hasn't changed. And and something that
is worth keeping in mind is that I if
I'm interpreting the new RSA correctly,
which is a big if, um I I I think that
we have some flexibility here to
evaluate some of these multif family
projects on a case-byase basis based on
our water capacity because the the new
law that was passed that amended House
Bill 631 made it even clearer that towns
do have some
um discretion when it comes to town
infrastructure like sewer and water.
>> But that's only for multif family.
>> That's only for multif family. But I but
I think
>> these apply to everything within the
parameters of cycle.
>> Right. But the reason why I bring it up
is that I think to Paul's I I don't know
if this is really where you were going
with this, but I think that with the
increased multif family development in
potentially on 125, it could it could
become relevant. Yeah, I I mean I
>> I was I was thinking more expansively,
but I I understand what you're saying. I
mean, it's true.
>> A very good point,
>> but I don't think this is in any way
that
>> the only thing I'm a little bit
uncomfortable with is uh what what do
you guys call it the agency with
jurisdiction?
>> Uh AHJ
>> AJ
>> uh the authority having jurisdiction
>> and certainly you have independent
jurisdiction on your own. I mean, if you
see see an unsafe situation due to life
safety uh impairments, you have the
right as a fire chief to address those.
>> We we do. We do. And
>> the the biggest thing with this like the
the system thing originally came from
one of the NFPAs that's not being you we
can't enforce it because it's not under
10 or 101. It's under NFPA 1142.
um which is basically the the primary
standard for uh suburban and rural fire
fighting water supply. So that's where
this sistern thing came in. So that NFPA
isn't technically enforcable.
So we don't actually we actually can't
like enforce the system size.
>> Well, that's why I think that uh gauging
SFC to do some review here is is
important. Uh because that's how we
started with SFC at the first. We had
the fire department dictating to the
planning board or suggesting what the um
approval would would allow. And the fire
department at the time, nothing to do
with the present crew, but at the time
they were coming up with suggestions and
requirements, demands that weren't
supported by any fire regulations. So,
we hired SFC. So, just so you
understand, the planning, the fire
department is advisory to this board. I
mean, you still have your own
independent jurisdiction, but I want to
see SFC still involved. So, if there's
an issue,
a U, you know, somebody an applicant is
thinking that they're being
unjustifiably demanded to do far more
than they think the code is, will have
SFC.
>> The last the last SFC report I got is
all suggestions. It's not even the you
must. It just says these are things you
should do. Well,
>> yeah, there's a the I want to say a
couple things real quick. Um, one is I,
you know, I appreciate what you're
saying, but this is also, you know, the
the town hires professionals to, you
know, come up with
>> SFC
>> and the fire department,
>> someone has
>> um,
>> but SFC is a credential PE professional
engineer. Our fire department does not
have that accreditation. So, when it
comes down to brass tax, if they think
that they're being
Are you a professional engineer?
>> I'm not a professional engineer, but I
have the credentials.
>> Well, you have some credentials and also
I've gone through the classes that I
need to.
>> We're not asking them to calculate
loads. We're asking them to regulate
fires and fire suppression. So, let me
give you a bit of example. So, the last
applicant that I just talked about who
got the 180,000galon system and was told
to do that was reviewed by SFC. And do
you know what SFC said? I concur.
So I don't think we're making that fee
also.
>> Yeah. I I don't want to
create a problem that that we don't have
right now. I think you know we have
recommendations for changing our our
site plan review.
>> Based on you know I think what we asked
you last time is can you tie it to our
ordinances and give us justification and
I think that's what you've you've done
very thoroughly.
>> Yeah. Um, and there's always a process
too if an applicant comes in,
circumstances, what you know, whatever
they might be at that site and they have
a justification to try to, you know, get
go to the zoning board and
>> it won't be the zoning board. We want
we'd want to have a professional. And I
mean, I concur with Paul. I'm worried
not about this.
>> I know. saying I'm saying if if
we have rules on the books and then we
get advice during a process
>> and those two things don't quite line up
and there's some there are other
processes is what I'm saying what we
want to do is get the rules
>> yes we want the rules to be properly
stated so they don't infringe on the
rights of future applicants and that has
>> well to Paul's question about um would
this inhibit development I think has to
be weighed against public safety.
>> And what I'm hearing is that
>> the way things are written currently,
you are not comfortable with more
development coming in.
>> It's not that I'm uncomfortable with
more development coming in. I think we
just need to meet the standards.
>> And unfortunately, there's another
development in town, too, that um I'm
working with and I had to give approval
for because before me, there was a
15,000galon sistn on that site, which
does not meet your
>> your ordinance as written currently. And
there was an argument between them about
So now he's building and he's putting a
15,000galon system on site to make a
30,000gallon system on site that has
three four buildings on that one
grouping area all kind of close
together.
>> Not not ideal.
>> So
>> um so uh I want to set aside the S SFC
thing for now. Let's look at the budget,
see where we are. It's already almost
September, so we we'll have an idea.
There might be
>> we have the engineering line and we
might be able to cobble together a
little bit.
>> I just can't believe though we would
consider making changes to our ordinance
because we didn't have the money to hire
our qualified engineer at the town of
Brentwood that you signed the contract
for to provide the technical assistance
to us that you wouldn't want to have
them
review it. I'm not saying that we're
first of all, we're not making any
decisions for a while. We need to go
through a public hearing process. We all
need to read this and mark it up and get
Glenn's insight about how it meshes with
our current ordinances.
>> And if it means we need to wait and or
we need to go to the select board and
ask for money.
>> Well, we can't spend what we don't have.
It's not a matter of, oh, this we think
this is really important, so we should
we still can't spend what's not in our
budget. So, we can go to the select
board or we can wait until January and
we can put it in a new
>> Yeah, I but I I would I think the select
board will find a way to help us finance
it.
>> That's fine.
>> If if if they don't, I would
make a big deal out of not approving any
changes until such time maybe put these
changes off till after January.
>> That's fine. We have the money.
>> That's fine. I just think we're getting
a little bit ahead of oursel. I see a
path for that of
>> Right. But you see, I'm concerned that
we we make decisions and enact
ordinances and regulations that that
make sense.
