All towns · deering

Planning Board

Video

top on it. While it's easy to get, it's still expensive to add. It adds about $1,000 to the cost of the project.
So I'm looking for some guidance if that's something you folks feel you really need, or if that's something that we can potentially weigh.
You can think about that, and I can keep going if you want, and we'll double back. But that's one question I have is do we really need to have that on the new survey? It wasn't on the existing survey, just from a cost standpoint.
And I'm looking for a consensus?
I was looking for a consensus if we need to include that or not. It would save us about $1,000 on the project.
I'm going like this, personally. There's two acres that I'll go with a lot.
The green section there is going to be about 50 acres. The yellow is going to be about 54 acres. The red is between six and eight acres. It's certainly over the five. And the reason I'm asking is because it'll be even more expensive to add it later than it would be to add now.
but it's still very expensive to add now.
So if we're thinking it's not necessary, I'm going to tell Peter we don't need to do that.
My non-binding answer is no.
No, we don't need it.
That's my non-binding answer to me.
I would agree with Bob's non-binding answer.
I say the same.
Just my thoughts, so really quick, I think, a partial, you know, looking at this, I think the only real question, I think the only real question, and this is my thoughts. So really quick, I think, a partial, you know, looking at this. I think the only real question, I think the
more your surveyor, you know, shooting meets and bounds here, you know, for this 200 foot.
I mean, you've got 7,200 here, way more than enough. Same here.
Your surveyor may talk about doing some surveying and work in here, but I think I'd be curious to know what they say.
I think, yeah. I mean, generally, I think we're not the size of these things. A waiver is partially, you know,
know, and I would kind of defer to what the surveyor thinks about, like, this area in here.
Well, what he's going to do is, but I think it's not, it's definitely not unreasonable to consider a waiver on some of these big areas.
Okay. He is going to do a survey of all the, the, of, the perimeter's going to remain the same. That was one of the things that we had agreed on because we talked with the Hillsborough County of D, and they said that they can accept it, some of it's tape and compass, and they can accept that. That's not a problem.
all the internal lines are going to be resurveyed to standard.
So that's, Peter's redoing all of those.
He's going to have all the line markers on Fisher Road.
He's going to literally walk the property and make sure everything's in place.
Yeah, so I would think he's probably talking about these guys in here, right?
Yes.
Yep.
Yep.
But to overlay tapagopopat, I can't do that.
Thank you.
You could feel his struggle.
Yeah.
My pain is real.
is that if we don't have to include that on this survey, that would be helpful.
But he's definitely going to do all the survey work that's necessary to show the boundaries.
Yeah, yeah.
So I think what that would be is a partial waiver.
You know, whatever he thinks he needs, it's the smaller areas that get kind of touchy.
Like the big stuff, you know, out here, yeah, I mean, I think this existing stuff that you have makes sense.
But, you know, down in here, I would just kind of defer to what he says and just say, hey, put a partial in, and that's probably a good way to handle it.
But, yeah, it's just these narrow things, he's going to want to make sure that you have it right.
So that's what, you know, just, I would get your language is a little vague.
I'm not sure he makes sure he has it right.
The survey will be right.
Are you talking about having this sort of data?
Yeah.
Yeah.
Yeah.
I know it'll be right.
It's just those.
the smaller the area, the least amount of error, I guess, is the best way to describe it.
So what I'm saying is, yeah, do a waiver request, but, you know, it may be partial because he may, you know, like you said, do the interior lines.
This is just for topography, though, Matt.
Oh, to.
You guys, okay, I thought you were talking.
Yeah, no, she was asking for a waiver on topo, so we wouldn't need that for that little section.
Yeah, because that's just.
an access route for the larger lot.
Yeah, I thought you were talking survey property lines.
Oh, yeah.
No, no, no.
I'm not asking.
That's great if you want to wait for that, but that wasn't quite a little question.
Yeah, we're going to start with that.
Yeah, we're going to survey all of that.
Yeah.
I'm not asking for a way to make the survey work.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Yeah, because you want to make sure you're going to make sure you're the eight acre.
is right if you're selling it.
Yeah, we're going to make sure all that's right.
Okay, cool.
So we're on the same thing.
Perfect.
Then we will ask then formally for the waiver of the wetline delineations and the topography
information.
Well done.
I'm doing.
We will ask for both of that.
Now, in the last couple meetings we had in March and April, we also talked about then
waiving any of the, what was the word, requirements, some of the application requirements that
refer to any of those things.
So if we've waived,
wetland delineations, if one of the requirements mentions wetlands or anything like that,
we're going to then request waivers on all of those as well.
And we went through quite a list back in March, and everybody seemed comfortable with that.
So we're getting some nods.
So we're still good on that.
So we're going to do that for wetlands.
We're going to do that for steep slopes.
We're just going to put a waiver on anything that has to do with that.
We also agree to waive the need for the perk tests and the hydrologic study on all three logs.
And that we're going to treat the red lot as grandfather possess an existing homestead property.
So we're still all feeling good about that non-conforming agreement.
Okay, non-committing agreement.
All right, good, perfect.
So the first question I had was the type top data and we're in on that.
The second one was, okay.
Of course.
Uncovered something.
You can point, too.
I'm going to point.
This map.
as we call I hand drew for you folks. I took the survey that was the legally binding survey and then I took our forest management appendix B and because they were the same scale, I put a light box underneath it and I drew it. I mean, that's as fancy as we got. Everybody agreed that that was fine. This wasn't going to be on the survey, but I could include it as a backup report and I would make reference that it was for reference only. So when Peter and I got ready to do the actual work, we started to do the field work, I said to him, I
want to be present when we lay this out because we may get a little to the right or a little to the left.
We had talked about that as a group.
Maybe you adjust that.
And he said, well, Carrie, it's easy.
You know, I don't need to be there to show it to you.
There's a gap in the wall.
And it's 200 feet, and we're going to use that.
I said, great.
And so I went, left his house, went home, drove down, looked for the gap in the wall, which I've lived there
my whole life, but I never noticed.
And sure enough, there's a gap in the wall.
But I immediately called Peter back, and I said, Peter.
Good news and bad news.
He's like, what's that?
I said, well, there's a gap in the law, and I measured it is in fact 200 feet.
And he goes, okay, what's the bad news?
I said, it's partially in front of the water.
And he said, what?
And I said, this water doesn't really sit here.
It sits here.
And so he said, well, that's not really bad because the town knew we were crossing water here,
that anyone that's going to use this as a right-of-way would have to do something with the fact that they're crossing water anyway,
so I don't think that's a problem.
And I said, well, will you come and look at it with me?
Because I want to make sure I understand what's right and what's wrong.
So we literally measured out the original survey,
made sure that Mr. Todd was accurate and also precise.
We held tape measures.
We went all the way down Fisher Road.
And so what we determined was that the overlay of the water
was a forest management plan.
As a result, it was accurate.
There is a pond.
There is wetlands.
There's three little ponds here.
There are brooks that run through here, but it wasn't precise because it wasn't something
that was submitted as having to be precise.
And as a result, this sweat is actually more over here.
And it's not necessarily as, it's not as big here, and it's a little bit bigger here.
And I felt the need to share that and make sure we're still good to go.
And also say, I'm not comfortable anymore submitting this because I know it's not precise.
And it makes me a little uncomfortable.
If somebody were to pull it up and say,
well, what was going on over there,
that Kari drew that, and that's not right.
Even though I sourced what I did and where I took it from,
I wanted to share that and make sure we're still all feeling comfortable.
Well, you're going to be submitting whatever Peter presents to you.
Is that correct?
Peter's doing the survey work.
Exactly.
Yeah.
So as far as that.
But he's not going to delineate any weather.
Understood.
Okay.
So if he comes back, he'll actually
hope that he would be putting on his plan where that breaking the stone wall is just to
basically give you that little bit of information as well as if you're going to correct where those wetlands are.
I'm not because it was a forest management plan and I just drew it on here because we were talking about,
hey, we're curious, where's the water?
The only concern I would have with that is if that water went all the way across the whole green line on Fisher Road.
It does not.
That would be my concern.
Okay, yeah.
Because we're talking what ifs, it's changed.
Right.
You're saying it's inaccurate now.
Well, it's not our site.
Now we're talking about having to cross, you know, 150 feet of wetland for somebody to mean it right away all the way up.
Well, this lot was a little interesting from the get-go.
Because we had talked about needing frontage, but not necessarily needing access.
Because it is off of a classic.
road. Now, our intention is not to build on that lot, but, of course, Bob brought up.
We don't know what the future holds and who might buy it and what people might do in the future.
But that's just frontage for us. That's not necessarily access. But if it were access, to answer
your question, I didn't measure this wetlands because I don't want to stare anybody wrong.
But to me, when I ride by, the break in the stone wall starts where the wetland area is and
and then continues to more than double. And so initially, I thought the break in the
stone wall was in the wrong place. And so that's why Peter and I walked the original survey.
So when you go to the original survey, Mr. Todd shows the break in the wall, and we literally
dropped the line. You know Peter Marlon. We literally dropped the line, and he's a fun one down.
And he can roll that thing faster than I can walk. I'm just trying to catch the line.
Anyway, it's kind of like you scooch these.
here and it's about halfway. It's not to scale at all. This is not nearly as big because
this is 200 feet and it only goes about halfway. So this may be too costly to do, but
since that's a key access point, I wonder if it would be feasible or important to delineate
the wetland more accurately right in that little narrow area to actually see what
are the precise measurements, how far it comes in, and it could present an issue in the future.
Okay. So just that small, little,
the area, a more precise delineation for future access.
If I was viewing this as an access site, I would be all over that because I would want to know
that too, because I would be wanted to sell this and tell people that that's where you can
access it, and I'd want to feel good that I gave them enough room to do that.
Correct.
But that's not my point of view. My point of view is that this is just to gain us the frontage
so that we can create this lot, and if there were going to be any access, it would be here.
Keep in mind, the goal is to keep this in the family.
And so Bob had brought up, or maybe you brought it up, if we ever sold this and we didn't
use this as access, if it was just funded, somebody would have to go through this property
on a daily basis because their house would be back there.
Never mind whatever guidelines are necessary to build off of the Class 6.
Let's just put that aside for now.
And I thought about that, and I thought, well, if anyone were to build back there, for now, it would be
family, and so it wouldn't be a problem.
But I'm not seeing that in the first place.
future. And so I'd like to keep the costs down, if at all possible, and keep this as the
frontage, and if necessary, this would be the access to it. But I'm thinking we're way into
the future when that would have come. I know, but the planning board does look into the future
a little bit. Sure. So the way I look at those things. So the way I look at this is if we are, as a
planning board looking at that as access to that parcel, regardless of the plastics
road that exists today, that could, for all we know, go away.
at some point in time for all we know. So administratively, you're doing the right thing.
So if we're using that as an access point, I'm thinking that all you really need is 50 feet
of dry land to get from point A to point B. If the wetland is encroaching more than that and
restricting it to less than 50, then we're like okay and you have to get a bunch of wetland permits
that, you know, that's onerous. So I don't see a problem with the wetland encroaching oncoaching on the
break in the wall of the 200 feet. For example, I live on a pond and I, the property line
splits the pond right in the middle. So that measurement of 200 feet begins whether the water's there
or not. But to your point, I think it's important to know does that 50 feet actually exist to make sure
that that that wetland doesn't extend further than that. We don't know that right now. But that's my point.
No, I know. I just, yeah, make sure that it's more than 50 feet. Okay. And how do I make sure that I have to do
wetland delineation. Couldn't you have a note on the plan that says such to be recorded?
That just says that there's a minimum of 50. Dry land? Dry land, I would still verify it by some
measurement. Well, yes. It's still. I mean, you could, I don't know if it's setting a pen, but I mean,
the water's there. No, I know, I'm just saying. Unless the beaver comes in and makes it more.
Which may be the time of the decision. They're hanging out back here.
Sure, very. So what are you looking for?
Just to make sure that someone does a measurement to make sure that there is the 50 feet,
and that requires, it doesn't necessarily maybe have to be recorded,
but someone go out there and actually do some kind of measurements.
So instead of delineation of the entire wetland, how about delineation to the edge of the wetland?
That was my point. Just that little area where the arrow is, just more precise measurements
to make sure, to your point, there is 50 feet for access.
My plate right here.
Yeah.
Yeah. Okay.
So I would actually say that it's probably something Peter could throw on with his plate
because it doesn't necessarily have to deal specifically with the weapon.
If you were to come to the left-hand side of that access point,
wherever his pin is, and pull 50 feet, if you don't have the water,
all he has to do is.
is put that 50-foot access point on the plan.
You're good to go.
If it does hit the wetland, you'll know,
and then you'll know that you have to change the life somewhere.
All right.
