[0:03] Good evening. Welcome to the September 2nd meeting of the Amherst Planning Board.

[0:09] First order of business, we have a member that isn't in tonight.

[0:13] Doug, would you vote in his place, please? Thank you.

[0:18] Our first case tonight, we'll open them both up at the same time.

[0:22] This is McGrellan Gam Realty Trust, case

[0:24] PZ12164-121619 and case

[0:29] PZ13773-021221.

[0:36] One is for a non-residential site plan application, and the other is for a

[0:42] wetland and watershed conservation district conditional use permit.

[0:48] And I guess to start off tonight, we were thinking of beginning the evening off

[0:54] talking about the conditional use permit, focusing on that for the time being, and

[0:58] then get into the rest of the application.

[1:01] Sure.

[1:02] So.

[1:07] Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the board.

[1:09] For the record, my name's Chad Brandon.

[1:11] I'm a civil engineer and principal owner with Field Stone Land Consultants.

[1:17] With me this evening is Eli Leno, who's the project attorney with Bernstein Shur,

[1:23] and together we'll be representing Gam Realty Trust this evening with the site plan

[1:29] and conditional use permit application that's before you.

[1:33] I guess just a brief update since our last meeting.

[1:39] We'll start with the conditional use permit for the wetlands.

[1:42] But just to bring the board up to speed, we have worked on

[1:48] and submitted and gone through one iteration of a review of the legal documents for

[1:53] the project, which was one of the items that was discussed at the last meeting.

[2:00] I also did submit a landscaping exhibit that

[2:05] formalizes some additional buffering along Hollis Road, which was one of the

[2:10] outstanding items.

[2:14] Unfortunately, we were not able to

[2:18] solicit the services of the former landscape architect because they're no longer in

[2:22] business. I understand he's retired.

[2:25] So we did submit that a little bit late, but the addition is pretty

[2:31] minor, so we're hoping to have an opportunity to at least review that with the

[2:34] board. And then at the convenience, or kind of as requested at the

[2:39] last hearing, some of the board members suggested it might be a good idea for us to

[2:45] address and update everybody on the conditional use permit and Integrative

[2:50] Innovative Housing Ordinance and how we satisfied that criteria through the

[2:55] conditional use permitting approval from January of 2019.

[3:01] So I did compile the old conditional use permit

[3:06] criteria as well as the IHO site density worksheet

[3:12] criteria and tried to summarize that in a document, which was provided

[3:18] yesterday, I believe. And so it was late, but it's really a document that

[3:24] summarizes the board's findings from some time ago.

[3:29] And so I was hoping to just walk through that this evening when the time is

[3:32] appropriate, Mr. Chairman. And I also wanted to, before I get into the wetlands

[3:37] criteria, I'd like to hand the floor over to the attorney so he can give an update

[3:42] on his side.

[3:44] Yeah.

[3:44] Again, for the record, Eli Leno, Bernstein Shur.

[3:47] I, as Chad mentioned, provided document, received comments on the condominium

[3:52] documents, and actually on Friday, sent Gloria a turn.

[3:57] So there's just one more update to those.

[4:00] No doubt, town counsel and I will keep working on that, but that's been collegial

[4:04] at this point. So I think we're well down the road.

[4:06] And our client is unable to be here, sends his regrets on that, but did implore me

[4:12] to tell you that several dumpsters worth of refuse have been removed from the site.

[4:16] So heard the board loud and clear, and I'm sorry Mr.

[4:20] Cullen's not here to hear that, but against my thoughts on the necessity of it, he

[4:25] has done the right thing and cleaned up a lot of this.

[4:27] And the condition about it being cleaned up will still be-- I think it's a

[4:31] reasonable conclusion, but we're on the path to compliance for the board's request.

[4:38] And so, transitioning into the conditional use permit, we

[4:44] had made a submission for this permit back in 2021.

[4:52] There's significant amount of work that has gone into the review,

[4:58] both before the board, but also before the Conservation Commission as it relates to

[5:02] the design that we have in front of you with the-- not only the crossing, but

[5:08] really the restoration of the buffer area for your project.

[5:12] Many of you had an opportunity to do the site walk with us, and I think what you

[5:16] probably saw is there's not a lot of vegetation that is within that 100-foot

[5:21] buffer, which is positioned just behind the clubhouse, and it completely bisects

[5:26] the site. And I'll pull a plan up here shortly and kind of review that.

[5:31] The

[5:33] wetland impact that's being proposed for this project is 577 square

[5:39] feet.

[5:41] It does have 96 square feet of what we would consider a temporary

[5:47] impact. It's just inlet and outlet control stuff.

[5:51] We're proposing a 48-inch diameter reinforced concrete

[5:57] pipe, which is the materials that New Hampshire Fish and Game has been requesting

[6:02] for these types of crossings that don't rise to the level of a box culvert.

[6:08] But they like the materials because it's favorable to species and

[6:14] such that would migrate through that particular crossing.

[6:19] With the

[6:21] proposed wetland impact, we do have associated buffer areas.

[6:26] The

[6:29] design of this project initially started, and I'm just going to pull a plan up here

[6:34] briefly, but additionally started with the stormwater design being inside the

[6:39] 100-foot buffer. The Conservation Commission and the planning board had some

[6:44] feedback relative to that many years ago, and they felt that it wasn't appropriate

[6:49] to have the stormwater located entirely within the buffer area.

[6:52] And so what we did is we took that stormwater management area, and we moved it to

[6:57] the other side of the roadway and out of the buffer.

[7:01] That revision was done to address comments relative to improving the buffer

[7:07] restoration through that area, but also to address concerns relative to potential

[7:12] stormwater impacts to the jurisdictional wetland, both from

[7:18] a just location, but also potential temperature impacts.

[7:22] And so we provided additional separation and buffer, basically

[7:28] distance. The stormwater on the site takes advantage of the soil, so we are

[7:33] infiltrating, and that's a practice that is recommended in sensitive areas like

[7:39] where we are here. We actually, the alteration of terrain regulations has a higher

[7:45] level standard for

[7:49] stormwater areas that are located in proximity to a brook like Penchuck Brook,

[7:54] where you're basically a cold water fishery situation.

[7:58] So the design has been done to meet and exceed that criteria.

[8:05] I can ultimately work my way through the

[8:13] conditional use criteria if the board feels that is necessary.

[8:17] But what I want to touch on real quick is the

[8:23] landscaping plan that deals with the buffer restoration.

[8:28] We're not seeing any plan.

[8:29] I'm going to share it.

[8:30] Okay.

[8:30] I just was throwing to it. I appreciate it.

[8:44] And so what you'll see here on this plan is this is the wetland crossing

[8:49] area here.

[8:51] And so

[8:54] we're crossing at a narrow spot. We're avoiding the impacts to the greatest

[8:59] extent. We've addressed all this criteria with this

[9:05] layout in the past, but just to rehash it, we have designed the crossing to

[9:11] meet local and state standards And then you'll see along

[9:17] this corridor, there's a lot of landscaping proposed to

[9:22] reestablish that

[9:26] buffer area immediately adjacent to the jurisdictional wetland area, which again

[9:31] bisects the site right through here.

[9:36] This is, for those of you who attended the site walk, it's really a

[9:42] man-made jurisdictional wetland area that basically it's been dug,

[9:48] and over time, because you're in the water table, it's just established itself as a

[9:53] wetland.

[9:55] And so it doesn't have high functions and values, and that's addressed in the

[10:00] conditional use permit. But nonetheless, it does rise to the level of a

[10:06] jurisdictional area, and so requires the appropriate permitting locally and on a

[10:12] state level. But I think what you likely saw, if you were on that site walk, is

[10:17] that there is a number of areas where that's kind of been man

[10:22] impacted. You have a couple culverts.

[10:26] We're taking advantage of the other existing crossings that are quite narrow.

[10:30] You can see one of them here, this little location here, and

[10:36] there's another one here, and we're utilizing those existing crossings for trail

[10:41] connectivity. Again, that layout was reviewed extensively

[10:46] with the planning board for the conditional use permit that we obtained for the

[10:51] integrative innovative housing ordinance because the trails,

[10:56] those components on many levels were part of the evaluation for additional

[11:02] density bonus for this project. And so the layout, the road layout, the trail

[11:08] layout, subdivision layout, the open space layout, all of those components played

[11:13] directly into that January 2019 approval where

[11:19] this project was deemed up to the 54-unit

[11:24] density. And if we could pull up the plans from 2019, what you'll

[11:30] notice is the road layout, the trail layout, and essentially the geometry of the

[11:35] development has not changed at all since then.

[11:38] I do think it's notable to jump in for one second that where it's up to 54, the two

[11:43] units that were removed from that count to the current 52-unit plan were located in

[11:48] that spot where you moved the stormwater basin.

[11:52] Right. Those two units that we removed were right here, situated adjacent to the

[11:59] roadway. And so when we took the stormwater basin out, and that's a very good

[12:04] point, when we took it out of the buffer, it was located here, and we moved it over

[12:08] here. We dropped the density count down to 52 units.

[12:14] We could have

[12:15] contemplated additional duplexes, but rather than doing that, it was just, hey,

[12:21] the layout was deemed to be on our end deemed to be good

[12:27] and the

[12:29] diversity and such, so that we just kind of eliminated two units as I

[12:35] just stated.

[12:37] And so that's the

[12:43] kind of the description of how this came to be.

[12:48] Certainly, we believe we're minimizing the impact.

[12:51] We're restoring a good large buffer area.

[12:55] I think what you'll notice is we've had favorable feedback from the Conservation

[12:59] Commission on a number of occasions.

[13:02] They actually voted the last meeting that we were at the Conservation Commission,

[13:06] they voted to not change their support of this project and the design from

[13:12] their original hearing. And so we hope that the board has that information at your

[13:18] disposal. And the reason why they didn't make any changes is we haven't

[13:24] changed the design in the wetlands or in the buffer area since their

[13:29] last

[13:32] letter. And so they

[13:34] were very consistent on that, which we appreciated.

[13:38] We essentially explained to them what the changes have been since the last time we

[13:42] were in front of them.

[13:44] They asked if there was any stormwater changes, and we explained that there wasn't,

[13:48] that we were consistent with everything that they had reviewed before.

[13:52] And that really it was an overhaul of just the type of development, offering this

[13:58] as a 55 and older is further restricting the type of housing,

[14:04] but still adhering to all the other IHO conditional use

[14:09] permit criteria.

[14:12] And so that's the summary. I'm happy to go through the criteria.

[14:17] I did bring it with me. I would have to reference that in some of the responses

[14:22] because I'm not a licensed wetlands individual that addressed the functions and

[14:27] values. But it's on the record, and we have reviewed it with the board before, but

[14:32] I do understand that we could go through that again if necessary.

[14:37] Yeah. Probably makes sense to just go through them quickly.

[14:40] Okay.

[14:41] Summarize.

[14:42] Summarize. Okay, perfect. So I'm going to stop sharing the screen just because I

[14:45] have to pull it up here on my computer real quick.

[14:49] So taking a look at the criteria

[14:56] from Article 411.

[15:02] The first one is accessory structures associated with a legally

[15:08] existing primary structure. That one's not applicable.

[15:13] Here, the construction of streets, roads, and other access ways, including

[15:18] driveways, footpaths, bridges, and utilities, if essential to the productive use of

[15:23] land. Beyond the wetland and watershed conservation districts, these uses shall be

[15:28] located and constructed in such a way to minimize the potential for detrimental

[15:32] impacts to the district and be planned, designed, and constructed in a manner

[15:38] consistent with the applicable state and local standards.

[15:41] Such construction may be permitted within the district, but with no viable

[15:45] alternatives available.

[15:48] What we've summarized in here is that the wetland that we're looking to cross

[15:53] transects the property, and so we have to cross it with a formal crossing, and

[15:59] so we pick a location where we can minimize that

[16:06] crossing area. Again, 577 square feet with 96 square feet of

[16:12] temporary impact. It's a flush-perennially forested, emergently seasonally

[16:17] saturated wetland, which is partially drained, ditched, and excavated

[16:23] throughout.

[16:25] It's basically a poorly drained intermittent

[16:30] wetland that

[16:36] runs through that section. And we're proposing a 60-foot long by 48-inch diameter

[16:41] reinforced concrete pipe, which will provide for

[16:46] hydraulic connectivity within that area.

[16:50] It is appropriately

[16:56] sized and designed to meet local and state standards.

[17:01] This wetland area does completely dry in certain seasons, so it's not an

[17:06] intermittent stream or doesn't really have those characteristics.

[17:12] It does have flow characteristics at times, but our consultant or our wetlands

[17:18] scientist said that it's certainly not perennial or a stream throughout the

[17:23] season.

[17:26] We are proposing that type of culvert because of recommendations that we have

[17:31] received through Fish and Game review.

[17:34] That was a while ago, but we do have to submit for the state permit again

[17:40] or

[17:42] in the future as we hopefully secure local approvals.

[17:47] We do have some drainage outfalls from the stormwater basins for

[17:52] the larger storms. The majority of the stormwater is infiltrated into the ground,

[17:57] but in the very large storms, there is an outfall that will daylight into the

[18:02] buffer area. Those outfall areas have been appropriately designed, and there's

[18:08] erosion and sedimentation controls at those outfalls to make sure that there's no

[18:12] negative impacts to the buffer and ultimately jurisdictional area.

[18:21] One of the things that we say in here addressing the criteria is most of the

[18:26] existing 100-foot buffer throughout the site was a maintained

[18:32] hayfield. And I think you saw that at different times of the year, it does get

[18:38] maintained mowed. And so what we've done is we've proposed

[18:43] that significant

[18:46] revegetation plan within that 100-foot buffer area, especially locus to the

[18:50] jurisdictional wetland which will be, again, a restoration and improvement to the

[18:56] jurisdictional area.

[19:03] And I'll move on, Mr. Chairman, unless you want... Feel free to stop me with any.

[19:07] There's quite a few criteria that are addressed through this particular conditional

[19:11] use permit, so I'll do my best to touch on them.

[19:13] I'm sure there'll be some redundancy, but-

[19:16] Yep, please.

[19:17] And so, number three under this section is water encampments for the

[19:23] purposes of creating a water body for wildlife, fire protection, storm water

[19:27] management.

[19:29] I'm not going to read that whole section because this one is not applicable.

[19:32] We're not impacting or creating water encampment here in this jurisdictional

[19:38] area. In fact, we took the storm water basin and pulled it out of the buffer, as

[19:41] you recall. So

[19:46] number four is non-conforming uses and structures.

[19:50] That also is not applicable to this project as none of those exist within

[19:56] this proposal.

[20:00] Number five is also not applicable.

[20:05] I don't know if you want me to read what that section is, but if you want me to

[20:10] abbreviate, I'll just say it's not applicable.

[20:15] When you go on to the conditional use permit review criteria,

[20:22] you have part one says the planning board shall, in addition to

[20:27] referencing the findings referenced in the preceding sections, consider all

[20:32] relevant facts and information prior to making the decision.

[20:36] Part A under here deals with the proposed activity minimizes

[20:41] degradation of land situated within the district and offsets

[20:48] potential adverse impacts to the function and values of the wetland surface waters

[20:53] and vernal pools, including, but not limited to, their capacity to...

[20:58] And it goes on to list a number of items.

[21:00] Support fish and wildlife, attenuate flooding, supply and protect surface and

[21:05] groundwater resources, remove sediments, remove pollutants, support wetland

[21:10] vegetation,

[21:12] promote public health and safety, and moderate fluctuations in surface water

[21:17] levels.

[21:21] Basically, we have designed this crossing to meet all this criteria.

[21:27] This criteria is also reviewed through the state permitting process to make sure

[21:32] that we're not proposing something that's going to have adverse impacts to these

[21:36] situations. Generally speaking, the crossing itself is sized appropriately.

[21:41] In fact, it's oversized if you look at upstream and downstream crossings were

[21:47] significantly larger, so we're definitely not going to be restricting or changing

[21:51] the flow through this channeled area through this proposed crossing.

[21:58] The crossing will support wildlife, and we are proposing

[22:04] stormwater mitigation that'll appropriately mitigate the qualitative and

[22:10] quantitative aspects of the stormwater prior to it discharging into a

[22:16] jurisdictional zone. The buffer restoration in itself will improve

[22:21] stormwater flow and treatment into that jurisdictional area as well.

[22:27] Flooding will be attenuated by the stormwater management designs.

[22:32] Those have been reviewed and approved by Keegan and Ardstrom.

[22:35] And so, certainly they'll be reviewed and approved at a state level too, through

[22:40] the alteration of train permitting.

[22:44] The crossing has been designed to allow for passage of

[22:50] critters as well, amphibians, as necessary.

[22:55] So it's an oversized structure.

[23:02] We do touch on how, in this section, just take a quick read.

[23:07] We do touch on how the stormwater has been designed to mitigate

[23:11] any potential temperature increases with the distance to the jurisdictional area,

[23:18] the separation to the seasonal high water, and really the flow path that

[23:24] stormwater will go. And the buffer areas are proposed to be planted with native

[23:29] species.

[23:33] Part B deals with the proposed activity will have no adverse negative

[23:38] impact

[23:40] on environmental features, which it measures that to abutting

[23:46] or downstream properties and/or hydrologically connected

[23:52] water and/or wetland resources, including, and it lists a number

[23:57] here, increased potential for erosion, siltation, and turbidity of surface waters.

[24:03] Loss of fish and wildlife habitat, loss of unique habitat having demonstrated

[24:07] natural, scientific or educational value, loss or decrease in beneficial

[24:13] aquatic organisms and wetland plants and their habitat.

[24:18] Increased danger of flooding and/or transport of pollutants, destruction of

[24:22] economic, aesthetic, recreational, and/or other public and private uses and values

[24:28] of the wetlands to the community.

[24:30] This proposed development within the buffer area, the jurisdictional area,

[24:38] will actually restore the

[24:42] buffer, will serve to enhance all of the above-listed functions in this section.

[24:48] All of the existing and proposed runoff will be captured and infiltrated through

[24:52] the stormwater management basins.

[24:56] The existing wetlands is essentially a vegetated drainage swale, which is to be

[25:01] maintained. There'll be no restrictions in flow as I had stated before.

[25:07] Existing buffer areas will be restored and augmented with native plants as we've

[25:13] detailed on our plans and the landscaping plans.

[25:17] And the proposed culvert is embedded to ensure continuity of the wetland and allow

[25:22] for wildlife passage.

[25:25] And certainly, we could touch on a lot of things here, but the erosion and

[25:28] sedimentation design for this site is designed to ensure that there's no

[25:33] degradation of these sensitive areas, too.

[25:37] Moving on to C, the proposed activity or use cannot practically be located

[25:43] otherwise on-site to eliminate or reduce the impact of the wetland and watershed

[25:47] conservation district. And our response to this within the application was that the

[25:52] proposed impact area is the result of a carefully designed

[25:59] site where we're taking into consideration the topography and the features, where

[26:04] you're crossing at a narrow location.

[26:06] We're enhancing the existing buffer area as part of this design, and these will

[26:12] improve the water quality within this area.

[26:19] The proposed wetland crossing is necessary to provide for the safe and responsible

[26:24] development of the property, and the impact is offset by the proposed buffer

[26:28] restoration and the reduction

[26:31] in basically flow path to, or the

[26:37] increase in flow path to the jurisdictional area.

[26:41] As part of this project, we're also reducing curb cuts along the highway.

[26:45] We're protecting lands and conservation area, or open

[26:51] space area rather and providing for responsible and

[26:56] reasonable, practical use of the property.

[27:02] And when you look at the impact, it's quite minor.

[27:04] We're again, under 1,000 square feet in the wetland, and we're actually

[27:10] enhancing the buffer.

[27:14] Moving on to D, the proposed activity incorporates the use of those best management

[27:20] practices recommended by the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services

[27:24] and/or other state agencies having jurisdictions And the answer to this is, yes, we

[27:30] are employing best management practices.

[27:34] Those will be followed through the completion of the project.

[27:37] In addition to the best management practices, additional project

[27:44] redesign of the stormwater management area was done, where we're not only meeting

[27:49] those state standards, but we've relocated the stormwater to meet local

[27:55] requests and increased buffer restoration with this design.

[28:01] And so we certainly feel we're meeting and exceeding those requirements.

[28:07] Moving on to E,

[28:11] all applicable federal and/or state permits have been received for the proposed

[28:15] activity in accordance with the New Hampshire code.

[28:19] And then it references that section.

[28:24] Those permits have not been secured yet, but we look

[28:30] forward to applying for them. So those are typically standard conditions of

[28:34] approval. So we just stated such in this conditional use permit, that the New

[28:39] Hampshire DES Wetlands Bureau standard dredge and fill permit will be required.

[28:43] Their alteration of terrain permit will be required.

[28:47] The Subsurface Bureau approvals will be required.

[28:51] State subdivision approval is required in New Hampshire.

[28:55] DOT access permits are required. We look forward to successfully completing

[29:01] that permit process.

[29:05] As you move on to F,

[29:08] where applicable,

[29:13] proof of application to all required state or federal permits.

[29:17] And, we put that this isn't necessarily applicable because we have to apply to

[29:22] those in order to secure final approval, typically.

[29:26] So, we would hope that the board would consider those conditions, and I think that

[29:30] would be consistent with standard practice. Moving on to G.

[29:38] Prior to making a decision in regard to the possible approval of any conditional

[29:42] use permit, just outlines

[29:45] what the planning board should do.

[29:47] So I'm not sure we have to necessarily address that particular item.

[29:51] I'm happy to read it for consideration, but it's really a statement under the

[29:56] regulations. And then it goes through a number of items that we have to

[30:02] address within the plans, and we do believe we've addressed all of those criteria.

[30:08] It basically is a checklist of, do you have these elements within the plan set?

[30:13] Which we certainly do.

[30:21] We did do the functions and values for the wetland

[30:26] area as part of this application.

[30:30] And that was outlined within the report.

[30:33] I'm just touching on all the items in here.

[30:37] We provide computation of the impacts that we're talking about.

[30:43] We did provide for the stormwater management report that was ultimately reviewed

[30:48] through

[30:51] the peer review.

[30:54] We addressed the volume of the stormwater as well as the peak rate.

[31:00] Ultimately, it was verified that we are providing the required infiltration

[31:05] on-site that's required by the state permit as well.

[31:08] A lot of the criteria locally mirrors the New Hampshire DES alteration of terrain

[31:14] requirements. So, certainly by default, we've addressed that.