>> Not that not that given us anything
wrong, [clears throat]
>> but the way they're implemented and
there's always needs to be a safeguard
where a professional engineer can be
consulted if there's a disagreement
between parties.
So yeah, if I could just say
every now and then it feels like we have
discussions here where even though it
feels like we all agree, we're like
talking like we don't agree. Um so
[clears throat] I I I feel like we we we
have a path forward here. I mean we're
we I I think we're in agreement that we
um you know want SF SFC's eyes on it and
but you know we need to just make sure
that we have that we're staying within
our means. um
you know so I I don't know I I think
that we're we're largely in agreement
here um in terms of what the proper path
forward is. I don't know if it'll be
prudent to make a motion to schedule a
work session or if maybe that's still a
little bit premature. Maybe we should
look at the budget first. But I'm
curious what folks what the temperature
of the
>> Oh, there's the budget right there.
Although we don't know what it would,
you know,
>> we don't know exactly.
>> Why don't you make a motion, Doug, to uh
contact SFC to see what a curse review
of these advocated changes would cost.
So, at least we know what what monetary
value we're talking about so we can go
to the select board, maybe somebody
donate some money.
>> If I make a motion, will you second it?
I'll second.
>> Well, I guess what are we asking them
though? Are we asking them to read this
and provide comment or attend a work
session? Um, I was just looking for your
guys' input to start. I'm not trying to
go down the big huge rabbit hole.
>> I would much rather we whittle this
down. Yep.
>> I mean, I can't ask for a quote on
something that she's never seen. You
know what I mean? And and how much
volume there is will dictate the price
and the hours that
>> Yeah. I mean, maybe we read through it
and a lot of it's basic. We don't think
we need an engineer,
right?
>> So, let So, let's do this. Um,
I can Did you send this to us in a word
doc?
>> I emailed it over to um Mark on a word.
>> Um because one Okay, we have a couple
options
>> for the
>> if not I can't it was either PDF or or
Word, but I'm pretty sure it was Word.
>> Because I'm just thinking we've got a
couple options. One is everybody has a
copy of this in their mail. they can
just use the the comment function and go
through and make comments on it and send
them all to Mark. Or I could make more
of a spreadsheet and put each section in
a column and you guys can write notes
and maybe that way we can say we don't
need to worry about this. This is, you
know, this is consistent.
>> I think we just make comments on this.
It takes a couple hours to really read
through it several times.
>> Yeah. Again, like I said, I I've been
working with Mark. It was more of a we
can't do a quorum. We didn't want to go
down that rabbit hole, right? So, sent
it over to him so I could come talk to
you guys.
>> Hey, we really want to meet with with
you guys, but we appreciate all the work
you've [laughter] done.
>> We really do. Yeah. Some sometimes we
stumble into rabbit holes without
without even
>> So, um so let's set a deadline for
ourselves to comments
um and then get back together and do
more of a
close reading together.
>> We're not meeting on the first of next
month, September. So, about the second
meeting of September. [clears throat] Do
>> we have any
>> for the 17th? I believe it is.
>> We have that one hearing that's
continued.
>> We do. Let me um
>> We're not meeting on the third.
>> We are not. That meeting is canceled.
Yeah, we have Garcy
>> GI. Yeah,
>> Geri Geresi and they're going before the
ZBA to Monday.
>> So, may I just suggest something?
>> Yes, please.
>> Absolutely.
>> I started reading this yesterday.
>> Um, and I would really like to send
something to the board about it and I
would like to do that earlier than
later.
So regardless of when you people decide
you're going to have a work session, I
would like to commit to finishing
looking at it when I'm here next week
>> and put together what I think we need to
how we need to address moving forward.
>> Perfect.
>> I mean, you pay me to do that and I
would like to do that and I did start
doing that yesterday, but I
>> we appreciate that. Said that 10 minutes
ago. Well, sometimes it's just fun to
see how we work through things.
>> Well, and I know I'm sure everybody
wants to
>> and everyone should look at this.
>> So, we don't need FF SFC yet. We just
>> just
I'm just saying before we vote as a
board to adopt
>> it and and and we agree. So, I think we
can hold off on any motions.
>> Yeah. And we need a public hearing, too.
So, there's lots more to come.
>> Does Does that work with his schedule?
You know, his schedule.
I make a schedule. Yes.
>> Will he have enough time?
>> Yeah, I'll have I will have enough time
next Wednesday. Okay. I've got comments.
All you have to do is go through the
Gersie comments to make sure they are uh
sufficed.
>> Um Yeah. And you already got the
>> You're going to make a recommendation to
us by email?
>> I Yes. And and I'm not [clears throat]
saying I'm making recommendations about
the content. I want I will be making
recommendations about what our steps
forward are. Okay. and how I think these
are meshing in with what we currently
require.
>> So board assignment is to spend some
time with this
>> send any comments questions to Glenn and
Mark and be prepared on the 17th having
read Glenn's comments in this document
and you're available on the 17th and
that'll be the next step. We may have a
review step, timing, TVD.
>> That's fine. Um,
>> and we'll have a public hearing step.
>> I like learning how you guys work and
working with you guys. So,
>> we're uh, [laughter]
>> I I really think they're on the right
track. I just want to make sure that
>> Absolutely. I agree.
>> When do you
>> So much for your work.
>> When do you go to Florida? [laughter]
>> 17.
>> All right. Well, again, thank you for
all the work you've done on this. Thank
you for coming out again tonight. We
appreciate it.
>> Yeah. Very nice.
>> Oh, actually, sorry. I had one one quick
thing for you. Um, so back on this idea
about buildings that you're not exactly
sure what's going in them. So, the town
did put together a like a business
registration process where
>> owners are supposed to notify the town
of new tenants,
>> but I don't know how that's been
implemented. And one of the big issues
we have here um and I see you have
approval should not con constitute
approval of any future tenant.
we
don't have a lot of enforcement
mechanism or inspe you know like making
sure like
>> tenants have changed um
>> so that's that's an area
>> somebody told me you guys had like a
registry of businesses because I want to
get out myself to the businesses because
get out and do safety inspections and
lights and and get back into these
businesses
>> and we really should know that a
business moving in
>> it you know is approved under the site
plan and that um
>> because I assume if something's changed
there, they're not following your rule,
>> right?