Or delineated on, you know, make sure it truly is delineated something.
Okay.
I feel really good that we could pass that test,
but I want to, because the wet, pretend all this was green,
pretend that's 200 feet was here.
That's about right, that the wet would take out
just a little bit less than half.
But what constitutes wet for the 50 feet?
This is wet.
I mean, it's water.
You know, you can see little ducks in there and stuff like that.
Over here, this is our field behind our house,
and then it starts to slope down to the wet area.
And when I walk back there, there are ferns growing,
and in the springtime, my feet get wet,
and in the summer my feet do not get wet.
So what constitutes wet and dry,
I want to make sure I do this right.
I feel like it would be dry, like it's not wet, like this.
I think it's typically soil, right?
And vegetation.
So soil and the plants go to find if it's a wetland by the species of plants.
Well, there's one thing that will definitely do me if you're going to dry,
and that would be getting a permit to put a culvert in and making it legal.
Then you know.
That sounds easy.
It sounds like something real.
Chief. Thank you for that.
Yes, I will. I'm just saying. If you're not, you know, a definitive carefree answer.
Okay. To be honest, this is more the town's concern than it is mine.
You know, I have zero concern about this being an access point. So I'm trying to keep this affordable.
Of course.
So, if I was, if I was looking to build, I would be all over that.
I say, okay, tell me how I get this Colbert thing and I'm going to go do it.
I'm not looking, I'm just not looking to do that.
So I'm trying to find, I like your idea, of standing with Peter at his marker and drying the 50 feet,
but then if we go in and we see ferns, and then I say, okay, so does that mean I can't call it dry,
even though workbeat aren't getting wet?
I mean, that's what I...
That's what Peter does.
Okay.
That's on Peter.
All right, so let's then play devil's advocate, just for fun.
I think we can get the 50 feet your way.
Okay.
I think getting it your way will be expensive.
Yeah.
Okay.
Let's pretend it's wet, okay, like that Peter says to me, well, we'll go in, we got our 50 feet, and it's dry, we're good to go, fine.
If he says, I'm a little on the fence on whether or not I want to call this dry or seasonally wet or whatever, then what happens?
Unfortunately, you'll have to have a wetland engineer or environmental engineer come and it's actually a third of you.
So I can't just have this 200 feet represent furniture and have the access to be there.
if it's not accessible, it's really not frontage.
Right?
That's the problem.
Well, here's why I'm asking.
And I know previous other examples aren't necessarily true to today's examples, but there is property for sale on Old Hill Road right now.
Across the street and down the lakes from where I live, and they have a right-of-way that gets to the land, and the front is on Old County Road.
And you cannot get to the land from Old County Road, but a piece of the land does touch.
Old County Road. So that's why I thought this would be okay if it was flat.
Because it's just frontage, to your point about the pond, it's just frontage and we can access it another way.
But it's a back lot if you do that.
So is this one on Wolf Hill Road. It's listed right now on realtor.com for sale and it's got the 200 feet of frontages on Old County Road,
but there's zero accessibility on Old County Road.
Why was the law created?
I don't know. I think it was created 10 or 15 years ago.
I think there's an ongoing case with that.
Yeah.
Oh, okay. I don't know that.
Meaning it's a problem because of that.
Are you saying hypothetical that Peter doesn't feel comfortable delineating the boundary there between...
Peter didn't think I needed to even come here today.
He said, I think we're good to go.
He said they were aware that there was a stream that came through the property and that anybody,
that was going to put something in was going to have to do a dredge and fill or whatever the formal word is.
He said, say you talked about it. Bob brought it up. You had a conversation. He said,
those are the risks you're taking. You're good to go. And so Peter said, I don't even think you need to go in
because I think nothing's really changed other than we have half of this area over there. He said anybody
who is going to access this was going to have to dredge and fill anyway, so he said he didn't think anything changed.
And he was ready to go and I asked him, please put it on hold.
that I felt uncomfortable, not that you would think I was misleading you, but I even was misled.
It's definitely appreciated that you bring this up.
Yeah, no, that's the only thing that I, for, I reiterate what I said before,
if when Peter's doing his measurements and doing his new plan, just, oh, 50-foot, you know,
and it's not even Peter necessarily, you know, the radiating wetlands.
Right, he's just strong.
And I agree.
with the judge of Phil Herman, that's a possibility for anything.
Right.
There's a lot more hurdles to go through, but if he were to pull a 50-foot line from one pin out 50 feet
and he feels comfortable that you're not encroaching on the wetlands, the whole thing, in my opinion, would be move.
And you don't want to shift it over.
You don't want to do a pendulum and just shift.
Well, the reason, we can do that.
We might not need to.
I'm glad you brought that up again, because that doesn't then kill it.
He just, Peter loved this because it was a natural boundary.
We literally have a break in the stone wall, and then the stone wall,
and he thought you guys would love it.
He said, the town likes it when it's easy.
There's a break in the stone wall, and then there's another break in the stone wall,
or a continuation of the stone wall, and it's right around 200 feet.
Tell Peter we'll remember that.
So, um,
That's great.
So anyway, he thought that would be easy and that you guys would like that.
So he'd like to keep that.
But if not, if we can't pass that, then we'll just go to where we get the 50 feet.
And we feel good about that.
Yeah, I would.
Jill.
Yeah.
Yeah, I'm listening to that.
I think, I mean, so I think, I think, two issues.
When you have a stone wall and you're looking to do a subdivision
and you're looking to do a subdivision and you're looking to lay out the law.
Yeah, Peter's right in that.
It's a good idea to try and, you know, maintain the stone walls,
use those natural boundaries and things like that.
But the offset of having a potential wetland impact could be a good reason to work around it.
As best you can and minimize that impact.
I mean, looking at this, there's so many stone walls here, criss-crossing all these lots.
I mean, even up here where we have, you know, at the choke point,
There's a wall that's going to have to get across potentially as somebody who's building up there.
Yeah, I mean, the short answer is, yeah, it's like if you can do it without, you know, busting up a stone wall, it's nice.
But if you have to offset, you know, minimizing a wetland impact, that could be the better course of action, right?
The least bad choice, I guess.
Okay.
So you had brought up to the point.
What's that, Matt?
What's that, Matt?
It is a nice natural break there that at 200 feet.
It's like somebody who was thinking about this 200 years ago.
Exactly.
So you had brought up the point earlier about when you file the official application,
you're going to look for kind of a blanket wetland delineation waiver.
So, and Matt said, you know, partial.
He kind of threw in a...
Well, he said asked for it.
Even when you talk about Topo.
I know.
Topo, not on wetland.
Right.
And then he was confused.
But this might pick that into a part.
partial for work.
Unless I meet his 50 feet.
Oh, yeah?
Yeah.
Then I don't need a partial either.
It's still low.
Well, the 50 feet, deline is 50 feet.
DeLonez is the right-of-way that's required for him right-of-way.
Okay.
Right.
So then I won't need any wetline delineation.
A lot of good head notes.
Okay, good.
So that's it.
Cool.
I want to check my notes and make sure.
But I think that was all I had.
Oh, I did have one other question.
On the application itself,
where it goes over the fees, there's a fee for a minor subdivision, which this is,
because I'm assuming it's three, one, two, three.
So I'm a minor subdivision, and it goes over the cost very clearly.
And then it talks about needing, it's not very specific, so I wanted to ask.
Matt, they would need a CUP, right?
This is far enough away from the lake.
Let's crack open the map really quick.
Hold on, let me open it up, and I'll slide it over.
It's pretty close to the lake.
It is. It's a little watershed. It's very close.
See what? C-U-P. Conditional use permit.
Yep. Okay. Is that tricky or is that
am I? No, you'd be a little.
With no, yeah, with zero construction, it's, yeah. Okay. Okay. All right. So my other
question was on the planning board fees that says here, engineer review, contact town engineer, legal review, contact town attorney. Do, do, do
I need to do that for this? Am I going to need an engineer? I don't know. That's for the escrow?
Yeah. Matt, would you be doing a review for that? I think for my review, I would expect, I would
suspect that I would be doing a review, but from an engineering review standpoint, I don't think there's
an engineering review because there's no construction proposed, no paving proposed. It's just the lot lines.
Same thing on the attorney side of things. That would be, for example, if you were doing like a cluster subdivision and you had open space, we would want to have the town attorney to look at the documentation on the open space to review that.
So yeah, you don't have any legal documents or any construction or impervious proposed. So I would say no on engineering, no on legal.
Okay. But just to add in, so the escrow account is also used to
pay back the town for the cost of your, not just as it like, engineering.
Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. For the review. And that would be the $500. I'm assuming that's for Matt's time or your time.
Correct. How he pays that back. Yeah. So I've got that's, I've got that. Thank you, Matt.
Did you guys still, did you guys still want to check out the, um, the watershed map? I think I found the map.
Yeah, I know. We know we're in the watershed. Oh, here it is right here.
just slide this over and double check.
So Wolfhill Road and Fisher Road. Fisher Road, yeah.
All right, good. So just before I leave, I'm going to, I am going to sit down.
We are waving the wetland. We're waving the topography stuff. And we're going to try to get a 50-foot drop line from that point that's dry.
And what happened if we couldn't? We're going to move our 50 feet to the left.
Okay. Thank you, Chuck. And we're going to keep going laps until we get 50 feet of dry, and we're going to drop a new line. That should not change the acreage by much, so I'm not worried about having to revisit you guys. We're just going to move full steam ahead. Okay. All right. Thank you, everybody. Thank you very much. Can I sit and say? Absolutely.
So how does the board feel about should we just jump to the next conceptual review just to kind of keep it?
And then, or do you want to go right into the RSA?
I'm not, I'm just not sure how long that discussion is going to.
I'd like to the next conceptual review.
We'll do the conceptual review next.
Okay, great.
So the conceptual review, Caliban, real estate investment, map 217, lot five subdivision.
Again, I'd like to reiterate that this is a conceptual, non-binding discussion.
Everything discussed here is not.
I've got maps.
Oh, cool. Is there?
Our surveyor is one somewhere.
Do you provide an electronic copy to the town?
I'm Jim.
He's supposed to have it.
Okay, she's saying you might, you're supposed to have it.
My.
Yeah, I felt like the surveyor which is a man.
Let me go to Google for a house and I'll pull up.
Yep.
What's the map and lot number and the address?
Two, 17, lot five.
lot five, and the address is 366 Deering Center Road.
Okay.
So basically what I'm doing is I'm pulling a small chunk down back to put my stepson,
his wife, and three grandbabies.
That's the goal.
So how much road frontage is here?
Exactly 200 feet.
Exactly 200 feet.
I still have a little bit of corner of going to school.
I'm not going to do any more because I need my field.
I still have horses, the whole game.
Can I jump in here, guys?
Absolutely.
If there's a way that you can let me share my screen, I can probably help Matt out,
and I have it all.
I've got the same plan that you have, but I also have a little bit more.
I can show you what that looks like on a Google Earth overlay.
Cool.
Yeah.
Hold on. Let me get in here and switch it on.
If you can just switch it so that you can share it with me, so I can share.
Can you, if you hit the share button, John, can you just give it a go and see what happens?
Sharing is not turned on.
Send a request.
Yeah, I think you can send a request. He can accept it.
Okay, great.
Yes.
Yeah.
What is that?
That he is the engineer.
You can share.
I'm going to say all participants, and that should do it.
Fire away.
Tell me when you...
Double-click.
Uh-huh.
Yep, you can.
Okay, so this is the same plan that you guys are looking at, paper copy, digital copy.
So what I'm going to do just briefly to show you that I can, so if we're referencing anything,
we can look at it kind of in a little bit of real time here.
I've got a...
Everything here is on state plane, so we are able to keep everything kind of looking the way it should be.
Can we see that?
Yeah.
Once again, this is Caliban real estate.
Bill of Gludu owns this.
So what we've done here is...
My name's John Bushbon.
I'm a surveyor.
I'm a wetland scientist.
I'm a septic designer.
So we're kind of handling everything for Priscilla, and we've done quite a bit, most of the
the neighborhood here. We approximately, we did survey the property, was an old Bob Todd
plan. And what Priscilla had asked us to do was to take off a two-acre parcel for some of her
family for the future, so that's what we did. So her land is located on 149 during Center Road,
and she's kind of close to the Boeing School Road, and that's where the land, and that's where
we're hoping to access the land because we do have our 200 feet. As you can see, I can
zoom right in on that. We are using the stone wall, and she actually had more stone wall in here,
so we were able to utilize all the stone walls around coming up to this point, and then we
just connected it from here to the end of the other stone wall. She does have, she does have,
some jurisdictional wetlands in here. Most of it's drainage. This is a disturbed site because
it's an old field, very old field. We are going through state subdivision for this. We've got a
monadnox soil and a skeery soil, manadnox soil being in the Hampshire Group 2 soil, very well, you
know, not very, well-drained, and then the skeery is a moderately well-drained. We did come in here
and these soil test pits and current tests. We did send your site inspector, the pictures that he requested with all that information.
