Planning Board

Speakers are labeled SPEAKER_N. This transcript is machine-generated.

Recording

I don't want to shut this, I think it's 3-1 kill.
48 hours, we're trying to pause.
Okay.
3-3.
Sorry, it's pretty good.
It's so late right now, probably.
Yeah.
No, no, no, we're testing.
Oh, right.
It's...
I thought he was going down.
I thought he was going down.
Okay.
I am.
I'm going down.
I'm going down.
I'm going down.
I'm going down.
I'm going down.
I'm going down.
I'm going down.
I'm going down.
I'm going down.
I'm going down.
Just...
Just...
Just about now.
Yeah.
Mom, here's the letter.
Okay.
And I also brought a steep hold on.
That's why I called my son.
This is a significant amount of getting on.
I think it's an R plus of the study.
It's a source.
So I can't that in a physical way.
Yeah, so I have to get the phone.
I can't get the phone in.
Enjoy it.
You don't even know what can you find.
Yeah, right now.
Don't get lost.
So this is one...
We can't go on.
It's 3-3.
That's the letter.
Oh, right.
Oh, right.
Yeah.
Oh, we got the letter.
We got the letter.
We got the letter.
This was a big F5.
Thank you.
Well, you want it?
Yeah.
You want it?
We want it.
Yeah.
Okay.
Okay.
That's a good thing.
Yeah.
Ten.
Yeah.
Okay.
Still.
Okay.
Yeah.
We're in a little rush.
No.
No.
I'm in here.
Yeah, they're going to prime it to be real changing.
It takes a while.
It takes a few days to plan our priorities.
And fire a name up from 20 years to 15 years.
Oh, good.
Thank you.
That's it.
Let's see.
I don't know.
He's going to go in there.
Oh, good.
That's it.
Oh, he could go in there.
He could go in there.
He could go in there.
He could go in there.
You remember everything.
This camera is on.
Maybe you go with the camera.
Yeah.
All right.
All right.
Okay.
Attention, everybody.
I'm going to call the roll.
We'll see if anybody's here.
If we have a forum, we'll have a meeting.
I'll begin now.
Prince Catapana.
I'll have time out here.
Morning.
Good morning.
Uh-oh.
We're off to a bad start.
John McDevater.
Dave Moore?
Yep.
I did.
Marco Russell here.
Another dress for Gene Johnson.
He'll find out.
Okay.
We have five presents.
We have four of them.
Are there two here?
Uh-oh.
We're off to a bad start.
John McDevater.
Dave Moore?
Yep.
I did.
Marco Russell here.
Another dress for Gene Johnson?
He'll find out.
Okay.
We have five presents.
We have four of them.
Are there two here?
This meeting is being recorded.
I'm going to call the roll.
Uh-oh.
This meeting is being recorded in live streams.
I don't say anything bad.
Okay.
We're stuck on the agenda projects of regional impact.
We've got enough.
Second on the agenda.
Conditional use permit for 24 short drive.
Is anybody here representing 24 short drive?
They were driving.
All right.
So they were driving.
Do we need?
Let's have a motion.
Come on.
Do we drive the application for 24 short drive?
No.
Second.
Okay.
The motion is being seconded.
Do we drive the motion for 24 short drive?
Do we drive the application for 24 short drive?
Without prejudices.
I need discussion.
All those in favor say aye.
All right.
Anybody opposed?
Nobody opposed?
Motion passed.
Okay.
Next item on the agenda.
Next question.
Yes.
Any future work on how to be a whole new project?
That's right.
They were driving their application.
They have to start over again.
So again.
Unless they change the size of the plan.
They reduce the size of the building so they're not in the buffer.
They don't have to come here.
They can just get a building from it.
So if they come back here.
They do the same thing.
They often, if you'll be notified by a sort of pipeline panel.
Can I ask another question?
Is it possible if they were to go to the zoning board of Justin?
Can you actually get a variance on the conditions used to come in?
They're asking for a variance.
They're asking for a variance.
Probably.
Or would they come back here?
Would they come back here?
If they're going to build something.
Yes.
If they're going to build a smaller structure and not violate any of the setbacks and the wetlands.
They can just get a bonus permit.
They can just do it.
They're going to build it from it.
Right.
But they wouldn't have to come back.
Correct.
Correct.
If they were within all the regulations.
No.
Thanks very much.
You're welcome.
Okay.
Next order of business is a lot of line adjustment on 108 great bay road.
I can stand.
Okay.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, Paige Libby, with those of each of years.
Here with me tonight also is Debbie Buck and Michael Green, the property owners of these two locks.
As well as Dick Phoenix, with total Phoenix formerly Roberts.
So this is map R16, lots 2 and 2D.
Some of you that have been on the board for a while probably remember back in 2020.
We came forward with a subdivision for green and company off of the land that Debbie still owns.
Which is lock 2.
And we subdivided off these four lots of 2A and 2B and 2C and then what is currently 2D in the back.
And what we're looking to do now is to add land from what Debbie still owns as lock 2 back into 2D to make that lock large enough to subdivide into two locks.
Which will both be back lots.
So for that reason we also applied for a conditional use permit for the second back lot as well as the lot line adjustment to add the land into lock 2D.
Both of these locks will be slightly oversized from the minimum of fire minutes.