[31:17] We do have erosion and sedimentation controls in the plan set.

[31:21] That's one of the requirements. Maintenance for those

[31:27] is a requirement. Certainly as part of the

[31:33] state permitting, we go through the NHB screening.

[31:36] We've done that on this project a number of times.

[31:38] We actually had a wildlife study completed for this project that you may recall, or

[31:44] maybe you guys have taken a look at.

[31:46] So we definitely addressed all of that criteria back when we

[31:52] were originally talking about this and during the conditional use permit phase.

[31:57] There's no hazardous material storage proposed or anticipated on this site.

[32:01] So that addresses one of the other elements.

[32:08] We do intend to prohibit the use of lawn chemicals and de-icing compounds, and so

[32:13] that's one of the things that we had committed to as well.

[32:21] Within the buffer area? Is that what you're talking about, or on the entire site?

[32:28] I believe we noted that

[32:32] within the-- I think we agreed to that with the entire site, for the chemicals.

[32:39] Yeah, that's my recollection. The-

[32:44] So the UNH ag requirements.

[32:46] Yeah, I think so. Yeah.

[32:49] We have the construction sequencing and everything defined within the plan set.

[32:53] We detailed the edge of the jurisdictional areas and everything within the plan

[32:58] set. And then within the package, there's all the supporting information

[33:04] and such. So I definitely think we've addressed the criteria.

[33:08] I think the favorable feedback that we received from the Conservation Commission

[33:14] speaks to that. I can assure you the first few letters were not favorable.

[33:18] Mm-hmm.

[33:18] And so we worked diligently to address those early on in this project.

[33:25] You all set? You done?

[33:26] That's what I have for now, Mr. Chairman.

[33:28] I'm happy to try to answer any questions you may have.

[33:30] Yep. Why don't we go around with some questions?

[33:34] If I can do them. So

[33:39] did you apply for a wetland permit on the previous application or no?

[33:43] No.

[33:43] So you haven't made an application to DES for a wetland permit.

[33:48] You're going through the town first, right?

[33:50] Correct. We did not make a formal application.

[33:53] We consulted with the Wetlands Bureau and with the Fish and Game, early on.

[33:58] The wildlife biologist that we had working on the project, I do believe, had some

[34:03] communications with them as well. But we never made a formal application.

[34:06] Okay. But with 550 square feet of impact, does that qualify for an expedited

[34:12] minimum?

[34:13] It does.

[34:14] So that just so the board's aware, that's the lowest level of DES

[34:19] wetland permit, where as long as the Con Com signs off on it,

[34:25] they can get an expedited review and approval of the permit.

[34:29] So-

[34:29] That's correct.

[34:30] Okay. That was my question. Oh, one other thing.

[34:35] In the stormwater treatment,

[34:41] you had said that the majority of the stormwater runoff was going to be

[34:46] infiltrated, right?

[34:47] Mm-hmm.

[34:48] So is it like the 25-year storm or the 50-year storm that overflows into the

[34:53] wetland?

[34:54] That's a great question. I could pull up the stormwater report.

[34:58] It's my recollection that,

[35:02] in the 50-year storm, I think we start getting some flows, but we have a

[35:07] reduction in all the storms.

[35:09] Okay.

[35:10] And so even though we get some flow through the 50-year storm, we're still

[35:15] mitigating those impacts.

[35:19] What I was thinking about was, where is that

[35:24] inlet or outlet from the pond in terms of elevation?

[35:28] Because you wouldn't want to have water sitting in that pond to the extent that

[35:34] it's ever going to sit in that pond and gain temperature and then have

[35:40] that flow. I'm not concerned about the, you get up and you get overflow

[35:46] because that's all-

[35:48] Yeah

[35:48] ... clean and clear and cold water. Right?

[35:52] But if you have water sitting there and it overflows into the pond, then that is

[35:57] likely to be higher temperature and Witchery Brook is very sensitive to

[36:01] temperature, as I'm sure you're aware.

[36:04] Yeah. And the pond has to drain within, and I'm not suggesting it takes this long,

[36:09] but within 72 hours.

[36:12] Okay.

[36:12] And so it's designed, this particular

[36:16] basin is designed to, whether it's infiltration or metering flows out in

[36:21] combination, that's the design element.

[36:24] Okay. All right.

[36:26] And so we're not looking to hold it for long periods of time and just-

[36:29] So it's not extended detention. It's-

[36:31] Correct. Which is when it would heat up. Yeah.

[36:33] Okay. That's all. Okay.

[36:37] Got a few questions. This first one's going to probably sound stupid, but-

[36:41] You made the comment relating to the bridge, that area, we have

[36:47] to cross it. Why exactly do we have to cross it?

[36:52] Well, it bisects the property.

[36:55] And so, it runs all the way through the property.

[37:00] And so in order to have any kind of internal layout for a development, you would

[37:07] have to cross that area. And one of the things that I want to

[37:13] be clear about is the layout has already been reviewed and

[37:18] approved by this board through the conditional use permit process.

[37:23] Like that, when you're evaluating the IHO conditional use permit,

[37:29] you're evaluating the layout, all the elements that you can get a density bonus

[37:35] for. Is it harmonious with the neighborhood?

[37:37] Those things were evaluated through that layout.

[37:41] And so, it was determined by the board at that time that it was reasonable

[37:47] to cross this wetland, as long as we do it in the right location.

[37:52] And so, when you look at a community like this, in order for it to be a true

[37:57] community and have the right means of ingress and egress, I

[38:03] think you have to, in my opinion, you have to cross this wetland to tie everything

[38:07] together.

[38:09] Okay. And I guess, kind of along those same lines,

[38:14] that particular section, H2, that you referenced, construction of streets and

[38:18] roads, says if-- maybe permitted if-- or that's my words, maybe permitted if.

[38:24] If it's essential to the productive use of land beyond the wetland and watershed

[38:29] conservation district.

[38:32] I'm just curious, and I guess I'll follow up with that, and it says, "Such

[38:38] construction may be permitted within the district only when no viable alternative

[38:42] is available." So as far as the productive land goes, all of the productive land is

[38:47] accessible via the frontage, is it not?

[38:50] It is, but you're restricted in curb cuts from

[38:54] DOT. So there's so many things that we're contemplating.

[38:58] It's really hard to evaluate this project now on that particular statement.

[39:04] I think what we have to do is understand that this project has been evaluated in

[39:09] the past on that same standard, because what we've provided with this layout is

[39:15] significant buffering to the abutting lands.

[39:19] We've provided recreational areas that can be used by the community and by the

[39:24] public. And so when you go through, and we don't have the innovative integrated

[39:29] housing ordinance anymore, but when that ordinance was live and when you went

[39:35] through what is the type of project that would make sense and are we willing to

[39:41] give you a density bonus based on so many different criteria?

[39:46] You, the board, is evaluating a layout.

[39:50] And so they're evaluating, is this the right development for the project?

[39:54] Because you can't give somebody a density bonus credit on open space unless you

[39:59] determine that, yeah, that open space is appropriate.

[40:03] You can't give them a density bonus on, and I say this,

[40:08] not that it's defined this way, but this is the process that we went through.

[40:12] We didn't get the density bonus on trails unless we could prove that it

[40:18] serviced the whole community, had the potential to tie into the surroundings.

[40:23] And if you're evaluating that, you're evaluating the layout.

[40:27] And so that's why the fact that we have that conditional use permit

[40:34] speaks to the reasonable nature of this layout and the fact that this layout was

[40:39] approved by this board and never considered as two separate pods bisected

[40:45] by a pad.

[40:47] Well, I guess just to follow up on that.

[40:48] In the conditional use discussion, you didn't know how many units there

[40:54] were, so you obviously couldn't have had a final plan available, a final layout.

[41:00] Well, we had-

[41:01] More conceptual at that point

[41:02] ... we had 61 units in the beginning, and then we were evaluating 61

[41:08] units with the planning board back in 2019, '18.

[41:14] And the board landed on-- And so we lost units through that evaluation.

[41:19] In order to evaluate units, you have to evaluate a layout, and how that layout

[41:26] exists on the plan, what the inherent impacts are, what the buffers are.

[41:31] It was a very

[41:34] interactive review. And the board landed on up to 54

[41:39] units because they liked the plan that we were able to generate at

[41:45] 54 units. They liked the buffering. They liked all the amenities.

[41:50] And that plan, and I can pull it up, is exactly like this plan and shows this

[41:55] crossing exactly where we have it today.

[41:58] Okay.

[42:01] So I guess that's really the issue I'm having with this.

[42:04] I

[42:06] hear what you're saying on the other things, but it's also fair to say that the

[42:09] wetlands permit never came up during that session, so.

[42:13] Well, it absolutely did. We applied for it. It was actively on the table.

[42:18] I think the staff memo clearly states that.

[42:20] It was on the table.

[42:21] We submitted it in 2021.

[42:23] Yeah.

[42:23] We have a support letter from the Conservation Commission.

[42:26] They evaluated this conditional use permit. It absolutely was part of the plan.

[42:31] Yeah. I'm just having a hard time getting past the thing saying,

[42:36] "This may be permitted when there are no other viable alternatives."

[42:42] And I just don't think that's the case here.

[42:45] It's also-

[42:46] Huh?

[42:46] I don't mean to interrupt you. It's also a site with existing crossings as well.

[42:51] And as mentioned by Chad, a manmade wetland that's being improved through

[42:55] thoughtful revegetation and appropriate size by the various pieces of it.

[43:00] So the condition to this wetland is improved by the proposal in front of you.

[43:05] It could be. But this says we can't permit it if there's another alternative for

[43:10] accessing the productive land. Which there is.

[43:14] Where your curb cuts are now are more than sufficient to access all the permitted

[43:19] land, or the productive land.

[43:22] Well, I would state for the record that this board deemed that this crossing was

[43:27] necessary and appropriate as part of the review of this project.

[43:31] We wouldn't be how many years down the road.

[43:36] This wasn't a shot in the dark. The conditional use permit was part of

[43:42] the review.

[43:44] In the beginning, it was part of the-- this board, the planning board, the same

[43:47] board that approved the conditional use permit for the IHO with the layout,

[43:53] approved this layout. And I think this board does have the latitude to

[43:59] approve a crossing, especially if it's a crossing-- And if you read that section,

[44:04] you read all the words. It says, "Unless appropriate mitigation is provided."

[44:10] And at the time, the appropriate mitigation was reestablishing the

[44:16] vegetation through this corridor, the buffer through this corridor, and the fact

[44:21] that the crossing is minimal in nature.

[44:25] And the board weighed that with all the amenities.

[44:29] It's somewhat challenging. I think your job is challenging, and I'll respect that

[44:34] because the regulation doesn't exist.

[44:37] But at the time, this was the regulation that the town wanted, and they were

[44:43] evaluating it on its merits. And one of the things that was important to the board,

[44:49] and I can't speak for the board, but I can share the dialogue, was creating a

[44:52] community and creating a neighborhood.

[44:57] And you don't create that if you're parceling it out.

[45:03] Okay. Lisa. You want me to mention Lisa?

[45:06] Oh, I don't think we should mention her.

[45:08] Doug?

[45:09] No.

[45:10] No. So just one second. Anyone from the audience have any comments?

[45:17] No.

[45:19] Nobody online. Okay. You go ahead. Oh, I'm sorry. Go ahead.

[45:24] It's okay?

[45:25] Yes, go ahead.

[45:27] Jeanne Lout, Three School Street.

[45:29] It's just really hard to keep up because

[45:34] this project has a history, and I just wondered if someone could share

[45:40] with me. It seems like- Um, there have been some improvements made since the last

[45:45] time I attended

[45:48] this presentation on this project.

[45:52] But I'm just trying to remember,

[45:55] was it rejected by the planning board at the time?

[46:01] And what were the reasons?

[46:05] The

[46:06] site plan was rejected. And I believe the reasoning was it was damaging to rural

[46:11] character.

[46:13] Is that correct? That was the board's rejection for it.

[46:16] It was then overturned at the Housing Appeals Board and upheld by the Supreme

[46:20] Court. Yeah. So that was the reason.

[46:23] So has anything changed regarding the issue of rural character being

[46:29] a problem?

[46:30] Well, the only thing that's changed is the judge specifically ordered this board to

[46:34] not consider that issue.

[46:37] He said that horse has left the barn.

[46:39] So, that's off the table for us to consider per the

[46:45] judge's instructions in the order.

[46:50] Okay. Thank you.

[46:54] Yeah. Okay. No other comments? I guess we'll come back to the board.

[46:57] I don't know whether the board thinks we're ready to have a discussion and a vote

[47:02] on this, or if we want to hold off for the time being and move on to the next set

[47:07] of criteria.

[47:08] Hold on, we have one more though.

[47:10] We have what? Oh, sorry. Go ahead.

[47:12] Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't know. I'm sorry.

[47:15] Just a little Luke Trevel Street, chair of the Heritage Commission.

[47:21] If I heard right, Tom, whenever you made a statement that

[47:27] the Supreme Court said that you could not judge or

[47:33] maintaining the rural character could not be judged in this particular

[47:39] plan?

[47:40] Yes, and the reason being is that the judge specifically said that that was an item

[47:45] that should've been addressed as a conditional use permit stage.

[47:50] That's one of the criteria for approving a conditional use permit, which they did

[47:55] get.

[47:57] Okay.

[47:58] Yeah, the other thing I wish... This has been going on since, what?

[48:02] 2019, 2018, roughly. It would be nice if the public had a

[48:08] Venn diagram of the process that a planning board goes

[48:14] through. Just a one-pager that steps through the CUP, and

[48:19] reviews and all that. Because like what Jeannie said, you get lost in some of the

[48:26] detail for the public, and I think that would be a good service that the planning

[48:31] board could do for the town. If there's just a one...

[48:34] Maybe there is something already out there that you could easily see, easily look

[48:40] at and say, "Hey, it should be at this stage, but it's not," or vice versa.

[48:47] And if somebody from the planning board wants to work on that, I will help them.

[48:54] Okay?

[48:55] Yeah. Thank you.

[48:56] Yeah.

[48:56] It'd just be a little difficult sometimes because every application's different.

[48:59] Not every application requires a conditional use permit or things like that.

[49:04] There could be waivers involved.

[49:07] Mr. Chairman, if I might.

[49:08] Yeah. Sure.

[49:09] Well, this project is unique

[49:15] in that it was approved, the conditional use permit was approved, and the site plan

[49:21] was denied under the IIHO, which subsequently went away.

[49:25] So this process doesn't exist anymore.

[49:30] But here we are. And the judge, it went to the Supreme Court, and it was remanded

[49:36] back to us for action with limited review.

[49:40] So that's where we are, whether any of us like it.

[49:45] I'm sure the applicant has had enough of this process as well.

[49:50] But that's where we are. So this particular process is not going to happen

[49:56] again until we, in our wisdom, might

[50:01] adopt other zoning that would allow for this to take place.

[50:05] Yeah. That Venn diagram I was talking about was not for the IIHO in the least.

[50:10] It was for a nominal application that comes through. What are the steps?

[50:16] Because I think that would help the public.

[50:19] Maybe there'd be more hearing from the public.

[50:24] With that as well.

[50:26] Okay.

[50:27] So if you're welcome to reach out to us-

[50:28] I'll be running stuff, that research stuff before.

[50:33] Okay. Thank you.

[50:37] Okay.

[50:38] I think one question I have is has the lawyer reviewed all of the HOA

[50:44] documents and has any concerns?

[50:46] Well, we're not dealing with that part of it yet.

[50:49] Not yet? Okay.

[50:50] Yeah.

[50:50] That's too late.

[50:51] That'll be the next discussion.

[50:53] So I guess I feel like we certainly have enough information on the

[51:01] wetland and watershed conservation district conditional use permit to act on it.

[51:07] So I would like to make a motion, if that's appropriate.

[51:11] Sure. Go ahead.

[51:15] I move that the board finds the application,

[51:19] satisfies the criteria of Section 4.11I1

[51:25] of the zoning ordinance, addressing the findings required for approval of

[51:30] conditional use permit for the Wetlands and Watershed Conservation District, and

[51:35] further, that the board finds the application satisfies the criteria of Section

[51:40] 4.11H2 of the zoning ordinance addressing findings required for

[51:45] approval of construction of streets, roads, and other access ways.

[51:49] And further, to approve Case

[51:51] PZ13773-0211221

[51:58] for Gann Realty Trust, for a conditional use permit to construct a private road

[52:03] across a wetland and a 100-foot buffer area in the Wetland and Watershed

[52:08] Conservation District with the following conditions, and the conditions precedent

[52:12] are indicated in the staff memo of September 2, 2026.

[52:17] If you'd like, I can read those into the record.

[52:20] Go ahead. Sure.

[52:22] Submission of plans. Conditions precedent, submission of the plans and other

[52:27] documentation.

[52:31] And I'm summarizing here. Two submissions, submission of any required legal

[52:35] language for review and approval by town council.

[52:38] Three, payment of any outstanding fees for the CUP application, including any fees

[52:43] for recording at the Hillsborough County

[52:47] Registry of Deeds as applicable. And then conditions subsequent are

[52:53] that the applicant shall comply with all of Amherst's regulations.

[52:59] That this approval is based on plan specifications and testimony submitted to the

[53:03] planning board. Any alterations, additions, or changes to the plans are not

[53:07] authorized and may require additional planning board approval.

[53:12] And three, subsequent substantial construction must commence within one year of

[53:17] planning board approval of the conditional use permit.

[53:20] If construction is not commenced within this period, the conditional use permit may

[53:24] be extended for up to one additional year upon approval with the Amherst

[53:30] Planning Board.

[53:33] So that's my motion.

[53:36] Is there a second anywhere?

[53:37] I second.

[53:39] Okay. So ask for discussion. Start over on your side, Doug. I love it.

[53:45] Lisa?

[53:46] I just feel like they have fulfilled, especially with the Conservation Commission,

[53:51] their comments, that means a lot. So, and the fact that they kind of said, "Don't

[53:57] change anything this time around," because they didn't change anything, I feel

[54:01] confident that they met the spirit and intent of it.

[54:06] Okay. I'm going to echo some of my earlier comments, which that particular

[54:12] part of the use ordinance says that the construction of streets, roads, and other

[54:17] access ways

[54:20] may be constructed if essential to the productive use of land beyond the Wetland

[54:25] and Watershed Conservation District. I just don't think that's true.

[54:29] It's all accessible via the frontage, and it can be accessed by the three proposed

[54:35] access ways on the plan.

[54:40] And it says such construction may be permitted within the district only when no

[54:45] viable alternative is available.

[54:48] And there absolutely is a viable alternative.

[54:50] There are viable alternatives available. So as a result, I'm reading this strictly.

[54:56] I understand that plan probably was reviewed by the prior board.

[54:59] We weren't a part of that. I'm reading this strict reading of it, and as far as I'm

[55:04] concerned, it doesn't meet that. So thank you.

[55:08] I have nothing.

[55:11] So I'm struggling a little bit because I agree with Lisa's comments with regards to

[55:17] conservation and coming back, but I also agree with you, Tom.

[55:21] I guess where I'm struggling is I can still see it as a community, even if

[55:27] it's not a continuous roadway through it.

[55:31] So right now, that's kind of torn. I take into account

[55:37] comments that are made by the other boards and I take that under consideration.

[55:41] But I agree with you that I don't visualize a need for a

[55:47] continuous

[55:49] road there because you could still have a community built.

[55:54] So I'm kind of struggling right now.

[55:59] I agree. That's where I'm struggling, too, and you were talking about that road.

[56:04] Part of it too is,

[56:06] we're talking about a half acre of permanent buffer removal. Roughly half acre.

[56:12] A little shy of half an acre. So it's not a small amount that we're talking about

[56:16] here.

[56:16] It's 5,000 square feet.

[56:18] Buffer.

[56:19] 500 square feet.

[56:20] That's wetland.

[56:22] Right. So the wetland impact is-

[56:24] The buffer impact is what I'm talking about.

[56:27] I don't believe that that's true.

[56:29] It is true.

[56:30] Yeah. We have the road going in. It's 100 foot buffer-

[56:33] Oh, on either side

[56:35] ... on either side.

[56:35] It's about 20,000 square feet of permanent impact.

[56:39] Well, but it's also

[56:43] well over that in buffer restoration.

[56:46] And that buffer is just an unmowed hay field right now.

[56:51] And so they're proposing to restore it to native vegetation.

[56:55] It is a minimal impact.

[56:58] And I'll be honest

[57:04] with you, I am not a strict constructionist, and all the language

[57:11] in all of the wetland

[57:17] statutes and so forth allow for

[57:21] the notion of impact if it serves a larger purpose to the

[57:27] project, and I believe that this does.

[57:30] And not only that, but

[57:33] correct me if I'm wrong, but these are areas where there are existing crossings.

[57:40] There are areas where there's existing impacts within the buffer area.

[57:44] Right. So I just don't see this as an issue.

[57:52] So that's my story and I'm sticking to it.

[57:55] That's...

[57:57] Looking at this, this was all discussed back in 2019, 2020,

[58:02] 2021. Okay. And I'm sure

[58:08] the Conservation Commission weighed in heavily at that point and everything, and I

[58:13] don't believe the planning board at that time would've approved it if it

[58:19] didn't make sense. Okay. They haven't changed anything.

[58:25] I struggle a bit now with a new board going back and

[58:31] changing things that had been approved. Nothing's changed.

[58:38] Okay. And

[58:42] through other things on the subdivision application, everything,

[58:49] moving up to the Supreme Court and getting remanded back.

[58:56] I don't know if I'm not--

[58:58] What does it say for the

[59:03] integrity of rulings of the board if you get a bunch of new people in there

[59:09] and they change everything? Okay, because there's nothing in this

[59:17] that is horrendous or

[59:21] doesn't pass the reasonableness test, if you

[59:27] will. But I hear what you're saying, and if this was the first time through,

[59:33] I think we'd have a case, but we're now

[59:37] retrying things that had gone through before.

[59:41] And I think I agree with the board in here that the impact

[59:47] is ultimately minimal at this point.

[59:52] May I also add some stuff, Mr. Chairman?

[59:55] Sure.

[59:55] And I just want to give this in perspective.

[59:57] We went all the way to revote on this application all the way to the end, and the

[1:00:03] conditional use permit for wetlands was secondary to the primary application.

[1:00:07] The board did not have any--

[1:00:12] The planning board, and I'm going to share some support for this, but the planning

[1:00:16] board wanted this road to connect through and to tie these projects together.