The only question I have is when looking through your regulations, it stated that if any of this
tributary down to the Deering Reservoir, you were asking for a 75-foot setback. These are just poorly
drained soils, so I know with the state it's a 50-foot setback, but I wanted to ask you guys if we could
use the 50-foot setback, and I've actually showed that on the plan. I'm going to zoom into it.
And if it helps to get rid of the Google Earth image, I can do that if you guys want, or I can keep it on.
What would you prefer?
Doesn't matter, right now.
Doesn't matter, yep.
Okay, so we'll keep it on. So this, here's where we did our test pits. Right here, this was our test pit. This was our test pit. This was our perk test.
This delineated, this setback line is a 75.
foot setback line. This line down here is a 50 foot line, this red line right here. So if you guys will,
you know, don't, once again, if you don't need to use that 75, I can bump this down just a little bit,
you know, probably 40, 50 feet. But everything is good in here. It's a great, like I said,
the menadnox soils are very strong in here. They're very well-drained, but you are in the
transition area. So, you know, that's why we bumped it up a little bit. But other than that,
these are her wetlands. Now, what they actually did is when they cleared these fields, they pushed
everything right down into here. If you follow my cursor, they pushed everything down into here
and over into here. So believe it or not, we've got some drainage in some jurisdictional wetlands
right here and right here with this little bit of an alleyway in between them that is the
not jurisdictional, but we wanted to stay away from any and all wetlands, a very
environmentally minded to keep things, you know, I've been doing wetlands for over 20 years,
and we just try and stay away from them. And so we put the 4,000 square foot area up here. It's on about
a 7% slope. We can blend that into that slope really well and make everything fit pretty much
as best as it can be. We're planning on doing the house in this area over here, kind of close to the side,
kind of back down the field a little bit, and this will allow Priscilla to continue to use
the majority of what she has left here for hay fields. And that's pretty much it.
So our regulation state that you have to have a minimum of two acres of contiguous
dry up with. So I don't, I see that the wetlands kind of, even if it's seasonal, kind of
goes through the back of the slot. And it, to me it looks like there isn't two acres of
contiguous here. It's going to be close. We can. I mean, that's my question. Are you guys going
to consider this contiguous down into here? Because there are no jurisdictional wetlands. There
There probably are deep underneath where they buried this, but these are not jurisdictional areas right here.
And she is, this is 2.27 acres, so this area here, and I can calculate it out.
And in a worst case scenario, I'm sure if you still in a long mind if we'd have to move this up here a little bit,
I don't think we're going to need much longer on. But that's why I was wondering down in here,
because we had thought possibly of trying to get a septic down in here. But once I delineated the well,
I kind of just didn't, I didn't want to go that route, and neither did Priscilla.
That's an absolute, yeah, that's one that is absolutely, we do not budge on that.
You have to have the two acres of contiguous upland.
So we need to calculate that and then possibly move.
Correct.
Exactly.
So you need, John?
John, you need 50 feet to connect your dry land.
So that would make it contiguous.
anything under 50 feet, it's not part of it.
Okay, so if I get 50 feet, just run out of the street.
So Priscilla is going to need to move this up here.
If that peninsula that you're talking about is less than 50 feet, then yes.
Yeah.
To get the two acre.
Well, let's check it, because I can do that real quick.
It's not going to be 50 feet, I know that.
I got stuck down.
We've all been there.
We've all been there.
One and a half a week.
I'm sorry, what was that again?
10 and a half feet.
So we can definitely move this line up to give her that land, and then, are we able to use the 50-foot setback?
So John, explain the wetlands.
John, explain the wetlands.
Are those wetlands soils, or is there like a perennial stream that drains those wetlands?
Or is it like a perennial stream that drains those wetlands?
No, this is it?
There's just drainage right here.
Right in here.
And what is that drainage?
The wetland stream doesn't start until down in here.
Okay.
Because this is all, like I said, they pushed everything down in here and over in here.
Like I said, it's not a big deal for us to move this line up because she could still get an easement to continue to cut hay on the property.
When you move that line over, does that give you relief of the 75 to 50 foot setback?
If you can still get an easement to continue to cut hay on the property.
If you could tell me if it's going to be the 75 of the 50, I'll make that line work either way.
Well, we prefer 75, so I'm going to the setback line.
Now, are you guys holding to the setback line, or are you holding to the wetlands themselves?
Let's stay with the two acre of contiguous first.
If you're going to move that line to achieve two acres of contiguous, will that give you relief on your radius of the setback?
Can you do that in front?
the actual wetland line right here.
So we could draw a line and then wherever the differences that we need for those two acres,
it's not going to be much, I can tell you that, it's probably only going to be, you know, 30, 50 feet.
That's going to put our corner like up here.
Okay.
That's great for your client.
Yeah.
Okay.
Okay.
And you're still going to need to have that 75 foot setback.
Correct.
We're not going to accept a 50.
No.
Now, where in your regulations does it say 75?
It's in the...
It's in the...
458 is what I'm looking for.
It talks about Deering Lake tributary buffers.
458A.
But this doesn't tributary into Deering Lake.
It's still a tributary, though,
in the wetland watershed protection overlay.
If you look here, I can show you on your plan here.
Here's your thing.
Mm-hmm.
Her property is right here, and you can actually,
you've got the wetlands mapped out to down into here.
And I believe Deering Lake, Deering Reservoir is right here.
That's why I was saying, can we use the 50 feet?
Anything that's wetland, whether it's a tributary or not, is 75 feet.
Is that, and do you have that documented in your regulations?
Can you go back up, John, for a second?
I want to see the...
You gotta know.
Which one map?
This one?
The watershed overlay of this?
Yes, it's up right in the...
Now, can you see it?
Yeah, can you just roll it up a little more so you can see?
Where does this, so this run...
This wetland right here, see this wetland right here,
that I got my cursor over?
Yep.
Yep.
This wetland, now I'm going to click off, I'm going to minimize this,
is this wetland back here.
This is that wetland going around there.
This is a huge wetland.
wetland down in here.
It's a big old beaver impoundment, and these are all jurisdictional wetlands in the back part of the property.
All this.
Does it go north?
Yeah, does it drain northwest?
Yes.
As shown on the wetlands, which I've just pulled back up right here.
So it runs northwest up toward Mansville Road and all that stuff?
I believe so, yes.
According to this.
Searching around with the word tree.
Yeah, that 458 section is in the...
That is the watershed protection orders.
I would say, I think we probably need to double check
and read it a little more slowly here.
Sure.
Can we get back down that one?
Okay.
Once again, I was just not sure.
You know, in a very poorly drained soils, there's always a 75-foot setback
with just poorly drained soils.
It's 50-3rd soils.
So let me minimize this again here.
If you look at our drawing, these here are just poorly-drained soils.
They're not very poorly.
The very poorly drained soils are back here.
So it's definitively out of the overlay district.
Yes.
It is.
What were you considering when you were, were you thinking this was in the overlay?
Originally, so I just heard that it was not in the watershed overlay.
Okay.
I think that's what I just heard from that say.
So that ordinance then would not
would not apply to this.
It's not a tributary does lake.
The watershed over there finds it as a Deering Lake tributary
property.
It's very specific.
It's not a lake tributary that's probably in the water trip.
Peter, take a look at 458.
Yes, sir.
Take a look at 458.
I'm looking at 458 right now.
Okay.
Yeah, but 458 is had a during
Lake tributary's buffer requirements.
So that would apply to it.
that would apply to tributaries to the lake.
If it isn't a lake tributary.
But in our ordinance, we define a tributary stream as any perennial or intermittent stream flowing
either directly or indirectly in the Deering Lake or any other surface water or wetland.
Right.
So the problem becomes when you have a, I don't want to learn this to death,
but if you just said tributary buffer requirements and you use that definition, it'd be fine.
This is Deering Lake tributary.
tributary buffer requirements.
So one could argue that it's taking a small portion of the tributaries
to define the tributaries that are late tributaries.
Right.
So I'm a little confused.
So it might correct that this property here we're looking at is not within the watershed protection overlay.
It's my first question.
If it isn't, then we should be referring to the shoreline or shoreland protection ordinance,
which has requirements in there.
for other wetlands, lakes, buffers associated with tributaries built into that ordinance.
And then that would apply to this, not the watershed.
Right.
Ordinance we just read.
Okay, so that was not the watershed protection ordinance, Jillie.
No.
The Shirley and protection.
Right, so that's what we should be.
This is what we should be using to evaluate this property.
Can I ask John a question?
John, it's Bob Compton.
So why did you put a 75 foot?
line in there?
Because I wasn't sure.
And once again, I was just, when I read your ordinance, I was like, well, even though I don't believe
it, but once again, I did see that it did say other wetlands.
And, you know, I do run into this frequently in terms of the wording.
And so I just put them both in there, and I let you guys tell me which one that we've got
to use.
That's all.
Because I follow the, you know, I do a lot of these, and I just follow it most of the times with the
state.
and, you know, they've always maintained a 75 to very poorly drained,
and a 50 to poorly drained.
Thank you.
Sure.
I think we need to kick this around a little bit more before we give you a definitive answer,
but I can give you my gut feeling.
My gut feeling is 50 sounds fine, but I want to make sure that, you know,
if it strays from what we have done for precedent,
we better make sure we know what we're doing here.
But I don't feel like I...
He owned this wording.
Yeah, too.
I'm understanding it.
Yeah.
But I appreciate your honesty of bringing it up, John.
Oh, well, thank you.
We want to get it right, you know.
We try to do the right thing, always.
In the meantime, can I ask a few questions?
Sure.
In terms of our procedures after this,
because I saw a design review and then a public hearing,
where would we go from here?
Where would we go from here?
It would be a formal application for subdivision, you know, your butters and feet,
form the whole lot.
Yeah, yep, you know, get it on whatever agenda is the next possible,
based on when you send it in.
Yep.
And you have to submit 21 days before, all the materials 21 days before the schedule planning board meeting.
meeting.
Okay.
Yeah.
And John, email me.
You have those meetings posted on your website.
Absolutely.
Yep.
Yep.
Okay.
Yep.
Yep.
Yep.
Now, in terms of waivers, just looking at it, I was also like, can we get a waiver for the stormwater
management and erosion control and the hydrologic study?
Hold on one second.
John, I just put my email in the chat if you want to just copy that down.
When you send it in, just talking.
and just talking me on stuff?
Sure.
Okay.
Let me just write it down here.
So you're doing, you're going to be building here.
You're out of the overlay district.
So there's no conditional use permit required here.
The, just thinking about this.
So what was your list of waiver questions again?
It was...
Hold on, ma'am, just writing your stuff down.
I'm still a paper.
I'm still a paper guy.
You see it was in front of me.
Matt, it was not in the watershed.
Okay.
For the waivers, I was just wondering about the stormwater management and erosion control and the hydrologic study.
Yeah, we don't need any of that.
Hydro.
Yeah.
So we should request waivers for those?
Yes.
If you're not...
I don't think I'm on the applications for...
You're not the watershed.
Oh, okay, so we don't need those.
Yes.
And you're not in the watershed, there's no hydrological study.
But there are erosion and location controls in the Sholland ordinance itself.
Right, right.
You would have to, you would have to kind of mitigate any type of runoff that would go into your
wetlands that are on the lot.
Well, that would be during construction.
Correct.
So that's kind of a separate.
But you wouldn't, you don't come before the planning board.
the planning board to put a house on you go to the building inspector.
So the building inspector wouldn't request up.
The only thing that I'm looking at is she's requesting that.
So to your point, that would be just want to get on the plan.
Any disturbance of the land?
You need to have this.
And that's it.
But I'm also, since this is a subdivision, and it involves some,
It involves two lots, even though it's just one lot that you're doing it.
We would like to see the driveway cut.
And we'd like to see, as possible, you know, a proposed building envelope,
which will lead toward a quick discussion on erosion control.
And that's just common sense.
You already alluded to where the house was going to kind of go.
But we'd like to see what the driveway cuts go.
But the driveway cut is going on.
The driveway cut, there's a break right here,
the stone wall?
Yeah.
That's where I don't want them to mess up the stone wall.
Yeah.
And it's going to have to be a culvert in because Bowen school is cut for culvert.
So.
I might go back to the issue about the erosion controls and non-point source pollution controls
and the like.
If this is within the Charlene Protection District, Section 4.4.9, says new structures
and all modifications to existing structures.
to existing structures within the protected shore land,
shall be designed to construct to prevent release
of surface one off across exposed mineral soil.
So it's not just during the construction process.