And that's just because there are wetlands surrounding the locks.
So in order to make them large enough to actually fit a billable envelope for a home as all of the septic systems without impacting any button buffers.
They are slightly oversized.
And the other thing too is that this portion of the property where this original subdivision and the subdivision that are proposing was done is sort of geographically segregated from the rest of Debbie's land by a stream.
That runs through the property.
So you can see it kind of on this plan there's a large wetland here and then a stream that sort of surrounds this area.
So we're proposing the lots to be within that stream area and sort of separate them all from the rest of the property.
At the time that this subdivision was originally done, the second back lot was not allowed.
So for that reason obviously at the time we didn't propose one.
But the greens are now currently building out these two lots to be in to see.
So the timing was right as they get ready to build a lot to be that they decided to come forward with the second back lot.
We did include several waiver requests.
One of which is I think it seems like we split into two maybe I included them both in one request.
But basically the labor request is to not survey the entirety of the 70 acres that Debbie owns.
We've requested that waiver in the past just because this subdivision is not one section with property.
If there's no need to subdivide or to survey the entire family of the 70 acres, it would be very common for some end time consuming and isn't necessary for the reporting requirements.
So I think the two waivers within that are the existing conditions and the subdivision plan to not show all of that detail.
On the two plans.
And then the other waivers one is the minimum frontage requirements for a back lot subdivision.
This one we weren't sure it's a little unclear if it needed or not.
So we wanted to include it just to be safe.
So your minimum requirement for a deal back lot subdivisions that the parent parcel has 220 feet of frontage on an existing road.
So where 2D only has the 35 feet of frontage we included the waiver request but that being said Debbie's lot has thousands of feet of frontage.
So if you include both lots together we actually do need that requirement.
And then similarly we have another waiver request for the minimum lot area to do a back lot subdivision which is five acres per the regulations.
And again a lot 2D has about 1.7 acres currently but Debbie probably is close to 70 acres.
So if you include the two lots together we wouldn't need that waiver but just wanted to include it to be safe.
And then lastly we included a waiver request for the requirement that a second back lot be affordable.
So we're just requesting that that waiver so that the second back lot that we're proposing wouldn't have to make the workforce have a requirements which I'll let you speak to in more detail.
And then if you want me to also we can go through the conditional use permit criteria we can do that.
So with that I'll let Tim speak and then we accept this application is complete.
We're going to accept it if we need a motion.
We'll accept Mark.
Yep.
We'll accept the act.
We'll accept it.
Any discussion?
The motion is made and seconded to accept this application is complete.
All those in favor say aye.
Is there anybody opposed?
Nobody opposed the motion passes.
Okay.
Mr. Phoenix.
Yes. Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
First of all.
So A, B and C are part of the old subdivision that we originally did for granted companies so those are not part of the application.
It is.
The only ones that are part of the application is what is currently to D which is the backlog.
Does that fall?
Part of it if you actually can move to whether that would be an application.
One more.
I have to be very first to you.
Incorporate.
We have a consistent condition.
So this is the existing condition of Vlog 2D and then this is Vlog 2 surrounding it.
So these lots of A, B, and C aren't part of the subdivision that we're proposing today.
So many of you have to look back for more pages.
So now you can see that 2D is getting slightly larger and then re-subdivide it into 2D logs.
Does that make sense?
Yep, I got it.
So basically.
Thank you.
Again, I have to go through the same thing.
Essentially, this was the D here.
Now this is being added to a lens split.
That's pretty much what it's all about.
So when this subdivision was approved, the ordinance provided for single backslides.
In 2024, I believe that's right.
How about 2024?
The ordinance, the regulation was amended to allow a second backslide conditioned upon it being affordable.
And we were just asking for a waiver from that affordable requirement and to allow us just a second backslide period.
And the reasons for that are several.
We're trying to look at this from a practical point of view.
One is that this what could have later been split if and when Debbie develops the other 60 solid acres out back,
which is going to be in some time.
But our thinking is that now if we can get the second backslide that's not subject to affordable,
it will go on the tax rolls now, get some tax revenues for the town now at a regular rate rather than the reduced rate that an affordable lot in home would generate.
And it would also help preserve the rest of the land for a period of time until she decides to develop it.
And we've avoided the need for wetland closings in the center.
Connection and a wetland crossing.
The topography is really good.
These are just a very nice area.
I want some photograph, probably drew by it through this time.
But I've seen photographs and the street runs through there.
It's very nice.
It's a lot that by size and location and the likely construction of a home on it is going to fit in with that neighborhood.
If it's a workforce housing, and I realize that that's how we get to the second line.
But again, I'm repeating a bit.
But it will never be fully taxed.
And referring now to Mark's comment, manner of comments that before, this was originally scheduled for May and got moved.
And Mark points out correctly opposed the waivers regarding one of the great day road.
It will just be part of it in 2024.
The fact finding what amended the backlog provision prior to the amendment when we wind up a lot was allowed.
The amendment provided for the creation of the second backlog was dedicated to workforce housing unit.
And that equates from Mark's memo to home and locked together that's $431,000.
It goes on and we agree.
The provision was added to specifically allow and encourage affordable housing, especially in those instances where a family may have a large across the land and can subdivide for when they're children.