>> It could just be the same kind of
business.
>> Mhm.
>> But if it's something different,
>> that's may or may not.
>> I I know you're concerned about see
business you should be concerned about.
But I I believe you have the right maybe
it's in conjunction with code
enforcement or building inspector New
Hampshire RSA. I think you have the
right
own. Certainly the planning board
doesn't have any jurisdiction once the
approval has been given.
>> There are some like if they have like um
a permanent assembly or certain things I
have to go in yearly and go check. Yeah.
>> Other things
>> permitting emissions of a paint shop or
body shop.
>> So you do really have that.
>> There are Yep.
We don't we don't have any enforcement
power, but we're a resource if you need
to know what's approved at a site.
>> But doesn't the building inspector um
uh issue a um occupancy permit?
>> We do. We've been working together with
every all new buildings. I I give him my
life safety inspection report and that
in conjunction will give an occupancy.
But if it's an occupancy for a square
metal building that has nothing in it,
that doesn't mean it's it's literally an
occupancy for that shell.
>> But now what's going in there?
>> It's not a like a business license.
>> They could say, "Oh, it's, you know, a
business, but really it's B business and
now it's a high hazard with
>> So when you have somebody moving in, how
do you get more teeth into that by
having a new business go in? You start
with the shell, then you have a gun
factory going there,
>> right? I
>> we have nothing.
>> I would only find out if we go and do an
inspection, right?
>> That's why our note is on every plan
that says any use of this will conform
to all.
>> Doesn't sound.
>> No, no, it's
>> it's like condo docks. Nobody ever reads
them. five or seven years ago, we put in
a requirement that said that
acknowledges by note on the plan that
they understand that Brentwood Fire
Department has the right to annual
inspections.
>> It's in our it's in our regulations. We
make
>> and do you do that on an annual basis?
>> So the problem with that is again
funding budget. I'm only there so the
previous inspector was only there every
Friday for eight hours because that's
what the budget allowed. I try to be
there Tuesdays and Thursdays. We've gone
to 10 hours because that's what we're
figuring out. Um but I mean that's five
hour two five hour days.
>> And I do come in a lot and do a lot on
my own time as well for this town. Um
just because I really do like Brentwood
Firehouse.
>> Um
>> and now we're your favorite planning
board too, right?
>> Okay. Anything else?
Thank you again so much.
>> All right. Uh board review of the new
compliance enforcement form. Thank you
Mark for making that we have an
electronic version and a version
somebody can fill out by hand. Um, so
the conversation, Paul, you weren't here
last week, but we talked about, you
know, we all kind of see something once
in a while and we don't, um, you know,
like an individual, anybody personally
can send something to the select board,
but we talked about, well, if we've all
talked about it here, should we as a
board report something rather than
making an individual do it? So that was
the idea behind this.
Mark, is there anything you want to add?
>> No, it's pretty self-explanatory. I
wanted one that you could fill out at
home a as you saw something and you
could fill it out and the other one's
really for me to be able to type on it
or for you if you want to type it out on
your computer and print it. I just
didn't want to have to delete all the
lines when I wanted to fill it out. So,
provided them both to you. Um, I did
steal the Kingston one and sort of
revamped it. That's what I
>> I removed a few things that I re
rewarded some things that I felt were a
little clearer.
>> Kingston's brilliant.
>> Did um who
>> what' you say?
>> I said Kingston's brilliant
>> because he wrote it.
>> The form was
>> So did we
>> No, I I felt there was a few things that
could be eliminated and I did.
>> So I guess it wasn't so brilliant. So
>> So Glenn, would you make changes on
this?
>> Okay. I you're insulted by my changes by
the one you made in Kingston. I can see.
>> So, which one were you supposed to go by
here? Either one or the one with the
lines.
>> Yeah. The one with the lines.
>> They say the same thing.
>> Yes, I did.
>> Yeah. The the one without the lines is
just easier to type in on a computer.
>> So, um if you don't
>> Did we vote last time on submitting a
request for the containers under the
power lines or did we leave that open?
We we did talk about that, Paul. In
fact, there was uh you spoke about a
couple meetings ago about going out
viewing that um banner here on Sanborn
Lot.
>> Did that happen?
>> You said you were going to do it. So,
I'm going
>> personally.
>> Yes, you did. I I'll even rewind. I'll
sit come over here and watch that tape.
>> No, I said I would I would report it to
the building inspector, which I did.
>> What happened?
>> Don't know.
>> That I can't tell you.
>> And then I I I made a recommendation. I
think Kristen brought up the idea of
checking out the banners, see if that
conform with standards
>> and then I mentioned the containers, the
three containers on the second parcel
which has no site plan approved at all
at all.
>> Period.
>> So, you know, I don't mind being the
jerk, but uh I think Christian had a
good idea if the planning board were to
write this up. I don't mind going around
and writing up these these these uh
legislation, but just so you won't think
we're trying to ser the power of the
board of selectment. you turn to page.
I'm I'm not thinking that at all.
>> We just we just notice things and if
it's a site plan that we've worked with,
then people know what's off.
>> Yeah. I I think that kind of
documentation, you know, with the
planning board stamp of, you know,
approval is, you know, that that would
help the process. So, does somebody want
to make a motion to have our land use
administrator fill out an enforcement
request related to the containers?
>> I don't have the address under the power
lines,
>> right? We have I can
>> I I would feel more comfortable creating
that document for you and you reading it
and voting on it because you're what
what you're do. It's too gray. If I put
something in there that you don't like,
then
>> we don't know you don't like it. I don't
know. You don't like it.
>> You've got something going on. All
right.
>> Can you draft Can you grab something?
>> Okay. For the containers.
>> Containers under the power line.
>> Yeah. So, I've got to look up on our
site plan review regulations and our
zoning regulations. What? That's a
violation of
>> I'll give you I'll give you a note in
writing early next week.
>> They appear abandoned.
