##VIDEO ID:E0_4v8DVqzk## [Music] good evening everyone today is October 17th the time is 6:03 and this is the chrishan Planning Commission this meeting is being recorded for future viewing on the town's YouTube page and we are also uh live via Zoom tonight can I get a motion to open the planning board meeting motion to open the meeting second all in favor can we uh introduce ourselves please Steve M Mark member Rick Ellis Vice chairman Victoria alaro Tom planner all right um did everybody get a chance to uh look over the minutes that were sent out for September 19th uh Rick you were AB I was absent so I am not commenting com vote on that I read this over I didn't see any issues did anybody have any questions comments concerns you ready you good I make a motion to approve the meeting minute as submitted got a motion second all in favor I I RI did you vote I or did you obstain he wasn't here V could you please thank all right moving right along public hearing continuative subdivision 20 23-01 39 Keen road map 2 lot 13B owner applicant amn estate holding LLC representative is Farland Corp scope of the work is a proposed six slot subdivision on a single axis Road uh you're going to go over all the comments and questions that came up with uh the peer review I can go over uh each comment or just kind of give a that' be great yeah good evening for the record John marshan from paring Corp here on behalf of J in state Holdings um just a brief overview of the project as You' mentioned it's a six blot residential subdivision off the west side of te Ro uh it's about a 10 and 1 half acre existing parcel um located entirely in residential a zoning could excuse me could I asked you to speak up just a little bit my my hearing isn't the greatest unfortunately um so it's in residential a so it's minimum 60,000 ft Lots 150 ft of furnit uh there's bvw border bordering vegetated Wetland along the west side and the northwest corner of the site um applicant proposing a 700t long 26t wide roadway uh with a cold toac turnaround at the end uh we're proposing to collect sto morar in catch basins in the street and direct them to an infiltration Bas um Lots will be served by individual onsite septic and Wells um the project was initially reviewed by GF in July uh they had a series of comments I can go through those one by one if you'd like please comment one pertaining to zoning uh subdivision is located within residential a zoning District a zoning dat data table is included on sheet 3 our zoning District requires a minimum continuous Upland area of 40,000 square ft the plans refer to this requirement as well as what is available on each lot as contig uh plan should be revised to match what is used in article in article 8 zoning uh plans were revised to say uh continuous as opposed to contiguous um comment two the definition of continuous buildable Upland in article 8 does not include the area of lots within the easement uh plans were revised to exclude the E area from the bill area um comment one with regards to subdivision rules and regulations copy of the formy application was not provided for review confirmation is requested regarding compliance with regulations 206 and 207 submission to planning board Town clerking Board of Health um that was provided to the review they were satisfied with that uh delineation of wetland resource areas on the proper is noted to have been delineated in the field by ECR LLC in January 2023 status of review and approval of the delineation by conservation is requested um we had filed an RDA with conservation to get the line approved uh at their last meeting last Wednesday they approved the line as it's delated on the plan uh all Lots shown on sheet three should be labeled in accordance with regulation 209 as meeting or not meeting or minimum dimensional requirements all the lots have been labeled as such uh comment four seasonal high groundw elevation is required to be shown in the roadway Profiles In accordance with regulation 20i uh we provided the groundwater elevation early on the pro file as requested confirmation as requested regarding requirement to State Center Line the proposed roadway uh the sine was St in the field waivers are listed on the cover sheet of the plan confirmation is requested for submission of a waiver letter uh we did provide a waiver request letter um it should be noted on the plans that all lots are proposed to be serviced by Wells and subservice seage Disposal Systems uh that note was added to the plan uh the plan should include the note required by regulation 210 all methods of construction of material and materials of construction shall be in conformance with Pate subdvision rules and regulations that note was added to the plan uh the majority of proposed drainage pipes are specified as hdp regulation 406 requires the use of RCP a waiver should be requested to allow HTP uh we have no objection to the use of this pipe uh we did request that waiver to allow the use of hdp pipe uh roadway cross-section on sheet 7 indicates vertical Granite curb to be installed this should be corrected consistent with the pous concrete curb detail uh that was corrected on the plan uh we have no objection to the requested waiver to allow an infiltration Basin for Road runoff and infiltration Chambers for roof runoff these systems are necessary to provide the recharge to groundw required by regulations um that was a waiver that we had requested uh for stone water management system and Report comment one the street drainage system has been designed on the basis of the 5year storm as required subdivision regulations proposed infiltration Basin is required to accept and mitigate runoff from Storm events up to an including 100 years home event currently there is no means of Overland flow provided from the low points at the catch basins to the infiltration Basin um we had provided pipe capacity C showing pipes could handle 100e storm without flooding out the roadway uh and we provided a watershed map for the for each individual catch Basin uh comment two runoff curve numbers input for Woods good hsga in hydrocad should be corrected to consistently utilize rcn3 uh Stone Water Report was revised to meet that requirement comment three separation of seasonal High groundwater at the infiltration Basin is shown to be approximately 2.2 ft groundwater M mounting analysis is required we provided that uh coming four the typical detail of the detention Basin and the rules and rs include the 6ot high chain L fence we provided that on the plan uh com in five test Pit locations are included on the planes soil evu provided in the report only one test pit is indicated near the bottom