The issue we see as a practical matter with that is that if it's for relatives, if you create a second lock for relatives, they are going to have to qualify for owning and purchasing affordable housing.
And once it's designated as such, it's always going to be that no matter what.
So if it's sold in the future, the parents say within one and the children that don't children live in the other parents pass away, they move.
Now they're still stuck with it in the town and also relegated to only getting the reduced value taxes for the future.
So we think if the idea, one of the ideas is to provide for additional homes for relatives, family members, that it makes more sense that it not be relegated to workforce housing.
Secondly, and as importantly, I've got a paramount experience more than indirectly with workforce housing.
I've been around it a lot. And the usual thing you see is an apartment building condos or 20 lot subdivisions, let's say, five or 10% are made affordable as a condition to get a couple of election loss, etc.
So, you know, say, five or 10% of what you're developing gets designated as affordable or workforce.
Here, though, you've got, depending on how you look at it, either one out of a percent is workforce, or if you consider that it's one or two loss, it's 50%, which is a pretty heavy burden.
And I think it makes it difficult for a developer who's buying and building homes on the lot to want to take that risk.
And I didn't depend on very determined though, but if you figure that a workforce housing home on a lot is, can sell for no more than $431,000, if you do some fairly simple math, you can see that that's problematic.
For instance, you know, today's agreement and all over the seat goes to, you know, a fairly largely sized home to say 2,000 square feet. Some are smaller, many are larger, but using that.
And I just use, if you build a home now with $200 a foot, that's a $400,000 bill. If it's $300,000 a foot, it's a $600,000 bill.
And Michael tells me that you're somewhere between $200,000 and $300,000, so you know, call it $250,000.
So let's say you're somewhere between $400,000 and $500,000 to build the house. If that's the case, then you've already just with the house construction costs equal to exceeded the amount for which the entire thing can be sold, which means you're transferring a lot, essentially, for little to no value.
You just think that that doesn't make a whole lot of sense as a practical matter. Again, my personal view is that this idea was a great one.
It's really good to be thinking about how we can provide for affordable or workforce housing, especially with the prices in the Freedom of Secrets area, but we don't think it works here for the reasons I just said.
An additional issue is that, am I right that, is any of this one still in current use? Yours is the ones you created or not, right?
We paid the panel fee.
Okay, take it out.
So part of this is in current use, that'll come out of current use. I didn't know whether they had already paid the current use penalty for the lot that created.
So again, I'm kind of repeating, but we kind of consider this a current, a common sense approach to the situation that's before us, given
the history of it, the existence of a backbone already, the fact that we've got the wetlands, the fact that Debbie Skype, 70 roughly between 60 and 70 additional acres, the access is already there and approved, et cetera, that this just makes sense.
And in summary, we don't think that this particular lot is going to be developed for workforce housing now.
If that stays, it's going to either remain single lot, which won't benefit another family, won't get more tax revenues, and it's all going to come away to the future.
And not so much for you folks on the planning board, because I know you know this, but for the record and for the public.
Section 6.1 of the subdivision regulations addresses the waiver procedure, and as you know, the planning board has the absolute authority to waive any requirement of its subdivision regulations.
And I'm going to paraphrase this for Section 6.7, RSA 6.7, 4.36. If a proposed subdivision is submitted for approval, the applicant may request a waiver.
We'd have to request an writing, which we've done on a form, which we've done, and a planning board to grant the waiver if it finds, by majority, that a strict conformity would propose an unnecessary hardship to the applicant, and waiver would not be contrary to the spirit and intent of the regulations.
And for the reason I've said it, we think that is an unnecessary hardship, because it's unlikely to be developed as a word for counseling if that's imposed.
And that's the spirit and intent of the regulations to provide for additional housing is met.
In these specific circumstances, relative to subdivision or conditions of the land, in such subdivision, indicate that the waiver will properly carry out the spirit and intent of the regulations.
It does carry the spirit and intent of the regulations in general to provide housing. It does not need the workforce housing requirement.
What we think that makes sense for that to be waived in the circumstances as I described them.
And finally, the basis of any waiver branches shall be recorded in the minutes of the planning board, which is happening.
So, that's our thinking on it. You know, it's a little unusual to come before you after this was passed in 2024, but for the reasons that we stated in the Navy Inbellish upon here by others, you think it makes sense, and we ask for your consideration at approval.
I don't know if there's anything that Paige wants to correct, you know, Michael wants to add, right now, and I think that he wants to speak.
And you usually remain quiet, but you usually.
So, I think that was a good lesson for me.
I want to say something. Sure, Deborah, that following that, okay, this is going to be real simple.
We've been discussing this for a year, Michael and I, because we had a little breakdown of communication during our original.
The piece of land, it has a little norm.
I understand, perfect. You're right up around Florida, but I can say to do that, you want me to get in the process.
Well, Michael first started out with if I could just give it to him.
So, I could really think this through, because we just put that back what, by the way, is things that are normally not expanded.
I mean, the septic systems are known with large landscaping, large dry ways.
It adds significantly to the cost.
We're already at, and my business is just doing a reasonably modest house on a big lot.
You're probably 75 to 3 and a quarter, but say we just use 250.
That is 500,000.
It's 200 bucks.
Yes, but you can't build it for that.