It's the design and management of erosion around the new structure
that would be wanting to see what steps are going to be taking
to control that.
So there might not be a hydrological study,
but we would be looking to see what kinds of erosion
and stormwater control is there.
water control that goes into your construction design.
No, dumb question.
Is this in the shoreline protection district?
That's what I've been told.
I think so.
My understanding is the shoreline protection doesn't overlay exactly
with the watershed protection overlay.
I thought they were two different purposes.
Two different ordinances.
Right.
It's different portions of the town.
All the wetlands in town,
all the tributaries in town,
were not just those that are in the watershed protection.
and the watershed protection ordinance.
So if it weren't in the shoreline,
I know about the shoreland and the overlaid,
but if it weren't in the shoreland,
then it would be our wetlands ordinance that
join the exit.
Correct.
Which is not anywhere as stringent as a shoreland
and we wouldn't be worrying about storm water management
on a lot on Bowman's school.
But I think tributaries and wetlands outside
the watershed protection ordinance
overlay fall under the shoreland ordinance.
ordinance language. And that's what we have to make sure we understand.
Across the whole time.
Across the whole town. That's my understanding.
Oh, protected. I don't think so.
So good.
Article 442, the purpose section of Shoreland Ordinance,
describes it just as Mike mentioned, it's, you know,
pretty inclusive about the body's in the surface.
So, protect all wetlands and...
Well, we have a wetlands ordinance ordinance.
the wetlands ordinance.
Yeah, but the shorelands specifically is addressing other water bodies in the town of Deering outside the watershed protection.
Right, which are wetlands.
So we go back, I mean, I wrote the wetlands order a long time ago.
Okay.
So I guess what are we saying about stormwater management?
It's going to have to be addressed somewhere in the plans that come before us, how it will be controlled.
Which means that we like to see the slope of the roof and where the water is going to collect and how it's going to get around as soon as possible.
It's not that hard. With us, John?
Yes, so what you're looking for for the stormwater management, you're looking for, because I don't really know where exactly they're putting their house and their driveway.
I mean, I'm not worried about the driveway. We can just drain that right there.
There's going to be, depending on what they use, asphalt, gravel, stone or something like that.
there's going to be a lot of pervious material that we could use to allow the water to permeate right then and right there.
So what would you guys like to see it? Do you want to know, like, where the house is exactly going in the driveway and all that?
So this, may I ask a question?
Peter, go ahead.
It seems to me that we're talking about when structures are being proposed.
At the moment, the structures are being proposed here.
So it would be when they come forward with...
They're not going to come forward with that. That's just the building inspector.
They're not coming back to us.
They're not.
Because it's outside the shoreline.
Yeah, they're not coming back to us.
So this gets approved, then it's all in the building inspector stand.
They're not coming back to us.
Right, no CUP would be required.
Right.
So even if they decide you're not to vote for three years.
So, John, you hit it with the word impervious impervious.
We like to see a percentage of.
see a percentage of the lot that will be affected with impervious surfaces
and how you how you mitigate that stormwater that comes from those surfaces.
So that involves driveways, roofs.
And the answer is usually pretty simple.
It's usually a stone drip underneath the eaves of a house.
Some people do gutters.
Well, absolutely.
Yeah.
It's all common sense.
We're going to show as much pervious material as we can and most of it.
I do stone driveways all the time because of pervious.
They're pervious.
Yeah.
There.
You know, just a thought, too.
A few typicals could be helpful, right?
Like a typical cutaway, for example, maybe of the French train
or whatever you could be proposing around the edge of the house, right?
If they're not sure, for example, on the exact location of the house,
you could say, hey, you know, the edge of the house, this is what it's going to look like with your typical.
That could be a way to...
be a way to possibly show it too.
Yeah, like we never even talked about, I didn't think it was going to go to that, that.
You know, I didn't.
So we've got to kind of go back to work here and try and get all this figured out,
you know, with the wetlands and everything.
And once again, with all the setbacks and everything like that,
but I was also watching on your previous one,
and the wetlands didn't seem to be too much of a concern with that,
even though I know there's nothing.
and proposed for a building lot.
So it's just, I just want to know what it is we need to provide and how detailed.
I'm not an architect or anything like that.
I'm just a surveyor and wetlands guy, so I just want to know what it is you guys are looking for.
But like I said, for myself, I find it's just easier to do with drainage.
You know, all the foundation drains are going to go away from the wetlands
and all the drip edge is just going to be a stone.
stone. I actually propose most of the time just putting two to three feet of stone around the whole edge of the house and then if they want to do something, they can lay some type of matting with a little bit of soil if they want to have flowers and stuff like that.
But we're going to show everything wherever the house is other than the house itself, wherever the house drains or drips to is going to be stone.
I have points of water here.
Yeah, me. So it seems seeing that, since this is going to be coming before us for approval, as a
subdivision.
We can condition that approval with subsequent submission coming with regard to the requirements
and the ordinance with regard to erosion control.
Even though the ordinance is required, if we're concerned about this and we want those conditions
to be delineated when the house is designed, we could require that the subservient submission
be made at that time that provides for a better description of what the erosion controls will be.
will be for our approval. I don't see why that's not within our authority.
If the ordinances give us the authority to require this as part of these structures,
there isn't a CUP, but it's before us in terms of this subdivision,
and we can condition the subdivision.
That's what I would.
Well, whatever works for you guys, I mean, we've got to do what you want us to do, so no problem.
Well, you know, I would prefer that our ordinance had been rewritten,
and which we were starting to do, and delineated a CUP process for proportions.
portions of it that would make sense, but we're not at that point.
But we do have the authority and the power and the structure to be able to do that on a
case-by-case basis.
This, it seems to me, is a good example of a case where we don't have to just delegate
the building inspector without any guidance about what's required.
We could be involved in that process at a later point.
Now, would that be something that we should request, can we request a request a
a waiver for that, for the stormwater management and erosion control?
I do that to whatever the building is being proposed for the building inspector.
I give you a personal opinion, again, we're not binding here.
If we were asking me as a board member how it would feel about a waiver of that kind in this case,
I would not be in favor of it now.
I would be in favor of what I just described.
Because it seems to me it equates to the spirit of the ordinance and it's not
Because you don't we're talking about this.
It's kind of a big owner's burden.
Right, we're just asking for notes on the plan to kind of describe what it's going to be.
And that I can do.
I can put some notes on the point.
Once again, we can focus on pervious materials around the house
and just put a note on it that the pervious materials will make sure that, you know,
the stormwater, all stormwater run off or anything will be.
will be into and permeate into the ground as opposed to pooling up or going in any one direction.
I mean, I think once again, Priscilla is going to still be paying these fields.
We might have to move things up a little bit, but that's no problem.
But once again, we just want to make sure that we're getting, we get it right.
And then there shouldn't be any problem with when the building design is done, coming back and showing us
is that what's the plan to do.
We all want to get it.
We all in the same place.
We've got some going on.
going on.
We want to get it right at the least amount of cost to you.
It's trying to pay.
I'm off to that.
Yes.
That's why you're here.
Yep.
Yeah, good.
Okay.
Do you know that, John?
What's that?
We want to make the least amount of cost to Priscilla.
Oh, yeah.
Well, great.
It's not a big ass with that.
I don't want to check.
Okay.
So I get the building design.
You know.
a little with this and a little of that and pick them back.
Okay.
Yeah.
That would be a formal application.
Okay.
Okay.
Everything else and one more, well, first of all,
I want to tell you that my monumentation will be a granite bound
to put up on the corner when we can decide on that
to make sure that we get you your two acres of
particular property up on the top.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Okay.
On the question, for your soils, do we need anything, any more information on the soils?
Okay.
Will we need any waivers?
So, yeah, we didn't, I mean, Matt, they didn't submit anything before, right?
Yeah.
So.
The building inspector has all the information from our test pits.
I do have soils delineated on this plan if you look at it.
it?
They are listed on the...
Oh, well, they're...
Yes, they should be on the plan.
They are, yep.
Is that enough or is there anything else that you guys need?
I...
Hey, John, my suggestion is you've got the soil layers turned on
and you have the tested data as well?
Could you just include it as a...
Sure.
Just throw it.
Yeah.
I did send it to the site inspector.
You want pictures and I document everything so we can give you.
everything so we can give you whatever it is you want.
Yeah.
Yeah, just to make sure, like there's no confusion.
If somebody needs to go find it, it's like, well, it's in this file versus that one.
If they're in...
Oh, sure.
I can include it.
And I will include a actual...
If you want, I can include it actually granite from granite.
I can give you a soils overlay of the property with the property lines
if you want that too, and that gives the legend
and all the... right off the web soil survey.
Yeah, I know.
Yeah, I mean, if it's a layer, you could just switch on.
Sure.
Yeah.
Well, it would be a separate...
I mean, I've shown it here, and I, you know, I did digitize it off of the web soil survey,
but I can give you the actual plan of the web soil survey
showing the exact thing that this plan would show, if you want.
I think that would probably be helpful.
Yeah.
I'm going to put include web soil survey info.
Mm-hmm.
Okay.
And a boundary showing two acres to take you with dry land.
Oh, we'll definitely get you that.
The last question is we've seen that before?
Which forms do we actually need to use for the submission, for the application?
Minus subdivision application.
Yep.
But I saw one with a surveyor, I saw one for the...
one for the, I mean, is that something I need to fill out or something like that on your forms?
Like the application form?
Well, on the forms, on the back of the subdivision regulations, you got quite a few of those forms.
I didn't know what those forms were for.
Oh, those forms, yeah.
So first, I'm going to, in the chat, I'm going to put the subdivision application form.
Yep.
This is the one that we're going to be looking for.
Okay.
It's got, you know, the checklist items.
Yep, I've got that one.
Okay, yeah, your question is just the ones at the back of the...
Yes, yes.
Let me catch up here.
So those...
We just don't want to submit stuff and then have it said that it's not complete.
Well, I do.
So I'll do my review, and you'll get a copy of it, and you'll be able to, you know,
if there's things to update...
Oh, okay.
Yeah, yeah.
So, yes.
So you have a review.
So that's...
I'm just kind of rolling through these
really quick. So there's
plenty board...
Yeah, these forms are like application
approval. There's a waiver
form in there.
Yep.
Surveyor notice for subdivision
review.
Oh, this
is a special notice. So in the
RSAs, it talks about
you know,
a butter notice, including
you know, the designers of the plan.
That's what this is, is a specific one for
you as a surveyor.
That's what that is, so you wouldn't need to worry about that one.
Yeah, these are just some
basic forms for
abutter notices and things like that.
There's a public notice sample.
But all we have to supply is
an abutter list, right?
Yeah, yeah, you did be a butter list.
Also the labels as well.
I don't think it's in here, but
just from a town hall staffing standpoint,
it can be kind of challenging
to, given that
there's no...
Oh, we can supply life and do you can supply...
Yeah, yeah.
So, Matt, just...
So when I submit this, Matt,
you're going to review it, and then you'll contact me
and tell me what it's lacking
and what I need and stuff like that?
So what I do is I'll create a review memo
that'll identify anything missing.
You got a copy.
the board gets a copy,
and that's kind of the end time.
It goes over all the elements,
you know, the checklist,
the sub-division-recogniz zoning,
and we've kind of hashed up
the big things here anyway,
so,
but yeah, that's what that does.
And you have each other's contact info.
Yep, he sent him the...
Yes, great.
Yep.
Carry on that one.
Yeah, I got last contact info, you bet.
Yep.
I just want to make, it's just a general
I think this kind of emphasizes again the need for that short land protection
ordinance to be redress because it's a perfect example of where we can have
construction outside the watershed protection overlay that could have impact
on wetlands tributaries etc that don't go through the CUP process the planning
board's not part of it and it's left up to the building inspector and we started
to do that we did I know I'm not the ADU I don't know I'm pushed the side by the ADU
absolutely but
I'm just showing that this is an example of how things should go through the CUP process.
It helps it helps Africans as well.
It helps that and it helps us.
Yeah, it was just a general statement.
I can't help myself.
Okay, great.
Any more questions, John?
Yeah, just one more question.
So does that, I mean, so, and I'm not, once again, I'm not picking on anything,
but on your last, on your last preliminary there with the wetlands there,
Does that shoreland apply to them too?
They have more strange.
They're in a different...
They're in the bottom.
They are in that overlay district.
So that's why they have to do that CUP,
like it's a required element for subdivision or site plan applications to...
It's just a little background, so any...
Could you repeat?
In that area, that has to get the...
Hold on a second.
second. I think we're wires across somewhere. John, can you repeat the question?
No, I was just wondering, is that, because shoreland, once again, I've been doing shoreland permits
and shoreland came out, and maybe I didn't review your shoreland enough regarding the wetlands,
but once again, I'm just, on the last preliminary, there was a tremendous amount of wetlands.