of the infiltration Basin we provided an additional three Des bits comment six uh the plan view depiction of the infiltration Bas should include features indicated on the cross-section including details such as vertical Granite curving and rip wrap Stone on the back side of the slope plans were rised to include that detail comment seven no erosion protection is indicated for the discharge location below the Overflow Spillway uh we provided um a level uh we provided the stone pad extending an additional 10 ft beyond the bottom of the slope comment eight individual lot development is evaluated based on roof area for each house and garage of 17 or 1,740 ft it is likely that larger rooms will be constructed on each lot roof recharge system detail specifies three chambers per th000 ft of roof um PVE driveways drained to the street collection system individual lot development can be expected to include porches decks walkways patios and pools drainage calculation should be advised to include the include these uh we did include those in the revised counts I was wondering what these were these are all sewing pools that you got back here Y and comment nine long-term onm plan should include a list of public safety features an estimated annual cost for inspections and maintenance and that was included in the revised on M uh so those plans those revisions were submitted again to GF and we received the second review letter on October 3rd they had two outstanding or the remaining comments uh subdivision rules and regulations a copy of the WPA Form 1 RDA filed with Conservation Commission seing review and approval of delineation was provided status of commission's review should be provided um that they had that meeting last week and they approved the line comment six a waiver request letter has been provided in accordance with regulation 203k clarification is requested for the waiver listed for drainage pipe drainage pipe type and cover depth uh we revised our waiver request letter to specify uh ads n12 HTP soil type um for most of the pipes there are three pipes that have less than 3 ft of cff we requesting class five RCP for those pipes um comment nine is is pretty much the same thing it says the waiver request letter dated September 6 includes a request for the use of hdp hdp pipe the applicant should clarify the spe the specific type of hdp pipe such as ABS M12 dual wall pipe with soil type joints as an example PL should be revised to list the pipe specified um applicant should review the wording and the waiver request letter with respect to the type and cover depths requested um that was addressed in our revised waiver letter and comment six the plan view depiction of the infiltration Basin has been revised as requested to include rip wrap erosion control protection downg gradient from overflow spill way and vertical Granite curbing installation uh along the top of the spillway overall dimensions for these items should be clearly labeled on the plan plan advised [Music] detail board has any additional comments or questions it's a Well detailed cice which is good um the uh depth groundwater along the roadway um you made a general comment uh of doing testing at the at the U at the septic system uh leeching areas what would you estimate that groundwater level to be uh in the roadway um we did have uh one road that failed miserably uh because of a high groundwater table level uh is it is it all sand throughout this entire site um I just need a little more clarification other than the general comment that it's okay where the septic systems are so the test books that were performed can't you got to speak up some more I'm I'm half DEA I'll have to I'll have to eventually break down and get some hearing aid I will apologize for that you can see that the test fits for each lot will perform these are roughly 25 30 ft from the roadway on both sides MH and and so what what uh elevations of groundwater would determine for those septic systems particularly the the leeching systems that are close to the road so what we did was we took the um the the worst case scenario as far as depth to groundwater mhm um at each uh interval along the roadway where the the septics are yep um so why don't you start with one of the septic systems uh and and describe to me where the water C uh was estimated at those leeching fits I don't I don't have the test FS on the plan they're in the report um generally I know these test fits down here there was no groundwater encountered mhm we did find groundwater in the Basin at a much lower elevation um what about the section that's closest to Kean Road uh we we utilize these as test bit here and here and kind of and approximately how far down was the water level there um I I don't know off the top of my head uh it would be approximately 2 feet 10t from probably 4T okay which is where where where do you think that it might be 4T like especially at that low point where would it be 4 feet at that low Point what do you estimate the water table level to be uh this is 4 and a half 4.5t okay all right that question greater than 10 ft at the end of the road okay um now it looks like you've revised your drainage system so that there is an outlet to the low Point uh at I Station 1 plus 25 1 plus 50 or so am I I reading the plans correct uh there's no El if we start if we start at the catch Basin and the manhole that's closest to Keen Road is there a positive drain for that uh the the catch Bas and drains Yep this all drains back to to this drain manle 4 which gets it back to the Basin super okay thank you um again the problem in the past has been if it's infiltration only there have been some problems with roadway flooding sure um the storm drainage pipe I I don't have any problem with that I mean when these subdivision rules and regulations were concocted there there was no such thing as uh plastic drainage pipe right or at least in larger diameters not what's used currently so I don't have a problem with that ads n12 soil typ dual wall there was no such thing when the regulations were written uh the 36 in depth is again just to make sure that the pipe is going to be strong enough and not collapse so the class five should take care of [Music] that none of these I know you got some some layouts of proposed lotting uh done here uh whatever you guys come up with uh it'll have to pass muster with the um with the building inspector as to whether each one of these Lots uh meets the current uh zoning requirements understood so there would be no approval of any kind of lot development here I realize you've got to do something for your storm water calculations but uh they will have to meet