>> Yeah. Because you already sent it. No, I
haven't. I held you.
>> But we can do it in two minutes. If you
could just
>> I want them to be aware that they need
to follow us up with
>> Let me read under site plan regulations
on page 31.
>> Mark
under section 10 administration
enforcement 10.1 is general and it says
these regulations shall be administered
by the planning board with the
assistance of the building inspector,
town engineer and and such other persons
as the board shall designate. It shall
be the duty of the board of selectment
to enforce the site plan review
regulations. The selectment in enforcing
these regulations shall act upon a
complaint or information from the
planning board, building inspector, town
engineer, or otherwise, and shall
whenever practical takes take such
action as the planning board or such
other officials request.
>> I thought you were going to give me what
they were in violation of. I was ready
to write it down.
>> And the board of selectment have done
that seven times. Yeah, I I think I
think the reason I
>> suggested [snorts] that we have a forum
like this is because there are meetings
where we just kind of talk around
circles
>> and we don't actually do anything about
[laughter] that. Not that that would
ever happen here,
>> but this way we get it down on paper,
>> we all agree, we send it to
>> You make a motion, you vote on it, and I
will I will make sure
>> it would help the building inspect
because I know he wants that.
>> Plus, it's like prioritizing. It's not
just something you heard.
[clears throat] It's an official
request. All right, our land.
>> He probably draft
>> he probably asked me to put
>> So you like the form
>> and then that question we would be
voting on this after
>> after he drafts it.
>> After he I I'm uncomfortable without you
looking at the verbiage first.
>> So the containers but not the signs.
>> Well, let's just start with [laughter]
>> one.
>> And would that Are you going to put the
vote down on paper?
>> Um just an approved signature.
be specific action and request by the
planning board. I it being reflected in
the minutes that be reflected in the
minutes,
>> right? As long as it's reflected in the
minutes and you have an approved
signature that I think that suffices.
>> All right.
>> Next item. Board discussion regarding
driveway permits. So, we talked a little
bit about this last time. SFC gave us
two options.
How did we leave this?
>> I [clears throat] do.
>> Um, so
looking at the billing that's been
coming in, um, I reached back out to SFC
to say, "Hey, do you have a number that
you can come up with that would be a one
fee that I could pay you per driveway
permit and then you would handle it or
could you bill direct?" and her answer
is in that email that they are
uncomfortable billing direct.
>> And really lays out the two fees that
they are comfortable with collecting and
the amount of service they would give
under those two fees. Um, this is my
personal opinion. I I think $1,000 is
far too much money to to ask for a
resident uh for a driveway permit.
Um, but you're not going to get it's
you're not going to get the
pre-insspection,
which I think is important as well.
>> Our application does not know they asked
for a picture of the existing condition.
In fact, if you want to pull up that
approval for the Denet lot, you'll see
all the pictures that were taken by
>> the applicant. Right.
>> Right. No, those were taken by the
engineer.
>> Okay. But during a pre-insspection,
>> um, leaving it up to a homeowner or
a possible, uh, person putting in the
driveway to judge that sight distance of
400 ft.
Um,
this this is why I'm bringing it to the
board. This could be a board discussion.
>> If you I I concur with the thousand
bucks is too much. I like the second
one, but if you read a little further
below that, the SFC is offering to help
us improve our application process. So,
they might
ask for for pictures. Uh,
if somebody lies about the line of
sight, and I agree with you, not many
homeowners would even know what a line
of sight is, but if they put down
information
put in the driveway and then the
information that they gave is untrue,
they don't get their final sign off.
>> Well, then it's already constructed and
built.
>> Yeah. That puts puts everybody in
>> and they don't really know how to
properly do line of sight either.
There's a procedure to that.
>> I'm sorry.
>> Please, Mr. Go right ahead. Thank you.
>> I I understand that you're worried about
$400, but the $400 in this instance is
whether or not we're going to have an
engineer go out before the driveway is
put in and show up after the driveway is
put in. And I think that because of our
history,
>> we should work on that premise for a
while.
>> And if it seems like it's overkill,
>> we can readjust it. But what we have
spent two years kicking ourselves for
not providing for the ability for our
town engineer to show up before anything
happens and verify after everything has
happened.
>> And they told us it costs more money
>> and it's $400 to is the difference
between having them on site before and
after
>> on an $850,000 home.
>> Why are we Why is this an issue?
>> Well, this is also a conversation of
Right now we're charging three.
Your typical driveway.
Let's just say this one on Selfro.
That's a one of
she goes out and does that and then goes
back to the office. When she does the
one say in uh Riverrun, it's three at a
time or four at a time or five at a
time.
So, the differential there if if she is
charged if we're going to get charged
$1,000 for every or the applicant is
going to get charged $1,000 for every
one of those and then they go out and do
five at a time, that's a profit to them.
Can't we expect a professional
organization like SFC to treat that
reasonably? So, if they do go out and
they do five inspections, I don't think
they're going to charge us for 15 hours
at work. I mean, they're talking five
hours.
>> If they do, that's something we should
talk to them about. Absolutely. Well,
that's
>> but be but it just seems we have spent
an awful lot of time upset that we
didn't have the right eyes on the
driveways at the right time.
>> You bailed us out again
>> and the only way to do that is to have
them there before and to have them there
after.
>> And I believe we spent we had legal fees
related to that
>> which is a town.
>> It's just crazy. If we feel like we're
like they're screwing us, I think we
talk to them about that because that
isn't the relationship they want to have
either.
>> There is an option C that we pay them
the hourly that comes in and we set a
fee.
>> I think we could set our fee based on
what
>> we we we would just when they go out and
do five at a time, there's just an
hourly fee involved in that,
>> right? their hourly fee to do just one
driveway in the town of Brentwood, just
one on some back, you know, uh, back
road,
it it adds up to almost $1,000. One came
out to like 900. So that's why they came
up the figure of $1,000, right? But the
five in a row that they did that they
charged me hourly. We probably I mean I
didn't go number by number, but there's
only three of them that have been done
>> um
in a development situation.
>> Well, we just we then Tara talks with
us.