[1:00:21] And that was really discussed, and I have the plan up here on a number of levels.

[1:00:25] And I keep making reference to the conditional use permit under the IHO regulations

[1:00:30] because that is an imperative

[1:00:34] part of how this project was launched. It's that the layout was launched.

[1:00:38] We have that approval. And so this board would be voting against the approval of

[1:00:43] 2019 if you vote this down.

[1:00:48] And I'm going to bring up some key points here.

[1:00:51] The prior board did feel like this had to be connected in order to be a community.

[1:00:55] They also felt like we had to have sidewalks on this roadway, which is shown on the

[1:01:00] plan that I have in front of you on the

[1:01:05] west side of the road. They felt like we had to have sidewalks along the roadway

[1:01:10] that provided connectivity to all of the site amenities, the clubhouse.

[1:01:14] ADA-accessible access from all of the units to the clubhouse.

[1:01:19] You can't have that if you don't have a crossing where we're proposing this.

[1:01:25] And so I would just state for the record that it is my opinion that this

[1:01:31] board would be contradicting the vote of January 2019

[1:01:37] if you didn't support this wetland application.

[1:01:40] We wouldn't have the Conservation Commission support if the planning board didn't

[1:01:44] feel that this crossing was necessary.

[1:01:46] Because everybody here knows that the Conservation Commission is very critical of

[1:01:51] impacts to resource areas.

[1:01:54] The Conservation Commission understood.

[1:01:57] The Conservation Commission chairman at the time, Mr.

[1:01:59] Klemmens, attended the planning board meetings, and this was a very thorough and

[1:02:05] critical review.

[1:02:07] All I can do is share my recollection of the process and

[1:02:13] the pedestrian connectivity and the board.

[1:02:18] A strict interpretation of every rule doesn't necessarily meet

[1:02:24] all the regulations that existed at the time.

[1:02:27] The Integrated Innovative Housing Ordinance and the board that wrote and

[1:02:32] adopted that regulation and lobbied for it was the active board at the time we were

[1:02:37] in front of them reviewing this project.

[1:02:40] They felt like this layout, which has not changed, the wetland crossing has not

[1:02:45] changed. The location has not changed, was needed in order to support the

[1:02:51] risk, the findings of that IHO conditional use permit.

[1:02:55] And this wetlands permit was not really-- It was a rider to the site plan

[1:03:00] application, and there was never any issues relative to that.

[1:03:05] There was no inference on the denial at the planning board relative to this.

[1:03:10] And I think it speaks to the fact that this was not an issue.

[1:03:14] And I just, as one other rider to that piece, the town employs Keach Nordstrom for

[1:03:20] peer review, and Steve Keach is one of my favorite people in this state, but also

[1:03:24] an incredible stickler about if you are non-compliant, this either can't be done or

[1:03:30] you need a waiver, or you need a variance or whatever the case may be.

[1:03:34] He's peer-reviewed this throughout and is still involved seven years later and has

[1:03:39] never, as part of the independent peer review, said, "You can't do this." Which I

[1:03:44] think lies on the fact that for that to be the developable area, if you consider it

[1:03:50] to be, I can't remember the language specifically, but that it's the productive

[1:03:55] development

[1:03:56] I think it seems as though the history of this board is that this road was

[1:04:01] necessary for that productivity, despite understanding you are in one understanding

[1:04:07] of it, that if there are curb cut availability, you can come in.

[1:04:11] It seems as though that wasn't how it was interpreted previously.

[1:04:16] Well, I guess I would also question whether

[1:04:23] revisions to the layout, per se, are

[1:04:29] permissible under the court decision.

[1:04:35] I don't have an answer to that. I think I wouldn't guess that.

[1:04:39] Speaking personally,

[1:04:42] I

[1:04:44] would

[1:04:46] say that this is a reasonable app, notwithstanding your reading of the

[1:04:52] language of the ordinance.

[1:04:55] I think that this is a perfectly reasonable application of our discretion.

[1:05:03] Can I just go back? Just two items. I think I agree with you that

[1:05:09] a CUP was approved, absolutely.

[1:05:12] That's all that was approved for this, as far as I know. Right?

[1:05:16] The application ultimately was denied, different reason, but CUP was

[1:05:22] approved. I'd be surprised if there was tons and tons of talk about this

[1:05:27] particular issue at the CUP stage.

[1:05:31] That discussion would generally, in my experience, comes up later on in the

[1:05:36] process. CUP is setting an initial density, and whether that project that's

[1:05:41] proposed met the IIHO conditions.

[1:05:47] We went through the design approval process, and the Conservation Commission signed

[1:05:52] off on this project. Your Conservation Commission is recommending approval, and

[1:05:57] the buffer restoration was done. Do you think that was done as part of the site

[1:06:02] plan or the wetlands CUP? It was done as part of the CUP.

[1:06:07] There would be no reason for us to-

[1:06:09] In any case, I guess my point is that wetlands CUP was not approved.

[1:06:13] Yeah.

[1:06:14] It wasn't approved. You may think it would've been approved.

[1:06:16] You might think it would've been a-

[1:06:18] Well, the layout was, and that's our stance.

[1:06:21] Could be.

[1:06:22] That's kind of a moot point because-

[1:06:24] I agree it's moot

[1:06:26] ... but

[1:06:28] the fact is that in the denial for the site plan, which would have relied on the

[1:06:33] CUP, they sort of took it out of order apparently,

[1:06:37] if the CUP wasn't approved for the wetland impacts.

[1:06:41] But the

[1:06:46] wetland

[1:06:49] CUP

[1:06:51] was not a matter that was discussed as a reason for denying the plan,

[1:06:57] to my knowledge.

[1:06:58] It wasn't, and it wasn't, to turn Lionel's point, it wasn't raised in Keach

[1:07:04] Arnstrom's letter as an issue. It wasn't raised in the Conservation Commission

[1:07:07] letter as an issue. It wasn't raised anywhere as an issue, and that's all evidenced

[1:07:13] in the record.

[1:07:16] The other thing I guess I would just say, too, is we're not that board.

[1:07:20] This is a different board, six years later.

[1:07:22] Yeah.

[1:07:23] But in any case, I think my bottom line here is what this particular thing is

[1:07:28] intended for is if you own a piece of property that's completely blocked by a

[1:07:32] wetland,

[1:07:34] gives you means to access land in the back. That's not the case here.

[1:07:39] So anyway, we have a motion on the floor.

[1:07:42] Yeah, I'd like to call the question.

[1:07:44] Okay. So we have a motion and a second.

[1:07:48] All in favor of approving this wetlands CUP, say "aye."

[1:07:54] Aye.

[1:07:54] All opposed.

[1:07:56] Not me.

[1:07:58] Thanks.

[1:08:00] You have to do another motion to get--

[1:08:03] Another what?

[1:08:03] You have to do another motion until you get something in the affirmative if we're

[1:08:06] at a tie.

[1:08:19] All right. Somebody else want to try?

[1:08:22] Well, okay. Let me just throw one thing out. All right.

[1:08:24] We have a tie here, so chances are another motion is going to result in another

[1:08:29] tie. Right? I can't imagine what a different motion would be that would break a

[1:08:33] tie. Can you think of anything?

[1:08:36] I-

[1:08:37] The only other motion to make is a motion to not approve it.

[1:08:41] And now we've broken the tie.

[1:08:44] So maybe that being the case, we know we're deadlocked on the wetlands CUP.

[1:08:49] Maybe we move on to the

[1:08:53] site plan.

[1:08:56] Yeah. I'm going to request findings as well

[1:09:02] here.

[1:09:03] Absolutely.

[1:09:05] Well, I can't give you findings on a motion that didn't pass.

[1:09:11] Or failed.

[1:09:12] Or at least get the motion to approve.

[1:09:14] Is that under-

[1:09:17] Oh.

[1:09:17] Either-

[1:09:17] Something until there's a vote in the affirmative of the motion, whether that's

[1:09:21] approved or not.

[1:09:24] So we can't just end on a tie.

[1:09:28] Well, we could end on a tie because that's a failure.

[1:09:34] Motion doesn't carry.

[1:09:36] Right.

[1:09:37] Right.

[1:09:37] But that doesn't close the application.

[1:09:39] No. Right. Correct.

[1:09:41] No. Yeah.

[1:09:43] Can you continue this to the next meeting? There's an odd number of people.

[1:09:48] That is-

[1:09:49] Seven years old.

[1:09:52] I know, and my

[1:09:57] feeling continues to be that this is a de minimis application.

[1:10:03] There's substantial betterment from the restoration plan that was put forward and

[1:10:08] reviewed and approved by our Conservation

[1:10:11] Commission. And

[1:10:14] the layout of this particular plan was substantially

[1:10:20] approved via the conditional use permit that was approved in 2017, and I don't

[1:10:26] believe that the court gave us permission to change that.

[1:10:31] So here we are. I

[1:10:38] guess I agree with the applicant that the

[1:10:47] notion of productive use of the land is involved with the entirety of the plan,

[1:10:53] and this crossing

[1:10:58] and impact is essential to that productive use of the land.

[1:11:03] So, I

[1:11:06] continue to believe that we should approve this.

[1:11:13] Well, I hate to see huge developments go in, to be honest.

[1:11:18] When you look at this, they have an approved density bonus.

[1:11:23] They wouldn't have been able to get those number of units that they did

[1:11:29] without that crossing. Okay? It would've had accessibility

[1:11:35] issues for

[1:11:38] ADA

[1:11:42] people. It would've impacted the use of a lot of the open space.

[1:11:48] So somewhere along the way,

[1:11:51] the prior planning board looked at it in entirety and said,

[1:11:57] "Yes, this meets the intent of the IIHO and the intent of all these

[1:12:02] regulations." Okay? There is a net positive

[1:12:07] gain from their view at that point in time,

[1:12:12] where

[1:12:17] they approve the CUP. If somebody was coming in with

[1:12:23] this right now fresh without it, would it be approved or not? I don't know.

[1:12:27] But

[1:12:31] going back and playing Monday morning quarterback and rethinking things that have

[1:12:36] been approved before

[1:12:41] just kind of

[1:12:44] takes away from the integrity of the boards and town because that

[1:12:49] was subject anything that was approved in the past to be reapproved

[1:12:56] in the future every time the board changed.

[1:12:59] And I'm not sure that's a path we want to go down.

[1:13:05] May I just share that the plan that I have in front of me right now is the

[1:13:09] conditional use permit plan that was approved for the IHO COP.

[1:13:14] How can a planning board approve this plan

[1:13:18] if they don't intend on approving that wetland process?

[1:13:23] No way. There's no nexus. You can't get here.

[1:13:28] It's

[1:13:30] completely unreasonable to think that a board-- You're the same board, you have to

[1:13:36] look at it that way.

[1:13:38] In 2019, January, approved this plan.

[1:13:43] It's the same plan,

[1:13:48] same process, same wetlands. Does this layout look any different?

[1:13:54] Coupled with quote from the hab that's upheld, that quite frankly, it's unfortunate

[1:13:59] that the parties could not effectively collaborate.

[1:14:02] Yeah, but- This feels like a situation where we are so far down the line,

[1:14:08] and this has been, as noted, peer-reviewed, reviewed by the Conservation

[1:14:12] Commission, reviewed at length by this board, to at what feels

[1:14:18] beyond the 11th hour, say, "Well, this whole plan is non-compliant with the wetland

[1:14:23] CUP, you can't get that." That's the kind of thing that at early review could've

[1:14:29] been discussed so that waivers could've been sought, et cetera. They weren't.

[1:14:33] There's a degree of detrimental reliance on this after seven years that, that

[1:14:39] originalist, if you will, argument-

[1:14:43] Right. Let's- It's almost an unfair rationale to advocate. It looks like bad faith.

[1:14:49] And I know that's not--

[1:14:52] I'm not trying to be ad hominem here, but from our position where it seems like

[1:14:57] we've tried to be collaborative, we've provided the things, we've changed, we've

[1:15:01] sharpened the plan in ways that have been requested.

[1:15:05] And to then go back to court conceivably and say, "Well, now seven years later,

[1:15:10] they said this piece doesn't work."

[1:15:14] And let's look at the criteria for that conditional use permit, because I think the

[1:15:18] answer is there. Like, the one that's approved, right?

[1:15:22] The first criteria, that the property in question is in conformance with the

[1:15:26] dimensional requirements of the zone or meets the planning board standards for the

[1:15:31] reduction in dimensional requirements, and that the proposed use is consistent with

[1:15:36] the Amherst Master Plan. Approved in January of 2019.

[1:15:41] So if this is a non-compliant plan, it can't have been voted.

[1:15:44] That the proposal meets the purposes of the ordinance under which the application

[1:15:49] is proposed. Approved.

[1:15:53] That there will be no significant adverse impacts resulting from the proposed use

[1:15:58] upon the public health, safety, and general welfare of the neighborhood in the town

[1:16:02] of Amherst. Approved. That the proposed use will not be more objectionable to the

[1:16:08] properties, by nearby properties by reason of noise, fumes, vibration, or

[1:16:13] inappropriate lighting, excuse me, than any use of the property

[1:16:19] permitted under the existing zoning district ordinances. Again, approved.

[1:16:25] That the proposed use will not adversely affect the groundwater resources in

[1:16:30] Amherst, in particular, the Aquifer Protection District, as defined in 413

[1:16:36] of the Amherst Zoning Ordinance. And then the last one, the applicant shall file a

[1:16:41] non-residential site plan in accordance with the non-residential site plan

[1:16:45] regulations with the Amherst Planning Board.

[1:16:48] And we received an approval with very few conditions on

[1:16:54] this conditional use permit. And they're outlined in the staff memo.

[1:17:00] So walls, et cetera. But none of them relate to-- I mean, we had to get the

[1:17:04] conditional use permit for the wetlands, but none of them, nobody said, "Hey,

[1:17:09] you're going to want to be careful because we're probably not going to approve this

[1:17:12] wetlands process, even though we just approved the conditional use permit for a

[1:17:16] layout which contemplates the full development of the land." It contemplates the

[1:17:20] conservation area that abuts everywhere.

[1:17:23] It contemplates pedestrian access internally, which means you have to contemplate

[1:17:27] the road. It contemplates emergency access, traffic,

[1:17:33] curb cuts, general public welfare. I mean, it contemplates all this.

[1:17:38] And it really can't be looked at any other way.

[1:17:41] And a general design preference against dead ends.

[1:17:44] This is public safety with two accessways here. Right.

[1:17:51] How about if I

[1:17:56] revise my

[1:18:00] original motion to include a stipulation or requirement

[1:18:06] that site plan approval would be granted?

[1:18:12] I don't know where else to go with this because,

[1:18:17] as you said, the

[1:18:20] conditional use permit is really,

[1:18:24] in a lot of ways,

[1:18:30] kind of subservient to site plan.

[1:18:37] So,

[1:18:41] and the site plan, as has been stated, hasn't changed since.

[1:18:45] It hasn't changed in its layout. It has changed in detail in terms of buffering

[1:18:51] and

[1:18:53] that sort of thing, but not in terms of

[1:18:59] layout from

[1:19:02] what the board saw. So,

[1:19:12] I guess I would like to make that motion if I would.

[1:19:16] The previous motion, including the stipulation that it is only in

[1:19:22] effect if the site plan application is granted.

[1:19:27] And Gordon, one other- Just real quickly.

[1:19:29] One other thing, too, is I believe it's my prerogative to abstain from any

[1:19:35] particular vote that I want to. Yeah.

[1:19:37] Normally,

[1:19:40] it's more important if you're looking to not have an even number.

[1:19:46] But in this case, we're looking to not have an even number, so I will abstain from

[1:19:49] this particular vote. Okay. Well, so that's my motion.

[1:19:54] I second.

[1:19:57] All in favor?

[1:19:59] Aye.

[1:20:01] Aye. Opposed?

[1:20:03] Motion passes four to one. Okay. Sorry.

[1:20:06] And the findings of facts are included in

[1:20:11] the staff memo of September 2nd,

[1:20:16] 2026.

[1:20:19] They appear to be

[1:20:24] fairly standard.

[1:20:27] So without objection, I guess we would include those in as our findings- I didn't

[1:20:32] hear you. I'm sorry. The findings of facts are included in the staff memo of

[1:20:39] September 2nd, and without objection, I guess we would just adopt those as our

[1:20:44] findings of facts. So I make a motion to adopt those as the findings of facts.

[1:20:50] I second.

[1:20:51] All in favor? Aye.

[1:20:53] Aye.

[1:20:53] All opposed? One abstention. Okay, so we move on.

[1:20:59] Okay, onto the

[1:21:02] site plan.

[1:21:04] Go ahead.

[1:21:10] I'm just going to open up

[1:21:13] the one

[1:21:16] revision that we had from the... Sorry, here.

[1:21:20] It's in the wrong-- From the last meeting.

[1:21:27] And what we did here is we formalized the

[1:21:31] landscaping plan along Hollis Road.

[1:21:35] And you may recall, we had talked about this a little bit with some of the members

[1:21:40] on our site walk. Basically, there was a

[1:21:45] consensus, I think, from us and the board that we could do better with the

[1:21:51] buffering, certainly within the area of the units and the highway.

[1:21:57] And so we revisited the plan, and what we ultimately found is we can save

[1:22:03] four of the large existing trees, and so we detailed them on here.

[1:22:08] There'd be one, two, three- Four. And then we've

[1:22:14] augmented the area, basically from those four trees

[1:22:20] to the highway, where we are proposing 21 additional trees.

[1:22:27] There would be Austrian pine, white fir, and white spruce

[1:22:33] proposed, and those are blended. You can see the kind of darker

[1:22:39] random kind of planting scheme here along the front, kind of in line with those

[1:22:45] existing trees. And then if you see this gray hatch area here, which doesn't stand

[1:22:50] out real well. I'm going to zoom in because I think you'll

[1:22:54] see some of the line work. But this gray hatch area here along this area, that's a

[1:23:00] proposed wildflower mix. And so that area will be kind of

[1:23:05] unmaintained, so unmanicured. It'll be a nice wildflower mix, which will cast

[1:23:11] between the homes and some of that existing

[1:23:17] vegetation. When I say existing vegetation, we are maintaining all the vegetation

[1:23:22] along the stone wall area. That's referenced here.

[1:23:27] Infilling some of the areas where we're closing the old curb cuts.

[1:23:32] And so that's always been on the plan.

[1:23:34] But so what we're adding here is, we're saving these four mature trees.

[1:23:39] We added 21 additional

[1:23:42] plantings with species that we kind of shared with us would be appropriate for this

[1:23:48] location, and then doing that wildflower mix.

[1:23:51] And so we hope the board would consider that appropriate, and certainly an

[1:23:56] improvement that reflects.

[1:24:01] The only other thing that I submitted since the last meeting, and we

[1:24:07] actually just touched on it

[1:24:10] with the prior vote, was the conditional use permit criteria that a couple members

[1:24:15] asked for us to kind of bring forward, even though the vote was already done.

[1:24:20] And then the IHO density and kind of just outlined how we

[1:24:26] met the criteria. And one thing that I would say in reviewing the staff memo,

[1:24:33] there's a table that was very nicely prepared by staff, and there appeared to be

[1:24:39] a few items that says compliance not yet verified.

[1:24:44] And I think many of these items were verified through the IHO.

[1:24:49] So if we take a look at that table real briefly, Regulation 215

[1:24:55] pertains to pedestrian walks. We are proposing sidewalks

[1:25:01] internally for this project, and that was at the request of the planning board.

[1:25:06] It was tied to density bonuses for the project.

[1:25:11] And so those are detailed within the plan set. We certainly have trails as well.

[1:25:17] So we thought that that one was likely addressed.

[1:25:21] Under the non-residential cycling regulations, it's 2.182,

[1:25:27] which is pedestrian and bike safety access.

[1:25:29] I think that's also addressed through that same comment.

[1:25:34] And so I know

[1:25:36] we kind of just formally provided how we met all that criteria, so maybe that

[1:25:41] helped.

[1:25:43] Moving down to 2.186, it says water supply, wastewater disposal, and solid

[1:25:49] waste disposal compliance not yet verified.

[1:25:53] Well, we need septic approvals through the state as a condition of this

[1:25:58] development. And so most certainly those approvals will be done locally and at the

[1:26:03] state level. The state did change, so for everybody's edification, the state did

[1:26:08] change the design flow requirements for 55 and older developments to be 150

[1:26:14] gallons per day per bedroom. And so each unit will require a 300-gallon

[1:26:20] design. But we've allocated and we've shown areas where we can

[1:26:26] accomplish that. We ultimately-- That's been reviewed through the process.

[1:26:31] All we have to do is submit for the state permit.

[1:26:34] So I would suggest that that compliance has to be done by default

[1:26:40] through the state permitting process, which really shouldn't hold up movement

[1:26:45] before the board, I would hope.

[1:26:48] And then the only other one pertains to sufficient monitoring requirements to

[1:26:53] evaluate impacts during the build-out and up to five years.

[1:26:58] And I'm sorry, I meant to say this is under-- it's the last page of the table, but

[1:27:03] it's under the IHO regulations,

[1:27:08] 5.02.4 or 502.4, excuse me.

[1:27:12] And that says compliance not yet verified, but I would offer that we submitted a

[1:27:17] fiscal impact report for this project.

[1:27:20] So we've kind of outlined and addressed that with that report.

[1:27:24] We did submit a phasing plan with the project that's been in the plan set for a

[1:27:29] long time now. It was proposed as a four-phase development

[1:27:34] with permits split over that four-year period.

[1:27:38] That's when it was a market rate development.

[1:27:41] I would suggest and hope we can talk about

[1:27:46] many times with these 55 and older developments, the impacts are reduced on a

[1:27:52] municipal level and often the

[1:27:56] boards consider, we'd like to see it go as fast as possible, so that we're not

[1:28:01] dragging out a construction window for abutting properties or neighboring

[1:28:05] properties, knowing that this project's not going to have a negative impact on the

[1:28:11] school system, which is normally the big trigger.

[1:28:15] And it's not going to have a negative impact, really, on the traffic conditions

[1:28:19] because we've talked about this in detail.

[1:28:22] We provided an updated traffic report, which doesn't contemplate the phasing, it

[1:28:26] contemplates the build-out of the development.

[1:28:28] And that was deemed to show that there's negligible impact.