Which means the land values less than zero.
There is no profit motive to build.
All of which is neither here nor there.
What is important is as a land owner trying even to do it for a family member, they first have to qualify, which Tim said.
What does that mean?
If your kids make too much money, they can't live on your land under this ordinance.
If it's your own property we're talking about.
The second part is when they go to sell, they're now required to meet that same requirement.
So you're depriving, if it is for a family member, you're depriving your child of that potential value increase that you got on your own home.
So it actually creates, it's one of my issues of workforce.
How is it? It creates a negative impact.
If it's not for your own family member, different story.
You know, somebody's coming in to buy and work with someone they know what they're getting.
But if it is really for a family parcel, you're always harming.
This is something great.
The secondary part is too, if you're dealing with trying to keep things like wise, like homes.
It's hard to do that when something might be a million, something might be 500,000 and still not pay for the land.
It's just the reality of actually doing that.
I don't know how many of you have the parcels of land cutting off of these for something, the ordinance.
That's kind of what I'm hearing, right?
I agree with John.
I want to kind of second my thought on that.
I hear what you're saying too.
That's all things to consider.
But that's more of a zoning thing that maybe we have to talk about.
I'm not even sure if there was a requirement to work for us or how that conversation happened.
Originally, you were only allowed one back lot.
Right.
And so we're allowing a second back lot for the purpose of the workforce house.
So what this is saying is whenever this comes before us, they're always going to ask for a way.
Right.
Because you have to move.
The driveway is long.
And it looks like that.
Yeah.
Right.
And that is my concern.
If we set the precedent now, everybody coming after you is going to want the same thing.
There won't be anybody after us.
Yeah.
I'm actually just getting out of the way.
Right now, right now, the way this works with a current condition will never happen.
But it is not because of the market.
Just what ever happened.
So in a way, then, it's taking the one back lot into two back lots and creating a revenue screen.
Not to the sole purpose.
What the second back lot was originally.
Intentative.
Intentative.
Intentative.
Intentative.
Intentative.
Intentative.
In other words, whoever wants the second back lot is doing it for a profit month.
They're not doing it for what the intent was for the ordinance.
Right.
That's what we're representing the Thomas.
Is a younger family purchasing that lot going to receive some value from it?
The absence of a presence of gaining equity.
Does that help that young family gets started?
Well.
I assume you all are on your own.
Right.
But when the point is, that's quite a lot.
You have watched what's happened with real support for a housing situation.
From getting any of that gain that you've seen with the owner of a state appreciation if you do.
And that's just a home.
But they will receive a gain.
They will receive their home.
They will receive the equity that they put into it.
It will be like a savings account instead of like spending rent.
My response to that is that, yes, I think that's accurate.
However, at a fairly substantial reduction of what they could get for this home over time.
And once it is workforce, they can't sell it on the market.
They've got to sell it to someone who also qualifies.
Right.
So that limitation is going to resist for that.
But that's the purpose of it is so that people have affordable housing.
If you build this house out at a non-workforce, 800, 900,000?
More, let's say.
So how is a first-time home buyer going to be able to move into Greenland and afford to live in this town?
We're going to end up with all the houses in town, or 900,000 plus.
And all the people that are, you know, your food collar workers, your factory workers.
None of them are going to be able to afford to live here.
I understand where it is.
And so that's that, I think, was the intent.
Originally, when we came up with this idea of the second backlog, the reason for the workforce housing?
Yeah.
Well, first of all, I think the idea of the second down in the future, isn't that...
The precedent.
I'm going to get a second backlog.
I'm not saying that's what you're doing, but it's going to set that precedent.
That you would have to reconfigure the current lot for, or be, and then cross over the street.
Yeah, I'd probably come in right and back.
It's going to be created about something like this.
It's not going to happen.
If you're not going to get the lot in the first place.
And I think it's just going to remain a lot of it is, which is going to be decided to do with requirements.
Or just the statutory purchase land in the area.
Let's start out first.
I don't want them renting forever.
I personally, initially, didn't really deal with them.
Because now, that house is not going to be built.
That couple that you're talking about is not going to be able to participate.
Is there more church?
Is there not going to be?
Just to add to your point, I've done several backlogs before this board.
I'm sure other people have as well.
But almost every single one that I've done was for a young couple.
That was a family member of whoever was satisfying it all.
That very likely didn't meet the requirements of workforce.
So just to add to that, based on my experience, that is what people are subdividing backlogs for.
Just to our base side.
Yes.
Yeah, to our base side.
Yeah, the one I did on base side.
And then we did one on postero as well.
We spent two on base side in the last two years.
Yeah.
Gone to family members.
Yeah.
So they did not meet the requirements?
I mean, based on what I know about what they do for a living and guessing that they did not meet the workforce housing requirements.
And that was obviously back when there was only one feedback level out.
So there wasn't a second backlog on that workforce.
You know, the required workforce housing.
Any more questions for the day?
Any more questions from the public?
All those in public comment on this topic?
I would like to go on a play walk.
I think we have a definition.
Yeah.
It might not be a bad idea if the applicant could sketch out.
Imagine that you could do this subdivision without a waiver.
Oh, I don't know.
Just sketch it out on a, you know, not a survey.
Yeah, assessing the plan.
Yeah.
You could show that to the right.