>> And she says, "Look, I have five
applications and I can do them all at
one time." So,
>> like 1,000 per driveway or hourly,
whichever is less,
>> whichever is the appropriate method.
>> Good idea.
>> But you but this is a fee that goes on a
form.
>> Yeah,
>> you pay this up front,
>> right? If you don't get the money up
front, you may not get the money. So,
you could but you could always
>> then I defer back to what I originally
said. We want them eyes on before and
eyes on after.
>> And if this is what it costs, this is
what that's what it costs. Exactly. the
fee. Can't we just we take in the fee,
they bill us whatever it is. If we have
extra left over, we keep it and use it.
>> I feel like that's more record keeping
and
>> we're probably not able to manage.
>> I mean, that could stack up and then we
could use it for other engineering needs
>> No, that goes into general fund. Like,
we don't
>> I do like the way you're thinking. It
really [laughter] doesn't they don't
they won't keep it in a pile for us. All
right. So, the only there's one other
option I see
>> get that money,
>> which is um
>> I like those guys, but
>> a fee based on
a one-off driveway, a fee based on, you
know, two or more in one location is
$800.
>> But now you take take River Run for
example, they may apply for five, but
they may only build one at a time.
>> Yeah. I I'm I'm not that concerned about
there aren't going to be
I don't think any you know major
new projects like that. I'm not that
concerned about it. And the
we want to get it right.
>> We want to get it right.
And if if the difference between getting
it right and coming up with some um
[clears throat] convoluted
>> convoluted reason to not do it doesn't
seem logical. And if we if there is if
something does go wrong, um it's very
hard to get somebody to fix something
and it becomes a fight and a zoning
>> and it becomes way more expensive way
more expensive. And so if if something
goes wrong, they got a $600 permit and
then they got a $1,000 repair bill and
they're going to be upset that we didn't
just give them a $1,000 permit and save
them 600 bucks.
>> You won't believe this, Flynn, but my
thinking is has evolved.
All right. So, um I would entertain a
motion to uh
>> Oh, sorry. Is there any public comment?
>> Yeah. Sorry about that.
>> Come to the podium, please.
>> Push the button.
>> State your name, please.
>> Robert Lambert. Um been with the DOT for
21 years. Um I do driveway permits on a
daily. Um, it's part of my job as
foreman for my area. Unfortunately, I'm
not a foreman over here. I'm in
Allenstown. Um, part of my job is
driving around and if I see someone
paving a driveway or putting in a
culvert, um, you know, unless they have
their permit in hand, it's cease and
desist, you need to stop. Um, I've seen
people that our permits are zero. They
can go online and apply for it. Doesn't
cost them a thing. And I've still seen
contractors come in and not do putting a
pipe in or making sure the grade was the
right way. Um
just
I guess my question is why isn't the
road agent handling it?
>> Basically I'll be the will and willing
to say we don't we don't have a
qualified engineer on our highway staff.
>> Period. I'm not full stop,
>> but we we've had a lot of problems with
this and uh it's just time to make the
change. I mean, the state has the money
in their budget apparently to provide
the service that
>> the engineers don't come out and check
the driveways. I do. And I'm not.
>> But you're still a paid state employee.
>> Okay. We yeah, we have um regulations
about exactly how they're supposed to be
built, which are a little bit different
in this town than I think surrounding
towns because we still require
>> not concrete um concrete
>> reinforced concrete.
and we have had instances where things
have been moved, things have been
installed that do not match the plan.
And one of the problems that we
identified is that we didn't have
something like this in place that
covered the expense of somebody going
out ahead of time making sure it was
going to be done correctly and making
sure it was installed correctly and that
created issues for us.
>> Any points well but see you'll go back
when you see some incursion like that
you'll go back and check on next time
you drive through the area.
Nobody no problem doing that this fall.
That's the problem.
Any any other comments?
>> Yeah, I just want to make another
comment. I still like their SFC's note
here would be to assist assist us with
developing the driveway permit
requirements because a question I asked
Mark today uh going back a few years
when we had perhaps something different
in writing on our application. We said
that if you pave a driveway or repave a
driveway, you're changing the elevation
and the side slopes and all that. Um,
you still need to get a building permit.
So, I think we need to really revamp or
or at least take a look at our current
driveway permit applications to make
sure that we address problems.
>> Can we do that?
>> Did we not do that? I thought we I
thought we did
update our permit application.
>> Well, that was always the rule, but I
that's in force anymore. I see driveways
paved all the time on my road that
there's no permit.
>> Would it be advantageous to have the
building inspector come in and talk to
him about it?
about the application the process and
>> the not the application process is the
application process but we need a
defined maybe to redefine our
our application to ask the questions to
state the rules that we want to see
enforced
because people are again on my road the
guy you're I know exactly where
>> it's another enforcement issue not
having the resources to flag
>> you grabbed the bowl I'm just trying to
wrangle it okay so what I would like to
do I would like to ask the planning
board to accept $1,000 to go toward a
review of by SFC of our driveway
applications to see if we can do that
and I'll have a check for you Monday.
>> You have $650 in your budget for
engineering.
>> Well, that's all right. That maybe that
can be used on the fire because that's
my next big battle. But this one, I'll
give you the thousand bucks, too.
>> I I don't think it's legal for you to
give money to
>> Oh, it is a donation. I honestly thought
we did this. I thought you redid the
form. And
>> I can show you exactly what the what the
form looks like.
>> And I think the problem is that we can
we can do that, you know, have a a new
driveway permit for a new house,
but then I mean I've been in my house
nine years and still haven't paid my
driveway. Um,
what how does that how do you know if
that person knows the process,
remembers?
>> Well, first you first you have to have
the process. You can't hold somebody
accountable for something that that
values a plane board member. I I don't
know exactly what that driveway permit
requests requires today, but I'm sure
SFC will probably come up with some
different ideas on what what rules we we
would have.
>> So, what you're really talking about
though is not it's not necessarily a a
driveway permit. It's a
>> application for
>> in Well, but it's when there there's
already a driveway.
>> Well, that's just one. I mean, over
overall 90% of what I I'm worried about
is new driveways, but I'm saying there
are little incidental sidebars to that
like the repaving issue that I don't
know.