And in a situation like that, even though it was backland, is that?
also fall under your shoreland overlay?
No.
That's just a watershed.
There's two ordinances, John.
There's the watershed overlay and then there's the shoreline
shoreland protection ordinance.
So we were discussing two separate ordinances.
This property is not in the wetland overlay.
So it would be a completely different
be a completely different conversation if it was.
So start it this way.
Start it this way, John, historically speaking.
The state passed the first shoreline protection requirement,
and then communities were able to adopt the state or more restrictive ones,
and the more restrictive one applied.
Dearing adopted its shoreland protection district, which is more restrictive than the states is,
as you can see, because it includes other water bodies and tributaries within the town of Deering.
And then subsequent to all of that, the town adopted
the watershed ordinance, which is limited to what is the area within the shoreland that is the watershed.
So they overlap one another.
And with respect to the wetland requirements, the most restrictive wetland requirement,
if it applies to all three, would be found in the watershed ordinance.
And under our ordinances, the most restrictive requirement is the one that applies.
Does that kind of help you?
A little bit.
A little bit.
Okay, thank you very much.
very much.
All right.
Thanks, guys.
Appreciate it.
Have a great good.
Good luck.
Have any questions.
What's that, Matt?
I said, give me a shout if you have any questions.
Oh, super.
I've got your contact info.
Yep.
Thanks, guys.
I appreciate it.
Thank you.
Good night.
Good night.
Okay, next on the list, joint review of the recent
changes in RSA 674, colon 4,
for one regarding building permits on the last six roads and private roads with the four selected.
Roy is not feeling well, so he chose to do not find him about.
You may come quickly.
How do you want to proceed, Matt?
Maybe you can start by going over your overview that you were
so kind of provide us with your chart showing the application type B.O.S.A.
to U.R. Sane. Yeah.
And I think, and Peter had said some stuff, too, that would be helpful.
So I think what I think we should probably start with, and on a little side note,
in one of the other pounds this month, there was a conceptual that it was a large development
was a large developer. They had two large tracks of land on a Class 6 road.
And they came in and they had a representative who tried to kind of blur the two.
And that's kind of what made me think of developing this.
It was kind of, it wasn't good the way he was representing.
So I think that's why, you know, I was looking at this, because when it comes to
to quote-unquote development on a Class 6 road, it's always important to remember
the specific thing that we're discussing, whether it's a single building permit for a single house,
which also would include a duplex, right?
Those are traditionally not covered by Cyclane Review, they're by RSA, and you just go pull a building permit.
Then there's also, 67421 also deals with private roads.
but a separate issue is the subdivision or site plan on a Class 6 road or a private road.
So what I did here, if you guys, can you guys see what I put together?
Yep, yep.
Yeah, so I got the first one.
It's the single building permit for a single house on a single lot, right?
Existing lot on the Class 6 road, and they want to just put up their single house.
The one beneath that in gray,
is the same scenario, but on a private road, and then the subdivision, and then the subdivision on a private road.
The things that I've put in red are what changed from the old RSA, so we'll call, you know, June 30th,
and then July 1st, the new RSA.
The old RSA for the single building permit on Class 6 or private, it was Planning Board reviews and comments.
They don't say approve or different.
And I is just, you know, hey, review and comment, there's no timeline, which was kind of a challenge to deal with.
And, you know, you file the waiver at the registry, the Board of Selectmen can choose or not to grant that bill.
And then private roads were the same exact scenario.
The new RSA, what that does is the Planning Board Review and Comment is now gone.
the waiver requirement is still in place.
The new thing is they've got to show their proof of insurance, and then the selectmen must grant it, right?
So there's no discretion for the selectmen to say, you know what, no, we kind of feel like, you know, developing this, doing this house in the middle of the Class 6 road, a mile in is not, it could lead to scatter and premature.
No, we're denying that.
They don't have the choice.
do that now.
As long as they do the proof of insurance and as long as they file the release.
The private road scenario, single house, single lot on a private lot, that is, and we're
just talking the building permit side of this, right?
Like no conversation here on, you know, frontage and, you know, if you need a variance or
anything like that.
But the issuance of the building permit, it's.
that is as it was on, you know, June 30th.
Planning Board review and comment, the waiver, and the selectmen can choose to grant it or not.
The subdivision, and this is what came up at that other, that meeting in the other town, is you can still, as you could, back in June,
make them upgrade the road to town standards, whatever those standards may be in the subdivision regular.
for a new road. You can say, hey, take that class six road. You want to do those 10 houses on those 40 acres.
You know, you've got to upgrade the road, get the right away with, and the travel way and the drainage and all those elements.
You have to do that. And it's got to be accepted as a class 6 road. You can still do that on either private, you know, that's unchanged.
And I would, and this is what they were trying to push back on this.
and blend it and basically try to infer that we don't need to do it.
And that was my closing thing I said was planning board.
You can require this and you can make them do it because truthfully, if you don't,
that's really scattered premature, right?
If you have a single house, you know, a half mile in and they file that release, you know, that's one thing.
But if you have 10 houses and you've got the fire department trying to deal with that,
you've got 10 houses that are going to be petitioning to have that road become a class 5 at town meeting,
just that's my key thing.
It's just keep those things separate and just remember that it's really the new changes
are just kind of dealing with, you know, the single house, class 6 road on a single lot.
I think that, yeah.
It was kind of a spicy, the conceptual in that other town.
Thanks, then.
I'd like to add a couple of comments to your summary, if I can't just touch out of the pieces of it.
And I think that was a great description.
With the changes that are required by the RSA as of July 1st,
the standards that the state insists upon, basically, remove all of the class six,
building permit requirements that the town had adopted in the resolution that the Board of Selectmen signed
under not a year or so ago.
So the portion of that resolution that applies to past six roads is now basically void by reason of the RSA.
The problem that remains is that that resolution also contained the policy with regard to the private roads.
And by reason.
of the state ordinance lowering all the requirements for the class six road and making
it possible to have building on the class six road merely with a waiver and then with an insurability
certification, it actually increases what was already, in my judgment, an onerous difference between
private roads or class six roads many times over.
Because now we have a situation where on a class six road, getting a building
permit is almost a matter of right on a class five road however our
roadness requires possibilities of written sorry on a private road bringing a
private road up to class five standards in order to be able to proceed
widening to 20 feet which is a difficulty when it's a private road which means
taking private property and overlooking the equities or inequities of not
granting permits to applicants when there were already others who a long period of time may have
had their permits approved and you're basically taking property by devaluating
devaluating, devaluing property by reducing its potential to be expanded by many other way improved.
So it seems to me that, well, what you said about subdivisions and on private or
of class six will exist and require a change and by operation of the RSAs, a change is already
recorded with regard to class six, I believe this is incumbent upon the town to
reconsider its policy with regard to private roads and bring it in line with
the policy with regard to class six roads and make things fit because actually
the considerations are very much the same except even more demanding of the
kinds of policy that applies to class six applying to class five I I the
board had this matter before once before and we talked about it when we were asked to submit
comment on a building permit under the policy that had been adopted by the
Board of Selectmen for both class six and class five roads and we we agreed by
consensus to send to the Board of Selectmen a discussion paper that I've shared
with us all again tonight which talks about a lot of the issues with regard to
private roads and some of the arguments got her in favor of reconsidering this policy so
I would hope that in our discussion tonight
as we move forward with understanding how this is going to be implemented
that there would be consideration given to staying within the new ordinance
by modifying the policy that applies to private roads so that applicants
of private roads can be within the policy for profit roads the same way applicants
for permits on six roads can leave within the policy which would require a
require a new resolution that would mean that an applicant would demonstrate
that they're within the policy they wouldn't have to come for planning board
comment and they would be able to secure a certificate of insurance which ensures us
that there's able to be fire and safety provided at least fire anyway so the
structure I suggested when I talked about this that it might even be a good idea for the
town we can't do it with six but we could do with private roads to require as part
of that process
that there at least be a survey of the private road made by the fire chief and the police chief
to identify any dangerous conditions that might exist in that road and to see if we can find ways within the structure of private roads
because out of the misdeasments, of course somebody else's property, to address them,
which focuses on the concerns about having a public safety person now responding to a call
and in some way in other being being at that case.
That's how I hope we can approach the problem tonight.
That's why I distributed all those materials I did.
Thinking your forgiveness, shoving a whole lot of paper on you.
Joe, I just have a question.
Just a quick thought.
I would just make it some notes, Peter, as you were mentioning that.
You raised some really good points.
I think, first off, it's interesting that the RSA initially addressed both.
both and that the legislative session last year just did class six.
I half wonder if they are going to circle back and deal with the private roads, like, oh, we missed
that, you know, just as like an observation.
The second thing is when you have the class six road in a single house, somebody's coming in,
you have the fire chief there, you have the building inspector, the road agent there.
there. You're talking about making these improvements. It's a town road. You've got this back and forth.
You can almost argue, too, that a private road, it's streamlined, and there's clear responsibility paths for who's supposed to maintain that.
And presumably there's an easement or an association that is going to address that.
But I just, those were, as you were talking, those things just kind of thought about that.
There's other thought to what you said now, which I did not say, which I should have.
If you go back in history in the town of Dearing, the policy was about the private roads as it was adopted by the selectmen.
It doesn't reflect the culture, the history, and the past practice in Dearing was about the private roads.
We have a very significant number of private roads that reflect the master plan, the cultural values, and the character of our town.
That's the way our town was popular.
popular. And then most of these private roads have more than one house on them.
Past history of the town is they were permitted to build solely by the execution of a waiver that was recorded.
So you have property owners on private roads, and building lots that has been established taxed and taxes paid but don't develop yet on private roads,
that where they had an expectation based upon prior practice that they would have no problem putting a house when their time came.
By the change that the town did, they basically changed the policy that was effectively the title of the class 6 policy following this amendment.
They changed that policy for private roads and said to them, guess what?
You're now having to have to go through this major bonding process and upgrading of private roads so that the town doesn't have to maintain it.
the odds of a private road becoming a town responsibility are less than of a six-road becoming a town responsibility.
So it seems to me equity requires it.
I think it's just one example, speaking from my own personal experience,
and we've been through this with the board and found lost on this.
On Baldwin Road, there are 14 homes.
Baldwin Road is a private road.
It runs about a mile off reservoir road.
It has 14 homes on it that have been built since about
1939 up to the current day.
In recent times, there have been these four brand new homes that were built,
the substantial size, that were granted building permits, and there were improvements in homes,
another three or four of them on border road.
And then the new policy was adopted, and an existing home came before the selectmen,
and the selection denied the permit to that existing home.
The state approved it.
The planning board approved.
didn't have been all of our ordinance requirements, but the selectmen did not.
And so they exercised their right of appeal to the ZBA, and the ZBA overruled the selectmen,
and they were granted a permit.
And it was primarily because of reasons of equity, because there were 14 homes that already had permits.
Now, you can't tell me the burden on public safety was any greater by a home that already existed now being improved to a better house.
So all of the arguments that were being,
made to turn that permit or an example of what the problems are of the inequity with our orders so it is.
So once again, I would hope that when the town goes forward to do whatever it must do to implement and invoke its policies on six roads,
it will go further and adopt an appropriate policy for private roads.
I have two questions.
I'm trying to understand.
Sure.
When you're saying that the,
when you're suggesting that the private roads,
should be treated like the classic roads.
I could be reading this wrong, but we can't make it less restrictive than what the state has said, right?
You can do anything on the private road.
You wish so long as it is a policy adopted by the board, includes a waiver,
that's all that's required.
In fact, you don't even have to have a certificate.
The ordinance does not require a certificate of insurance to the private road.
The town could require it in its policy.
But the ordinance is not.
Am I reading this wrong?
the RSA says that planning for review and comment and the waiver file, all of those are still,
they are unchanged.
They still stand.
Yes, but it goes on to say that if a planning board has a policy,
and if the applicant for a permanent on a private reverement,
can demonstrate if they meet that policy,
and there is no review by the planning board required or approval by the time.
Okay, so that's what you're suggesting to create that.
I'm suggesting that we adopt the ordinance approval to allow
was to have a policy that would allow for the best product product
private road.
That makes sense to me.
We do the same as the plastic roads.
Okay, that makes sense to me.
Thank you for explaining that.
For single houses.
For single houses?
Yes, of course.
Yeah.
And I'm trying to grab my head around it.
The difference between a plastics road is that it's essentially a town road,
right? So maintenance costs, if there were any,
which there shouldn't be because it's class six.
Class X would fall to the town.
No.
The town does not make any maintenance.
It is abandoned by the town.
Right.
If that road gets destroyed, the town is not liable.
So, whoever, who there's the cost on that if...
So the situation is this.
Right.
A class, there are classics' words that are maintained by the town
and there are classic foods that are not maintained by it.