To change the lots and lots here too.
The opportunity to re-craft or to a state number.
It's based on that value.
Talking about the requirements Greenland has to provide.
Yeah.
I mean, it's set by the state staff.
So you can't say, you know, 500,000.
You can't.
No, we can't change them.
We can't change them.
Okay, well.
The rents, the maximum rents are set.
We're going to the site block.
We're going to go to the site block.
What do you need to do?
Let's just make sure to plan with them.
Yeah.
You need a table and you can't announce when you want to have a site block.
If you want to table it, you can table it.
Well.
I'm going to continue the Lifeline Adjustment condition.
This is from some condition of land on the way.
Great bay roads.
Map R162.
Big side road.
Map R16.
16.
To the plain formula.
Thursday, July 17th, 2025 after a site block.
You won't be there.
That's right.
Turn is made and seconded.
You seconded that.
Heather.
To continue this.
Permit.
Application to a future meeting on July 17th.
Do we need discussion before we vote?
Hearing none.
Always in favor say aye.
All right.
Anybody opposed?
Anybody opposed?
Come on.
Pass us.
You said you would say yes now.
Yes.
Yes.
Heather, different calendar behind you.
Yeah.
So you're doing a work session on the 11th.
Ten.
Ten.
Really?
Yes.
July 10th.
And then July 17th.
And then 17th.
Extend the 10th and do the site block.
Go for a meeting.
That's right.
No.
Actually.
Yes.
I know.
We're going to do the agenda that night.
It's a work session.
Yeah.
We have several departments.
I'm trying to do it.
Come on in.
We'll know before I start early lives.
Yeah.
Yeah.
I mean, you would have...
You can go into the site block and say five o'clock.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Can you guys do five o'clock on the 10th?
Yes.
Cool.
Have you guys laugh?
Yeah.
Good.
We have to do it somewhere happening.
After the sun.
We hope so.
Or I can send someone else from my office too.
Yes.
Can you guys do another night.
I mean, not show me anything.
You share my day to 14th.
Yeah.
July 14th.
I hope.
So I'm going to start the parcel to July 14th at five o'clock.
I have to go with you now.
Well, the selectments meaning, but we'll just explain we may be late.
The corners of the approved, the current, the approved water state.
Yeah.
And it's real straightforward.
I mean, you guys are pretty good at it.
Well, how do we visualize what it is that you want to do?
And the common drive is easy to find.
Well, they tell what it is that you want to do.
So, everybody's imagination.
Get out, but we're basically going to find out.
Right down the aisle.
The lock, which was changing on the lock on the left.
And it's just what it's doing into this stream is easily visible.
I didn't know the same thing.
But if you want to say we can do it.
It'll be like the real grand.
Yeah, we're talking about the line.
The middle line.
The middle line.
The middle line.
The same corner is this lot that's already under construction.
The stream then goes continues on.
So, it'll be pretty clear.
But we can actually state that line.
And that line, if you want.
Yes.
And that one, I think that will make it clear.
Yes, so clear.
I want it crystal clear.
And this guy, you can see while the fisted at least show with that.
Right.
That stream is only...
You're going to do us an explanation.
Written.
Yes.
It'll come from me.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Things changed too.
Building costs went up a lot.
A lot.
We're still going up.
Yeah.
One doesn't pay.
Like two blanks.
Yes.
Yeah.
With P111.
Yes.
It can't be done.
You're right.
It can't be done.
They'll do duplex.
I think that's what we want to see.
Yeah.
That was why we allowed that extra opportunity.
And we don't want to toss it in the trash can.
But the first opportunity.
We want the agenda.
161 baseline room.
So this has some very interesting history.
For all years.
Well.
But I thought I'd seen it all.
Of course.
I've been doing this for a while.
But you never say that because...
I've never seen that before.
Yeah.
I've never seen that before.
So, um...
Harold's family is on this property for many years.
It's one they wrote.
Previous to her parents buying the property.
The previous owner went to the zone he fell for back in 1978.
And got a variance for frontage.
It was approved.
The variances went with the land forever.
They then hired a surveyor.
Went to the planning board.
And on June 24th, 1979.
Got their subdivision.
Planned approved.
With a stipulation that they come back with a mylar.
Well, they produced the mylar.
But it never came back to get its sign.
So, I spoke to the town's attorney describing, you know, the situation.
And he said if the boy was comfortable, he could sign a mylar.
He wasn't sure if the registry could take it.
But, um...
One of the provisions that I think is...
Should be thought about here is...
This property can be subdivided today with a backlog.
This is an upland where if this didn't exist,
if she could come in today, get a backlog,
she would have to cross a stream to do that and build a home in the back in the field.
The way the subdivision was laid out, the home is going to sit out front.
Her sister wants to come back home and build a home here.
And actually having the home out front is better than building a long driveway crossing a stream.
And building the house out back, which she could do under a backlog provision.
They have the frontage.
They have the acreage.
So, it's not...
This is a land there that actually does meet our few partners today.
So, um...
You know, the attorney suggested that we...
I bring it back to the board.
If you were comfortable, the chairman could sign the plan.
She could bring it to the registry and see what happens.
You can tell you reject it.
The only thing I can think they could reject it for is because it's so old,
and it doesn't meet today's standards.