>> See, I feel like I regardless of what's
on this, the reason we that SFC would be
paid $1,000 is to make sure that the new
driveway is installed correctly.
So, I'm not I'm not worried about that.
The problem with somebody coming back
later and putting in a culvert and
paving a driveway that's already there
and not coming in and getting a permit
to that is different.
>> But our my question is I guess it's so
simple. Uh
I think we we need to know we need an
engineer needs to tell us what are the
the different aspects of a proper
driveway installation. Don't. Isn't that
in our That's in our
>> We have that.
>> We do. We do about subgrade and all that
and the way
>> Yes, that was the whole thing.
>> We have that little depiction. We have
that little depiction in our book.
Didn't we discuss that a few years ago?
>> Yeah. And and
>> um they've done driveway permits for us.
They haven't said, "Oh my god, we think
you're requiring horrendous construction
requirements for your
>> and we do have them because the whole
issue that we had last year, the year
before was that
>> we had the requirements and we looked at
what was in the ground and those things
and we measured
>> most we were there measuring.
>> So they are they do exist. Most of the
struggle is with not with developments
but private homeowners is getting them
to submit a proper diagram and elevation
scheme for what they want to do. That's
where her struggle is and I've had to
refuse a few and hand them back and say
this is not um a completed application
>> for new driver.
>> So yeah,
>> I think it was one of them. Yeah.
>> because it wasn't complete. It wasn't
adequate to show elevations and slopes.
>> So what did you do?
>> They redid it.
>> And that's why she has to bill for those
hours. She bills for the original
review. Has to also bill for the second
review of coordination between the
applicant and herself.
>> And that's the struggle. I don't think
it's the ordinance itself. It's the
actual application these people are
filling out and handing in. So, so
here's what I'd like to do, and you all
can disagree, but um I'm favoring option
one with a conversation with FFC to say
if you see any way to improve this
process so it doesn't take as long
and you know, you help the applicant out
earlier and the cost could come down in
the future, then we can discuss that.
>> I I'll I'll make that motion.
>> Yeah, Liz wanted to say something. Yeah,
I'm I'm confused. We are we only talking
about new driveways or are we also
talking about getting permits
>> if you're repaving your driveway?
>> Not repaving but installing a culver or
there hasn't been one.
>> Well, our old said if you repave, in
other words, you have a driveway that's
been there for a long time, it's
breaking up or something, you need to
repave it.
>> Sometimes you may be just shimming and
repaving. Other times you may be
grinding it up and starting from
scratch.
>> Yeah. Do you need a new driveway permit
for that?
>> That's what it always was.
>> But not like a C, not like
>> it's altering
reconstruction alter. If you are
altering a driveway, meaning making it
wider, making it uh raising it, lowering
it, if you're altering all the terrain,
then you need to apply for a driveway
permit because part of the driveway
permit process and the most, in my
opinion, the most important part of the
process is creating proper drainage.
Proper drainage ruins our roadways.
Improper drainage ruins our roadways. It
ruins driveways. It ruins culverts. So
proper drainage is what this really the
application is all is part of a very
important part of the application.
>> I I think they should be separated out
though. I don't think we should be
talking about them.
>> Well, I think what he's saying though is
if is if it's being altered in a way
that would alter the drainage and you're
rebuilding the drive. So it's not like
if somebody has their driveway resealed,
has you know cracks repaired, things
like that. It's not that
>> sort of
>> maintenance. adding [clears throat]
dimensional thickness to your driveway.
So, which helps there's drainage.
>> I mean,
>> and I've seen examples, too. I know
other people have where people are doing
that. They're not putting in the right
culvert. They're not following the
standards.
>> I think
>> I think we're overthinking it and I just
go with
>> Was going to make a motion.
>> So, so I I made the motion, but there
hasn't been a second.
>> I'll second.
>> Any other
>> for What exactly was the motion, sir?
I'm sorry. $1,000
>> for option one
>> option one for $1,000.
>> There was more discussion
>> and there was more to that. There there
was the
>> and we will that SFC will work with us.
Correct. If they find ways to make the
process less expensive.
>> Correct. Correct.
>> Uh who's the second? Mr. Stevens.
>> Then they have a question after that. So
my question is
>> before we vote.
>> Yes. Uh
process-wise, Glenn, so we we've voted
tonight to one item number one thousand
bucks. Do we have to have a public
hearing on that or is is this vote
tonight sufficient to charge somebody?
>> I believe it's sufficient to charge
somebody.
>> So Mark take a new opportunity next week
>> because we're we're the town can set
their fee schedules. Um we're not
writing um uh subdivision regulations.
fee schedule.
>> So, we're going from 300 to a,000.
>> So, should we be clarifying somewhere
that this thousand is just for
construction of new driveways or
>> substantial reconstruction?
>> I I think that's really important to do.
I in this entire discussion, I only
thought about new driveways.
>> I I think that's the only
$1,000.
>> Yeah, I know. We went down a rabbit
hole.
>> We absolutely did. that [laughter] um I
understand there are reasons and every
driveway is a particular little universe
but from my perspective [clears throat]
on this discussion we were talking about
new driveways and that was our changes
that was our issue although there are so
what about existing
an existing gravel driveway that
somebody builds up paves puts in a
culvert
do you not that I mean, maybe it
shouldn't be $1,000, but do you not want
that to go through the engineers?
>> Yeah, that's that's what I'm wondering.
What What does our our application say
now? Does it say that to repave your
driveway, you need to get a permit?
>> Yeah, I don't know.
>> I believe I'll check into that, but I
believe so. But I think yes, you do.
This just this review process is just as
important in those instances because
I've seen where they've just filled in
the ditch line. They raised the
driveway, filled in the ditch line, and
put a driveway in. They never even put a
culvert in where they should have.
>> Maybe we could ask SFC to recommend some
language on the permit differentiating.
>> That's why I was changing line and
grade.
>> Yeah. When you read that, I I think my
interpretation of what she said was, "If
you go with the $600 option, instead of
me doing a pre-approval, I will work
harder with the applicants over the
phone on emails to make sure that they
understand and install it correctly."