That's not true for it.
But a time can choose to maintain a classic foot.
maintain a classic road.
It's no longer maintained by a town.
It's a general matter.
But the town can be petitioned, the town can be petitioned by
to require the town to take responsibility.
That would have to go before town.
Yes, before telling me.
I'm not aware of too many of those, of any, have a court here in town.
But it's, it is possible that a plastics road,
which is open to the public, that's the name,
differences between plastics and private.
Plastics are open to the public
for a plastic road to have to be maintained by the town.
But the odds of that happening are,
particularly if you're talking about single homes
and you're talking about subdivisions.
With regard to a private road,
the town has no responsibility for a private road.
And the town has recognized
its difficulty with providing services for private roads
historically.
by acquiring a waiver that it is reported that leaves the town both of responsibility
for providing services, school bus, police, fire, ambulance, and for liability for
for failure to provide services, both are part of the waiver.
And that waiver is recorded and runs with every building permit for every home that is approved
by a building permit in the town of time.
So the town has a responsibility.
But it is here to recognize the reality of the reality of it.
the reality of the situation.
Right.
And that, you know, if somebody comes in,
they're not going to pull out the tax map
and figure out where they're going to go.
So we want to make sure it can be done.
And it's in the interest of the people there.
And to be honest with you,
I can't imagine the insurance company granting a certificate
on a private road unless they know that this
vehicles are going to be able to get down there.
That's what insurance, they're not going to give you fire protection.
You can't get a fire truck there.
Most of the people in Deering who are private roads,
are for their own interests and in order to get the interns to do, make it a point to have
private property, come out, take a look, do we have a turnaround? Do we have access? Can you get your truck in here?
The big problem with private roads and fire protection isn't necessarily getting to the house.
It's getting the water once you get to the house.
So a policy that would add a little bit of real, real thought of having a
safety person, I'll make sure that access is available.
without getting to this business of bringing it up to Class 5 standards or trying to get
a person who has an easement of a house on a, say, a mile-long private road,
having to somehow come up with the money to require the owner of the private road
to somehow buy property on both sides of the road,
not down whatever stone walls exist on our private roads,
expand it to 20 feet, make it five inches thick
in order for them to get a building permit.
It's just not realistic.
That's not realistic.
Effectively, the current policy precludes any possibility, short of a waiver, of somebody on a private road,
building, getting a voting permit.
It just is impossible.
But that's where the crux of my question is, for the owners, for people that are on private roads,
that could predate, they could go way back, there may not be agreements on file for how those costs are shared held.
So I'm turning on the finger out.
It's private arrangements.
The town is full of these.
Right. Some of them go well. Some of them don't go so well. We've come across a couple of them.
Like, what was it? Codman? Was it Cudman?
Wait, Kate Rove?
A couple of them.
But people, you know, they have to make it. They have to work it out.
Ultimately, the state has had several court cases.
On what are the burdens of the dominant he has been holder and the subordinate he has been holder?
A couple cases have come up.
The state has ruled that there's a responsibility on the part of the,
of the, I don't think I'm confused here, but, but,
The one who holds the easement over the road owned by somebody else has a responsibility to maintain the road so they can continue to exercise their easement.
That decision is being exercised.
But it has not been enforced uniformly anywhere within the state.
And what generally happens is the neighbors get together.
They figure their way through this thing.
And that's right I'd like to focus on, because this is what I'm trying to understand,
by removing some of these pieces,
the owner of a private road is now subject to a building permit being issued,
additional use being put on this road with no way to be able to go to the planning board during a public hearing
to make a plea.
For what?
She's talking about abutters, protecting the rights of a butters.
Oh, I see.
You come in and now someone's come in and they're going to build and they're going to, you know,
track it on the road, tear up your road with the cruise.
train.
Oops.
Sorry, I've backed into your stone wall.
It's meant to mind you with your view of the planning board ought to be.
My view of the planning board is, I don't want the planning board interfering in what the relationships
are between private owners who purchase land and the situations where there was no government
involvement.
I don't think it's the role of the planning board to tell neighbors how they ought to deal with one
another on their road.
I think that's a suicidal mission.
I think it's inappropriate mission.
I don't think it's without responsibility.
So I'm not that.
not in fact, if we did it, I think we'd be overstepping what the planning board is supposed to be doing.
I think that's from the other side, which is the way that things have been, there were some protections to those that owned private roads.
And if the governing board and the planning board are the ones that are saying, yes, you can build or no, you can't build,
they are sort of saying, giving permission.
And there's no protection to the private road person to say, if you want to do this,
want to do this if you if you're going to be building this much, blah, blah, blah, that you need to bring the road to standard.
That's what I'm acting.
There are protections in state, in already state rules and state cases.
It's just leisure to the individual to choose to exercise how they're going to assist upon it.
I cited to you, I can give you the name of the case.
It's probably some of these materials where the Supreme Court indicated
what the responsibilities are of dominant and subordinate and subordinate,
holders of easements, road holders in
and the easement holders, responsibilities for maintaining the roads.
And there are suits to go on to private courts all the time to that.
That's the right for those kinds of matters.
Because a court is the place.
We're not a court, we can.
Right.
That's a burden.
That's a huge burden of foot on a runner.
But you buy on a private road.
That's the burden you take.
So everybody who buys on a private road understands.
This is a private.
The word.
It is a big word.
private road.
Or a plastics road if you can start to develop on that.
It's the same thing.
Right.
The state has chosen to change the situation as about the class six.
But with private roads, that situation remains in change.
And if there's any case of a situation, if you read the terms of the, most of the easements
for people in private roads, but lenient in the deeds that have passed on from owner
to owner.
They all have conditions.
They all have responsibilities.
Some of them have known.
Some have more.
and then there are practices that develop, that address those things.
So I think this is a case where less government is better government and more reflective
about culture and what a town is basically to put a better way.
The outcome of not doing that under the current policy is we will see, even if we could force it to happen,
we will see stone walls not down, we'll see a private road that is currently now perhaps 12 feet wide,
wide, being have to be 20 feet wide, which is a crime in terms of what the character
of that community is.
It's just, sorry?
You could argue those points to make it fit more what a private road would be.
So, um.
I could make those points to, I don't quite follow that.
We could change the requirements.
Right.
Oh.
Right now, I'm talking with the credit policy.
Right now, I'm talking with the credit policy.
I'm going to change.
It's 20 feet wide.
I forgot how many inches deep the aisle of it has to be.
it has to be, and requires posting of a bond.
Now, tell me, if you tell...
But isn't that just by case basis?
I thought that in the language, that the Board of Selectmen has the authority.
Those are the standards to be reviewed by the board for the approves of the private road permit.
Yeah.
And saying to an owner, one or 14 people, the cases take, I'll think,
Baldwin, there are two owners of Baltimore Road.
John Hector is an owner of one section of Baltimore Road.
I'm an owner of another section, which can do more than that.
Each person who wants to do that.
the house and some of them have. They own the portion of the road that runs right across the frontage of that property.
So there might be six or seven private road owners on Baldwin Road.
But every piece of property on Bolben Road is an easement from the, from Reservoir Road,
all the way down to their property, every single area.
And so somebody wants to put, get a building permit, and I'm talking about a house here.
It's a different deck.
Same for deck.
Put a railing up.
Do whatever is required.
Change your wiring about six.
All of a sudden, you're faced with having to improve your road to be considered to get a bond,
somehow find all the owners on this road and get them to agree to buy whatever additional property
from one of the owners along the side of the road.
You can take a commission so they can widen the road to whatever standard you make it to be.
Some of these private roads are quite narrow.
Some of them are not.
Some of them are many things.
I think it's a lot.
It's a very sad situation.
That was actually.
Stop right there.
So how do you feel about, if it's going to be a subdivision?
Different matter of time.
Every time we've had a subdivision, we've required a road to be brought up to class five.
Okay.
Even if it's going to be around the lake as a private road.
We've had a couple.
We've had a hospital.
Barfus.
Yeah.
Okay.
All right.
Did that go up to a class five?
Barfus is a shared driveway.
Right.
And he used an existing road on Barnes Road.
No, that didn't require building the road.
There's not enough lots there.
You can have to have houses on a share time.
Should there be considerations for private road as part of the road?
Should there be considerations for private road development in different parts of Darren?
I would suggest to do that.
We should do that as part of the master.
that is part of the master plan process that we're about to go through because it involves some very, very significant considerations for it.
And it will affect other larger people.
I'm very excited about the fact that we have another master plan process about to begin.
And I think it's time to think through that issue.
It's time to think through the issue of whether we want to modify our one agricultural residential district
to have a specified commercial district in a portion of the area.
a portion of the area. There are a number of important, I think,
questions that have come up as a result of our budget problems,
as a result of the character of the community changing,
that I hope our master plan can address.
And the fate of private roads is probably one of the one.
Can I say something?
On the bottom?
I agree with you. I don't think it's a planning board's role
to stick our fingers into private road issues.
It's private ownership.
And the more we do, it's more of a taking.
Whereas class six roads,
are town ownership of class six roads.
And the last master plan, they vaguely, there's a vague reference to consensus of limited development on class six roads.
I know after living at the edge of a class five road or a class six road for 45 years,
I know that the way class six roads are treated by many selectmen that come and go,
and road agents that come and go is you can't make the road, the town can't make the road better.
can't make the road better, can't do anything. But if you are an owner of that road,
which the man I work for was, he owned both sides of the property, you can make it better.
You can't deliberately make it worse. Nature can make it worse, but you can make it better if you want.
And nobody is against that, but there's no policy for that. It's just common sense.
So, again, on like upgrading the road, if it's a subdivision or site plan on a private road,
road, should that be a policy that the board is, would you recommend the board of some
Latman take on or should it be referred back to the planning board?
Should you have subdivision regulations?
Yeah, so on that piece, if it's a subdivision that hits the planning board's table,
yeah, I mean, they can, that RSA is not really going to impact the board's ability to say, hey, we want to
we want this to be a Class 5 road built to the standards in the subdivision regulations.
So that would rest with the Planning Board.
Okay.
I think just kind of thinking about what Bob and Peter were just talking about,
I think when it practically plays out, a single building permit on Class 6 versus Class 5,
I think in both instances that property owner is going to work.
want to improve the road at least so they can get there.
But it's like what Bob was saying, you have, the problem is the town-owned road that is not maintained.
It's like, hey, if you want to touch our road, you've got to talk to the road agent.
And then there's a question of what's adequate, right?
Whatever that answer is adequacy, it's a separate issue, but it's an extra step, whereas on the
private road side, and maybe this is part of what the legislature was doing.
I don't know, but you just get together and you say, all right, you don't have to involve the road agent.
And, you know, it's almost more streamlined, in my mind, on the private road side to say, yeah, let's just, you know, trim these bushes, grade it out, and it's good.
Fire chief are you? Can you get in and turn around?
Yes, okay.
Like, I think there can be a difference there because it's that piece of ownership.
And not to mention, and I've seen this in another town where it's like, oh, you upgrade the road, you have the landowner maintaining the class six road for their access, and there's four wheelers blowing through, tearing it up, and that property owner is like, I'm frustrated because I just spent X dollars maintaining this town road, and they're tearing it up.
But guess what property owner?
You can't tell them, though, because it's still public road, even though it's class.
So, I don't know, it's just a, I thought that popped in my head as I was listening.
Well, thank you.
That brought to mine.
Let me just get this straight in my head then.
So really, it just comes down to, if it's going to be a subdivision or site plan on a class six or private road.
Yep.
It has to go through the planning board.
Absolutely.
So we have to, they have to, you guys have to work on your subdivision, yeah, subdivision regulations.
So that if.
If something of that nature comes up, the Board of Selectmen and the town administrator
and the building inspector knows where to push those questions.
Now, if we just have single building permits on a Class 6 or a single permit for a private road,
should we just pretty much, should we just ask for waivers?
And then a little caveat with the Class 6 road that, if they intend.
on improvements to the road, they must seek permission of the town?
Would they know that?
Does that need to be included in a policy?
Short answer is I don't know.
I would say in June, you've got a Class 6 road policy that says,
if you're touching the town road, you've got to talk to the road agent, right?
It's still the town's road, whether it's written down or not.
Right.
And, you know, the town owns it, the town controls it.
If you want to touch that town road, you should be, you know, talking to the board of Slackman,
talking to the road agent.
I think at the bare minimum, absent some sort of procedure spelled out to do that,
and I'm going to use Bradford as an example, but also, I want to use Pembroke here,
is if you can just say, Jen,
generally, and this is something that we looked at in Bradford, last town meeting,
is having clarity to say, here's the process if you want to touch a town road, right?
So that could be Class 5, too, right?
It's not just specific to Class 6.