uh all the requirements of the zoning rules and regulations sure and there's also uh at least one of the Lots has area within the Wetland buffer so they'll have to go shake up a little bit more the uh one of the Lots has area within the buffer to the Wetland so they'll have to file with conservation for that individual lot as well yeah but not the roadway or the drainage system correct yeah [Music] okay well that's pretty much that's pretty much it that's all I have to say is there anybody here oh first of all you good you good yeah is there anybody here in the audience that has anything regarding this project anybody on Zoom want to comment on this project okay uh I'd like to entertain a motion to close the public hearing motion to close the public hearing motion second second all in favor I uh to me it see we we sent this out to peer review um GF came back with um all the comments that Mr Maran just went over he's made all the corrections it's been back to GF they've uh looked at it a second time and gave it uh the stamp of approval on all the changes um I I seem to be okay with it yeah I I'm my questions have been answered I mean it seems like they done everything to comply with sub rules regulations and request waivers were appropriate so okay I don't have a problem with any have requested waivers okay uh uh then next will be entertain a motion to approve the waiver request as listed in the waiver request letter dated October 10th 2024 still moved second all in favor I I okay so that's been that's the waivers that's the waivers now last but not least Let's uh get a motion for make a motion to approve the form C definitive subdivision for 39 Keen Road in Angelo Drive plan set dated August 30th 2023 revised through October 10th 2024 with the conditions listed in form c-1 dated October 17th 2024 we have a motion a second I'll second it all in favor all right okay uh sits at town clerk's office for 21 days pending appeal it does sit for an appeal period yes to 21 days I'll notify you once it's been stamped dur starts okay thank you very much assuming that no appeal is filed and we go on to sign and finally approve the plans somehow we've got to have a way that plans that are approved and signed don't get lost or misplaced uh we have had that problem in the past um I I think we at some point not tonight need to have a discussion as to creating a place a safe place for these things so that four years down the road we all know what plan what plans are uh applicable to this subdivision yes um they've been going through the office um uh organizing rearranging uh we have uh a new town planner now that's really taking control and and really starting to organize there in the office so uh a lot of things that weren't getting done properly are now well again it's just it's really just a matter of having a secure storage area that nobody's going to decide well we don't need these plans anymore and they get no they stay in the office and then once it kind of gets CL gets a little too full over let's say five to S years then they go through everything box everything up it goes down and it's yeah I mean some of these subdivisions you know this is a smaller one but they can be working on them for six eight years oh yeah so it it's have digital filing Orem yes I keep now we do now save everything they also yeah they also get recorded at the registry of deeds and then once I have that I save that to the file and I also give it to the town clerk's office so it is in multiple places as again as long as there's a a safe repository for the plants there is can you sign that one sure there's two copies this that one thank you thank you Bri sorry good this all right moving right along uh I'm going to go slightly out of order here uh next is the the Sol special permit extension request for zero Cushing Lane cush mass now if you all recall uh couple of weeks back we had uh the other three lots uh in front of us um and we extended uh Robinson Road we extended 1050 and 1052 Woodbridge uh um for a year uh this uh parcel was and is under litigation so we weren't sure exactly the uh procedure as far as um the special permit we've since gotten clarification from Town Council uh Mr Mary if you'd like to just comment a little bit on this sure just very briefly I think the town had appropriately asked us to get the extension introduce yourself sure I'm sorry John Mary on behalf of uh nexamp the town had appropriately told us get extensions on three and we came before you at that time I think it wasn't clear because we were in litigation with the town whether it was appropriate to be in front of this board for the fourth um so as uh as the chairman mentioned since that time they indicated it would be appropriate for us to come before just to give you an update on this particular site um we began construction late 2022 in January of 2023 the former conservation agent issued a ceas and assist order so we could no longer do any work at the time the issue was whether or not the access road was crossing somebody's property whether or not there was an easement that case was brought to land Court the town has settled with my client um one of the abutters who's a party to the case has a very complicated situation with a reverse mortgage that is making it difficult to have everybody sign the paper with the land Court to resolve that that has been ongoing for about three or four months that we've been waiting for that um bottom line of it is technically I think we're coming before you to say we have commenced work and I think I it's pretty clear the only reason that Pat Hannon issued a seent assist was because we had commenced work so we had commenced work we've been working in in due you know with due d we've had a good working relationship with Town Council we've settled all issues with Town Council we're just waiting for that semi complicated title issue uh to be resolved before we can get back out there and complete the project so uh at your request we're back here for the fourth of these and I think it's pretty straightforward the same as the others we um if you recall we had received a set of plans for the roadway construction from when Cushing lanane and the asphalt ends and then uh they had we have they had submitted plans to continue the road into the project we have since gone over that we have since approved all that that's already all said and done um and again the one the other three were um Extended for a year um as far as I am I'm cons as far as I'm concerned personally this one should have been in front of us with the other three um and the proponent has been trying to actively um start this project but