[1:28:32] So,

[1:28:36] although we're willing to stand by the phasing plan, we would suggest that the

[1:28:40] board may want to consider not phasing this project and letting the market

[1:28:46] determine how fast the build-out can be.

[1:28:50] That might be a more favorable option for the neighborhood.

[1:28:54] But nonetheless, we think we have addressed

[1:28:57] 5.02.4, keep wanting to throw a point in there,

[1:29:04] pertaining to this through the materials that we have submitted in the past.

[1:29:10] So we hope we've addressed the outstanding items.

[1:29:14] We were close, and there was some cleanup that the board was looking for.

[1:29:17] We did prepare to submit legal documents.

[1:29:20] We got review comments back from town council, and we look forward to addressing

[1:29:25] those. But certainly, I think the review comments were in large part consistent

[1:29:31] with a normal review, and we think that we're at a point where we're hoping the

[1:29:36] board would consider a vote this evening on the site plan as well.

[1:29:44] You all set?

[1:29:45] So far.

[1:29:46] All right.

[1:29:50] I guess my question is, and if we can't revisit it because it's already been

[1:29:54] approved, but when I was going through the IHO, the density worksheet,

[1:30:02] to me, it just seemed like there was a couple of bullets that you're getting units

[1:30:07] for. And again, this, we can't talk about it, I don't know. Tell me you're not.

[1:30:12] Well, I think my understanding is we're

[1:30:19] stuck with the density that we're stuck with.

[1:30:20] Oh, okay.

[1:30:22] Because I think we talked about that before.

[1:30:24] There are some double-dipping-

[1:30:27] Yeah. It's just when you read it, you start to really say, like, I have to applaud

[1:30:30] you. I appreciate you putting the document together.

[1:30:32] I thought it was excellent and well thought, and it helped me go through it.

[1:30:36] But as I was reading it and I went through that worksheet especially, I really

[1:30:40] started saying, "Wait a minute." But there's no talking about it. Okay.

[1:30:44] That's all I have. The reason that ordinance doesn't exist anymore.

[1:30:48] Yeah.

[1:30:48] There's many reasons.

[1:30:50] Yes. Okay.

[1:30:51] Oh, you also.

[1:30:53] Yeah, I'm good.

[1:30:56] Just so everybody knows, I did get a chance to look at the landscape plan, and I

[1:31:02] agree with your assessment. It includes species that

[1:31:08] keep their branches down to the ground, so it should provide much better screening

[1:31:13] than a bunch of white pines in there.

[1:31:16] So, and thank you for that. I mean, I do have to say that it

[1:31:22] would've been nice to get it a week in front of the meeting rather than the day

[1:31:25] before the meeting.

[1:31:26] And I understand, and I appreciate your latitude with that.

[1:31:30] But

[1:31:32] I don't need to slap you around for that.

[1:31:35] I was expecting it, and it's deserved.

[1:31:38] We're dealing with some things that-

[1:31:40] I mean, just to note, in the future, we may not be as, uh, lenient on it.

[1:31:46] I would imagine.

[1:31:49] I think that...

[1:31:54] I mean, with that being said, I guess I agree that

[1:32:00] with respect to the issues that are noted in the staff report as

[1:32:06] not

[1:32:07] yet verified or not complete, these are things that really

[1:32:13] are typically subsequent to

[1:32:17] approval,

[1:32:20] because they involve state permitting and so forth.

[1:32:22] So I'm--

[1:32:25] Just one question. When you originally sought approval

[1:32:31] for the project,

[1:32:34] uh,

[1:32:36] were the current DES, um, alteration of terrain standards

[1:32:42] in effect, soils based and all of that?

[1:32:46] Yeah.

[1:32:46] So all of that,

[1:32:49] which ultimately was adopted in our own regulation, um,

[1:32:55] was in effect under the original design, correct?

[1:32:58] That is correct, yes.

[1:32:59] Okay. So, and would remain in effect when you go for your alteration of

[1:33:05] terrain permit this time around?

[1:33:08] That's correct.

[1:33:08] So-

[1:33:09] Yeah

[1:33:09] ... there's not only our review, but, uh, the belt and suspenders of a state review

[1:33:15] that will be required. And that also has to do with

[1:33:20] threatened and endangered species and all that good stuff, right?

[1:33:25] That's correct. The threatened and endangered species, uh, regulations as of this

[1:33:29] year are handled on the DES level. Uh, so they adopted or they, they

[1:33:35] started an ecological review board.

[1:33:39] They basically hired, you know, a few people from Fish and Game.

[1:33:43] Okay.

[1:33:44] Staff, you know, this commission.

[1:33:45] So they, they got rid of the, uh, New Hampshire Heritage Bureau. It's now at DES.

[1:33:51] Um-

[1:33:52] Okay

[1:33:52] ... and they do reviews specific to projects.

[1:33:56] Um, you know, this project, we already had a wildlife study, so we'll take, you

[1:33:59] know, take benefit of that. But, uh, the reality is, is the, the state

[1:34:05] permitting process requires, um, somebody, whether it's Fish and Game or somebody

[1:34:10] at the Ecological Review Board, to certify that the project will not have an

[1:34:15] adverse impact on the existence of, uh, threatened and endangered species.

[1:34:20] And so they monitor that, and, and it's part of that movement.

[1:34:24] Okay. And, uh, right. And there's some things that everybody has to deal with,

[1:34:30] like a northern long-eared bat and-

[1:34:32] Yeah. Restrictions for cutting at windows.

[1:34:36] Right. Um,

[1:34:40] okay, I don't think I've got anything else.

[1:34:43] Uh, I kind of follow off of our last discussion a little bit about things that were

[1:34:48] settled, um, by the previous board.

[1:34:51] Um, I think you would agree that the previous board settled, um, on,

[1:34:57] on fact that this was a mixed-use development that was approved by the

[1:35:04] CUP for up to fifty-four units. Right?

[1:35:07] That mixed-use development that that board approved included restricted housing,

[1:35:13] non-restricted housing,

[1:35:16] uh, rentals, things like that.

[1:35:21] I'm just curious, like from, from your perspective, why, why is it okay now to

[1:35:26] propose something different than what was previously approved, what was previously

[1:35:31] approved and discussed with that conditional use permit that was approved?

[1:35:35] So when, when we revisited this project over, um, you know,

[1:35:41] many years of review, the diversity of housing,

[1:35:47] um, and you reviewed the denial. I mean, part of the denial was

[1:35:53] the, um, diversity of housing and having these potential for two homeowners

[1:35:59] associations in one development.

[1:36:02] And when that was reviewed, we met with staff, we met with everybody, um, there was

[1:36:08] this general theme of how can we simplify the project.

[1:36:13] Um, and so when you take a look, we met with Mr.

[1:36:16] Keith, we met with Zach, and the guiding factor was you can

[1:36:22] make changes to the project as long as you meet the conditional use permit

[1:36:27] conditions. So when you take a dive, and I would...

[1:36:33] You know, and we've, we've had many discussions about this.

[1:36:37] We take a dive into the IHO regulations, it promotes density based on a

[1:36:43] number of factors. Um, it doesn't say you have to provide this much market rate

[1:36:48] housing. You can further restrict it.

[1:36:52] And so we are offering to further restrict the development to simplify the,

[1:36:58] basically the enforcement mechanism out here.

[1:37:01] And that was part of the reason why this board denied it.

[1:37:05] And so it was, it was part of the reason why, um, you know, we felt it was a good

[1:37:11] solution, uh, moving forward. And so what that does

[1:37:17] is it doesn't change anything in the conditional use permit.

[1:37:21] We never had a dialogue with that board relative to, uh, making this all

[1:37:26] fifty-five and older, because that board would have never denied the project based

[1:37:31] on the way that the board, in my opinion, or the way that the board at the time

[1:37:35] denied it, because they, they were looking for the community.

[1:37:39] Um, and so interestingly enough, just over time, to simplify it, we, we came up

[1:37:45] with a conclusion that further restricting it is allowed.

[1:37:49] Nowhere in the old IHO regulations does it say that you cannot further restrict the

[1:37:53] project. Uh, and so we're offering to further restrict it to make it all

[1:37:59] fifty-five and older with a, you know, um, some sixty-two and older in order to

[1:38:04] simplify the homeowners association and, uh, meet, you know, some of the

[1:38:10] feedback that we received from, um,

[1:38:14] you know, staff and peer consultants. And correct me if I said that any...

[1:38:19] If I said- No, I think that's all said.

[1:38:21] And just fur-further, you know, we had discussion about the rental housing, and you

[1:38:27] had said, "Well, you know,

[1:38:31] what if we made it all for sale?" And, you know, my personal opinion on that

[1:38:37] would be

[1:38:39] have at it if you want to lose the two and a half units or whatever it was

[1:38:45] that we're reliant in the density calculations on having rental housing.

[1:38:50] Right.

[1:38:51] And so, so I mean, you can't have it both ways is my point.

[1:38:57] And, and, uh, so I, I don't think that the, that the,

[1:39:03] uh, the

[1:39:06] getting rid of, uh, market rate has a material impact on the IA--

[1:39:12] from the IHS perspective.

[1:39:14] I agree. And, and at the time, the fifty-five and older regulations, my

[1:39:19] understanding, was, was governed through the IHO regulations as well.

[1:39:24] So the density for that would've been the same evaluation.

[1:39:28] Um, it just wasn't the project that my client was proposing at the time, which was

[1:39:33] market rate. And so, um, you know, quite simply, we...

[1:39:39] You know, nobody has insinuated that we have to go back to, you know, to modify the

[1:39:44] condition use permit. We meet all the criteria.

[1:39:47] We've gone through all the criteria. I think it's spelled out.

[1:39:50] You know, none of the, you know, the, the approval didn't say as long as this many

[1:39:55] are, are market rate and this many...

[1:39:57] You know, the only condition was because it was a density bonus that you have to

[1:40:01] have, you know, you know, a certain amount of, uh, you know, bedrooms and, um, you

[1:40:07] know, restrictions on all these features, which I'm happy to walk down through.

[1:40:10] But none of them were a function of market rate or fifty-five and older.

[1:40:14] The fifty-five and older is us- Further restricting the project.

[1:40:19] Okay. I guess the reason I'm asking that question is, I do think there's

[1:40:25] the potential that certain types of projects would've gotten different bonus

[1:40:30] density treatment due to the subjective nature of the bonus densities through the

[1:40:34] IHO. If somebody's really excited about something, they might be a little bit more

[1:40:39] generous in handing out some bonus density for this or this.

[1:40:45] I'm

[1:40:47] almost getting the impression that

[1:40:51] you're advocating that it's development type agnostic, so long as it still

[1:40:56] complies. To use an extreme example, workforce housing is also allowed at

[1:41:02] the time under IHO, right?

[1:41:05] That's not true.

[1:41:07] Yeah. No, it is.

[1:41:08] That's not true. We had a standalone

[1:41:11] workforce housing unit.

[1:41:13] Yeah. What about-

[1:41:14] I think it was modified after 2020 to incorporate

[1:41:20] into IHO.

[1:41:22] No. If you look up the regs that we have in our Dropbox, it's one of the three

[1:41:28] types. It's elderly, PRD, and

[1:41:32] workforce. Those are the three that fall under IHO, at least as far as what we have

[1:41:37] in our Dropbox, which I assume to be the 2019 ordinance.

[1:41:40] Okay.

[1:41:41] So, if you assume a workforce project, they're

[1:41:47] allowed virtually unlimited density because it has to be economically viable.

[1:41:51] That's one of the conditions in workforce housing.

[1:41:54] So it would be entirely possible that they could go through with a workforce

[1:41:58] housing proposal under IHO and get awarded some huge number of units to make it

[1:42:04] economically feasible. Could you then

[1:42:09] say, after you get your conditional use permit for that, "We don't want to make

[1:42:14] that workforce anymore. We want to make that market-rate housing." And what would

[1:42:18] be the difference between going from

[1:42:21] basically a mixed-use development plan PRD to an elderly house?

[1:42:26] Because I think the difference on that is basically the direction the restriction's

[1:42:30] flowing. That in your design where we say, "Let's pick 200 units of workforce

[1:42:35] housing," if we then say, "No, we want to do market rate," any bonuses we received

[1:42:41] in density due to workforce conditions at the IHO and state regulations, you can't

[1:42:46] then go backwards to the less restrictive.

[1:42:49] Whereas we receive a certain amount of density based on unrestricted, and then

[1:42:55] decided willingly to make it more restrictive.

[1:42:57] So at the same time, if we were approved for 54 and decided that, okay, now we'd

[1:43:03] prefer to make them workforce, I think we probably have the right to make that more

[1:43:08] restrictive. That's not obviously what we're proposing, but is that you can't go

[1:43:12] back to the less restrictive from the more restrictive because that's how we

[1:43:15] achieve the density. I think you kind of answered the question, too, in the way you

[1:43:20] presented that, is that workforce is an exception, right?

[1:43:23] You can have a lot more density because there's an economically

[1:43:28] viable analysis for that. That leaves the calculation of

[1:43:35] density or any of these criteria. So it's really different.

[1:43:41] When you look at the criteria that we're talking about and the reports that

[1:43:45] supported it, fiscal impact, traffic,

[1:43:51] all of those reports get better if you more restrict it the way we're doing.

[1:43:56] The fiscal impact gets better, meaning it's a net positive in the right direction

[1:44:02] for 55 and older. The traffic comes down because there's less peak users, so

[1:44:08] it's better for the surrounding areas.

[1:44:12] But I think a board does have to consider that potential

[1:44:18] change. But what I do think is important is that the conditions don't

[1:44:24] mention a breakdown or diversity of housing.

[1:44:27] The list in the

[1:44:33] density bonuses is not tied to market rate.

[1:44:38] It just says, "This is how many minimum

[1:44:46] two bedrooms you have to have. This is how many single floor units you have to

[1:44:50] have. This is how many attached units you have to have, how many ADA units you have

[1:44:55] to have, how many two bedrooms you have to have." And then there was one section

[1:45:00] for the elderly 62 and older, "This is how many you have to have to get the density

[1:45:05] bonus." We meet all of those criteria, even in a 55 and older development.

[1:45:10] So, which you said is allowed under the section.

[1:45:15] When you look at amenities, the amenities are not necessarily an

[1:45:20] age-based amenity, right? You're talking about, will the site be

[1:45:25] walkable?

[1:45:28] Are there improved access to public spaces?

[1:45:31] Community space open to the public, community space restricted to residents, open

[1:45:36] space under restrictive covenant, open space improved and open to the public.

[1:45:42] Rental restrictions,

[1:45:46] repurposing existing structures, utility betterments.

[1:45:50] None of those are specific to a market rate versus

[1:45:56] 55 and older. We're further restricting it.

[1:45:59] We're improving the impacts on the neighborhood, and we're trying to address one of

[1:46:05] the concerns that the board that denied the application had with the project.

[1:46:09] And so it was a progressive, productive attempt to make this more palatable for

[1:46:16] the board.

[1:46:19] And I guess just two more questions.

[1:46:25] When this was initially proposed, it was proposed as an elderly in

[1:46:31] the conceptual or design review stage,

[1:46:36] a conceptual

[1:46:39] elderly housing development. And then there were some discussions.

[1:46:43] Obviously, it's been kind of hard to figure out what exactly happened back there,

[1:46:47] but it sounds like there was some discussion with Town Hall about not-- I think you

[1:46:52] went in for 66 units or something like that in the conceptual stage or design

[1:46:56] review.

[1:46:58] That predated the IHO. It predated us.

[1:47:02] That plan was actually done by a different company, and it utilized the

[1:47:07] property differently. They went way into the back.

[1:47:10] They were not preserving open space areas. There was not site amenities.

[1:47:15] And so you can't really evaluate that proposal.

[1:47:18] It was a completely different regulation.

[1:47:22] And then the IHO regulations came out, and they started evaluating elderly under

[1:47:26] that same regulation, and it had the same density provisions.

[1:47:31] So I just want to be careful how we compare that.

[1:47:34] Okay. All right. I guess I'll probably go. Last question.

[1:47:39] This has obviously been proposed as a PRD all along.

[1:47:44] Still even to your last filing here, it's still calling it a PRD.

[1:47:49] Is that a fair set of rules to evaluate it under or...?

[1:47:55] I would have to look at the IHO, but I think the PRD is a section in that

[1:48:00] development, so-

[1:48:01] Right. Yeah. PRD, elderly, and workforce, those all fall under.

[1:48:06] You have to pick one of the three when you do an IHO application.

[1:48:10] Okay. I don't have the ordinance in front of me, but that could be.

[1:48:14] Yeah. So if there was no development type, there'd really be no rules on the

[1:48:18] development other than setting up number of units you could have, and that would be

[1:48:22] pretty much it. That's pretty much all the IHO does.

[1:48:25] It's the mechanism of implementation for those other three.

[1:48:28] It was a very short regulation when we were working with it.

[1:48:31] Yeah.

[1:48:32] It's been improved over time.

[1:48:33] Yep.

[1:48:34] It was expanded over time, but there was basically a worksheet to work with when we

[1:48:38] were dealing with it in the early stages.

[1:48:41] Yeah.

[1:48:41] And so when you think about it, when we got the conditional use permit in 2019,

[1:48:46] that's the IHO regulations that we were vested under.

[1:48:49] Yep.

[1:48:50] Not the ones in 2000, when we got the denial.

[1:48:54] Okay.

[1:48:54] So I just want to make sure we're talking about the right regulation.

[1:48:58] Yep.

[1:48:59] So looking at it under the planned residential development section of our

[1:49:03] ordinance, it

[1:49:06] goes into that because that's what it's called.

[1:49:08] There are certain things we have to look at.

[1:49:11] I just want to make sure because we're talking elderly PRD.

[1:49:17] I'm not sure we can change it at this point because-

[1:49:20] I mean, we would have addressed all that criteria then if that's the case.

[1:49:22] Yeah. Okay. That's what town hall, that's what staff means-

[1:49:25] You don't complete the PRD ordinance piece of it, because that was a standalone

[1:49:30] piece, right?

[1:49:32] No. Well, I mean, it's a separate part of the ordinance, but the IHO said that-

[1:49:36] Yeah, okay

[1:49:36] ... those three fall-- The IHO is the mechanism of implementation, I think, is

[1:49:42] exactly what it says-

[1:49:43] But my point is the PRD still exists.

[1:49:47] Right. It's different now, but it does still exist.

[1:49:50] Okay. Do you know what changes were made?

[1:49:54] The PRD ordinance that exists today is quite a bit different than the one that

[1:49:59] we're-

[1:49:59] Okay.

[1:50:00] There are a lot of changes to it.

[1:50:02] Okay.

[1:50:03] I mean, it caps density to 125% for PRDs.

[1:50:10] There were a number of other things.

[1:50:11] Clearly defined visual qualities of the environment, certain things like

[1:50:17] that.

[1:50:18] Yeah.

[1:50:18] So much different.

[1:50:21] Okay.

[1:50:22] Okay, I guess I'm all set.

[1:50:25] I have a question about the condo docs.

[1:50:28] Sure.

[1:50:29] I think it's listed as age 62 for the age restriction.

[1:50:32] Correct.

[1:50:33] Should that be 65?

[1:50:34] Was based on the federal rule, that was part of what came through from the

[1:50:38] previous, let's go with Kirk Fuckle, from the debate about the-

[1:50:44] Oh. It was changed, okay.

[1:50:47] Again, the documents from the housing appeals board, as approved, talk about

[1:50:52] complying both with town and federal laws.

[1:50:55] Okay.

[1:50:56] So that's not a typo. It was a-

[1:50:59] Okay

[1:50:59] ... purpose.

[1:51:00] All right. And then you're keeping the seven rental units?

[1:51:03] Yes.

[1:51:03] Just to confirm. All right. Those are the only questions we had.

[1:51:06] Yeah. Get back to the density calculation.

[1:51:11] I know at one point you were wanting to convert the rentals to

[1:51:17] selling units. Okay.

[1:51:22] What is your plan on that?

[1:51:26] The plan is to keep the rentals, because I think we had a conversation early on,

[1:51:31] and I don't know if you were at that meeting, but just for updating.

[1:51:35] It was clearly stated that that would appear to be a change to the conditional use

[1:51:40] permit. And so, we were not interested in revisiting that, and so we

[1:51:46] still have the rental restrictions incorporated in the project.

[1:51:50] And your HOA plan, I didn't get all the way through it.

[1:51:56] Reading those documents is not my forte.

[1:52:00] Addresses people who are renting

[1:52:05] there, and I guess who owns the properties that they're renting, I guess is

[1:52:11] really the question.

[1:52:13] Yeah, those are all very fair questions that we're not at

[1:52:19] the point of determining that yet.

[1:52:21] I will say that there will be more notations of

[1:52:27] documents. They're currently, I believe, with town council again, hopefully. Okay.

[1:52:33] Yeah.

[1:52:34] So we'll keep working on that. And then again, the attorney general's office also

[1:52:38] gets a review of the documents for a condominium development of this size.

[1:52:44] So assuming we're approved for this piece, we can figure out the mechanism of

[1:52:50] if it's association-owned or if it's

[1:52:54] maintained by a carry-on successor owner of those seven units.

[1:53:00] There's multiple options, and some of it comes down to just business decisions of

[1:53:03] how our client would prefer to operate those.

[1:53:08] Okay. And

[1:53:10] just to kind of put it in perspective, all of the existing units along Rocky Hill

[1:53:16] Road, I believe, are rental units right now.

[1:53:19] That's correct.

[1:53:21] And there's rental units on the property right now, and so there's a good

[1:53:26] likelihood that our client may choose to retain them and just rent them out.

[1:53:31] But,

[1:53:33] that's the plan.

[1:53:36] So through the condominium documents, they're not

[1:53:41] segmented out. So if they maintain either ownership by our client or are sold

[1:53:48] for the use of rentals to an entity that conglomerate owns those units, they would

[1:53:53] still each be entitled to a vote under the regulations, same as any other

[1:53:59] individual unit owner.

[1:54:00] Now you bring up another question.

[1:54:02] Somebody, another entity came in and bought those rental units.

[1:54:07] Is there anything in the thing that says they always have to stay rental units,

[1:54:11] they can no longer be-

[1:54:15] They're deed restricted.

[1:54:16] Right.

[1:54:17] It says in it that the IHO regulation requires that they're deed restricted.

[1:54:25] And I will say, I just opened the 2019 IHO regulation.

[1:54:29] There's no reference to the PRD in there. It's a separate section.