>> But it should be in writing so that
anybody that goes in and looks at the
permit application understands. They
have that little schematic, but to most
people, that little schematic doesn't
really mean much. We need to say these
are the requirements. It lays them out.
I mean, it even includes
>> the language of the RSA within the
permit process. The problem is, Bruce,
is that you're working with layman's.
Okay. And layman's do not provide very
good information or drawings when it
comes to these particular applications.
>> So, this thousand is going to take care
of that.
>> It will. Yes.
>> But
if somebody alters it, comes in on an
old existing driveway and of course
they're going to put some subgrade in,
they're going to get a crown. Mhm.
>> I'm going to pave it. That ought to
require, I mean, always did require, at
least on paper, required a driveway
permit.
>> Yes, I would agree. You're altering
grade. You're altering drainage. That
should require a permit.
>> You know, but isn't this like a separate
question? Anyways, go pertains to what
the what the inspector is going to look
at.
>> Well, no, it's a separate question from
from what we're seeking to charge. Yeah,
if the planning board members don't even
understand what the applicant
>> that's why I think they should be
separate. They should be separate. This
is for new driveways, right?
>> What's the difference?
>> What is the difference that we were all
worried about was in new development?
>> That's the difference. We're addressing
that. If we want to if we want to spend
time over the next eight weeks and make
the determination on how this should
apply to
existing driveways being altered and how
we should change our permit, I'm happy
to look at that. I'm always happy to
look at anything. Um, and I am not shy
to say if I think I can give you wording
for something. If I think I can and it
has to be an engineer, I'm gonna tell
you I think it has to be an engineer.
>> Well, I think an engineer would just
understand what he what he was dealing
with on the ground. I don't think he was
>> um and that's I I understand that. I I
think that we need to look at that has
never until tonight that has never been
a part of this discussion.
>> I've asked that.
>> I No. Yeah. Yeah. I I mean that is also
we we have talked about that because we
I remember talking about like walking
around neighborhoods and seeing metal
>> culverts and wondering
>> how did that happen?
>> So um so I I agree that this could be
clarified and that we draw a line
somewhere between what is
>> I don't think it's
true truly a you know not
a a rebuilding of some kind.
>> I don't think we as people know.
>> Bruce, please. You're making me
interrupt you. Um,
we can we can we can make criteria. The
criteria could be you're installing a
culvert where there never was one. That
could be it. Um, you're you're paving a
driveway that currently is gravel and
changing the driveway. Like, that's a
major change.
>> Well, I think we've always required
that. We just haven't enforced it. Well,
that it comes back to what I said
earlier. We don't have the resources to
be
>> Well, I'm going to give you the
resources to do that.
>> No, no, no. That's not what I mean. I
mean, having people with an existing
driveway who call up a guy to come pave
their driveway knowing that they're
supposed to come and talk to Mark and
fill out an application.
>> No, no, no.
>> Right. It's in
>> somebody um to fill out an application.
That's
>> not a rule problem. That's a public
education enforcement compliance
problem.
>> You really have an egregious situation
down the road and it has to go to court.
You know, the judge is going to want to
see what are your what are your
criteria?
>> Yeah. Okay. I think we I will I I I know
>> Let's do three things.
>> Where
>> one?
>> Well,
>> guys, let let's just take a pause
because this is taking way too long.
We've gone down many rabbit holes
tonight.
I would like to just decide tonight in
its current form
whatever it is
voting for option one and then at a
future meeting after Glenn's looked at
it and we've all looked at it and Mark's
looked at it decide if we want to split
out like an improvement permit
[clears throat] or something and maybe
then we have a discussion about what
that costs and what how do you define
what that
>> improvement could
I know But I've heard objections tonight
to charging that like how how is that
defined? We can we can look at that
closely
[clears throat] before the next meeting.
Um and the third thing is public
comment.
Linda Lambert, I just wondered on an
additional perspective,
why could you not ask the person
submitting the permit to already have an
engineer's
drawings, opinion, rendering? I'm I
don't know the language.
>> You could,
>> but why why couldn't you just put the
cost directly on the homeowner
>> to have that upfront so that you're not
worrying about this
cost being reimbursed or overcharged or
>> Yeah. So, this is a this is a fee that
does go to them and they do have the
responsibility to submit everything
that's needed for that application.
>> Could it not be part of
maybe I'm not saying it right. They
already have to incur the cost on their
own completely. They they have paid SFC
or somebody else. I want a driveway. you
come out, do the rendering, figure out
the slope, the grade, figure out, you
know, if I need a covert, this, that,
and the other. And I have to supply that
picture. Like you would have to have an
architect do drawings before you build
your house. And and they've already paid
somebody to do that before they come.
>> Yeah. We have a peer review process with
a lot of
our regulations to ensure that somebody
else other than us volunteers have has
you know looked at that and and made
sure that it's being done correctly. And
then we want somebody physically on the
site because again we've had some
problems with things not being done the
way we
>> I wasn't sure if if somebody came with
drawings first that you could say yay or
nay to before they're even allowed to
move forward whether then the only fee
we would have to incur would be someone
going out after. Our legal advice though
for the last quarter century or probably
50 years has been that the town any fees
the town enforces or the town puts into
play should be paid that money should be
paid to the town and then the town pays
>> vendor. I mean that's that was just
legal advice. I'm going to throw one
more wrench into the
>> No. Um, yeah, I was just going to say
too that we we want part of the process
to be having somebody go out who's
basically they're the applicant's paying
the fee, but the engineer works on
behalf of the town to ensure that we're
protected and that the drainage is right
and that our roads are protected and
things are being done correctly. It's
really hard based on experience to try
to do something after it's installed
[clears throat and cough] that was
installed incorrectly. So, we're just
trying to
It does I know it's a it's a jump. I
don't know when the $300 was set, but um
I was just hoping that if the somebody
could go to get the engineer ahead of
time that they can shop. I'm going to
pay, you know, this much or I'm willing
to pay that much because I'll go to this
engineer. This is a separate peer review
process for the town.