as as you mentioned they're in litigation so um that's where I stand gent I mean there's no question that they certainly have diligently tried to move the project forward in my mind and and by their their actions I mean I don't have a problem with a one-year extension like all the rest of them um okay um I make a motion to approve the so permit extension request zero Cushing Lane map 7 m 26 for the period of 1 year expiring on September 14th 2025 we have a motions second all in favor I thank you very much thank you Mr Mary okay moving right along uh again I want to jump out of order um next we have a request for an opinion of the planning board Lambert Street map 18 Lots 4g4 h4k owner applicant Justin Lawrence representative Schneider deigman and Leon Incorporated the scope of the work is proposed access determination Mr Divan thank you Mr chairman board members recomend d v I'm sh D Leone I represent Justin Lawrence he's here with me this evening um he is looking to uh develop a lot um off the end of uh Lambert Street um there's a pretty long history to um the work we've been working on for this project to come to fruition um I've outlined and I I'll go through the the memo that I I put together to s of um bring us from the from the beginning to to the current uh where we're standing today so I I put together a packet and of plans 11 by 17 and the first plan in the packet is the uh the actual roadway construction plan which was developed in 1982 signed by the planning board um rck I'm not sure if that's you on the top um or your dad um but 82 the planning board approved um lamri Street basically an extension um with a finger like uh kind of shape to it Dave give me a second suree interrupt so we get the right set of plans yeah so the uh the full size set of plans is what you see on the board that's the full size that is what we're uh proposing oh that's set right there now the small set that I put together um I think I submitted at least five packets so I can follow me um that's what I want to walk through to show uh and get us for today does everybody have a packet yeah they got it I got it I've seen it I have thank you was was this Lambert Street Extension ever ever constructed it uh was not constructed for the plan that you see it was constructed more of in the form of a driveway uh the purpose of this road layout was for the development of the house the house lot you see to the north that says 1 acre plus 81 sare ft there is a house on that uh on that lot the director butter is actually here this evening with his attorney um so this plan was recorded it was um developed um like I said as a a gravel drive way servicing his house um the second plan in the packet is another subdivision plan which is approved by the planning board this one in 1993 for the land behind the subject parcel and it actually showed parcel B label this parcel B um and it actually says on if you see not a buildable lot extension of Lambert Street is necessary to create buildable lot for Frontage it has 50 ft of Frontage at the end of Lambert Street and you can see the lot area 56490 at that time it actually met the lot area but not the frontage requirements um the lot areas that back at that time I think was 30,000 and now it's 60,000 so the the next plan that is in the packet is an anr plan that uh this board signed um this year um back in June um which uh shows a parcel a 37 168 ft being taken out of a build of lot which uh ABS Tracy street so that that can be added to the other lot um as it has existed on the assessor map since 1982 um to bring that up to 60,000 Square ft the next plan your packet is a uh a conceptual preliminary we call it a preliminary sub division plan which um we proposed to create the frontage with a hammerhead at the end of Lambert Street um an extension of that layout um and you can see by adding the parcel a it showed that we would meet the 60,000 ft but we were short the Upland area requirement which is 40,000 um including the roadway layout we had about 36,000 but you have to the minus the roadway layout from the up requirement so we were down to uh looks like 30,056 ft so at that time we figured our first step was to go to the zba and see if we can get a a variance for the upin area requirement um so we submitted this plan to the zba when we went to the zba um the a butter uh the director butter who uh has you can see his house um house number 50 Lambert Street showed up at the zba hearing and objected to the plan buildout that we were proposing which is the very next plan that you see in your packet which shows a 20 foot wide roadway with a hammerhead um a storm water Swale burm you know the whole all wax if you will in order to provide roadway access that we would then come before this board should we get the Upland variance of less than 40,000 at that hearing um the abutter objected with his attorney to such a significant what he would I would and I'm paraphrasing here degradation of his property by blowing out all the woods and creating such a a massive road to service one lot that has existed since 1982 um so they put forth the board of appeals um and we didn't oppose it obviously um that if if the board of appeals would entertain a waiver on the Frontage we wouldn't have to build such a massive road we would then have a frontage variance from 150 to 50 for how the lot exists today plus the Upland variance would then make it buildable which is the next plan that you see was a revised plan submitted to the zba which um shows parcel a smaller now a little bit small which Maxes the anr plan that you signed because we didn't have to take out of the Upland area for that uh to create the frontage so basically this is the lot as it existed for the last 40 years plus parcel a made it 60,000 we have a variance obtained by zba for the Upland area requirement down to uh 34,800 so we got a variance for approximately 5200 sare ft and and we got a variance for the uh the frontage requirement down to 50 ft so now we have a buildable lot it's more now of a I view it as a retreat lot we only have to provide access to get to the lot because it's at the End of the Street um and in doing so what we agreed to um the next uh exhibit you have is the board of appeals decision which we included and then finally um as you get to the last two sheets set a plan what we're proposing today which is which is on the board which is to uh basically uh split off the existing gravel driveway roadway whatever you want to call it within the layout create our own access to our property and minimize the impacts um to uh the abiding property as well as the wetlands there is a wetland um system if you were