In which case, the pins are all set.
It was stamped by a surveyor.
She'd have to go to a surveyor to draw out a new mylar.
And they have to go out a lot of the property to make sure the pins are there
so they can make it with their stamp on it.
But it doesn't have to come back here.
Well, it doesn't bother to have to sign it.
They're trying to sign into mylar for over six years later.
Yeah.
Our subdivision doesn't...
Regulations don't expire.
Our refusal doesn't expire.
Sometimes there's a language in your regulations that say,
this approval is good for two years.
If you don't get it recorded by two years, it's done.
All odds doesn't say that.
I've got a technical question.
I don't know the answer.
I'm not trying to cause trouble and not trying to make this difficult.
But I had my way in surveyed half a dozen years ago.
And the surveyor told me that the other surveyor's surveying different lots
didn't agree with his findings.
And there was some uncertainty in there.
Does a 45-year-old surveying job?
Does it change over time?
Is it still what it was then?
It was stamped by someone that was licensed, who's now passed on.
But it was a license for there.
It was stamped.
Why don't you just unroll the plan so that the board can see it?
Be careful about it.
So if it's not recordable, if the mylar is not recordable,
then you're just saying it's leaked.
It's not recordable, but the attorney's thought is equal.
Because of the standards that they have to be recorded.
And the mylar is routine.
Registry standards.
I don't know where my technical question is.
Well, that's the good thing.
So that's just the register that you're putting it on record.
Well, the registry has these standards of mylar size and margin.
I feel like this kind of stuff might, I don't know.
But back in 1979, they didn't have that same standard.
So this would have been legal.
Yes, absolutely.
So I don't have a problem with it being signed in heaven.
I mean, you think you could do a back lot of subdivision.
You could put the house back here.
There's a weapon that goes to the metal.
So you'd have to get a weapons permit across it.
Culver, it won't allow, but you couldn't build back here.
So this now, with this plan,
she's going to build out here, which actually,
yeah, but it's not now across the board, which I think is it?
Well, this came about because of some ideas.
You have a...
No, because we're both just retired.
And we only thought it was...
Yeah.
In our tax maps, don't reflect this layout.
It doesn't.
It doesn't.
This is their taxes.
No.
Well, the land...
The land is the Charles.
I didn't know that.
The land is the Charles, I didn't know that.
It's a good track.
It's a good thing.
It's okay.
Yeah, they put this.
Yeah.
40 of 155.
We won't take it because of the mark.
Yeah.
But in marks?
There are 10 marks on mark.
They are 50.
Ladies in the registry.
Oh, I know.
Oh, it's scary.
I think they're finger schoolers.
Yeah.
I think they're all cool nuns.
I think that's what they are.
They're scary.
They took drugs.
They do.
They have one person to check.
There's another person.
They don't need to send it back for everything.
If you do bring it to the registry, please video it.
Because I want to see their fingers.
Yeah.
I'm kind of leaving the woods with another track.
Good.
I said it did not happen.
The word started to happen.
It's a little same now.
And then she has to have it reserved.
Well, if the registry says no, you'll have the finest of air.
Oh, well, then you can go.
Well, when you're in the last week,
it will just be January.
And I need to wear a 94.
So, but they've got all their records.
And they would be.
Yeah.
Somebody said it's old place.
Right.
So if they set me up.
So if they crit her out in a new mylar.
Wait.
I mean, if they can find someone who took over these plans or this company still.
She can just go there.
And they'll just.
We make her.
They're making some charge.
Remake it.
Have Bob signed it.
Right.
Because it's already been.
I have a problem.
I have a problem.
Yeah.
I have a problem.
He was trying to.
Yeah.
You just need to find.
Try to find these guys.
Some of them bought the company.
About federal users.
Show me how to put my floor.
Bob, you wanted to.
Yes.
There was a note on it.
Yeah.
So if you could come in.
Can you print that on there?
For what?
For what?
That statement.
That's the only one.
Print it on where?
Yeah.
Somebody else who's got my hands on it.
Yeah.
It has to be for this.
No pressure.
Too bad.
It's done.
No.
Show floor.
Okay.
Yeah.
You can go right here.
No space to be coming.
Oh.
You can sign here, Bob.
Yes.
But she's going too much.
She's going too much.
I didn't do that.
No.
No.
But I don't want to go into the show.
You're a federal teacher.
I don't want to go into the show.
Okay.
And then they would have a meeting at somebody's house after us to be really official.
Of course you're going to let somebody else join in and help.
Do they know?
Do they know?
They don't know.
Do they know, right, Bob?
Okay.
Crossing the property.
It's too late.
It's too late.
What else?
Good job.
We want to let us.
It should be done.
I'm going to try out.
But I can get change.
Okay.
All right, Bob?
So what I'll do is not probably read this out overnight.
out overnight, we rate it.
Okay.
I'm going to take a minute and I'll keep it on the record.
This is my video.
I know.
I don't want to commit it signed it tomorrow.
She can't take it to the registry anyway.
We have to take it.
I'm just not going to touch this.
Okay.
So you're going to have to bring me three checks.
Six, what?
I'm giving you that.
Six, nineteen, nineteen.
I don't like the number.
Alright, so that's going to sit here.
It's going to go up.
We're not going to touch it.