[1:54:32] Section 416 was the IHO,

[1:54:37] and the PRD is actually 417.

[1:54:42] Right. But it also says in the IHO, that's the mechanism of implementation for

[1:54:47] those other sections.

[1:54:50] Can I repeat one slide?

[1:54:57] P1?

[1:54:57] Yeah.

[1:55:03] Okay. That's fair. Good. I thought you meant they were in the same section.

[1:55:07] No.

[1:55:09] I think-

[1:55:10] Go ahead.

[1:55:11] Excuse me, Pam. Just were you also done?

[1:55:13] Yeah.

[1:55:14] Okay.

[1:55:15] Going back to the rentals.

[1:55:19] Are most of these units that are going to be sold are going to be owner-occupied?

[1:55:24] And if they're owner-occupied, can they rent it out?

[1:55:27] We don't have a restriction presently drafted.

[1:55:31] I don't know what your short-term or long-term rental rules in this town are.

[1:55:36] Because a lot of people-

[1:55:37] We have none

[1:55:38] ... that live in condominiums, they rent, they started out as something,

[1:55:44] and then they moved away because they wanted to kind of-- And then they rent their

[1:55:49] units out for years.

[1:55:51] Mm-hmm.

[1:55:52] Or months or whatever, kind of thing.

[1:55:54] So that's what I was kind of wondering, because I was trying to read the documents,

[1:55:58] going, "I don't understand a lot of it." But that's what I was wondering is if it's

[1:56:03] owner-occupied, are they allowed to rent their properties out for months

[1:56:08] or years of the summer or maybe just sublet them out?

[1:56:13] I didn't specifically restrict that piece of that in here.

[1:56:19] One thing about writing as declarant in these versus as the

[1:56:25] board and unit owners later is if they determine that we'd like people

[1:56:31] to own or occupy these, or we absolutely hate short-term renters or whatever the

[1:56:35] case may be, there are opportunities to amend based on a certain amount of vote.

[1:56:41] So this is still New Hampshire and a live free or die process here that

[1:56:48] Mr. Tancredi is not going to be the end user living in these.

[1:56:52] So I try not to put my thumb too hard on the scale for those decisions that will

[1:56:56] eventually be made by the owners. But your question, again, is very well taken.

[1:57:01] Sure, but just bring something about that again.

[1:57:04] All those properties are going to be restricted to be 55 or older?

[1:57:10] Only one has to be 55.

[1:57:12] Right. And again, we're still working on the mechanism for how that will work.

[1:57:18] Again, in terms of compliance review,

[1:57:24] questions about if there's a restriction of 62 plus is that...

[1:57:32] Yes, it needs to be complied with. That's clear.

[1:57:34] But what level of restriction is necessary?

[1:57:37] Because I don't want to necessarily devalue a property owner's--

[1:57:42] Nobody prefers deed restrictions where they're unnecessary.

[1:57:45] As title is run and you try to divest yourself of that property.

[1:57:49] So if a 55-year-old buys it and lives there for 15 years, at some point, seven

[1:57:55] years in, they're 62. Trying to figure out how compliance with that required

[1:58:01] mix of 14 and 62 units is something that I'd actually ask the

[1:58:06] board what the general preference is for that piece of this.

[1:58:10] You're not even going that far. You're selling this-

[1:58:13] 65

[1:58:14] ... as a 55 plus community.

[1:58:17] Mm-hmm.

[1:58:18] Okay? How are you going to ensure

[1:58:22] That the properties stay 55 plus.

[1:58:25] Yeah.

[1:58:25] I kind of look at this as there's companies out there that have

[1:58:31] a bunch of houses and use them for corporate leases for people that are coming in

[1:58:37] for three or six or eight months. Okay?

[1:58:41] That's one of the things that's created some of the housing shortage nationwide.

[1:58:46] I see 50 homes going in there,

[1:58:51] somebody buying up a few of those and utilizing them as that where you no longer

[1:58:55] have 55 plus. So how are we going to prevent things like

[1:59:01] that happening? And like I said, I haven't gotten through the whole document, and I

[1:59:05] probably don't understand it well enough anyways, so I'm kind of looking for the

[1:59:11] 30 second elevator pitch just saying, "Here's how we're going to control that."

[1:59:15] Yeah. So again, because you have control through a board of directors of the

[1:59:18] association as voted on by their peer owners here, what you have, you also have

[1:59:24] the same general mechanisms of if you're parking a junk car on your lot, they

[1:59:30] can tell you why you can't do that. At the same time, there is the clear

[1:59:34] restriction that the whole community is 55 plus, 30% of it, 14 units, is

[1:59:40] 62 plus. So there's the opportunity for self-policing via the board here as

[1:59:45] well, and then in compliance with FHA regulations.

[1:59:48] I know.

[1:59:49] So the homeowners association-

[1:59:52] It's going to be addressed in the homeowners association.

[1:59:56] It's 55 and older, and so you have to be 55 and older to buy in one person.

[2:00:01] But what if you have a 39-year-old living with you?

[2:00:04] You can. One person-

[2:00:06] Two households.

[2:00:07] Yeah.

[2:00:07] I mean, yeah. You could, yeah. But

[2:00:11] in the 55, you have to meet the 55 and older requirement.

[2:00:15] Right.

[2:00:15] Yeah. I mean, you got Summerfield right down the road.

[2:00:18] I mean, 55 and older developments are very common.

[2:00:21] It's regulated, it's quite successful, um-

[2:00:24] I'm just trying to understand how this is going to be regulated successfully.

[2:00:29] Right. Yeah.

[2:00:30] On that. And to me, that's an important-

[2:00:35] Sure

[2:00:35] ... feature in whether or not this is a viable subdivision, right?

[2:00:40] Because how are we going to

[2:00:43] ensure that? I understand keeping the rentals, that's great.

[2:00:46] Are we just going to covet those so I don't get a bunch of college kids

[2:00:52] renting those? Okay, so these are...

[2:00:57] Right.

[2:00:57] Rentals make it a little more challenging.

[2:01:00] So it's restricted. I mean, you have to meet that criteria in order to

[2:01:06] buy into the development. Right. Early on in this document, at the 2.7 statement of

[2:01:10] condominium use, the condominium is exclusively intended for age-restricted

[2:01:14] residential use and occupancy. In all units, at least one full-time resident must

[2:01:19] be age 55 or over. In 14 units, one full-time resident must be age 62 or over.

[2:01:26] Um, and then that you're allowed to have your kids or short-term guests visit at a

[2:01:32] younger age, but less relevant. So there are these mechanisms and there is

[2:01:36] enforcement through here. Again, some of it does come down to while we

[2:01:42] are declarant and owner, we market these as 55 and 62 restricted units.

[2:01:48] I see that there is conceivably some potential that some 39-year-old, which is

[2:01:54] my age, decides that I want to move desperately into a 55 plus community.

[2:01:59] But I think because we control the original sales, we will be

[2:02:05] compliant with that, and then I think inertia goes as a 55 plus community.

[2:02:09] Okay, but here I'm a 73-year-old, and let me decide I'm going to buy up six of

[2:02:13] those and I'm going to use them as corporate housing and get $3,000 a

[2:02:19] month for people that are working in the area for six months at a time.

[2:02:23] But it'd be non-compliant, and then the homeowners association could...

[2:02:29] There's a legal mechanism to stop you from doing that.

[2:02:32] Right. That's what I'm asking. That's what I'm trying to understand.

[2:02:36] Yes.

[2:02:36] Here, so.

[2:02:37] Yeah. These documents are enforceable.

[2:02:39] They'll be enforced by the homeowners association.

[2:02:42] There's

[2:02:43] rules and bylaws as well.

[2:02:45] I mean, how, if, as Doug says, if

[2:02:51] somebody buys a unit and they comply, if there's no deed restriction,

[2:03:00] which would tie it to financing.

[2:03:03] If there's financing.

[2:03:05] If there's financing. But, I mean,

[2:03:09] what enforcement options are there?

[2:03:12] I mean, a homeowners association can't

[2:03:18] file a lien or can't-

[2:03:21] Yes, they can.

[2:03:22] Oh, they can? Yeah.

[2:03:22] Yes, absolutely. Yeah, and this is like, I mean, think about it.

[2:03:25] Well, first of all, I really think in a housing situation like this-

[2:03:29] Oh, yeah

[2:03:29] ... we would have issues like this all over the place.

[2:03:31] I agree.

[2:03:32] We've done a lot of these types of developments, and they self-police very well.

[2:03:37] Retired people self-police very well.

[2:03:40] I mean-

[2:03:43] We do.

[2:03:46] I would be willing to bet Gloria could attest to that.

[2:03:50] I mean, they spend a lot of time-

[2:03:54] Walking around

[2:03:56] ... walking around.

[2:03:57] Patrolling. Virtual patrolling.

[2:04:00] Mr. Lee, just because I happen to get to this answer in your lien question, is 7.7

[2:04:05] of the bylaws, enforcement of liens for unpaid common charges.

[2:04:08] The association shall have a lien on a unit for any assessment levied against the

[2:04:11] unit which remained unpaid, plus any interest accrued on said assessment from the

[2:04:17] time the assessment is made. The association's lien may be foreclosed in like

[2:04:21] manner as a mortgage on real estate.

[2:04:22] The provisions of RSA 356B.46 are expressly incorporated into the provision of this

[2:04:28] section.

[2:04:29] Okay.

[2:04:30] That's, again, not directly on point to the first question, but there is a

[2:04:35] statutory right to lien here.

[2:04:37] Okay.

[2:04:37] And 55, I would say, and this is my take, but I would say this development

[2:04:43] being all 55 and older is far more enforceable than a blended community

[2:04:49] where you're expected to see a playground, and you're expected to see 55 and older,

[2:04:54] which is what was kind of happening with the original plan.

[2:04:59] This community, I mean,

[2:05:04] it's not just who's living there, it's the activity outside.

[2:05:07] It's the stuff that comes with a younger family or whatever.

[2:05:13] It just is not acceptable in a community like this. It wouldn't.

[2:05:17] It just doesn't exist.

[2:05:19] Yeah. Right. Just... You all set?

[2:05:24] I guess just one general comment and we'll go to you.

[2:05:28] One of the things, since we're on the topic of the condo docs, I have never seen a

[2:05:32] situation where you're

[2:05:38] bumping up against federal and state law, obviously, with HOPA on this.

[2:05:42] And generally speaking, a homeowners association can be one or the other.

[2:05:47] It can be 55 plus or 62 plus. But I've never seen anywhere where it can be

[2:05:53] both. And I think there are actually some towns in New Hampshire that don't allow

[2:05:59] those two to be commingled. I forget the name of the town offhand, but I did find

[2:06:04] one. So, I think you got to be really careful with how you do this.

[2:06:08] I mean, I've seen one way of doing it is having a master association with two

[2:06:11] sub-associations or something like that where they're separate.

[2:06:14] Because I think we're obviously getting bonus density to make sure that

[2:06:21] one part is 55 plus and one is 62 plus.

[2:06:23] Right.

[2:06:24] And I think the way these documents are written right now won't ensure that.

[2:06:28] But I think town council went through and put a bunch of 62s here and there because

[2:06:34] there weren't any in the original document.

[2:06:35] I think that's probably the way you intended it, because I think you intended it to

[2:06:39] be 55 plus, and then also say some can be 62 plus.

[2:06:44] But I don't think those would be legally 62 plus.

[2:06:46] I think that would open you up to some problems, with age discrimination.

[2:06:52] Yeah.

[2:06:52] So what if somebody that was over 55 but was, let's say 61,

[2:06:58] and wanted to buy one of those units that was 62 plus? How would you stop them?

[2:07:03] Yeah. And that is, again, the FHA piece of all of that.

[2:07:06] Right.

[2:07:09] So I don't know. I think those documents have a ways to go.

[2:07:15] Look, I'm no expert, but I have operated condo associations before.

[2:07:20] I've just never seen that. So I think it's a similar problem you would've bumped

[2:07:23] into with the way it was before, so.

[2:07:26] Okay

[2:07:27] ... of financial management people that do the finances, and the HOA takes care

[2:07:33] of everything around them. At least of the HOAs that I've dealt with.

[2:07:37] Yeah.

[2:07:37] They have two separate things. One's financial, one's maintenance. I get your call.

[2:07:42] Okay. I just have,

[2:07:46] well, a comment and question.

[2:07:50] I would direct you for the purposes of

[2:07:56] looking at short-term rentals. We did just pass a short-term rental

[2:08:02] restriction, so you'll want to take a look at that, and it should be

[2:08:08] referenced or addressed

[2:08:10] in your documents.

[2:08:13] In terms of compliance, it's like people when they're--

[2:08:20] I mean, I've never bought a place with the expectation that I'm going to just rent

[2:08:25] it out short-term.

[2:08:26] Right.

[2:08:26] But there are those that do, and I think we need to be explicit about

[2:08:32] that's not something that's allowed in Amherst.

[2:08:35] So

[2:08:39] my question is, what--

[2:08:44] I'm not going to say in here you can't sell illegal drugs out of your unit or

[2:08:49] something like that either, because there are certain things where anybody buying a

[2:08:53] building understands compliance with.

[2:08:57] I think that if I were going to buy one of these for the explicit purpose of

[2:09:01] renting them short-term, as part of my due diligence, I need to know what the

[2:09:07] local restriction is, and I don't think that comes from the condominium documents

[2:09:11] because this is conceivably a largely perpetual document, whereas short-term

[2:09:17] housing may be the coolest thing in the world in two decades.

[2:09:20] But the condominium-

[2:09:22] I doubt that very seriously, but-

[2:09:24] I do too. But you know,

[2:09:27] the IHO existed for a while too, and these things.

[2:09:30] So it's-

[2:09:31] All right. Fair enough. I mean, I just bring it up as an issue.

[2:09:35] I don't disagree with you. I'm just not sure condominium documents are the

[2:09:38] mechanism for alerting someone that their business model isn't appropriate or

[2:09:43] permitted.

[2:09:43] That would be why we passed the ordinance. Yeah.

[2:09:46] That would be-

[2:09:47] I mean, if I was targeting short-term rentals, I probably wouldn't target a

[2:09:51] restricted development.

[2:09:53] No, fair enough. The other question I have is,

[2:09:59] and I don't want to open up a whole can of worms here, but

[2:10:02] are there waiver

[2:10:08] requests

[2:10:11] as a part of this application?

[2:10:13] I mean, I think-

[2:10:16] Because the

[2:10:18] staff report indicates that in 2020,

[2:10:23] planning board denied waiver requests for environmental, hydrogeology, and traffic

[2:10:28] studies. I know we have traffic studies.

[2:10:30] We have all of those.

[2:10:31] We have all of those studies.

[2:10:32] Yeah.

[2:10:32] And so in lieu of the waiver, you

[2:10:38] guys prepared the applicable studies and that's all taken care of.

[2:10:41] Yeah. Those were-

[2:10:42] So there are no other... I mean, there were-

[2:10:46] We did get waivers on road width, I believe.

[2:10:49] Right. Those-

[2:10:49] And those were approved already.

[2:10:52] Right. Okay.

[2:10:53] Yeah.

[2:10:54] Okay. So your position is that they would be part of this approval as well?

[2:10:58] Oh, yeah.

[2:10:58] Part of this application.

[2:10:59] Yeah. I think that they got remanded back to the board, which means all votes that

[2:11:05] the board had, in my opinion, all votes that the board had on the application up to

[2:11:09] that point are valid.

[2:11:11] Okay. All right. Fair enough. Like I said, I didn't want to open up a whole can of

[2:11:15] worms. I just wanted to-

[2:11:17] No new waivers.

[2:11:19] No new waivers. Okay. We're all good here. Anybody in the audience?

[2:11:24] Nobody? Nobody online? All right.

[2:11:30] I don't know. What's everybody's druthers right now?

[2:11:36] I'm a little concerned that condo docs aren't really that close yet, I don't think,

[2:11:40] but...

[2:11:43] I mean, typically we make those a conditional approval because we don't really

[2:11:49] have all that much to do with them anyway.

[2:11:51] Yeah.

[2:11:52] But I would defer to

[2:11:56] whatever we would do.

[2:11:59] Fair

[2:12:01] enough.

[2:12:01] Well, we can have a vote. We'll table the conversation.

[2:12:04] And we're dealing all the notifications.

[2:12:05] Yes.

[2:12:06] We also didn't discuss phasing.

[2:12:09] Yeah. I mean, why don't we talk about phasing?

[2:12:13] I mean, I feel comfortable saying just go for it.

[2:12:19] Yeah.

[2:12:21] I mean, we do have phasing in our ordinance.

[2:12:24] Yep.

[2:12:25] And that is where something this size would be four years, wouldn't it?

[2:12:31] Well, it says ours goes up to 20 lots.

[2:12:34] So it says that takes four years, and then not more than 25% of the dwelling units

[2:12:40] receiving building permits in any one-year period.

[2:12:43] Not more than 20%.

[2:12:44] 25.

[2:12:45] 25%.

[2:12:46] Lots. Right. And it's, it talks about-

[2:12:49] I mean, but the

[2:12:53] applicant is correct that the reason for phasing is not only is

[2:12:59] traffic impacts and school impacts and all of that.

[2:13:04] But the reality of the marketplace is that they're not going to be able to build

[2:13:10] and sell 50 units in-

[2:13:14] Mm-hmm

[2:13:15] ... less than four years in. I mean, I don't think.

[2:13:20] I mean, look at what Brett Blonds' doing, and he's building three houses a year.

[2:13:26] Yeah.

[2:13:27] But then there was also that little one by local school.

[2:13:31] They put them all up pretty much at once.

[2:13:32] Yeah.

[2:13:34] The one on, was it-

[2:13:35] They're not all sold, though.

[2:13:36] No, they're almost there. I think they just sold the last one.

[2:13:40] Yeah. The last one, I think, is one-

[2:13:41] But those all were pretty much built at once.

[2:13:43] It's pretty fast. Yeah.

[2:13:44] So.

[2:13:46] So the proposed conditions,

[2:13:50] we have a couple of questions and comments, and that also does include phasing,

[2:13:55] which we flagged for discussion. It might make sense to just work through-

[2:13:59] Okay

[2:13:59] ... staff's list.

[2:14:00] Okay.

[2:14:04] For the first-- Second. Excuse me.

[2:14:07] For conditions precedent on 12 is the development

[2:14:12] agreement. I think that generally probably relates to a more

[2:14:18] complex project, a little less homogenous than the type of housing we're

[2:14:24] building here. I don't know your thoughts on a development agreement in addition to

[2:14:29] approval.

[2:14:31] Okay. Any thoughts?

[2:14:34] No.

[2:14:34] Well, I mean, I think typically development agreements are when there are, or

[2:14:39] relate to timing of exactments and timing of infrastructure

[2:14:45] improvements-

[2:14:45] Right

[2:14:46] ... or public improvements.

[2:14:49] There aren't a lot of those.

[2:14:51] And that's really nothing. And I don't see that section in the 2019 version of the

[2:14:57] IHO. Am I missing something, Britt?

[2:15:05] Because that section was 4.16, and this is

[2:15:10] 5.084.

[2:15:12] There's a section 4.16, and then there's also-

[2:15:16] Those are the regulations. Yeah. You would call that-

[2:15:19] The part five. Yeah.

[2:15:23] I mean, is it necessary to, and maybe I haven't gotten

[2:15:29] a chance to go through this whole big document yet, but

[2:15:36] is it

[2:15:39] necessary to

[2:15:43] craft an agreement with the town with regard to

[2:15:50] payment and timing of inspections or

[2:15:57] other actions

[2:16:01] by the town for the development?

[2:16:08] I mean, having had recent experience in that regard.

[2:16:11] Oh, just a lot of quick points of clarification.

[2:16:14] The 5.4 does say, "Execution of a development agreement or other similar

[2:16:20] instruments specifying the phasing, timing, and sequence of the improvements within

[2:16:24] the IHO project." So I guess it doesn't have to be a development agreement if

[2:16:28] there's something else that addresses those

[2:16:32] criteria.

[2:16:34] Like a deed?

[2:16:34] A what?

[2:16:35] Yeah, like a random agreement or something like that.

[2:16:40] I mean, especially with something that lays out dates.

[2:16:42] We also have, as we continue through here, there's questions about when the project

[2:16:47] bests number of complete, and I think-

[2:16:50] I feel like your conditional approval letters are becoming a development agreement.

[2:16:54] They're very thorough.

[2:16:56] They detail a lot.

[2:17:01] And I mean that in a very-

[2:17:02] No, it is-

[2:17:03] I mean that in a very positive direction. But it is very itemized, which is...

[2:17:10] It does outline everything that you would see in a development agreement.

[2:17:14] I think so.

[2:17:15] And so I would suggest that if we can walk through this, that this document

[2:17:21] in the way it's presented addresses all the elements.

[2:17:24] Approval with conditions, which would outline-

[2:17:27] Yeah, the impact fees, the launch-

[2:17:29] Okay. So what else?

[2:17:32] Okay. Conditions subsequent. Number

[2:17:38] nine, all work on the roads shall be subject to the monitoring and oversight of the

[2:17:42] director of public works and town's consultant engineer at the applicant's expense,

[2:17:46] bonding for the road, road acceptance by the town, if applicable, inspections,

[2:17:51] as-built plans, and any other applicable regulations as detailed in Section 211 of

[2:17:56] the Amer Subdivision regulations are required.

[2:17:59] With roads intended to be kept private throughout,

[2:18:06] that seems like a lot of inspections and a lot of time spent by town staff and

[2:18:11] consulting engineers. We typically do a restoration bond on

[2:18:17] private property like this, because there's no liability on the

[2:18:22] town at all, relative to people. They're not taking the road over, so

[2:18:28] the inspections are typically done.

[2:18:31] We do weekly inspections for stormwater and erosion control on projects as part of

[2:18:36] the alteration of train permit and EPA, general construction permit.

[2:18:42] But there's not typically an inspection requirement

[2:18:48] by

[2:18:50] the town or your consultant on private projects relative to that.

[2:18:56] Now we certainly have no objection to

[2:19:00] Mr. Keach or K&A inspecting stormwater elements.

[2:19:04] We have to do that as part of the alteration of train permit.

[2:19:08] But if the board feels that he needs to look at that element as it relates to

[2:19:12] making sure that there's compliance, we're fine with that, but-

[2:19:16] Will there be an engineer certification that the project

[2:19:23] meets or exceeds the standards in the approved documents?