If you have just a couple lines in your general provisions of the zoning ordinance saying
any improvements to be made to a town-owned, not town-maintained,
a town-maintained, a town-owned.
the road have to be, you know, approved, signed off, whatever the word is you want to use,
they have to be reviewed and blessed by the road agent or the selectman or the road agent
on behalf of the selectman, some responsible party in the town.
One of those two, I would say probably the road agent, you know, saying, yeah, we're good to go
with this improvement.
And that will cover you across the board.
but also that that single building permit on a Class 6 lot, which is separate from private.
If you go back to what the first was of the amendment that occurred, it wasn't about maintenance of the plastics roads.
It wasn't about changing anything about the town's responsibilities or powers of the authority to municipal ways.
None of that was affected by this ordinance.
It was addressing only one subject.
Issuance of building permits.
Yeah.
That's all it addressed. So it didn't change any whatever, whatever were the existing authorities in the state law of powers with
it went to the town over its class five or any other town home road. Those all remains untouched and the same.
And as Matt properly drew, I could have pointed out, with regard to its subdivisions, it didn't change those things either from what was in place.
So Matt's point about that about that.
the same. We would be able to do whatever authority we had before and amend that authority
so long as it was in existing other portions of the RSAs that address our authority with the right to class six roads.
When you're talking about the town making requirements on private roads, now you're crossing into a,
automatically you now move from what is a town property to a private property. And in the state of New Hampshire, that's a biggie. You've just now taken on a big issue.
which is why I don't know it was appropriate for planning board to be involved in regulating the use of a private road.
Right.
That's what makes me uncomfortable.
But on a subdivision?
Subdivision is different because they're coming for approval as part of the town planning process.
And subdivision approval is an authority granted to the planning board by the RSA.
And you have the authority to rent conditions for subdivision approval.
So as it stands right now,
now because there's been no change on the single house on a private road.
The planning board reviews and comments.
It stands right now,
Yeah.
I don't know if the town council has told you,
but as it stands right now, I would assume that the portion of the resolution
that the Board of Selectmen adopted that spoke to class six roads
is now Melan Boyd just by operation of state law,
even if the town didn't do another thing.
It could not enforce it any longer.
But the portion of the town's not.
resolution that was applied to private roads remains in effect and I am
hoping that the board will number one revoked the old policies so that they don't have one
that's being overruled by statute and adopted in a moving forward proper way to accommodate
state law and in the process modify the private road one to take advantage of the
permission granted to the select board to adopt the private road policy that would
allow a private road owner, homeowner, or lot owner, to be able to secure a building permit
I would propose with the same standards that are required of classes.
Classics?
Okay.
So basically you're saying the planning board shouldn't be involved with that single house permit
anymore on a private road anymore than it should be in the Classics.
Unless it's a subdivision.
that's it. But it should still have a waiver releasing the town from liability.
Absolutely.
Exactly.
So that means from the point.
So give an example of one that when we operated that way, when the heck proposal came before us,
we refused to get involved in the question of the voting permit.
We were very clear in saying this meets our wetlands requirements,
meets our shulman protection requirements,
and meets all the requirements that we have in our ordinances,
but we're not responsible for bullying permits.
permits we have nothing to say about that you would have to be aware of the fact
you're going to have to get a building permit but then came before is only because
the board selectman asked for our comment on the building permit and that's how we got
involved in if we were sure about we would not have done and I don't think we should
but basically too what you're saying is you're acknowledging existing lots yes
any existing lots but you're not negating that it still has to meet certain criteria
building.
Of course.
Okay.
All right.
Same thing holds true for a building permit in a plastic road.
It's not exempt from the town's ordinances.
Okay.
No.
To the point where many of these private roads were created one long time ago,
our subdivision regulations require that a maintenance agreement should be accompanying the plan
to be reported.
For those properties that don't have that protection built into it, I would suggest that the policy
written that the, let's see, that the planning board requires the applicant
to be able to prove that there is an agreement in place.
So in other, I will refresh everyone's memory about the nasar subdivision application.
It's a really good example of the planning board playing its role and to do, which we
gave them hell about having to make that road a classified road.
And we required inspections.
required as the roads are being constructed we were not we had progress for inspections as the roads were being built as the infrastructure was being put in that demanded that that was going to be the case because we know ultimately we were going to be facing problems of town having to take on responsibility for these things and we didn't want to face with that situation so that was an example under our existing subdivision regulations will we use our authority to do the right thing I'm not talking about class five roads or
projects. I'm talking about specifically just private roads. So that addressing that
I understand, but what I'm describing you is a subdivision that was being built that was having a private road.
I'm talking about existing ones.
So protecting our existing private road land owners so that as new development comes in,
if the old deeds didn't have built into a maintenance agreement, that be...
I would object to the notion of
doing that unless it was a subdivision you're talking about. If you're talking about placing requirements on subsequent private owners to have to adopt agreements that would protect prior owners, and you're talking about how mandating exactly what I think is an inappropriate role for the planning group.
But if this property by deed does not have, because the rules that we have in the subdivision that say you must have it.
You're talking about a subdivision of single homes. I'm talking about a single home on an existing private road being
built.
That's not a subdivision.
So why are you talking about it?
It's a subdivision.
I explain that our subdivision regulations provide that protection.
But we don't provide that protection for private owners of homes.
We're not in the business of providing a municipal insurance for a happy life and gearing.
Can we back up a minute?
What I'm saying is if there is an existing private road that has parcels of land that have not been built upon,
and this private road was done done by the road.
road was done by a subdivision or what have you from years and years and years ago.
And there is not inherently built in an agreement between the landowners and abutters.
How you just described 90% as a private roads in a town theory?
Well, that's what I'm trying to address.
So what's wrong with it?
What I'm asking is, is that we consider putting in a protection for those other landowners
because if you just grant a building from it and just allow them to build,
and there's no protection.
there.
A person who buys a private, a lot, on a private road,
buys it with the risks of what the relationships are among the landowners on the private road.
That goes along with it.
That's exactly what's involved.
When you're negotiating that easement,
you're negotiating an easement from every person on that road is parking.
You have to cost.
And you have to be aware of the fact that you're going to have a relationship with them forever.
That's what that easement means.
Do you?
Do you?
I say what you're saying.
Well, the thought that was going through my mind is like the town coming up with EMP's concept for owners on private roads.
But the more I think about it, they're totally not enforceable.
So what's the point of having?
We can come up with recommendations of what, you know, you don't do stone walls,
you don't create erosion problems for your neighbor, but we can't enforce it.
It's not our responsibility.
It's not, and it's not town-owned?
It's not town-owned.
Yeah.
I said they've been a little quiet on this.
I want to throw a couple things.
out here. So one of the biggest things that I want to come back to on what Peter said in the initial moments of this dissertation was equity.
And people that have or own unbuilt lots on private roads. Essentially what we're doing by allowing it to happen on class 6 and not allowing the same process on private roads is we're creating an inequitable situation between the two.
Essentially, if we're
We held to the point of private roads are going to be required to bring the roads up to whatever standards, change at all, and they don't have the funds to do so.
Knowingly, whatever it may be, it may just be a case of the property being bequeathed to children or grandchildren or whatever.
That property is essentially worthless if they do not have the funds to upgrade that road.
or go through whatever the process is. So if it were a class 6 road, then they wouldn't have to worry about that.
So there's an equity issue in my opinion on them. And beyond that, I don't see how the town can mandate anything to happen on private property of someone who's not a party to the situation.
So for instance, if I own a lot and I want to build on that lot and I want to build on that lot and I
you know, whether it's coming from the planning board or whatever it may be, and the town comes back and says that, you know, you have to improve the road in front of Michelle's house before we'll give you the building permit, I can't force Michelle to do that, the town cannot force Michelle to do that.
It creates a zero-sum game, essentially. So the answer is no, just to start off with that.
And then beyond that, or to come to conclusion on that, that puts the town in a situation of picking winners and losers and as far as the private room.
And I believe that as a town body, whether it's selectmen, planning board, whatever it is, our main goal is to look out for the best interests of everybody in town, not a specific group here, there, whatever it is.
So we have to feel out for the best interests of everybody in town.
So we have to figure out exactly what the best route is for them.
And for me, listening to all the bits and pieces, I'm one that is more standoffish on mandating anybody to do anything on their private property,
especially somebody that isn't coming before the board for a permit.
I agree totally with everything you just said.
Okay.
And this is probably just the way that I'm not explaining things correctly.
The town can require the release of liability to form.
Yes.
Right.
The town can require proof that the property is insurable.
Can the town require that there's just proof that a maintenance agreement of any sort without even looking at what it is exists?
No product.
I don't see how they could, you know.
Just like the fact is you're mandating something to come from.
It's not saying it requires the road to be upgraded.
the road to be upgraded or anything?
No, no, no.
I'm agreeing with you to an extent, except for if Michelle is the standout and doesn't want to be party to that maintenance
grade, whatever it is, and I can't get a design, that means I don't get my building plate.
So you're creating an avenue for somebody who is anti-me building a place on a private road.
Okay, I'm saying, I'm looking for the person who is looking to build to add into,
to the existing agreement.
Let me ask you, let's go to your example.
And join, clear, join.
Let's go to your example.
I'll use the ones that I know of.
So on Baldwin Road, the oldest residents on Baldwin Road was
pit bull to 39.
It was a, it was built as part of the, I believe
was the Goodell subdivision, which occurred after the lake, which
to the lake, which existed prior to the lake being, the top of the dam being built, and then it flooded part of that land.
That subdivision parceled out just about all the lots, eventually to the owners on Baldwin Road.
So when that house was built in 1939, there was this house built and then Dorothy Wood had a house right next to it,
on a tiny little piece which she was used as a place to jump into the lake.
She was Deering's oldest, Dorothy and Wallace Wood, Deering's wood, Deering's old.
during his oldest residents of one time.
They bought that road with a tiny big money.
And the people, and so did the Everton College.
It was about 1840.
They had Everton, Ross Wood, in those days.
These are people here were only in summer.
There's a private road.
I don't know whether they ever had any insurance.
They never had any insurance.
Probably for a long time they never did.
Well, I know they do now.
But they didn't buy it with the expectation that they were going to have to have.
they were going to have to spend a ton of money to the road.
Do you know how they maintained that road?
They all got up together with troubles and with brakes,
and they bought hard pack from Home Depot or whoever was selling that time
and the places where they needed to put it because it was getting away.
They packed it down, they dug out the trenches and leave.
Some of them contributed, some of them didn't contribute,
whatever it was with their neighborhood.
They made it work.
The road would spend.
Now you're going to come in and say,
assuming Dorothy Ure just flew alive today, and say to her,
Oh, Dorothy, you would be part of a compact right now,
where you are agreeing now to maintain the road that never belonged to her to begin with.
He just has the right way.
And, excuse me, I didn't buy the house for understanding that I'm taking on that responsibility.
Where do we get off saying to Hunter?
You now have to be a contributor to an agreement to maintain a road that your reason doesn't require you to maintain it.
Some reasons require maintenance.
Some reasons do not require maintenance.
It all depends on how the users are.
I just don't think that's a fair more.
What if there isn't an agreement in place currently?
Would that mean the new potential build to create that maintenance contract
prior to getting the building permit and, you know,
the way I look at it with all the equity things, etc., etc., is
I would like to see a little more discussion.
a little more discussion on how do we bring the two Class 6 road and private road a little more similar.
So if you're building on a Class 6 road, which is not town maintained, which is town property,
you can still pass it if you can.
And Private Road, which is wholly private property, which the town really has no say on what it is,
wouldn't it make more sense?
for us to kind of mimic the two of them where we don't have, you know, the planning board review and comment.
Right.
Unless, of course, it's a CUP thing, watershed, et cetera, et cetera.
That's a separate system or a separate situation.
And then, you know, just have everything go in front of the board as a similar to the class 6 being a must.
Because the board can't, in my opinion.
in my opinion, the board should not have the ability to tell a private property owner
yes or no, you can build there, as long as you get everybody's permission next to you.
Right.
Or around.
I mean, if it's allowable by building code.
Can we, on, um, so, I mean, I could see going in the direction of,
a single building permit on a class six being the same as a single building permit on a private property.
on a private road. But in addition, can the board of subletment ask for proof of insurance before granting the permit?
I believe that's what's required under private road.
Under class six, it is required, but it's not required under
because you have a new department.
But you could require it?
The way the order says, you can, you can do the same.
You can adopt a policy with a road to class five roads.
And if the building permit applicant,
coming straight, they need the policy, no further review is required.
They don't say, put the elements as a policy out.
Okay.
That's why you're currently, as it is, as it is, could still apply.
That's what it does still apply right now.
So you change that policy.
Okay.
And if there is no proof of insurance,
it would still go back to the Board of Selectmen and evaluating
and making the decision as they do today.