You have somebody's minutes of heat or do you wish I had?
You have something to put on.
Very much so.
And look up at the board.
And there's another two minutes.
You know, Charlotte, you probably should go to the board.
You don't even know.
I should go.
Because no one's going to end up.
No, nobody else.
It's kind of like a stand.
It's all gray.
It's a decent thing.
You can't have hollow gum.
No.
Can you remember that?
That way you can explain it.
It's straight.
You can't have hollow gum.
It's straight.
You can't have hollow gum.
It's straight.
You can't have hollow gum.
It's straight.
You can't have hollow gum.
Can you remember that?
That way you can explain it.
It's straight.
And I'll take those minutes.
You're supposed to take them away.
You're supposed to take them away.
They never brought it to the plane.
But the sign, that's what happened.
You never got it.
It was likely that I'd bend in the apple.
I think the apple bent a bit.
I remember taking mine to the register.
Yeah.
So the apple cuts used to take them themselves.
We spent all that money.
You used to get to bring it down.
So what do you want to do?
Do I do it in the approval?
Do I do it in the approval?
Do I do it in the approval?
Do I do it in the approval?
Do I do it in the approval?
You spent all that money.
Do you used to get to bring it down?
I did it in the approval.
What did you show them?
Do I do it in the approval?
Do you know what I'm saying?
I didn't show it up to God.
You did it in the same way.
It wasn't free.
Yeah.
Because it didn't go on.
It was all clean and smooth.
Yeah.
But they just wanted to know, check, got to bring else.
My dad used to do that back today.
Okay.
Next order of business.
It was a dress.
Yes.
Okay, water, water, next order of businesses, approval of men.
Is there enough people here?
I wasn't here.
Dave and Bill were here.
Dave is part of the court.
But I have four.
One, two, three.
We have four of you.
And is this motion in second?
Second.
Okay.
I have one thing to point out.
This is part of the discussion.
I'm going to go find that.
Okay.
We are on page one.
The last paragraph on page one.
So the inflation rate is 4.1 percent.
If that's what I said, I think it might have been an error.
I tried to find out for sure.
I don't know for sure.
I believe what they're using is 4.3 percent.
But I will find out.
This is the enough to change.
Yeah, but if I said 4.1, that's what needs to be on here.
I believe that's what you said from my recollection.
I just want to point out that it might have been an error.
So I will find out and update you all in the future.
Okay.
And that's the only thing that I want to point out.
So motion is made and seconded and discussed.
Any more discussions?
All those in favor say aye.
All right.
Anybody opposed?
I'll abstain.
Nobody opposed.
Motion passes.
All right.
Next order of business topics for the work session.
I have the work session on Thursday, July 10th.
That's a big change, Dave.
Yep.
Yeah.
CIP for the school, police department, and possibly the record.
Have we heard from the record yet?
He came in and he talked to Steve.
And did you talk to him?
So I reached out to him after the last meeting.
Right.
I don't know.
We were going to look back for.
He did get back to me all the way.
He was a little full-time understanding.
That's why I was probably reaching out.
I left him a message.
I think you said he came in.
And he spoke to me to maybe give you a lift.
At the time, they were building you overwhelmed with everything they had.
I say that's not.
That's not.
That's not.
I kicked off in a couple of minutes.
And the tennis courts.
Yeah.
But what he talked to Steve about didn't sound like it was $25,000.
So we're more.
So it may not even qualify.
All right.
Okay.
So we'll find out.
In conservation commission.
I know.
They're going to do a more remarkable.
Okay.
To rebuild their.
They have a C.I. ref for land purchases.
Right.
And they need to rebuild that because they took $200,000 out for the Smith Mark easement.
So they're going to start rebuilding that.
Also on the work session agenda will be the time centers.
I'm trying to get back to that for what?
Make sure that Mark Fleming is aware.
I'm sure he'll be checking with you.
Okay.
Also ordinance and site plan subdivision regulations and revisions.
We should start taking a look at the revision that we've all been treading about.
Are there any other items for next three weeks from now the work session?
That looks like those three or point two.
Point two.
Okay.
We have some other business tonight.
For the work.
I think we don't have to have maybe 10 minutes to discuss what we are.
We're going to take a few days before.
You can do that.
I mean, if you say as a client.
Yes.
Yeah.
And you can't talk about the case outside of a meeting.
But preparation for in order.
How do we do a site block?
We can do that.
Oh.
Okay.
Because Martha hasn't done one with us before.
I was wanting to discuss what we saw at the site block.
You can't.
You can't because it's not public.
Right.
When is the site work?
No.
I had to post it.
So anybody can go.
Public.
Public.
No, the problem is we just told the applicant.
We're going to hear the case again.
Yes.
Meeting.
Yes.
So we're going to talk about the case.
Even though it's just the site block.
That has to be in the process.
It has to be that night.
Okay.
I mean, obviously, when you're done with the site block, you can talk.
Yeah.
Yeah.
The site block.
Oh, that's right.
Yeah.
There's three notes.
Commits and chat about whatever.
That's fine.
All right.
But you can't do it outside of that.
A rainbow.
A rainbow.
A moot.
Okay.
You take.
All right.
We're right there.
We can say why.
And they're going to be sent in some way.
All right.
I have prepared a letter.