to look at this plan if if you follow the green line that's your Wetland system and there's a small Wetland Slither through here there's a a what looks like a dra it's a drainage ditch that functions as a stream um which drains the water through and to the wetlands and that was created because of flooding issues that was happening to the abing property that wet line comes all the way up up to this point and and then expands onto the properties to the West so we're actually going to have to alter the Wetland system to get from here to here um with this uh driveway that we're proposing the darker green represents what would remain as a buffer zone to the wetlands including this whole area partly Wetland and partly uh green that would give a buffer for the abutter and this is something that we worked on um together with the abutter um so uh our next step after that was to apply to the the Conservation Commission um for the Wetland Crossing we had a public hearing uh last week um the butter um still has some objections to his existing flooding issue how we're going to make it better so we have since revised the plan which is basically what you see now this is the same plan as the other highly colored one and we're implementing um a grass water poly soil drainage soil if you will uh to connect from that ditch and really collect the water and drain it out to low spot um on on our client's property so that should help alleviate the issues that he gets with um uh during the wet season and it'll function as a drainage system for the road and and Pitch all the water back to actually our property so in doing so that application conservation uh we did continue the hearing and until next the next hearing which will be next next week so that we can come before the planning board um so we're here for to request the board determine that the access uh that we're proposing within this private previously approved uh roadway layout is adequate to serve the one home and again I I I convey to you that my position is it's it's more like a driveway to a retreat lot and it balances um the Wetland impacts really significantly reduces the impacts of the wetlands uh which would double if we had to go for full-blown Road layout um just to get to one house for a distance of 150 200 ft um the butter is here with his attorney I don't know if he wants to speak um um but we believe we have their support um and I'd love for them to say that you have our [Music] support J Marsh for the uh uh my client the Howards or sorry the Allen that live at 50 uh Lambert um as David just mentioned uh they have our support with this uh most recent plan um I'd have to say this is one of the situations where uh I appreciate as as a lawyer um having the opportunity to work collaboratively with uh neighbor in a situation where the initial design was a full-blown roadway and they've really appreciated um um the concerns of my client and work to now have a plan that like like we had just said we have no objection to um and um you know we're here tonight I think it's more than adequate um to serve the the one lot that um we're going to have a hopefully a happy and friendly relationship with with the neighbor um going forward thank you I guess the last thing I'd like to mention is that um uh Justin um and his wife are uh they're they're aiming to build here and um You probably never see this anywhere else but they have family uh in this direction here here here behind them it's the Lawrence uh Fernandes compound if you will so basically the only property that isn't um part of the family and somewhere another is the one lot for Mr Allen which was sold by um one of the F Andy's uh family members so it's more of a family compound if you will for the neighborhood and I guess I should further add that this lot will not require septic system because the second half of the picture which is this side of the lot get the WR plane see we have uh sewer and water coming in from street through an easement that will be provided for by another family member this is going to be private private road Private Road remain in perpetuity of the private road the other half of the equation this of course I got upside down see if I can get it right there we go so this is the roadway layout this is the proposed driveway um the parcel immediately to the West is is uh owned by col Fernandes Jr um the one to the north is Paul laasia he's also uh part of the fanes family this uh family member is going to provide a 20 foot wide um easement um recorded the registry so that we can bring in sewer from uh Force man that was already extended to this property um so we'll be connecting and bringing in sewer and water 10 ft apart uh sewer being a force main beginning at a E1 grinder pump at the site running on the north side of the easement the water line will connect to the water line in Co Street on the south side and then we we also have uh overhead utility poles that we're going to bring down the center line and then once we get to the pole on the site we'll go underground to the house so when we build this access driveway we don't have to bring any other utilities um the only other infrastructure that would be put in this place is is a cover dual covert system at the low point so all the utilities will be uh traving across this property to Cox Street which simplifies the the project even more and the impacts of the director butter um Mr Allen and we have submitted the plan to D Minar he's reviewed it and uh I'm not aware of any issues um I've been following this project uh I watched the initial uh zba meeting uh that you all went to um and kind of like chairman uh Brown said I I I think I think it's a good thing that you know the two neighbors were able to come to an agreement you know regardless if it's a form C subdivision Road way or a driveway or the the wetlands I mean as long as everybody's happy and it's you know done proper way so I'm I think that's a good thing that um the two of you gotone together and worst thing you want to do is live near each other and be mad at each other for something that somebody didn't agree to you know so or or be unhappy about it so um then I followed you uh to the conservation meeting I watched that one as well uh I noticed you had a little issue there towards the end with the ponding of the water up in at the front of your property I see that you fixed that which is good and again just you know two people uh two neighbors working together to get things done which is in my opinion good gentlemen any questions comments you know I I my only my only one is and it just may be my poor interpretation of things I thought that you