Is that correct?
Well, I would, yes.
If you put the requirement,
if you put the requirement, yes.
You would.
And understand that that in itself is something that some folks might want to contest.
There are some people who might say, I signed a waiver.
I've reached you from liability.
I told you, you don't have to provide the service,
and you're telling me I have to get evidence insured ability.
I want to self-insure.
I'm not interested.
The ordinance doesn't, as I understand it, the RSA requires proof that it is insurable,
not that you actually have insurance.
So it doesn't require you to purchase it.
Am I right there, Matt?
That's class of insurance.
Yeah, let me see.
So I think that's an interesting question.
I mean, I honestly, if this RSA first was changed, I first,
I first, I'm like, whoa, I was shocked to see they hadn't addressed private roads.
I don't know.
And it's probably very bad practice to say, let's predict the legislature.
But I can't imagine that they, I'm shocked that they didn't address that.
And I think, you know,
mirroring state statute for the private roads is probably not a problem.
I think it would probably be okay because state statute calls it out for class six.
Yeah.
But let me see.
Insurable.
Where is it here?
That's what the RSA does say is insurable.
It is correct on it.
It doesn't say.
Yeah.
insurable or yeah.
Buildings they're on are insurable.
Just for fun.
If you look here, here are the old standards for Class 6.
Right?
Review and comment.
Here they are retained for private roads, right?
It's the same.
It's so bizarre that they didn't do anything private.
The word is insurable.
But that would mean is you have to demonstrate the direct
to demonstrate that you have an insurance company is indicated its willingness to write
the certificate of insurance for that property.
And what that would mean for a small insurance company is they will determine whether
or not the vote is maintained enough to that fire and say that you couldn't make and get there.
That's what they do.
They're not better write a certificate of insurance offer on a property is at risk.
That's what it's basically doing.
So the state is actually being very careful of here.
of your and making sure that it is not requiring that you get insurance but
that you're able to be in a situation where it can be available.
Because you've already accepted your waiver.
My thought on that is the first, nobody really knows how to define that right now.
Like what does that look like insurable?
I got an email from the dude who said you insure me.
Is that proof?
Right?
Yeah.
I don't know.
It's right.
must insurer.
Matt, it's a letter of intent on an insurance company specifying what they would insure,
the place they would insure, how much money, et cetera.
It's a letter of intent.
Yeah.
So what I would say that at the first...
You write a car.
You get a letter from your insurance company and says, I'm ready to insure that car,
otherwise you're not going to be able to put it on the law.
Yep.
Bingo.
Yeah.
I would just, right now in the short term, I would just suggest, hey,
suggest, hey, town attorney, does this meet the thing?
That letter of intent probably will, but I just, it's not...
Okay.
Yeah.
Okay.
Okay.
All right, well, I think I feel some better clarity
moving forward as far as revamping our classics
and our private road policy.
And I think it would be a good idea to keep it separate.
If that's the way the state
is viewing it, taking it on piece by piece like that,
better for us to separate them into different policies.
So it's easier to manage in the future and event that they
decide to go in a different direction.
Well, I know, that's the time might start to go a different direction as well.
That's true, yep.
So having them separate allows them to consider differently
and not having a question.
Yeah.
So is there any other feelings, consensus, anything from anybody
as far as, you know, the different
between the two, Class 6, private.
It hasn't been already spoken.
It hasn't thrown stuff in.
I'm just thinking that this is something that is
something that is going to wind up on board,
select boards, essentially.
I just want to make one other point.
The way, unless the policy is changed in a direction
that the consensus appears to be going before us,
we're opening the town to
appeal after appeal.
after appeal after appeal.
And ultimately, on the part of a private landowner,
denied a permit, ultimately,
that suit in Supreme Court,
depending if there have been a property taking.
Yes.
And the inequities, inequitable application of the policy.
And the legal costs that the town could face
in trying to defend this, could be significant.
And I must tell you, when you go forward,
you just make the simple case.
14 people on a road. They have had multiple building permits over time.
Somebody comes in to give you a building permit on an existing home to do something and say,
you can't have it because you don't have this or that.
Yeah.
She screams at you.
Yeah.
The only thing I'm confused with a little bit is if a waiver is filed and the,
for the building permit, they can't show that it's insurable
and has to go back to the board of selectmen to make a decision to issue the building permit or not in that situation.
in that situation. What is the criteria that the BOS would be using to make the decision
both on a private road and a class 6 road of when you would or would not issue a building permit?
What's the criteria that you use?
I would think that that would be a requirement prior to application.
I don't have to show yourself or insurable.
No, no, no, I'm saying so that you, say that you show that you, that's my question.
That's my question.
I think the statute reads that in order to get a plastic's permit, this is what, what's happened here is the state has taken away from municipal authorities
the right to use their own zoning policies and decisions with regard to building permits on plastics and
and mandated a state policy.
And the state policy is to provide and understand where they're coming from.
They want to increase the number of homes available to provide housing opportunities for workforce and other situations.
the situation. That's the goal of all of this. And then this goes along with the ADU
divisions.
Right.
And new home construction and new home construction that provides housing supply.
Right.
But why would you want to promote expanding use on
where you're putting, I don't want to put you
somebody that's buying this.
Talk to the state government.
And I'm trying to say you.
All the risks involved.
Oh.
I'm really speaking to the world.
Here.
If I might.
I don't know what she just said.
If you could let her speak.
Just, I, truly, I don't know what you have.
So there is always an inherent risk and we've spoken about it.
Yeah.
Building on a Class 6 road or private road, right?
There's risks.
So why would you want to expand use on property that has that risk?
So here's my answer to your question.
This is the case where the state has decided as a matter of policy,
And they've driven by the policy of housing supply being a barrier for housing affordability in the state of New Hampshire.
Yeah.
And that drove them to do this.
Now, you mean to say, I'm wise, stupid decision.
That's right.
You could also argue that it's inappropriate in New Hampshire for the particular municipal policymaking and decision authority
over their own zoning ordinances.
Every time the state does this, it reverses a long history of what has been the balance of responsibilities
between planning boards, municipalities, municipalities,
and state companies.
So I'm opposed to that.
I think it's an inappropriate decision.
Particularly it's a one-size-fits-all decision,
and they're putting a decision like they did the ADU decision
and a town like Deering, just like they did on Manchester,
there's some other down here.
So it's bad policy.
They agree.
But if you want to understand what the policy means,
how it's likely to be interpreted,
understand where they're coming from.
They're coming from, they use the word insurable,
intentionally, and they're going to hold to that word.
And they're going to hold to that word.
And they're basically saying, somebody,
was insurable, you get a permit, and that's the end of it.
And they don't need you to have any of the policy.
This is the only policy you could have.
All of the prior provision that's if you can develop a different policy
over and above this or that, take it away.
This is all mandated.
So there is no review.
But what difference do you make it insurable?
Right.
What if it's not insurable?
That's my question.
That's what I keep coming at.
It's a hard now.
It's a hard now.
That's my question.
The building permit is denied.
It's a hard flat, right?
Right.
Now, if you can't show that it's not because the state RSA specifically says we can require that.
So if that's part of the ordinance or however you want to interpret that, it's the same thing as setbacks.
It's the same thing as everything else.
No, but it's the reverse of this.
So true, if you can show that it's insurable, the BOS has to approve the building permit.
But if you show that it's not insurable, does the voice?
the town, the municipality, can still have some say if it's, if the building permit can be approved or not based on recommendations to go.
ZBA.
We wouldn't do that.
ZBA.
ZBA?
The ZBA might.
Yeah.
I don't know.
That's the final.
Yeah.
I like your answer.
If you can't show it's insurable.
Right.
And then they can plead their case to the ZBA and that's what we can.
That would be.
That simplifies the whole process.
What is?
What is insurer?
I'm still having a problem with W.
what does it mean to be insurable?
Is it your house insurance?
Yes.
So putting your notice on the insurance company to say it.
For something that hasn't even been built?
So my opinion, right, if this kind of weeds out, so the concerns on classics,
forget about private rules, right?
If there's not a lot of developers, right, and the guy buys the lot at the very end,
and it's a mile and a half away, you know the ambulance is going to try to go,
they're not looking up.
on the map to see if this is Class 6 or not, right?
They're going to go out there.
That's a liability.
That's a danger to town, you know, employees.
Okay?
So an insurance company is going to look at that and they're saying,
we're not going to take that risk because this is not, you know,
depending, you know, if the Classics Road is in perfect condition,
they would probably say yes, but most of them are not.
And so that would take, you know, away that risk.
risk.
All right.
That's how I look at it.
It's just been so long since I've built a home.
I can't remember.
Did we get the, did we have to have insurance?
I think for the mortgage, you definitely do.
I think it's a requirement.
You can't get a more or mortgage without it.
It's all the window.
But understand, this statute reads the following rules.
Stop with the first word of it.
It says, no building shall be erected on any lot
within any part of a municipality,
nor shall any building
building permit be issued for the erection of a building unless.
And then it goes through all there unlesses.
And then it says in the case of class six that the
the government body has authorized issuance of permit
for the erection of buildings on said class six highways,
general, and that two,
the Mississippi Pellan either assumes responsibility.
either assumes responsibility for maintenance of that class 608, no liability for any damages resulting from the use thereof.
That includes the situation that we talked about, somebody heading down there, not a municipal responsibility.
They can try and see a landholder.
That'd be an interesting case.
Some private road owners would say,
we'll put a, let's put off private roads, because they do,
because they want to protect themselves.
protect themselves. Pullman Rugg used to have one on it.
Right, but the RSA does not address private rights.
So that's a move point is by going by however going on the rest of it.
And he says, prior to the issuance of a building from it, the applicant shall approve
produce evidence that notice of the limits of municipal responsibility is recorded.
The waiver.
Right?
The waiver.
And the insurability.
So the, um, what they're saying is, you can show the insurable.
If you can't show the insurer ability, you don't pick voting.
Yeah, so like you said, even though I signed a waiver,
taking away, but if I don't have the proof,
there's only people that aren't going to do it from the get-go.
Right.
And that, I think Keith whispered in my air, that's where the problem is going to end up.
You can have a lot of people who are just not going to happen.
And that is our problem down the road.
What do you mean?
We'll talk about later.
Okay.
Right.
So the building inspector needs to be in that to understand that he cannot issue any building permits without proof of insurance or that it's insurable.
Evidence of insurability.
Evidence of insurability.
He needs to understand.
Overarching, they have to meet whatever our ordinance is.
So however it's written and the waiver, proof of the waiver.
I mean, that's the waiver is in the ordinance, the insurability would be in the ordinance, etc., etc., etc.
So if they can't meet that, no building, then the building inspector shall not, you know, give a building permit for.
We have been looking at the other things, too, of course, a little overrequires.
You should have, right?
Yep.
Yep.
So one neat, right, package.
But he needs to be brought in for a little to understand specifically what we're kind of talking about tonight.
Oh, we'll have to change the, the form, the building permit requirement issue.
Right.
That's right.
I love my handbook.
What are you playing?
What?
We're building our class six and private roads.
A guide to understanding the requirements, responsibilities in the permanent process.
Wow.
That's a Canber project right there.
Yeah.
Yeah.
So, what do you think?
Do you're a meeting?
I'm making you know how the slept we feel after this discussion.
Do you feel empowered to move forward and not?
forward and make some changes.
Yes, absolutely.
Yes.
In fairness to the good citizens of Deering?
Yeah.
I believe so.
Good discussion.
Great discussion, yeah.
Good discussion.
Do you guys want me to run through that example in Pembroke about the subdivision?
No.
No.
We're good.
There you go.
No.
I don't think it's relevant at this point.
Motion to a juror?
Hold it.
Hold it.
planning board clear that you need to address your subdivision regulations for class
fix and private roads.
I'm not so sure.
I mean...
I don't think we need to.
Yeah.
It's whatever you're going to upgrade,
you're going to require upgrades to...
The subdivision regulations will change.
The subdivision regulations won't change because that's for a subdivision
and there's no change.
Okay.
That doesn't have anything...
So your subdivisions are up to date for this.
Yes.
One point is what I say,
there is a reason.
There is an exclusion.
not allowed by the town to make an exception for property on islands.
Propergan, what?
Islands.
Reach your hand if you own an island.
They do get building for it's on islands.
I know.
Well, we'll address that.
Madam Chair, I move to adjourn the planning board.
Anyone, did that a second?
Second.
On favor?
All right.
See you later, Matt.
Yeah, you have to be careful.
That's great.
Projectors.
That's good.
You're up here.
I mean, I recognize you.
I mean.
I recognize you.
Good.
Yeah.
My dad's going to come into
2019.
Oh, super.
That's in the 1950.
We on the property and
they bought it.
I know.
Oh, I didn't know about it.
and we said.