[2:19:26] Yeah. We do provide that at the... We could do that as a compliance component of

[2:19:30] the project.

[2:19:31] Yeah. I mean-

[2:19:32] We have to do that for the alteration of train permits nowadays.

[2:19:35] Oh, okay.

[2:19:36] Where we have to certify that the elements were constructed in accordance with the

[2:19:41] plan.

[2:19:41] And what concerns me

[2:19:45] about that is that,

[2:19:49] fast forward 30 years from now,

[2:19:53] and you've got an owners' association that

[2:19:59] may or may not be adequately capitalized to deal with

[2:20:05] replacement of a roadway, and somebody's looking to the town saying, "How did you

[2:20:10] let them build this?"

[2:20:12] Which is kind of like Cub Circle comes to mind.

[2:20:19] So,

[2:20:22] I

[2:20:25] trust that it will be constructed correctly, don't get me wrong, but

[2:20:32] I don't want anything coming back to the town

[2:20:40] in general, or to this board specifically, to say, "You guys dropped the ball

[2:20:45] on this, and you let this developer get away with something."

[2:20:50] The other thing to consider that might be helpful is,

[2:20:55] Attorney Linnell mentioned the attorney general's process.

[2:20:58] Episode as well.

[2:20:59] The attorney general approval for a project like this over 25 units, requires that

[2:21:05] the developer bond the project through at that level.

[2:21:10] And so when

[2:21:12] local entities require it bonding, it's a double hit on the developer.

[2:21:18] So they do the research to make sure that it's secured,

[2:21:24] and they also require bonding at the AG level to make sure that future homeowners

[2:21:30] that are buying into the project don't have risk on that-

[2:21:33] So there's a bond in place for the benefit of homeowners?

[2:21:38] Yeah. That's part of-

[2:21:41] And how long does that bond stay in place?

[2:21:43] I don't know specifically. I have several AG approvals pending right now, so I

[2:21:48] could look into that, but-

[2:21:49] I mean, so, and it does raise another sort of check mark for your

[2:21:55] condominium documents.

[2:21:58] Yes.

[2:22:00] Given what has happened down in Florida with condominium associations and

[2:22:05] collapsing buildings because homeowners can't afford to fix them.

[2:22:12] It's an issue. And I would hope that the

[2:22:18] developer would be required to

[2:22:25] put the homeowners association off on the right foot with some level of

[2:22:30] capitalization for future improvements.

[2:22:32] I mean, I don't know whether that's standard, but

[2:22:37] adequate capitalization of these projects is something that I think is critical and

[2:22:42] probably is usually overlooked.

[2:22:45] Right. So one thing to consider, and I don't disagree with you at all, is

[2:22:50] capitalization for a building is way different than capitalization for

[2:22:55] infrastructure, like site work infrastructure.

[2:22:57] Right.

[2:22:58] And what I mean by that is there's a lifespan with everything.

[2:23:03] But when you look at a condominium association and creating capital accounts, which

[2:23:09] we don't really get involved in a lot, but they're starting at ground zero with a

[2:23:15] brand new construction project. So the pavement's not an issue for 15 to 20

[2:23:20] years, and so that capital account gets to grow

[2:23:26] for a long period of time.

[2:23:28] And there has to be allocations and stuff, but that is something that's policed by

[2:23:34] the homeowners association. And I just think that it's different when

[2:23:40] you're... And they own the building, so it's their own investment.

[2:23:43] They have to account for the structures themselves.

[2:23:48] The multifamily structures is a completely different animal.

[2:23:50] Yeah. Granted.

[2:23:52] Yeah.

[2:23:52] I'm not saying that that level of tragedy is going to happen here, but

[2:23:59] homeowners being who they are, have different

[2:24:03] levels of

[2:24:07] sophistication with regards to looking at those issues.

[2:24:11] And that's where-

[2:24:12] And sometimes, when you're writing that check to the homeowners association, it's

[2:24:15] like, "Huh, I wonder if there's any way to pair this back," so you get the board in

[2:24:20] place, and before you know it, there's no money to do what needs to be done.

[2:24:25] And that's where projects of, frankly, this size are more successful, because you

[2:24:30] have a more active and

[2:24:33] more vibrant

[2:24:36] homeowners association, typically, and the collection is

[2:24:41] better. I'm sure the enforcement's better. But, yeah.

[2:24:45] Okay.

[2:24:46] I just have one question. Since this is a 55 plus, will these roads be up to,

[2:24:51] because I'm sure there'll be a lot of ambulances and fire trucks that will be going

[2:24:55] in there. I know you kind of shrunk the roads. Are they going to be big enough?

[2:25:01] Because we have a big fire truck.

[2:25:03] Oh, yeah.

[2:25:04] I just want to make sure that they can get in and out safely.

[2:25:07] Yeah. The fire department actually has reviewed this plan, in the past.

[2:25:13] The width has changed, but we still have three points of access.

[2:25:17] It's very easily accessible travel-wise.

[2:25:22] The radiuses are favorable on the road.

[2:25:25] And more importantly, the depth of materials meets the regulations for the weight

[2:25:31] of vehicles. And then, on this site especially, we have very good soil, so even the

[2:25:37] underlying soils are quite favorable too. So those have been accounted for.

[2:25:41] Good question.

[2:25:44] What's next?

[2:25:47] On me?

[2:25:50] Number 10, homes in this development shall be chosen from the list of architectural

[2:25:54] options approved by this board, so on and so forth.

[2:25:58] We were hoping something like shall comply with the elements provided by the

[2:26:04] applicant as exemplars. Remember we had the four different...

[2:26:09] We had renderings for buildings. What we were representing is just architectural

[2:26:14] elements and nice architecture. But it wasn't a selection of, "Hey, pick

[2:26:20] this, pick this, pick this." Oh. And so, what is important here, I think,

[2:26:26] is to say that those features and elements will be adopted as part of

[2:26:32] the architectural standards for this plan.

[2:26:36] But we don't have four plans that...

[2:26:39] And we don't want to limit it to four plans either.

[2:26:41] We want the ability to make some modifications as long as the architectural

[2:26:47] elements are consistent with what was- So you're saying instead of shall be chosen

[2:26:52] from the list, should- Shall be consistent ...

[2:26:55] consistent with the plans with the architectural- Renderings provided by the

[2:27:01] applicant for board consideration. Yeah.

[2:27:04] And

[2:27:05] exactly.

[2:27:06] I have a question. So are all these homes going to be two bedroom or less?

[2:27:12] I believe, well, there's some duplexes.

[2:27:16] Yeah, I mean, so there'll be two bedrooms.

[2:27:20] What's likely to be

[2:27:23] the situation is two bedrooms in each unit with a study or a

[2:27:29] hobby room is pretty common. But yeah, it'll be the plan that we have is two

[2:27:34] bedrooms, for each unit.

[2:27:38] And are you going to vary the style of the buildings, or are they all going to be

[2:27:42] the same?

[2:27:43] We would like to vary the style of the buildings.

[2:27:45] We shared four different styles, which had two story and single story options.

[2:27:50] And the majority of these buildings really present inward,

[2:27:57] on the development. The backyards face the roads, and they present

[2:28:03] inward onto the private roads. And so, our intent is we

[2:28:09] want to create plans that match the architectural elements that we have

[2:28:15] provided as examples, because the final design for the plans haven't been completed

[2:28:21] yet.

[2:28:24] That's always something that kind of follows an approval. Right.

[2:28:32] Which brings us to 11, which is where we started.

[2:28:35] The phasing plan shall be as follows, referencing sheet 9B of the approved plan,

[2:28:40] and then an open bullet. So this is certainly open for

[2:28:46] interpretation. As we've discussed, we're not positive it's necessary as

[2:28:53] the elderly design reduces municipal services in terms of school, et cetera.

[2:28:59] So it's very common for boards of late.

[2:29:02] We had a lot of discussions with abutting properties, and everybody wants it to be

[2:29:08] phased to monitor the impact on municipal services.

[2:29:13] But when that doesn't exist, the general consensus always is, when can we just stop

[2:29:19] the construction phase? And so, often, we don't have anybody here this

[2:29:25] evening at this point, but we've found with similar projects, the 55

[2:29:31] and older projects, that especially ones that take access off of a highway like

[2:29:36] this, where the neighborhood is more inclined to just want to see it get to a

[2:29:41] finished construction window. And so we have the phasing plan still in the set,

[2:29:47] but we think it's a worthy discussion and dialogue that we'd like to entertain with

[2:29:53] the board.

[2:29:53] Well, I answered question number one.

[2:29:57] How many houses can a reasonable size crew build in a

[2:30:03] year? Yes, if you bring in a big enough crew, you could build them all in one year.

[2:30:08] And then I would worry about, are we doing the right protections of the

[2:30:11] environment-

[2:30:12] Oh

[2:30:12] ... and all the other stuff that goes on.

[2:30:14] So somewhere along the way, building 25% a year, you got

[2:30:21] 50 homes, so you're talking a dozen homes a year.

[2:30:25] Okay, you've got to put in the roadways and do all that other stuff at the same

[2:30:29] time.

[2:30:31] Yeah.

[2:30:32] How much faster do you think you can go?

[2:30:36] And

[2:30:37] so that would be one thing I would like to understand,

[2:30:42] doing it for your plan, understanding all the impacts and the monitoring and

[2:30:46] controls that you're going to have in place there.

[2:30:49] Yeah.

[2:30:49] How much can you ramp that up? And then where's the break point on your monitoring

[2:30:53] and controls?

[2:30:55] Yeah. That's a fair question and I think a great question.

[2:31:00] So,

[2:31:02] the site is actually quite favorable from an erosion and sedimentation control

[2:31:06] because it's a pretty flat site, right?

[2:31:08] So we're going to have perimeter controls and controls at the entrances and exits.

[2:31:13] And we do a weekly monitoring. That report is done for federal,

[2:31:20] and state compliance. And if we're tied to an MS4 system, it also helps with local

[2:31:25] compliance, which we're not.

[2:31:28] And so it's not really an issue of compliance because

[2:31:33] there's a very active monitoring process during a construction site.

[2:31:39] I would say that concern would be more relevant on a more challenging site with

[2:31:43] slopes, and can the contractor maintain that.

[2:31:47] We have very

[2:31:49] well-drained soils here. The stormwater in large parts can infiltrate.

[2:31:55] Once the improvements are done, the first thing that happens is the stormwater

[2:31:58] components. Those get stabilized.

[2:32:02] And so everything would be done in the appropriate fashion.

[2:32:04] In fact, we talk about this with the state permit through the Alteration of Terrain

[2:32:08] Bureau. They'll actually take a look at this.

[2:32:10] And generally speaking, they try to reduce the amount of area that's open unless

[2:32:16] you do weekly reporting and they get copies of the weekly reports.

[2:32:22] We have projects where they will respond to our weekly reports and say, "Hey, can

[2:32:26] they just take a look at this area and maybe try to stabilize that a little bit

[2:32:31] more?" It's quite active. It's a

[2:32:36] little more involved than it always has been.

[2:32:41] But

[2:32:43] your question about how fast could this be done, I bet you it's a three or

[2:32:47] four-year project from a marketing, constructing the homes, and selling it.

[2:32:53] The reality is, is you would end out with more of the infrastructure going in in

[2:32:58] that initial phase. So the roads would likely go in faster, and the infrastructure,

[2:33:04] meaning the water, the septics would go in with the units probably, but

[2:33:09] the stormwater would be in place. And so the large

[2:33:15] portion of the construction project might be done within the first two years.

[2:33:19] And then you would see the home sales and the lot development happen over probably

[2:33:23] three to four years, if there was no restrictions.

[2:33:26] If there's restrictions, then it's a more controlled build, which

[2:33:33] doesn't necessarily benefit anybody, in my opinion, in this setting when

[2:33:39] we have a 55 and older-

[2:33:40] So what's on sheet 9B, what did you

[2:33:46] propose back then that you wanted to go faster then?

[2:33:49] I don't have the sheet in front of me, so I don't know.

[2:33:52] Yeah, I'll try to-

[2:33:52] How different is it from your one to two years to get the infrastructure in place,

[2:33:58] and then three to four years to build out the homes?

[2:34:08] I hope you can read that.

[2:34:11] I'm going to do my best. We have the benefit of looking at it this afternoon

[2:34:14] together. So the first phase that we were proposing, with the original plan was,

[2:34:22] this first segment of road here, and we basically build the turnaround at the

[2:34:27] intersection.

[2:34:29] And I believe this is 12 homes in phase one. I can see your cursor.

[2:34:35] Yeah, I can't either.

[2:34:36] Can you see it there?

[2:34:37] Okay.

[2:34:37] It's so flush.

[2:34:38] All right.

[2:34:39] Ah, okay. Yeah. Sorry. And so this is phase one here.

[2:34:43] So you build this entrance, and then you build the turnaround here.

[2:34:48] You

[2:34:50] build all the infrastructure along this section with the stormwater up here at the

[2:34:54] entrance. And then you'd have 12 homes here. That was phase one.

[2:34:58] Okay, and how long does phase one take?

[2:35:02] That's, it'd be done within a year, I would say.

[2:35:05] So you'd be putting the roads, all the stormwater management, everything, and build

[2:35:08] 12 homes in a year?

[2:35:10] Oh, without a problem. We just had a project in Nashville, they did 36 in two

[2:35:15] years.

[2:35:18] This site is conducive to construction happening faster.

[2:35:24] The soils are very nice. The grading is very minimal.

[2:35:29] And it's kind of an open, in a large part, kind of an open area.

[2:35:36] So this site could be built faster.

[2:35:39] Well, so why wouldn't it make sense to,

[2:35:46] I guess from a marketing perspective, it seems to me that you would want to

[2:35:51] limit the construction traffic through a developed and sold part of the

[2:35:56] neighborhood.

[2:35:57] Right. And so that would-

[2:35:59] So,

[2:36:01] looking at this plan, it would make sense for me to go in and

[2:36:07] build all of that road.

[2:36:10] Correct. That's what we're asking them to do.

[2:36:13] And build up to,

[2:36:19] there's 12 and 17, up to 30 of the units in the first two years.

[2:36:27] Without restriction on whether it's in one year or in...

[2:36:30] But it's going to take you two years to build 30 units.

[2:36:33] Yeah, so that would be

[2:36:36] very practical.

[2:36:38] And then, so build all of the roads.

[2:36:42] So that would be where your substantial completion or your substantial improvements

[2:36:46] would come in, would be construction of the stormwater

[2:36:52] infrastructure and roads base course.

[2:36:57] And wetlands crossing.

[2:36:59] Yeah.

[2:36:59] And buffer and all that other stuff.

[2:37:01] Because you're going to want to do that upfront too, because your permit's only

[2:37:05] good for so long.

[2:37:06] Maybe five years. Yeah.

[2:37:08] I mean, the goal from an economic standpoint, the

[2:37:14] best way to build it is one contract.

[2:37:17] You get them in there, and they build the infrastructure.

[2:37:20] They're on-site, it's efficient, things are stabilized.

[2:37:25] And then you build the homes as the market allows.

[2:37:29] 30 within two years-

[2:37:30] Right

[2:37:30] ... would be very fair.

[2:37:32] Yeah.

[2:37:32] Very fair.

[2:37:33] So, you build the large spine road, and then maybe the other

[2:37:40] road closer to 122 is-

[2:37:43] Phase two

[2:37:44] ... another phase.

[2:37:45] Yeah. I would say this through road basically would

[2:37:50] be phase one, with the units along that phase,

[2:37:56] that's probably the 30, let's say.

[2:37:59] And then phase two would be this

[2:38:03] road closest to-

[2:38:05] Right

[2:38:05] ... the highway here.

[2:38:06] Right.

[2:38:07] That makes complete sense.

[2:38:11] What do you think, John?

[2:38:12] Yeah. Great.

[2:38:15] It would seem to make sense, though.

[2:38:18] You're right. I mean, it would be far less economical to bring guys in to do little

[2:38:22] stretches of it.

[2:38:23] Well, and that would also allow you to build the units.

[2:38:26] So you start at the stream and work your way south.

[2:38:30] Mm-hmm.

[2:38:30] And that way, all the construction, I mean, you've got to drive through the

[2:38:34] construction guys to get to your unit, but, I mean, it seems like you'd want to

[2:38:38] build your way out of the place.

[2:38:39] You go for it.

[2:38:40] Yep.

[2:38:41] I think that makes a lot of sense. That would be, I think, a much better plan.

[2:38:47] And I think that leads into the active and substantial development would be-

[2:38:52] Yeah

[2:38:53] ... seem reasonable that it's stormwater infrastructure, the main road,

[2:38:59] the longer loop, and then the wetlands crossing, which is a part of that.

[2:39:04] Yeah.

[2:39:05] Okay.

[2:39:05] Yeah.

[2:39:05] So something like that, is that something that you guys are looking for that phase?

[2:39:10] Here's what we would like to do.

[2:39:13] No, I think we're agreeing to that right now.

[2:39:15] No, you went the direction we were hoping.

[2:39:18] But, so-

[2:39:19] Okay

[2:39:20] ... so the first phase, which is one year, two years, 18 months,

[2:39:26] two and a half?

[2:39:27] Two years.

[2:39:27] The next two years.

[2:39:28] Okay.

[2:39:28] The first phase is the two years, and we can build up to 30 units in phase one.

[2:39:34] And then phase two would be the remainder of the units.

[2:39:39] Yeah.

[2:39:39] Over another two-year period.

[2:39:41] Yeah.

[2:39:43] Yeah, it's going to take at least that long.

[2:39:44] Yeah. Okay. But meanwhile, the stormwater, the environmental stuff, all gets

[2:39:50] done in phase one.

[2:39:52] Yeah. And that would be listed as the conditions of active and substantial

[2:39:55] development or building.

[2:39:57] Right. By allowing the through road to be built, you

[2:40:01] would be required to build all of the stormwater in phase one.

[2:40:05] And so that's a very solid plan.

[2:40:09] And it sets the table for development because we're not out of order at that point.

[2:40:13] We have-

[2:40:15] And the public improvements,

[2:40:18] like the community garden and all that, when does that fit in?

[2:40:22] Is that in phase two?

[2:40:23] So I think normally the public improvements are always part of that second phase.

[2:40:29] So you'd have the clubhouse, the community garden, and

[2:40:35] the rehab of the existing buildings, the community garden building and the other

[2:40:41] one. Those would be a phase two component, typically.

[2:40:45] And includes the walking trails and everything?

[2:40:48] Pardon?

[2:40:48] As well? Phase two would include the walking trails?

[2:40:51] Yeah, all the trails would be... I

[2:40:56] do agree that with the 30 units in phase one, I think the clubhouse, that

[2:41:02] should be allowed to be constructed in phase one, so that those...

[2:41:06] It's a complete remodel, right?

[2:41:09] Well, and it's also an amenity for those homes.

[2:41:12] Right. Yeah.

[2:41:12] So that was part of marketing, too.

[2:41:14] So you would put in that other road, the

[2:41:21] third one, the one in the middle that connects to, as part of phase one then, too?

[2:41:27] I think we're talking from, where's our arrow?

[2:41:31] So the northern most-

[2:41:32] Where's the clubhouse at?

[2:41:33] The clubhouse is right here.

[2:41:35] So the existing farmhouse.

[2:41:37] Yeah.

[2:41:37] So you do the big spine road, and you do that road to connect it.

[2:41:43] So if you're going to do the clubhouse, people have to be able to get to it.

[2:41:47] So there's got to be some way to get to it.

[2:41:49] If the other road is part of phase two, how will the existing residents get there?

[2:41:54] That could probably be graveled temporarily.

[2:41:55] And you don't want to route them through-

[2:41:58] There's options, because I was saying that could probably be graveled temporarily

[2:42:03] or something, because-

[2:42:04] Yeah. I'm just looking at-

[2:42:06] I mean, it's our savior

[2:42:07] ... the safety of the residents going through that, all active construction's going

[2:42:12] on.

[2:42:12] Agreed, and I think the reason we, you put in those more delicate

[2:42:18] amenities like the garden, et cetera, at the end is you don't want to hit them with

[2:42:22] a bulldozer.

[2:42:24] Yeah. Okay.

[2:42:28] That sound reasonable?

[2:42:28] Yeah.

[2:42:29] Okay.

[2:42:30] What are we talking about for substantial completion?

[2:42:33] Well-

[2:42:34] Oh, so-

[2:42:37] Substantial construction ... substantial construction, not completion.

[2:42:40] So we have two things. We have

[2:42:43] active and substantial development.

[2:42:45] Active construction.

[2:42:46] And substantial completion. So active and substantial development or building, and

[2:42:52] substantial completion improvements.

[2:42:55] Two different things.

[2:42:56] Yeah. I mean, substantial completion would be the roadway to...

[2:43:04] I mean, typically, what we've done in smaller developments is say active and

[2:43:08] substantial development is road and stormwater.

[2:43:11] Right.

[2:43:12] And then substantial completion is-

[2:43:15] Completion

[2:43:17] ... foundation in the ground or something like that.

[2:43:21] Oh, okay. I mean, or, uh-

[2:43:29] 25% of the house is done or something.

[2:43:32] Yeah. If he has phase... Well,

[2:43:39] completion of the public and shared facilities would be an important part

[2:43:45] of that.

[2:43:47] You know what I mean?

[2:43:48] Yeah.

[2:43:48] It's like public amenities and also the community amenities.

[2:43:52] Yep.

[2:43:53] So the trails, the community garden, the

[2:43:58] clubhouse, the community building, whatever that might be,

[2:44:05] as a-

[2:44:10] And it's not complete unless they build that stuff, because you're representing

[2:44:16] to your buyers that it's going to be there.

[2:44:18] Right.

[2:44:19] So-

[2:44:21] Your density bonus is based off of that, too.

[2:44:23] And the bonus is based off of that. That's... Yeah, that's an excellent point.

[2:44:30] So anything that you are taking,

[2:44:35] substantial completion would include any improvements that are part of the density

[2:44:41] calculations,

[2:44:45] plus any community

[2:44:49] facilities.

[2:44:52] And I honestly don't care when they build the houses.

[2:44:56] Yeah. I mean, the main thing to lock in, that's the seven-year, I mean, the

[2:45:01] ordinance change. You got to have the stormwater, the roads-

[2:45:05] Right

[2:45:05] ... and basically anything like that. That satisfies investing.

[2:45:11] That satisfies investing.