couldn't use the end of a roadway for Frontage well that was part of what he had said so they went they started out no no I I I understand that but in terms of of zoning I mean I the building inspector is going to have to look at that and say that really is 50 ft of Frontage that's not just the end of a street I I it just that that's where I that's the biggest thing that I'm struggling with on on this is I've never seen the end of a street being used for for subdivision or being being used for Frontage sorry well if I I may be wrong I I don't if I may I I have encountered h a uh projects uh where the the neighborhoods were old and there were large tracks of land at the end of these dead end streets M and uh there's one in particular down in creson Beach M poisa and they wanted to access through that to build a development and the neighbors fought it because their lawyers proved that they had no they were separate developments when they developed the subdivision there were no rights brought to that property because they AB budded that property in this particular case when you go back to the subdivision plan the roadway layout was proposed by the Fernandes family they cut out the lot they remain they retain rights to the roow they have all access rights to the end of that road mhm because of that and I would convey to you that if you look at um the proposed Hammerhead that we did propose essentially when you look at that type of hammerhead you're you're you have you use all of the ends as Frontage and it it's it's perfect perfectly acceptable in the industry that I've seen throughout all the permitting I've been involved with when you control the property but you have a valid point that if if this was a larger track of land that had nothing to do with the original subdivision they probably have no rights to more concerned about setting a precedent here for future projects to be quite honest with you I this is reasonable I I don't know that 60,000 Square ft is quite as big as a retreat lot is is you know supposed to be so I mean it it uh I mean the other thing and again I'm I'm I'm just talking right now but the original roadway was approved with a pavement construction along the whole length of it um how the house got put there without having that built to what was at that time in ' 82 the approved specification uh you know here's another precedent where I I'm just a little uncomfortable with it that's all you know cuz it's we're going to get asked to consider 50 ft at the end of a a road uh Frontage at at another time I guarantee you oh I can I could see your I can see your point and um obviously this was not us uh but before they went to the zba asked well they didn't request the 50 ft it was more the zba said you know to make them happy let's get eliminate the road and the Hammerhead and let's get back to the and and they gave them the Improvement if something would have come in front of us again they would have to show and again they would have to show that they had the ability to put that road and the Hammerhead in to construct the fory road well we're we're we're going to get asked again on the Frontage I that's again my only my only reservation right now it's I you know it the fact that you know they've gone through all these these itineration to satisfy the neighbor and you know I that's great I mean that's a I'm I'm still stuck on that 50 ft of Frontage but isn't the zba giving the okay on that all the 50 ft of front because they told you to get rid of the ham head I mean correct it's I mean essentially the way I understand Frontage is this really is a lot with no Frontage it's not not really a a a reduction to 50 ft because it's it's the layout at the end of a road I but isn't the zba is it well our position is that the frontage was created by this the uh the the the original development with the intent of providing that Frontage at the end of the road to the lot at the end and it was continued on through the next subdivision that was done for the same family so it was created created by the family it's really no different than if you just put a bubble at the end you're at the end of the bubble you're you're creating Frontage at the end if it's a you can have a stub Road go in and count that both sides as Frontage as well there's nothing says you can't it really comes into play when like I said you you have and I know I think there's even a regulation in the pyboard RS for a cush it that you have to provide these stubs to other properties um so so that you don't landlock somebody it doesn't necessarily give them rights to use that Stu if it's just a paper Stu for for purposes of building a house correct is right of access andt of access to provide access for an additional uh house that's do these other lots that are on lamber Street there's dwellings on these or not are these are going to be uh there are no other there are no other Lots there are no other houses on on this know the vacant lots that have bought no not at all they they I can't see them on that side I just didn't knoww on that side of it over there for Rich Richard and Deborah Fernandes and Paul roses there's there's buildings on there are they down on the other side every uh lot around it is built on except for um this strip of land um which is not a buildable lot okay when you first get into the property that is the replication area yep that one's not sized to be a buildable lot nor does it have any Frontage or any grandfathering um then you have this house and then us everybody on the West Side they have addresses on street addresses this one and this one I'm not sure if this one's Lambert or St Lawrence Street or but there are houses all along the west side that exist over there right everybody okay what is it that you specifically need from the planning board do you just need an approval of adequate access to service to Lots um I'm not quite sure um Town plan tring I'm trying to narrow the approval down so that we don't address the 50 ft yeah so I can explain a little bit so in the bylaw under Street or way it says that essentially the paper streets right if it I don't have the definition with me but basically they need to request an opinion of the planning board to show adequate access um grades and construction to serve the proposed use of the law which in this case is a single family home MH so that's what they're coming in front of us for is to request an opinion essentially we're not um I don't think we have anything to do with Frontage at this point if the zba granted it I would say I mean I don't think there's anything we can do but um I I would I would I would propose that we not address the