>> I'll give you an example. Here is one in
Edgewater which the engineers spent a
great amount of time creating this plan
and charge the applicant money for
creation of the plan. But yet I still
have to pay an engineer to peer review
it
for this particular driveway. This this
is one application from Edgewater
and this is what they provide.
So
>> my last comment, I'm not going to ask
Gwen for comment tonight, but in two
weeks, three weeks when when we meet,
>> thinking about authority, the planning
board has clearly has authority to
regulate driveways within subdivisions
or site plans, not on not on state
roads, but site plan for commercial
business or residential subdivision on a
on a new subdivision. The planning board
has that right through the application,
subdivision application or site plan
review application to pass judgment on
the driveways. The planning board really
has
jurisdiction on town roads that are not
subject to
planning board authority. So it was
always the select board who would issue
permits for town roads. planning board
because they only have jurisdiction on
the subdivisions of site plan would have
the regulations there. I don't think I
think there should be one uniform
standard and if the select board's
willing to go along with the process the
planning board develops I think that's
the best thing in the world but
technically I don't think we have any
authority as a planning board to enforce
on on the absence of an application
>> that is correct
>> we have clearly no we have no authority
but if we could help the board
>> but the but the town has always held
that Whatever standard we developed for
subdivision as far as construction was
suitable for a property
>> separate from it would be
that's just a nitpicky little thing.
That's how it's always been.
>> Yeah. And we don't want four different I
mean I'm assuming like this this one or
two applications that we have
>> not four different
>> work for everybody. Not four one two for
the SL two for us. Do we did we
>> we had a motion second and I'm about to
make a motion to move the question if
we're
>> I have one more comment. This just just
throwing a wrench in it.
>> I would like to see a ditch option which
would be four hours. This is six three
hours of time or five hours of time.
What about a $800 option per driveway
permit? I that was
>> I'm I don't I rarely do this, but I am
just ready to move the motion tonight
and if we need to
>> they didn't offer us an $800
>> if we need and and it it'll it can fail.
You all can vote no, but um
>> but also part of the motion was to work
with them. I have an answer if you want
me to give it.
>> No, I don't. I really [laughter]
>> did we want to amend that with what
Stephanie had said about being strictly
new construction?
>> I think for right now it's whatever that
>> okay
>> document says and then we'll
>> leave it at that.
>> We'll all Well, we we shall look at it
and Glenn's going to look at it.
>> And see if we need to separate out
>> amendments.
>> Where do we find that if we're looking
for it?
>> Reconstruction.
Um, it's on the website.
>> Yeah. Where where do you find the
driveway permit?
>> Yeah. No, where do you find the what is
the document you're referring to?
>> No, it's the driveway permit because
it's got all the requirements listed.
>> Yeah, it's on the website.
>> On the website.
>> Town website.
>> All right. I'm going to call the vote.
All in favor?
nays.
>> All abstain.
>> Who was the nay?
>> There were no One obsession.
>> One obsession. Thank you.
>> Did you vote?
>> We're all exhausted. So,
>> yeah,
>> we should have a thermostat that just
keeps going up as the night goes
[laughter] on.
>> I don't think that's a good idea.
>> People can't take it anymore and we just
>> can I answer?
>> Um, jeez. So, we have we get two free
books and we I do believe have some
money in the budget to purchase more
books. But if we don't all need physical
books,
then we don't need to order all of them.
Uh so, hands. Who wants a physical book?
>> One, two, and Nate wants one.
>> Is there one in the office? Like, so I
could come and see it as opposed to
getting a home.
>> Generally, both get one. Are those are
two free copies?
>> Yes, you get two free copies.
>> Okay, so we want to order three. Nate
wanted one. You wanted one. Doug wants
one. Yeah, there's
>> selected
>> right also say one.
>> I I think for them the blue book will
suffice because all the changes are
already in it. It's really the cover
that's different color. my my my
preference would be the digital version
just because that's how I normally
>> I'm going to stick with that and there
will be a physical copy in here
>> is that and if I have the blue one I'm
probably okay
>> but I would ask the ZBA chairman get a
copy
>> that's not perview it's good to have the
most recent one
>> easily available for refid
hasn't changed
>> I see you all brought yours this evening
I was just pointing that out just
show.
>> I know where mine is. [laughter]
>> And Mark, you said the covers.
>> That's it.
>> Yeah. I mean, they're all
>> It's all online. Online.
>> Okay. All right.
>> So, four for free.
>> Four. Four copies.
Uh, ZBA, Bruce, Doug, Nate, plus the two
free copies.
>> That's a total of six,
>> including the two free ones.
>> And I thought Brett, didn't Brett say
online one of them? I you know, I'll
give them mine.
>> I don't remember.
>> I'm going to get seven
>> emails.
>> Seven books,
>> okay?
>> Because if you think about it, they're
$12 each when you were going to pay
$150, $200 or something like that if you
wanted to buy it.
>> So, it's okay to have an extra copier.
It's money well spent. Only
>> 12 bucks.
>> Yeah. Yeah. I think if we buy them,
they are really inexpensive. Yeah. It's
not like you're throwing money away.
>> I thought they were I thought they were
75. Doug,
>> well,
>> um I'll I'll make a motion.
>> I'll make that eight.
>> Um [laughter]
I'll make a motion to approve the August
20th minutes.
>> August 6.
>> Oh, August. August 6th. Excuse me.
Oh, on the agenda portion.
>> Yes, the minutes are correct.
>> Sorry.
>> My apologies.
>> We have a second.
>> Um, any edits?
wasn't here.
>> Wait.
>> Yeah. Four is just enough.
>> Four is enough. Yeah.
>> Just enough.
>> So, it's four eyes and three
abstensions. Who who was the other two
abstensions?
>> Paul Liz Len still.
>> We have a motion to adjurnn.
>> to adjourn.
>> Oh yeah, that's fine. Was there anything
else? I I I was just going to report
that the the legislature overrode the
governor's veto of the 10-year plan. We
don't have to go too far into that
tonight, but that happened and
>> Oh,
>> appreciate it. Okay. All in favor of
adjourning. Hi.
>> Hi.
Microphone.