[2:45:13] Yeah. Right. So-

[2:45:15] And then the substantial completion could be all the amenities they're listing.

[2:45:19] Right.

[2:45:20] In the dense ones for that. I think we're-

[2:45:23] Did you get that?

[2:45:24] Yeah.

[2:45:24] Yes, I think we're in agreement.

[2:45:29] Did you get that? And then we're in-

[2:45:35] Come on, Gloria.

[2:45:37] Active construction-

[2:45:39] Yes

[2:45:40] ... is completion of the roads.

[2:45:44] Like all, all-

[2:45:45] Well, the main road and the stormwater.

[2:45:48] Okay.

[2:45:50] Right?

[2:45:50] And the wetlands.

[2:45:52] And the wetlands, correct.

[2:45:53] So it's a phase one road, which is the through road.

[2:45:55] Phase one road with the infrastructure in place.

[2:45:59] With the infrastructure.

[2:46:00] Phase one road.

[2:46:06] Yeah.

[2:46:08] With infrastructure.

[2:46:08] And then substantial completion is completion of

[2:46:13] all of the roadways, completion of all of the community facilities,

[2:46:21] and essentially anything that contributes to the density calculations we're

[2:46:26] going to mention. Is that fair?

[2:46:28] Yeah.

[2:46:29] Here's the part with the phasing plan, I think I missed it.

[2:46:32] Two phases.

[2:46:33] Phasing plan is two phases. The first phase is the main road,

[2:46:39] along with up to 30 units over a two-year period.

[2:46:43] Along with the stormwater management-

[2:46:45] Along with stormwater management-

[2:46:47] Wetlands

[2:46:47] ... and the wetland crossing.

[2:46:49] Yeah.

[2:46:49] And may include the clubhouse.

[2:46:52] And may include the clubhouse. Absolutely.

[2:46:57] And then

[2:47:02] the second phase is the rest of the other development, yeah.

[2:47:07] Yeah. Again.

[2:47:17] I think that's just the three line items. Yeah, conditions.

[2:47:20] We were fine with everything else.

[2:47:26] So there is

[2:47:30] the impact fee.

[2:47:32] Yeah.

[2:47:32] That'll be settled at the time of them.

[2:47:36] The question, I did have one question with the impact fee.

[2:47:39] Is that based on current or is it based on

[2:47:43] 2019 or 20-

[2:47:48] They didn't have them in 2019.

[2:47:50] I believe at the time of approval. So it would be

[2:47:56] the current, which I believe is 2023, actually.

[2:48:01] I can double-check that.

[2:48:03] Yeah. We just want it to be at the appropriate time.

[2:48:06] Yeah.

[2:48:06] We're not opposed to the condition, we just think it needs to apply to the

[2:48:10] appropriate date, that's all.

[2:48:15] But it does...

[2:48:17] I mean, are we collecting a

[2:48:22] typical residential with a school impact?

[2:48:26] I think that's all part of the residential one, isn't it?

[2:48:29] I mean, it's strict out for industrial, but-

[2:48:33] Ready?

[2:48:33] Are we collecting a school impact?

[2:48:35] That is part of it. You, as the board, do have the ability to get rid

[2:48:41] of any of the categories if you wish.

[2:48:44] So for example, like there's one for town roads,

[2:48:49] and we will often get rid of the town roads portion if it's on a state road.

[2:48:56] Oh, right. Right.

[2:48:59] So what else is there?

[2:49:00] It's up to you guys.

[2:49:00] I mean, that's it, there's a decode in place, so there's no-

[2:49:05] Yeah. It's police, fire, schools, town roads,

[2:49:10] recreation, I believe.

[2:49:13] And possibly one more. Let me double-check.

[2:49:20] It is-

[2:49:20] Did we... What did we do on the bottom?

[2:49:24] On the, with that two-block subdivision?

[2:49:28] I know on the, when we approved the guest house.

[2:49:33] That was a, I believe, a residential rate, wasn't it?

[2:49:38] Or maybe a-

[2:49:39] Didn't we do a hold on schools?

[2:49:41] I don't know. I don't recall.

[2:49:43] I mean, I guess, well, I just want to be consistent, that's all.

[2:49:52] I mean, I'm reluctant to waive a

[2:49:57] traffic impact

[2:50:00] fee because the reason is that this would have an impact on the network, not

[2:50:06] necessarily... Albeit minimal.

[2:50:10] I don't know how this-

[2:50:12] Well, I think that the traffic aspect of the impact fee, I mean, it's rarely for

[2:50:18] the just the street in front of your house.

[2:50:20] Right.

[2:50:20] It's for the entire system.

[2:50:22] Right.

[2:50:22] So, this and this particular one, this would be no different than any other house.

[2:50:27] I mean, we wouldn't waive the traffic, the roads portion of the impact fee for any

[2:50:32] other house that's built along that road, so.

[2:50:35] Right. We would just want the applicable fees based on the time period, and then we

[2:50:40] would ask, given the type of project being 55 and older, that the board consider

[2:50:45] waiving the school impact fees because we will have no impact.

[2:50:49] Well, that may or may not be true.

[2:50:54] Yeah. So I'm guessing maybe we can-

[2:50:57] Well, here's the thing too, with a 55 plus housing development, unless you make it

[2:51:01] more strict, only 80% of those units have to have somebody that's 80, or 55 or

[2:51:07] older.

[2:51:08] Right.

[2:51:08] So theoretically, 20% of those units could have under 18-

[2:51:13] What did your fiscal

[2:51:15] impact report say?

[2:51:17] Well, the fiscal impact was done based on the market rate.

[2:51:21] We didn't have it redone.

[2:51:22] I mean, to the degree that you can calculate that and have someone with some

[2:51:26] credentials tell us what the expected school-age population might be then,

[2:51:32] versus what the market rate would be, I think that would maybe call for a

[2:51:38] reduction in the school fee.

[2:51:40] Math, excuse me.

[2:51:42] But I'm not... I can't say with any confidence that we should

[2:51:48] waive it.

[2:51:49] No.

[2:51:50] Well, the other thing, too is, I mean, there is no waiver for property taxes,

[2:51:54] basically. So, I mean, it doesn't matter how old we are.

[2:51:57] Right.

[2:51:58] You're still paying a school portion of the property taxes.

[2:52:00] Right.

[2:52:00] So, I think the impact fee should be no different than-

[2:52:03] Oh, I thought of the other way, that-

[2:52:05] Yeah.

[2:52:06] ... so they didn't double tax for no benefit.

[2:52:09] Oh, don't get me started on double taxation or anything.

[2:52:13] But yeah, this is probably considering it's like half a million dollars a year-

[2:52:19] Some way of quantifying what the difference might be between...

[2:52:24] Because I don't think you can say that there are

[2:52:30] going to be zero kids.

[2:52:35] It might be three, it might be

[2:52:39] five.

[2:52:42] That number is something crazy right now, like .9 per household.

[2:52:47] No, no.

[2:52:47] Anyways, I don't know.

[2:52:49] I think the number they use is .8.

[2:52:51] Right.

[2:52:52] For a single family, it's only-

[2:52:54] Yeah. It's actually more in the .7 range right now.

[2:52:56] It's actually more in the .5 range.

[2:52:59] Yeah. Oh, yeah. I like rounding up.

[2:53:02] Right?

[2:53:04] So the fiscal impact report

[2:53:11] estimated a total

[2:53:15] Of 12 village kids out of the development, and that's when

[2:53:21] it was market rate.

[2:53:23] That was when it was-

[2:53:23] Which is 60% market rate

[2:53:25] ... 60% market rate.

[2:53:26] Is very conservative, and is unlikely to be realized is the rest of that sentence.

[2:53:31] Yeah. Well, that's what planners always say. I can tell you that.

[2:53:38] What are you

[2:53:45] guys saying?

[2:53:48] I guess just keep it at the regular residential rate, personally.

[2:53:51] But otherwise, we'd be pressured to cancel it for every

[2:53:57] 55 and older development in town,

[2:54:00] which we haven't-

[2:54:02] Which we haven't.

[2:54:03] Which we haven't.

[2:54:03] We haven't had that in a while.

[2:54:04] Yeah.

[2:54:05] I don't know if we've had a new one since the impact fee went into effect.

[2:54:09] No.

[2:54:10] That would be at grand clams on a chicken table.

[2:54:13] Grandchildren, that would be to the schools.

[2:54:17] But I would think the rec department would increase greatly,

[2:54:21] if it's five and older, depending on all kinds of things.

[2:54:23] Well, I-

[2:54:25] Yeah, I think that part of it is certain.

[2:54:27] And there will be a disproportionate effect on EMS services probably.

[2:54:31] Yeah.

[2:54:31] Things like that. So, you might have fewer kids at the schools, but you're going to

[2:54:36] probably have additional impact in other areas.

[2:54:39] Yeah.

[2:54:39] So it's a wash.

[2:54:41] I don't know what to tell you. I'm-

[2:54:43] We're just asking for the board's consideration.

[2:54:45] I think the key is we want to make sure that they are applied at the rate at which

[2:54:50] timely appropriate fee is.

[2:54:52] It is assessed at the time of planning board approval.

[2:54:58] Okay.

[2:54:58] So that'll be the current rate.

[2:55:06] Better approve it fast because I think they're going up soon, aren't they?

[2:55:10] Isn't that everything in front of the select board?

[2:55:13] All right. So did you-- Any other issues?

[2:55:16] No.

[2:55:19] All right. So we had, just to recap,

[2:55:24] in the precedent, what number? It was four?

[2:55:32] It was 12 under precedent, which was a development agreement.

[2:55:35] Oh, okay.

[2:55:36] Which we, I think, agreed that this letter would suffice. Is that fair?

[2:55:45] I think so, but it's pretty thorough, so.

[2:55:49] Yeah.

[2:55:50] All right. So we're going to strike 12,

[2:55:53] and then...

[2:55:57] And then under subsequent, it was number nine, which was the-

[2:56:02] Right.

[2:56:04] All work. All right, so

[2:56:07] how do we deal with that?

[2:56:08] Which one?

[2:56:09] Nine.

[2:56:12] Subject to monitoring and oversight.

[2:56:15] We

[2:56:17] proposed a restoration bond.

[2:56:19] That is a part of another condition, I'm pretty sure, a restoration bond.

[2:56:23] Oh, okay.

[2:56:24] Yeah.

[2:56:25] And then having

[2:56:28] K&A inspect the stormwater.

[2:56:29] Right. They do the stormwater.

[2:56:31] Yeah.

[2:56:31] Mm-hmm.

[2:56:32] And so it would just be an estimate from them for stormwater inspections.

[2:56:37] So we would agree that...

[2:56:44] All right. So bonding for...

[2:56:48] Is there a bond in place for the site improvements? No, just the...

[2:56:53] Okay. Road acceptance by the town, inspections, blah, blah, blah, blah.

[2:56:58] So this really

[2:57:06] comes out.

[2:57:07] I think it comes up, and it's covered under-

[2:57:09] And 14 has the catchall bonding requirements as well.

[2:57:14] Yeah.

[2:57:23] Okay.

[2:57:26] You okay with that?

[2:57:27] Yeah. That's fine. That's okay.

[2:57:31] And then the next one, Mr. Chairman, would be number 10.

[2:57:35] That's consistent.

[2:57:37] Just consistently.

[2:57:37] Right. Okay.

[2:57:46] So

[2:57:48] what are we doing here?

[2:57:52] Is there a motion?

[2:57:53] Should I make a motion? I'll make a motion.

[2:57:55] Case PZ12164-121619,

[2:58:01] Magrella and GAM Realty Trust, owners, and Magrella Realty

[2:58:06] Trust, applicant. Carlson Manor, 153-159 Hollis Road.

[2:58:12] PIN numbers, tax map 1, Lot 8 and

[2:58:17] 8-2, tax map 2, Lot 7, 7A, 7B, 3-1 and

[2:58:23] 3-3. Subdivision and non-residential site plan.

[2:58:27] Proposed 52-unit condominium style development zoned residential rural.

[2:58:32] You're hereby notified that the final subdivision,

[2:58:36] and I propose that the final subdivision and non-residential site

[2:58:42] plan as cited above has been or will-- That we approve

[2:58:48] the final subdivision and residential site plan as cited above.

[2:58:55] Oh, that's the wrong thing.

[2:58:57] Oh, I'm reading that one. All right.

[2:59:00] For a condominium-style housing for older persons development with frontage on 122

[2:59:05] and Hollis Road with the following conditions.

[2:59:07] Conditions precedent, we've just gone through them all, but I can read them if you

[2:59:13] think I should.

[2:59:14] I think we need to.

[2:59:15] Okay. With the conditions-

[2:59:17] As amended

[2:59:18] ... as amended,

[2:59:20] that we just reviewed.

[2:59:28] I just say active and substantial.

[2:59:30] And active and substantial development

[2:59:37] will consist of within three years after the date of approval.

[2:59:41] The items to be completed would be the main spine road in

[2:59:47] phase one, along with

[2:59:51] all of the-

[2:59:54] Stormwater

[2:59:55] ... stormwater management improvements, and the wetland crossing, as

[3:00:01] indicated in the plans-

[3:00:03] With the base course

[3:00:04] ... and the road to base course.

[3:00:11] And then,

[3:00:13] substantial completion would add

[3:00:20] all of the community improvements along with all of the other roadways and

[3:00:25] stormwater management facilities, as indicated in the plans.

[3:00:31] Yeah. I just want to clarify the phasing too.

[3:00:34] Oh, in-- Yeah, phasing. Well, phasing, you're going to submit a revised phasing

[3:00:39] plan?

[3:00:40] Yeah. But it'll be two phases.

[3:00:43] Two phases.

[3:00:44] Up to 30 units.

[3:00:44] Up to 30 units in the first phase with all of the roadway, the main spine roadway,

[3:00:50] and may include the-

[3:00:53] Yeah. Okay

[3:00:53] ... kind of the clubhouse. And

[3:00:58] phase two would be the remainder of the improvements.

[3:01:00] Okay.

[3:01:01] And health and homes. Phase one being over a minimum of two-year period, and then

[3:01:08] phase

[3:01:10] two is after that.

[3:01:13] Okay. So that's my motion, right? Do we have a second?

[3:01:16] I second.

[3:01:17] Okay. All right. I'm going to say it again to avoid a tie, just in case.

[3:01:22] All in favor?

[3:01:24] Aye. All opposed? One obsession.

[3:01:29] Thank you very much.

[3:01:30] Thank you.

[3:01:31] Thank you.

[3:01:36] Now, it's not that we don't want to see you again, but-

[3:01:42] You're going to have to come back next week.

[3:01:46] The

[3:01:48] house looks like it.

[3:02:03] Thank you very much.

[3:02:04] Thank you.

[3:02:06] Just two housekeeping issues here.

[3:02:08] I know we normally, our rules of procedure say we don't take anything new after

[3:02:12] 10:00. I would suggest that we do take this next one if everybody's on board with

[3:02:18] that.

[3:02:18] Absolutely.

[3:02:19] Okay.

[3:02:22] With a full apology, Earl, for the delay.

[3:02:31] Oh, yeah, we can do that. That'll be... That takes most of those people. Yep.

[3:02:36] Yes. Mercifully.

[3:02:41] Two more areas.

[3:02:43] You can blame Chad.

[3:02:45] Oh, yeah. We're going to have to do the other-

[3:02:47] We'll do that afterward

[3:02:51] ... okay.

[3:02:51] Poor Earl's been waiting too long already.

[3:03:02] Won't match the CDA hearing, I'll guarantee you.

[3:03:06] That's a lot more than 20

[3:03:08] minutes.

[3:03:14] Oh, that's right. You were there at 1:00 in the morning.

[3:03:18] Yeah.

[3:03:20] So this is a piece of cake.

[3:03:22] Thank you.

[3:03:25] All right.

[3:03:27] Okay.

[3:03:30] Okay, so we've got to open this one up. I've got to turn my brain back on here.

[3:03:35] All right.

[3:03:37] Next up,

[3:03:40] you got Case PZ20043-060526, Zero Rosemary Lane, LLC,

[3:03:46] owner/applicant, New Boston Road and Rosemary Lane, subdivision amendment to amend

[3:03:51] the private road easement to allow for fire truck access to building sites on

[3:03:55] previously approved subdivision, to keep the existing driveway to existing house,

[3:04:00] and to not build the

[3:04:03] proposed new driveway. No change in lots, and only extension of the easement for

[3:04:06] Rosemary Lane. We just add some stormwater improvements, too.

[3:04:12] Floor is yours, Earl.

[3:04:13] All right. Good evening, Chairman, members of the board.

[3:04:16] My name is Earl Sanford of Sanford Surveying and Engineering.

[3:04:20] We've had this before you already,

[3:04:25] but we are pushing through. The

[3:04:28] report staff did hits the nail on the head, so I'm not sure at this late hour I

[3:04:34] want to get into too much detail. But the main thrust is

[3:04:39] that this was all approved back in 2006, I believe,

[3:04:46] but was considered unvested when the lot was sold off.

[3:04:50] And that was sold, that doesn't count, but this was part of both sides of the road

[3:04:54] where the other one was sold off. But it was all done in the same meetings, two

[3:05:00] sides. So just a little history again, Mr.

[3:05:06] Carl Smith

[3:05:08] had--

[3:05:10] He

[3:05:12] made it so there was only this one lane that could feed those four lots.

[3:05:17] He pushed it away from the brook considerably of his...

[3:05:21] If you take an average of the subdivision on this side of the road, it's over seven

[3:05:25] acres per lot. He donated, I think, 11 and some change conservation

[3:05:31] land on the big lot that goes with this house right here,

[3:05:37] and he also donated another five across the road going right along

[3:05:44] Beaver Brook. I believe it's Beaver Brook, right?

[3:05:47] So

[3:05:51] ultimately, then

[3:05:53] Ashley bought these four lots and was just looking to move forward with.

[3:05:59] They've been on the tax maps ever since 2006.

[3:06:03] Interestingly enough, there needed to be a homeowners' agreement type document

[3:06:09] written up and approved by Drescher. That took over six years.

[3:06:14] So theoretically, Drescher should have said, "This is unvested," when that came up.

[3:06:19] But that wasn't the case. We were caught completely by surprise that because it's a

[3:06:25] funded subdivision, that this was considered unvested.

[3:06:30] But that ship has sailed, but we got the variances to allow the

[3:06:35] non-conforming lots due to the zoning change.

[3:06:40] Two of the lots are non-conforming.

[3:06:41] We got those established as ability to remain as on the tax records and as

[3:06:47] originally approved.

[3:06:50] The road was designed back then, approved by Keach.

[3:06:55] And there's been no change to the center line.

[3:06:59] The big change has been we bulged it out after getting the fire department's latest

[3:07:05] model that we want it to be able to handle.

[3:07:07] They have an outside radius of forty-five point two feet to the wall, and we have a

[3:07:12] radius in there of 50 feet. So

[3:07:17] this maneuverability, that was certainly a concern that you'd be able to make that

[3:07:21] hairpin turn. This was done so we could better fit the topography.

[3:07:27] We also kept it at a 16-foot road, things that minimize the amount of

[3:07:32] impervious,

[3:07:34] which to me makes this an environmentally friendly plan in a lot of ways.

[3:07:39] Because if you took individual driveways for those four lots, it would be a

[3:07:44] significantly greater amount of pavement that would be going to them.

[3:07:48] So,

[3:07:52] all the easements, they were in place. They were approved.

[3:07:57] They've been recorded. There was a slight extension, indicated

[3:08:03] shaded here, that due to the fire truck turning, we extended, we added

[3:08:09] two easements. But as soon as the chief gave us his parameters, we met with

[3:08:15] him and we did up those on easement plan, got it recorded.

[3:08:19] So everything is in the registry,

[3:08:24] and we're just looking to... So really, okay, the big change, the consensus I got,

[3:08:31] and hopefully I'm not wrong, was that, yeah, this didn't warrant

[3:08:36] the new regulation since this says that anything over two houses needs to meet town

[3:08:42] standards, and that would blow this out of the water.

[3:08:45] That if we want a 200-foot radius, it would be going way up on the hill, coming

[3:08:48] around. And again, it would be a lot more pavement, and a 24 foot

[3:08:54] or 22, I forget, foot paid width. So I've itemized, and

[3:09:00] it's even itemized better in the staff report what we're looking for for a waiver.

[3:09:05] So we're looking for waiver from those.

[3:09:12] So we're forced, zoning says do it according to town road standards

[3:09:19] and pushed us to you, and now we're asking for a waiver to those standards to be

[3:09:23] able to, again, just keep the plan as it is in terms of the

[3:09:31] center line. I don't know if you can see it, but there's very little cuts and

[3:09:35] fills. We've done our best. It was basically done to try and just follow the

[3:09:40] existing terrain.

[3:09:43] What you didn't give us grace on was updating the stormwater.

[3:09:48] So we did go back to the drawing board.

[3:09:51] As it turned out,

[3:09:53] it had a stormwater report. It just there was a 75-foot treatment swale.

[3:09:59] We had to increase that to 130 feet to meet the current standards.

[3:10:04] Other than that, we've got some here, but we've got 400 feet of overland flow

[3:10:09] before it reaches the brook.

[3:10:12] And we've got a little bit of pavement in here that will sheet for a little bit at

[3:10:18] 15%, which is the maximum, before it goes down into the swale.

[3:10:25] But again, that's often tough getting that first bit treated,

[3:10:31] and ultimately it comes out into

[3:10:34] other plunge pools. Really a sediment basin, this 20-foot in diameter

[3:10:40] that really accepts all that water and then makes sure it just goes out in a sheet

[3:10:45] form around the perimeter. Right now, there's a ditch dug into the old

[3:10:51] stone culvert. So we're replacing the old stone culvert with a 36-inch

[3:10:57] culvert with one foot of

[3:11:00] infill to give it a flat bottom so it goes through.

[3:11:06] So that's pretty much it.

[3:11:10] This is showing the

[3:11:17] whole property. So this is the one that was sold.

[3:11:20] This is the conservation easement through here, 11.8 acres.

[3:11:24] We're well away from that. We have wetland up here that we're staying away from.

[3:11:30] That's not-

[3:11:32] Not a high value wetland like it is along the edge of Beaver Brook.

[3:11:38] And at Tom's suggestion, we did go to the Conservation Commission to get

[3:11:44] comments, and they provided their comment, which was pretty short and sweet.

[3:11:49] As long as it's done with a stormwater plan, they were agreeable to the

[3:11:55] plan.