issue of Frontage okay on this proposal and just look simply as uh that gravel driveway as shown is this this is the correct plan here this is the one that we would be voting on in terms of if that's the one that has the Swale so many plans here we have a revision day of 1010 24 [Music] revisions of 1010 okay yes yes and we do show um uh definite pavement on the property for the driveway and the parking areas um we show pavement or gravel for the the way we still like it open-ended because I'd like since we're adding the drainage to relieve the ab Butter's current drainage problems um I'd like to at least provide my clock with the option of pave or gravel conservation may have a different opinion but we have it on the plan as either or may I ask a question please um did um Police and Fire review this at all to see if it was adequate for their emergency vehicles uh this plan itself no would narrow here taking a roadway and turning it into a driveway gets narrow at 10 ft by the I'll call it the bridge over there correct we have it at 12 and then we narrow it down through the wetlands to 10 and then we do have grass shoulders on both sides and then we open it back up to 12 we're trying to preserve that the the key is preserving that ditch which actually drains the water uh it's a very uh visible ditch and so we shift shifted the whole road to the other property line um any other questions comments no is there um easement for for access to the back I see these two driveways I mean how does this all work over here as far as you got existing gravel driveway going over to Mr Allen's house over here um and you know it all verges at the end of the street over there so they'll share the first leg until the split yep his driveway is what we label as existing gravel driveway and then that parking area that all Remain the way it is now who owns this Pro who owns all this at the end of the day the private way yeah since since it's private fee fee uh ownership would be to the Center for uh but the rights would be to those uh that abought the property this lot and this lot but since it's a private way fee ownership would be to the center line who's responsible that Ro at that Gravel Road for some reason washes out uh Mr Lawrence the owner of the property at the end there's nobody else that would be responsible okay would he be responsible up to the why and then from if anything happened from then on correct they will privately share until the split why and they if for some reason there was something that happen to the road up up top they would share that [Music] responsibility this is to demonstrate suitable grades adequate construction and serve the purpose for use of a single family home again we're not here to vote on Frontage we're not here to vote on uh anything to do with conservation or what the zva has already approved does anybody have any other questions comments concerns can I get a motion what are we read it I don't know if I want it oh motion to deem in the opinion of for the planning board that the proposed plan entitled site plan dated 925 2024 and the preliminary roadway construction plan dated 322 2024 demonstrates suitable grades inadequate construction to serve the purp proposed use of a single family home I would only add to that that dated 92524 as revised uh 10 1024 that's the actual plan that they've asked as far as to approve uh cons preliminary roadway construction plan I don't think you really want to include that one what's that one that that is that sheet two well no um that dated 12:21 say that again is it what's the date date on that plan that was March 22 2024 preliminary roadway construction plan those one of the plans you submitted you me I think I think we just want you to site the uh the plan that you have plan that we have at 1010 2024 that's correct that's all that's that's needed um which is this is uh dated 925 2024 revised 1010 2024 two sheets that it's set yeah that's right sheet one and Sheet two plus do the preliminary roadway construction plan dated that's Yeah March 22nd 24 you you looking for that also no all I think all we're looking is the site plan all right okay that one's done that one's gone uh so motion to deem the opinion for the planning board for the site plan dated 1025 2024 revised plan 10124 no you said the same thing twice 92524 9254 Revis revised 10124 yes two sheets two sheets I have a motion I will second it got a second all in favor I I unanimous Victoria is there anything we going sign for this um no I'll write something up for this one I would imagine just a memo the building department yeah that's another I mean if if you go to the building department and he has has an issue with the pp as long as he's aware of all of this which he will be yes it's basically he follows what the zba has approved correct he he was he at the at least the first support of appeals hearing if not both there were two zba okay yeah you're yeah okay thank you all right we get that one sett [Music] discussions and other topics uh discussion and vote on the updated fee schedule tell we all have fee schedule in your packet looks a little bit like this this is something that we if you recall we went over uh about a year or so ago we've been trying to revise our forms we've been trying to revise our fee schedules um the only thing that was kind of lingering was the uh $10 per linear foot um that's was was something that was kind of up in the air if I recall correctly uh my opinion the $10 linear foot is to cover all expenses um if there's any money left over that's not used obviously the proponent gets it back so uh it might being a little bit more of an excess as compared to other neighboring towns um but this way I think it's a better way to kind of uh assure that we have enough funds and we don't have to go back to the proponent asking for more if need be this way uh I think the $10 per linear foot will give us enough funds to complete the road for engineering and um inspections and all that uh and like I said if there's anything left over the proponent gets it back anyways so um I thought we should keep the $10 for line of foot um the only other change on here is we have this $400 fee uh for Amendment and modification of the subdivision basically if a proponent wants to cancel and not go through with it we're going to charge him 400 bucks so um I would recommend removing that that's the bottom line um we're the only ones that actually have something like that so I would probably say we could get rid of that um but everything else as you can see all our fees are we get different here everybody else is good amendments 500 plus 100 250 well we have it