I want you guys to read it.
I'm going to be quiet.
For what I'm going to do to read it.
divine.
Would you like me to read it?
Would you like me to read it?
Do you want one?
Sure.
Good luck.
There it is.
And I get that in it with somebody who didn't correct it.
I think it's good.
It's all out of money.
What do you think, Mark?
Million bucks a mile?
It's, you know, it's their legs.
It's just so many barrels.
It's very expensive.
And don't forget there's pumping stations too.
Those are really neat.
So, the town road with water starts at $1,000 a foot.
Sewer get curving, get a sidewalk.
You know, it's just $1,000 a foot.
The only area that we have two private pumps
stations, one serving the truck stop,
and one serving the target center.
That's right, stop.
Two private, but we have a whole master plan
that was done 10 years ago, 15 years ago.
The community, we have mapped out an engineering
a whole sewer plan for basically here north.
Peace for that.
Peace for what?
To implement it?
To implement it?
Million dollars a mile.
Come on.
Bring on your paper.
Okay.
If we have to move on to any one of the other areas,
if the boaters would have to approve it,
but I mean, if you want to expand, you know,
development near target, we need sewer.
You have that old late district there.
If you want to bring sewer here,
or try to bring it down here,
the sort of the center, you know,
right now the agreement, which they had for 10 years,
is expired and has been for a year and a half.
So you do not pay any money anymore?
I don't think you pay them any money.
Really?
It was an agreement that if you or someone
started building the sewer system,
they would legally be able to connect.
It just got me built.
Okay.
Yeah, I just stopped from all your work.
I mean, personally,
I'm Beth Maraud, who is the vice chair,
and is told that they have additional capacity
in their system actually works better
if they can get more stuff coming into it.
But she has expressed willingness to accept
more sewerage into their system.
But the problem is the money to build the sewerage lines.
We've got water lines in town that are not adjacent to any sewer lines.
Any discussion with this?
Anybody think it's a bad idea?
I mean, it doesn't hurt anything.
It's something we're to happen, right?
If they agree to, it's not costing anything.
If the town did the city agree to it.
I'm not aware that there was any,
I don't believe the town paid anything
to that agreement that just expired a year and a half ago.
I mean, it was in place.
It's an intimate sewer agreement.
I think it's vital that it be restored.
It should never have expired in my opinion.
Why did it expire?
Because nobody...
They let it.
They shouldn't charge us.
We're not charging.
Well, there's no flow.
They take our water and we don't charge enough for that agreement, right?
I mean, I think it started when that study was done
and finalized.
It played out where the sewer neighborhoods could be.
And I think at that point,
that's when you got together with what's
nothing that agreement was about.
I don't see why it was hurting.
Years from the date of execution.
So I'm not sure if it's this date,
which is the one I chose.
I'm in debate on the date,
the way that was awarded.
You know, it's expired.
It's not very clear.
Anyway.
It's two years expired.
I would like a motion to approve this
with a couple of typos.
And we want to get a little more...
Well, obviously, it'll include a copy of the original.
So...
Because we're assuming that it would be similar to that and rate.
We recommend you get a little bigger.
Yeah.
Because there was a map.
It was associated with that.
That didn't include your industrial zone on the other side of 95.
We're...
No bell?
No bell.
Right.
No bell.
And the first place.
Hold on.
You have questions.
Is there anything interesting?
So it didn't include that.
It didn't include group one.
Hold on.
That neighborhood.
And...
The ton of property down here.
It includes the elementary school.
No, it did not.
It did not include the elementary school.
It did not include the elementary school.
Which it went.
And it did not include the portion of breakfast still road.
The adjacent road to the ton of property.
Which...
That property would become a lot more valid.
It would become a lot more valuable.
If we had sewage down there.
But it would help in case of that.
I have it.
I like it.
I like how you think it's done.
Well, you alluded to that in the latter two.
Yes.
Yeah, you can attach the other room which had a map.
Yeah.
So I think, yeah, as long as that's all clear.
We assume that it's going to be similar.
But we don't really know.
Because we don't know.
We're going to stop accommodating.
Yeah.
Yeah.
I would like to be able to say that the planning board,
the animus, we recommend.
Would we go that far?
Is it anybody opposed to this?
Nope.
Nope.
Okay.
Are you ready to check?
Nope.
Okay.
I'll make a motion.
That we approved the letter with a couple of wording
improvements relative to the unanimous approval.
And some poor English that I used.
We'll ask the parallel to correct those things.
Do we have a second?
Motion is made in seconded.
Any discussion?
All those in favor say aye.
All right.
Anybody opposed?
Nobody opposed?
Motion passes.
So are you sending this to the board, Swatman?
Yes.
It's a whole idea.
Yes.
I know.
But I do personally put it there.
I want you to do it.
Do you want to put it in as in the janna item?
Then are you coming in to speak to it?
I will.
If you want to be too.
I haven't been for a while.
Which meeting?
Susan Parker's at the next one.
I think Susan will come and talk to us.
So we're going to be at the sidewalk before that, too.
The third meeting.
I'm sorry.
The third meeting.
Yeah.
You're right.
Thank you.
Are you going to quit for the third meeting?
Yes.
Long meeting.
Do you want to say aye?
All right.
All right.
Anybody opposed?