[3:11:57] So I think we're

[3:11:59] trying to get this to the finish line. I think we're pretty close.

[3:12:04] And we have some questions about the conditions,

[3:12:10] whether I went out to discuss, do you want to build the whole thing or can we even

[3:12:16] phase this? Because there was actually maneuverability at the turnaround

[3:12:22] for

[3:12:24] fire truck maneuvers, if that was a thing.

[3:12:27] But it's not a make or break. Whatever you decide is acceptable.

[3:12:33] We'll live with that.

[3:12:38] It talks about having all the construction monitored, sort of like the other one.

[3:12:43] This is obviously a lot

[3:12:45] smaller scale, and we're fine with all the stormwater mechanisms, but we were

[3:12:51] hoping not to get too crazy in terms of having to have someone out there monitoring

[3:13:00] basically the shared driveway as it's being built.

[3:13:04] Again, we're at your mercy. That's not a make or break thing.

[3:13:08] But,

[3:13:10] so I think that

[3:13:16] as far as granting the waiver, I guess you're given two

[3:13:22] options. They look good to me. I would say, would the

[3:13:27] requirement pose an unnecessary hardship to the applicant?

[3:13:31] I would say it would also unnecessary hardship to the environment to put

[3:13:37] a town spec road in for these four lots.

[3:13:41] But again, I think I've made the case of trying to keep impervious

[3:13:47] areas to a minimum. And the other thing we've done to decrease impervious areas, it

[3:13:53] did have a new driveway up to the homestead,

[3:13:57] and the new owner was very hopeful we could keep this and met with the

[3:14:03] fire chief, and he said, "Yeah, that's acceptable

[3:14:07] as an existing driveway." So rather than coming in and having a whole new driveway

[3:14:12] coming up through the edge, which the original plan had,

[3:14:16] and that was mentioned in the comments when you started.

[3:14:18] So,

[3:14:20] it will be a split off right away. There's just some blending in there, but we've

[3:14:26] also drawn in the profile of that driveway, just so it's on

[3:14:31] record. And

[3:14:34] the site distances were fine. That hasn't changed.

[3:14:38] So basically, it is just taking what was approved in

[3:14:44] '06 and massaging it in terms of drainage and hoping

[3:14:50] to be able to make those lots on the tax records be real.

[3:14:57] And I'll open it up for any questions.

[3:15:00] Okay. Laura, just a quick question.

[3:15:04] The staff report notes that there was an email from Steve Duby and the on-call fire

[3:15:08] inspector in July. I don't recall seeing that in our Dropbox.

[3:15:13] Do you have any idea what that letter said?

[3:15:15] Yeah. Let me take a look.

[3:15:45] Right. It says,

[3:15:48] "The department is in possession of the correct access detail for this subdivision

[3:15:53] and approved."

[3:15:56] They approved of it?

[3:15:57] I think so.

[3:15:58] Okay. All right. That was one of my main concerns was that I didn't see an updated

[3:16:04] comment from them. So,

[3:16:07] okay, we'll start with questions. Where did we start last time?

[3:16:09] I'm good.

[3:16:13] Questions.

[3:16:15] I just got a couple. So, this is going to be outletting into

[3:16:21] a wetland, correct?

[3:16:24] For a well, it's got a 30-foot upland buffer, if you want to call

[3:16:30] it that, before it hits the wetland.

[3:16:31] Okay.

[3:16:32] But yes. I mean, everything on this drains to the brook.

[3:16:36] Yeah. So,

[3:16:38] I guess I was more concerned about the road itself because a lot of that drainage

[3:16:43] is going to end up in your outlet structure at the end is going to be coming mostly

[3:16:46] off the road and driveways, I would imagine.

[3:16:48] Maybe some off the undeveloped areas of the lots, but-

[3:16:53] Right. So this is all rooted down to make it go through the treatment soil.

[3:16:59] Yep.

[3:17:01] This road up to about here will drain into it but won't have the full benefit of it

[3:17:05] because some of this is sheet draining into the side of it.

[3:17:11] Yep.

[3:17:12] And again, we're looking for

[3:17:15] whatever Keith comes up with. If he feels there's any deficiency, we'll certainly

[3:17:19] address-

[3:17:19] Yep

[3:17:20] ... that too.

[3:17:21] And that's designed, I think with the requirements for that are total suspended

[3:17:25] solids have to be 90% removed and 60% of nitrogen and phosphorus

[3:17:31] using appropriate treatment measures. Is that as designed to do that?

[3:17:43] How shall I say? They don't give treatment soils.

[3:17:48] They haven't been thoroughly tested, I guess.

[3:17:52] So they don't give in the chart that this removes so much or whatever.

[3:17:58] So, we're

[3:18:02] trying not to have to

[3:18:08] do a

[3:18:11] pond or that they do give ratings to.

[3:18:14] Yeah.

[3:18:16] My personal feeling is that another pond crater put on this would cause more

[3:18:20] problems than

[3:18:22] a good

[3:18:25] AOT compliant soil, is what we're doing, which is three feet, three to four-foot

[3:18:29] wide, 130 feet long, only half a percent slope. It's going to absorb an awful lot.

[3:18:35] So,

[3:18:37] can I say it? I mean,

[3:18:44] we did look to see is there an impairment, and we couldn't find...

[3:18:47] It's not listed as impaired in that area.

[3:18:50] So that's part of our con-- Said, "Okay, we'll just

[3:18:55] increase what was approved last time in terms of

[3:19:01] the vegetative filter strip from above and then the

[3:19:10] treatment soil."

[3:19:12] So I guess my main concern, I guess I have two on that front.

[3:19:17] I think they're going to be getting any fertilizers and whatnot that are going to

[3:19:20] be going directly into the soils as they wash downhill, and

[3:19:26] I think that's where a lot of your nitrogen and phosphorus problems come from.

[3:19:30] Yeah.

[3:19:31] And

[3:19:33] you're also going to get any salt and things like that, that get put on there-

[3:19:38] Well-

[3:19:38] ... that aren't going to be infiltrated.

[3:19:40] They're going to be-

[3:19:41] One question I've got about the drainage system actually is, Earl, in

[3:19:47] that upper section, is that a

[3:19:51] grass line ditch, or is it-

[3:19:55] Um-

[3:19:55] What's the conveyance of this?

[3:19:57] So you got mostly grass line ditches coming down through, and you only got it at

[3:20:02] 3% or 5 to 3. So I think 5% is where you--

[3:20:09] If you're over 5, you're looking a bit more of a riprap situation.

[3:20:12] Well, I mean, one option that you might have to improve

[3:20:20] water quality off of that would be to do

[3:20:25] stone check dams.

[3:20:28] Oh, we have those. We have multiple of those, yeah.

[3:20:31] And if you put-

[3:20:35] If you put an organic, if you mix the gravel with an

[3:20:40] organic material, it acts as a filter,

[3:20:47] and you get pretty good removal of nitrates and phosphorus.

[3:20:51] So, that's an option as well that-

[3:20:55] And I think we have that. We're calling it-

[3:20:58] It's not just a stone check

[3:21:00] Right.

[3:21:00] You're probably going to get that anyway, just naturally with it.

[3:21:03] Yeah. That's true.

[3:21:05] It usually gets built up.

[3:21:06] Yeah.

[3:21:08] But I don't know. I guess that was my only concern because that was really the only

[3:21:11] comment the ACC made was, "It looks fine as long as it complies with the stormwater

[3:21:17] regulations."

[3:21:19] They didn't really give any guidance as to whether it did or didn't comply.

[3:21:22] They left it in our lap to figure that out.

[3:21:25] So I guess that was the reason for the question.

[3:21:29] Yeah. And I'm sure Steve Keech is going to bust my chops over something on this,

[3:21:34] but we'll see.

[3:21:35] So he has the plans to review but has not provided a review?

[3:21:39] I don't think they've gone to him yet.

[3:21:41] I gave him a call, and he said he hadn't seen them yet.

[3:21:43] Yeah, he hasn't seen them yet, but that is a proposed condition of them.

[3:21:49] Yeah.

[3:21:50] Oh.

[3:21:51] I guess that was really about it. So I was just curious to see if there was

[3:21:55] anything special about that elongated trench that somehow,

[3:22:03] I hate to say for sure, but-

[3:22:05] Yeah

[3:22:05] ... with some level of confidence would know.

[3:22:07] I'm sure it definitely filters out suspended solids, because it's at

[3:22:14] basically a flat surface, and it's less than one foot per second of

[3:22:19] flow through it. But some of the other

[3:22:25] under the stormwater manual,

[3:22:28] it isn't classified for it. So, that's where you'd have to get into

[3:22:35] either something more aggressive.

[3:22:39] But if you have

[3:22:44] relatively gentle slopes, as you say you do, there may be

[3:22:50] vegetative options to

[3:22:54] help de-nitrify things. So in other words, instead of having turf grass or some

[3:22:59] kind of similar vegetation, using

[3:23:04] grasses that the water needs to flow through, is

[3:23:09] that you get surface contact with vegetation, and that's

[3:23:15] going to help suck the nitrogen out of it.

[3:23:18] Yeah. And of course, the biggest thing is we do have fertilizer

[3:23:24] restrictions in there.

[3:23:25] Okay.

[3:23:25] So, because you're absolutely right, if someone goes home and gets carried away,

[3:23:31] it's an issue.

[3:23:34] You might even be able to incorporate some plunge pools along the way, too, just to

[3:23:40] settle things.

[3:23:41] But unfortunately, the manual doesn't give you any credit for those, even though I

[3:23:45] know that they're doing good stuff.

[3:23:48] Yeah.

[3:23:50] Okay. I didn't have any other questions.

[3:23:55] That can be whatever you want them to be.

[3:23:58] For the road, well, the road is designed there.

[3:24:01] Take the brand-new truck the fire department's getting.

[3:24:06] The roadbed is thick enough to handle the weight and everything, so the deputy

[3:24:11] chief is happy.

[3:24:14] Yes. And again, I made it, we're not waiving the town standards for

[3:24:20] road gravel thickness and pavement thickness and all that.

[3:24:23] That's staying as a spec. It's just the geometry that says you need these big

[3:24:29] radiuses. You can't go from one radius into another one.

[3:24:32] Okay.

[3:24:34] Yeah.

[3:24:34] Just wanted to get that clear.

[3:24:35] Yes, definitely. It's going to be a straight, straight road.

[3:24:42] Okay. What's that? That's it?

[3:24:45] All right. There's nobody in the audience, nobody online, so I guess it's back to

[3:24:49] us.

[3:24:49] Okay.

[3:24:51] So we do have a couple of things, as you mentioned. We got the waivers.

[3:24:53] Right.

[3:24:54] And we got the

[3:24:58] impact fee is active and substantial, that kind of stuff.

[3:25:04] Okay. On the waivers, I move to grant the waivers as

[3:25:10] requested

[3:25:12] to table 3-1 of the resident utility standards of the board as determined,

[3:25:18] and the board has determined that strict conformity with the requirement would

[3:25:23] impose an unnecessary hardship to the applicant because of the geometry of the

[3:25:28] site and

[3:25:31] the board's desire to limit the environmental impact of this project.

[3:25:38] And that the waiver would not be contrary to the spirit and

[3:25:43] intent of the regulations. Does that make sense?

[3:25:47] Okay. Moved and seconded. I was just curious, Gordon, if you'd consider making a

[3:25:53] part of that motion that proposed conditions precedent five says, "Written approval

[3:25:59] from the fire chief or designee and the director of public works that the plan

[3:26:02] satisfy applicable emergency access and roadway requirements."

[3:26:07] Strike out, "Excluding any relevant waivers granted by the planning board." Because

[3:26:11] we don't have anything.

[3:26:12] Oh, well, that would be in the

[3:26:14] site plan or the-

[3:26:16] Oh, that's true, I guess.

[3:26:17] Just anyways.

[3:26:18] Yeah. Okay.

[3:26:19] Sorry.

[3:26:19] No, you're right. So, okay. No, that's fine. Never mind.

[3:26:22] I'll make that change later.

[3:26:26] Okay. All in favor? All right. Opposed? Motion passes. Okay.

[3:26:32] Okay. So then move on to the plan.

[3:26:44] And I would move to approve case

[3:26:47] PZ200430605260,

[3:26:52] Rosemary Lane, LLC, for the above for

[3:26:58] the subdivision of Map 7, Lot 70, 70-1, 70-2,

[3:27:03] 70-3, and 70-4,

[3:27:07] New Boston Road and Rosemary Lane, with the following conditions.

[3:27:14] Conditions precedent must be satisfied prior to signing the plans,

[3:27:21] would be submitted a... Well, they're listed in the staff memo, but I'll

[3:27:27] recap them briefly. Submission of updated application materials and revised plans

[3:27:32] that reflect the application and subdivision and incorporate all

[3:27:38] of the discussions with the planning boards and checklist corrections and approved

[3:27:42] waivers and so forth.

[3:27:46] Waiver should be noted on the plans, actually.

[3:27:51] Submission of the MIL-R for recording at the Registry of Deeds, submission of

[3:27:57] legal documents, approval of same by town counsel, and recording at the Registry of

[3:28:02] Deeds at the applicant's expense.

[3:28:05] Very familiar.

[3:28:06] Yep.

[3:28:06] A little bit. Those have already gone through, all the easements,

[3:28:11] except for the two little added ones. Drescher.

[3:28:13] Okay.

[3:28:14] Drescher, and we went through that, and we haven't changed those easements, and we

[3:28:18] work within the easements with all our drainage.

[3:28:20] So you're satisfied with the condition, is what you're saying?

[3:28:24] Sorry.

[3:28:24] You're one step ahead of me.

[3:28:28] Verification from the town's consulting engineer that the plans including

[3:28:33] stormwater, excuse me, are adequate at the applicant's expense.

[3:28:40] Written approval from the fire chief or designee and the director of public works

[3:28:45] that the plan satisfy applicable emergency access and roadway requirements.

[3:28:53] I would move to strike that.

[3:28:54] Yeah. We're striking all that.

[3:28:55] Excluding any relevant waivers.

[3:29:01] Receipt of-

[3:29:02] Of course, make us go back to-

[3:29:04] No, no. I mean, you-

[3:29:06] Just say if he does have... Since we have nothing from the DPW, and we have a very

[3:29:11] limited comment from-

[3:29:13] Right

[3:29:13] ... from a fire inspector or something, not even the chief, right?

[3:29:17] Yeah, I think so.

[3:29:18] So-

[3:29:18] I think it'll be fine

[3:29:19] ... should be all right.

[3:29:21] Receipt of any required state or federal permits, except for septic, which will be

[3:29:26] applied

[3:29:28] for and reviewed during the building permit process.

[3:29:32] Payment of any outstanding fees related to the site plan application and/or the

[3:29:36] recording of documents with the Registry of Deeds.

[3:29:40] Conditions subsequent are

[3:29:43] Pretty standard, Lauren?

[3:29:47] Yep.

[3:29:47] These are the standard subsequent conditions.

[3:29:50] Yeah.

[3:29:53] With active and substantial development

[3:29:57] consisting of, dot, dot, dot.

[3:30:01] I guess,

[3:30:03] stormwater and road to base.

[3:30:04] Yeah. Right. Stormwater and road to base.

[3:30:10] Yeah, I think that's reasonable.

[3:30:15] I guess we were discussing if he was just going to build that first house, would

[3:30:19] there

[3:30:21] be the ability to-- Because that is a permanent accountable area, would

[3:30:27] that be a problem if you only-

[3:30:29] Well-

[3:30:30] But I think that putting it to base rather than having to put the pavement on if

[3:30:34] they're not going to-

[3:30:35] Yeah.

[3:30:35] Right.

[3:30:35] Well, it'd be base paving.

[3:30:37] Base paving.

[3:30:38] But the-

[3:30:39] Still pretty-

[3:30:39] You could do base paving up to the first house, and then base material-

[3:30:44] That's-

[3:30:45] ... drainage improvements beyond.

[3:30:46] I think that's reasonable.

[3:30:48] That's not going to be substantial. That's not substantial completion.

[3:30:52] Yeah.

[3:30:53] That's the stormwater from there, right?

[3:30:56] Yes.

[3:30:57] So.

[3:30:57] I mean, the stormwater would be

[3:31:00] improved. Yeah.

[3:31:04] The stormwater would not have to-

[3:31:05] But it's likely though-

[3:31:06] ... to wait on that

[3:31:06] ... you have a dirt road all the way to the top for stormwater that's been done as

[3:31:10] part of that initial completion. Probably going to get-

[3:31:14] Well, DOT gravel is considered a stable

[3:31:19] surface, so

[3:31:21] if you get to the crushed gravel base compacted, from a state perspective, an

[3:31:27] DES perspective,

[3:31:30] it's not harmful to-- That's stable. It's considered stable. It's in the list of...

[3:31:37] I guess the problem we have is that system is not designed, that stormwater

[3:31:43] system is not designed to have a dirt driveway for 60-

[3:31:48] Compact gravel has the same... You have to treat it like it's pavement anyway, so

[3:31:58] if it's compacted there,

[3:32:01] it depends on what the metric is, but it is the same in terms of if I would design

[3:32:06] this as a gravel drive, it wouldn't change anything.

[3:32:09] I just wonder because it's all a slope too, so it's not like it's a flat dirt

[3:32:14] driveway.

[3:32:18] I'm just thinking about what comes out at the end.

[3:32:21] Well, then-

[3:32:21] So, I don't know.

[3:32:23] Then active and substantial construction

[3:32:28] probably should be

[3:32:31] to the first house.

[3:32:36] And nothing above it then.

[3:32:38] Right.

[3:32:38] It's leaving in a natural state.

[3:32:40] Well, if you do whatever you want to do, but that's... Yeah.

[3:32:49] You're not going to be producing any water from impervious if you haven't done

[3:32:53] anything there yet, so.

[3:32:54] Right.

[3:32:55] It's-

[3:32:55] Yeah, I mean, if the rest of it's left in a natural state, that would be fine.

[3:32:59] Yeah. And then-

[3:33:00] It's up to them in terms of how they want to do it.

[3:33:04] Yeah.

[3:33:06] But if you build,

[3:33:09] say, the next house that you build is at the end of the drive, you've got to build

[3:33:14] the whole drive. You know?

[3:33:15] Understood. Yes. Yeah.

[3:33:17] So that's fine. Okay. Got

[3:33:22] that? No. All right, so active and substantial

[3:33:28] would be the construction of the

[3:33:33] lower portion of the road to the first house to base

[3:33:37] pavement with associated drainage improvements,

[3:33:42] and then substantial completion would be the rest of the project.

[3:33:51] Is there-

[3:33:53] Not including the house. It's just the-

[3:33:55] Which is the one that vests it, so we don't run into this again.

[3:33:58] Well, it depends on whether you're talking about a three or a seven year.

[3:34:05] Make sure I get this right. If you get that done within three years, you're

[3:34:11] vested for seven years, and then if you complete

[3:34:16] substantial completion, you're vested for all time,

[3:34:20] I think.

[3:34:22] All right.

[3:34:24] So if you run up against the seven years

[3:34:28] then it would-

[3:34:29] The rest of the road.

[3:34:30] You want to build the rest of the road.

[3:34:32] Yeah.

[3:34:32] Is what they do.

[3:34:32] Before the seven years. Yeah. I mean it.

[3:34:36] Okay.

[3:34:36] Yeah.

[3:34:38] The third one.

[3:34:39] Right. So we got that? Does everybody else have that?

[3:34:43] Yep.

[3:34:44] Okay. That's my motion.

[3:34:46] And impact fees, I thought-

[3:34:47] Oh, impact fees are assessed according to the

[3:34:51] fee schedule.

[3:34:52] Yeah.

[3:34:53] With

[3:34:55] the rate set upon

[3:34:59] building permit. Is that what it is? Or CO.

[3:35:03] Certificate of Occupancy is when it's collected, and it's based on the final square

[3:35:07] footage of the house. And I do believe I forgot to include that as a condition, but

[3:35:11] it's part of the ordinance, so it's just kind of implied to be there.

[3:35:16] Okay.

[3:35:17] Did we get everything?

[3:35:18] That's it.

[3:35:19] All right. I second.

[3:35:20] I second.

[3:35:21] Move to second.

[3:35:22] Fatally seconds. All in favor?

[3:35:25] Aye.

[3:35:26] Opposed. Motion passes. Thank you for your patience.

[3:35:31] Where's the champagne?

[3:35:36] Oh, findings.

[3:35:38] Findings.

[3:35:38] Findings of fact, as indicated in the staff memo of September

[3:35:44] 2, 2026.

[3:35:49] Do we need to vote on that?

[3:35:50] I think we do.

[3:35:51] All right. So vote on that?

[3:35:52] Yeah.

[3:35:53] Second.

[3:35:54] All in favor?

[3:35:55] Aye.

[3:35:56] Opposed. Motion passes. Okay, now onto the continuance.

[3:36:01] PZ20030-040626 and

[3:36:06] PZ20031-040626. It's

[3:36:12] both the same. Golden Valley Holdings has requested-

[3:36:16] Both of those are CV.

[3:36:18] Yeah, I thought they normally have different numbers.

[3:36:20] They do. The sequence is different.

[3:36:22] Oh, got it. Okay.

[3:36:25] They've requested a continuance. Do they request any particular date?

[3:36:29] October 7th.

[3:36:30] October 7th. All right.

[3:36:39] I move to continue stated cases till October 7th at 7 o'clock in

[3:36:45] this room,

[3:36:47] assuming statutory deadlines are extended.

[3:36:51] Okay.

[3:36:51] Second.

[3:36:52] All right, all in favor?

[3:36:54] Aye.

[3:36:55] Opposed. Motion passes.

[3:36:58] We're going to skip the minutes for tonight, so we got-

[3:37:01] Oh, good. It was just that continuance.

[3:37:04] Just that.

[3:37:05] Just the continuance, yeah.

[3:37:07] Minutes, we got the wrong set in our package, so that'll be quick on the next week.

[3:37:14] No other business being before the board, we'll-

[3:37:17] Nope

[3:37:18] ... take a motion to dismiss.

[3:37:19] I move to dismiss.

[3:37:20] Adjourn.

[3:37:20] I move to dismiss.

[3:37:23] Second.

[3:37:24] All in favor?

[3:37:25] Aye.

[3:37:26] All right.

[3:37:27] And I will not be here for that.

Planning Board September 2, 2026

Transcript