well a is the 400 plus the 50 was a 50 for the am and for for yeah for any amendments right we get 500 plus 100 plus 100 for a lot for any amendments and we get 75 we got we're at 400 at 70 at $75 per lot that's Haven push Haven's a little bit higher manap Poison's a little bit lower uh maran's lower um even new be lower uh well it's lower for the initial fee but more per a lot mhm um I don't think our fees are I mean where we could be lower than some and higher than others but I think we're in the ballpark uh with with just about all of them I mean considering the the value of lots these days these are small dollars mhm even for the subdivision so I mean the the money per foot that the Road subdivision is laid out for uh consultant uh fees on their end is is these numbers tail in comparison to what they've got invested in in the subdivision already right so if everybody's in agreeance we keep the fee schedule as is and re we remove the um $400 for the amendment and modification of the subdivision so moved all in favor a second second all in favor go thank you okay we voted on that one next discussion vote on the filing requirements Tor can you help me out with this one yeah of course so with the filing requirements we were also trying to clean those up as well and I had noticed that there were a lot of separate forms for each application so as far as like filing requirements go so I felt like kind of condensing it down since a lot of the requirements are similar especially for um filings that have a public hearing um so we sort of condensed it down onto one um cohesive sheet and we also put on there to require PDF copies of the filing so we can have them like ically as well as reducing the plan count from I believe it was 10 copies down to four copies um which is enough for the board and to have one for the file as well I had spoke to Victoria about this earlier cuz we right now we do require 10 copies uh possibly bringing it down to four copies um I just want to make sure that we reach out to all other departments to make sure that they don't want a copy if they you know if they just have you with the with the um PDF for their files then there's no need to you know have 10 full copies if they don't if they're just going to throw it away when we give it to them right okay so why don't we reach out to them and see who needs it who who would like to have a copy and who would not and then we'll uh um modify that number accordingly but is everybody good with having kind of a one pager kind of specifying the requirements for filing with the planning board kind of condensing everything here to one pages so if anybody has any questions yeah good idea the simpler the simpler it can be made the better absolutely okay um I'll entertain a motion to accept the requirements for filing for the equ clearing board with the modification of possibly the um the amount of uh hard copies we require I get a motion can I get a second a second all in favor I done with that one all all right the refund so this is discussion and vote for rec fund with the commissioning bond for 355 and 550 Main Street uh wait me for a [Music] second this is for the two projects on Main Street the old driving range and uh the 550 main this is basically $800 left over from the initial uh cash bond that they put down can I correct with that this is the remaining funds from the review GF had did on the decommissioning estimate that's what it was yeah are we all good with uh giving them back their money if those projects are done I don't see any reason to uh well the decommissioning has been done by GF uh we've given them the the decommissioning report they have no arguments with it and they're going to be giving us the uh carrying out the bond for that yes they did say they're working on getting the bonds in place and then once they do that will come back to the board to request to release their cash Charities that we're holding M motion to release uh refund the authorized amount of $800 to project name 355 Main and 350 Main Street sold project project decommissioning review so moved second all in favor all righty Town planner update I don't really have anything to add this week looks like you were busy enough I don't know if you guys have any specific questions for me about anything that's going on I'm more than happy to answer no no uh all right yeah so this is um can you handar the sound thank you um this came in actually like within the last day or so um not even sure if it has anything to do with us uh we received a request for comment regarding 150 ft monopole Old Tower that Verizon would like to put in place at 207 Leonard Street this was in front of the zba several years ago and received many neighbor complaints the status of the permit if any is unclear if the board wants to provide comment I suggest referring them to the zva zoning enforcement officer to ensure they know they may need additional permitting they permit through the planing board what is not required based on provided documents do you guys you guys have been here longer than me do you recall anything come in front of us for a cell tower or any kind of tower on L Street never kind of kind of remember when it was going on the uh I mean there is a there is a maximum height uh allowed in the zoning bylaw I'm sure this exceeds that um but you know that's a that's a building inspector issue really more than yeah we got to look at it and see if it's actually if it's a residential I don't know how that works is I mean putting that Tower up is residential versus you know it's Department Public Utilities you know they've got their own set of regulations yeah I I I don't know like is that was that would be a building inspector issue more than anything I'm more concerned that it improves the cell sign at my house on Lake Street to be quite honest with which stinks yes I agree disagree with it's U yeah I guess if Andy's got an issue you'd be sending it back to us right what's that if uh building commissioner's got any issues it would be coming you know I think it wouldn't even come back to us I think it would go to zba cuz they're the ones that do the permitting for these y we don't have anything to do with the special per they sent us something asking for our comments I person my comment is send it to the building inspector and then to zba if need be but I don't think we really have much to comment on no okay I just wanted to throw it out there okay uh anything else anybody would like to bring up or talk about today our next meeting is Thursday November 7th can I get a motion to adjourn motion to adjourn got a second all in favor all good night [Music] [Music]