Seconds5 all right it is 6:30 and I will call us in order um welcome Everyone and I will uh call the rooll um John myself present Rebecca I’m here Phil yep Neil nope nope um Mike said he might be late or he would definitely be late if he showed up um he’s on his way from another um Peter said he’s out yeah um
Mark here um Susan here and Alternate members Zack Terell not present and Michael buard and Peter Julia both already um wrote in to say they would not make it tonight okay um review of minutes this is from our January 18th Ving board meeting I just had one maybe a typo uh on page
Four the second to last paragraph something about the stature language I’m assuming that’s is that statutory I assume so yeah okay stat I think it’s just missing a y I just wanted to make sure I was understanding what that that waser it’s not released right um
Otherwise I thought there was a lot in the minutes and uh this covered it I’ll make a motion that we approve the minutes from January 18th second any further discussion all right all in favor I I opposed extensions all right the minutes are approved um are there any public comments not
Related to the business on the agenda this evening okay um Communications received by the board um Joseph yeah I’ll keep it brief uh the board may recall that oh it was probably quite some time ago now um I actually don’t remember the date of the meeting but we had Justin Skelly from
DPC Engineering in who was working on a storm water asset Management program for the town and we held a public meeting and spoke with him and and also some folks from New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services who gave us the grant for that uh for that Asset Management program there been a little
Bit of a I suppose you could say um delay the engineering firm that we’d hired had been having some internal uh Staffing challenges I understand so they have suggested a new timeline so their new timeline for the remainder of the grant uh includes uh staff training April and May of
2024 uh draft deliverables by May of 2024 wrap-up meeting June of 2024 and final deliverables by July of 2024 so that would be the the completion of the asset management program but the wrap-up meeting uh may involve another public session um depending on to discuss at that point but just
Sort of bringing that back up and and letting folks know that that’s still ongoing um we haven’t heard from the engineer in a while but they’ve they’ve given us this new proposed timeline and they’re confident that they can get it done um on the timeline that they’re now
Suggesting and for the grant and if I recall correctly was this this was storm water asset managements throughout the town so will the delay allow us to have an accurate management of the improved storm water assets on Main Street yeah that would be my understanding so they’re they’ve represented that within
The new timeline they can do everything that they were initially contracted to do which was a full inventory and an evaluation of you know a lifespan and and coming up with um some type of usable Asset Management database that you know is going to be something that the highway folks are comfortable using
Out in the field um um so when they’re actually replacing a culvert they can kind of live update and they it can also help them prioritize different projects and be a little more proactive with with managing those those storm water assets at least have a better database so that
If they have regular flooding they can identify which which culprits may be undersized which ones may be a priority for replacement I I I suspect that will that be a a CIP item if they come up with a a plan to replace those I would I would think it would definitely be one
That Highway would want to incorporate into their CIP projections for um you know and I guess there’s the the balance of operations and maintenance of regular repairs versus these you know these capital projects yeah but I I imagine those will definitely be things that we want to incorporate into the CIP once
That information is is compiled thank you well thank you for the update and and we’ve done all of that without using one of my favorite acon rithms the swamp yeah it’s a good one um let’s see so new business um public hearing number three on the following 2024 proposed zoning
Amendments accessory dwelling units and Fairgrounds Road residential overlay District um so I assume some of you are here for this part of the meeting and I will um do one of these at a time um starting with the accessory dwelling units and then going to the overlay district and
I’ll I’ll read the language here and not of the full Amendment but of the um description of the amendment and then um I’ll open a public hearing and we can get some feedback and see where we are um I will remind everyone uh um that at
This phase or this like phase in the timeline basically um the finalized language has to be in by it’s within a few days I forgot the exact date um so there’s no more time to amend this and put it to another public hearing and um rehear it again um it’s
Basically it’s up or down tonight and there’s no further amendments to be made to the Amendments um and yeah so with that said um I’ll read the first one and then I’ll open a public hearing um so article 4 section 416 amend the accessory dwelling unit requirements by removing reference to a
Requirement for a conditional use permit and removing the statement about where they are permitted to eliminate redundancy with other Provisions for permitted uses in article 3 also remove inaccurate language referencing State statutes and simplify the purpose statement section and change required parking spaces to a minimum of one for
An accessory dwelling unit in addition to the spaces required for a single family home um if need be we can get into some of the details of the language uh but with that said I will open a public hearing it is now 6:39 um and before we move to public comments
Right away um do any members of the board have anything else to say um on this amendment I know we’ve talked about this quite a bit already I wasn’t at the last meeting I read through the minutes or the last hearing on this yes why did
This come back for one more hearing was there a change that had been made or was there further discussion that was needed um so the only change that has been made from the previous language is that um actually have to remind myself of which amendment this is yeah so it’s accessory
Dwelling units so there was a discussion of changing the accessory dwelling unit um mandates for public hearing and um special exception in the overlay which is the next next one and then that if that happened that would change the description of the permissions for special except um for adus in the Adu
Amendment and rather than trying to specify where which we did previously in the Adu section where it would be permitted or not we simply decided to remove that language since that’s those that’s listed elsewhere in the zoning ordinance anyway um so this way even this will stand alone it makes it this
It stands alone and it means if we make changes again in the future we don’t have to track down like we only make one change cover same okay great thank you so yeah that that’s that’s basically what changed um we just removed some of that language everything else remained
The same yeah and generally this amendment is removing the conditional use permit was because it was becoming burdensome to the board to review these the number of permits and we were all in agreement that the process to get a building permit for an U is sufficient
In making sure that it aderes to the criteria established in the zoning ordinance except that we in this process of these hearings have changed that for single family residential and now also for the Overlake which we’ll get to in a moment okay to require a special exception yes a special exception but
Not AAL so go zing zing board instead of us okay um so here we’re basically talking about um it’s the adus and um what’s changing from our current language is removing some strous language that didn’t actually meet state law and some other things um and reducing the parking
Spaces um to one mandatory for the Adu in addition to anything else required for the um single family home where it was two before and then to remove the land language that specifies where um they are permitted and how that’s covered elsewhere okay are there any public comments about this particular
Amendment yeah like to um please come up and identify yourself uh my name is Ed sleeper I own the property over on cooksville road okay I apologize for being kind of a come lately but um second if you can go to the podium just because with a microphone there and sometimes it’s hard
To pick up the Sounds in the room yes uh I reiterate I’m Ed sleeper I own property on cooksville road and I came to the meeting to just to try to understand it better and so I have a question as to what was the original uh purpose for creating this
Overlay zone so if you could so the overlay is the Second Amendment here okay um and we’ll get to that in a second um I imagine a bunch of people here might be here for the overlay discussion okay um this one is just about um accessory dwelling units okay
Um they’re not connected they are connected um but how they’re allowed in um the overlay we’ll talk about separately when we get to the overlay um in fact where they’re allowed and weiro was talking about we remove that completely from the section here on the adus okay um and this reduces the number
Of parking spaces required and it um to one and it um there was some language in there that was erroneous in terms of what it qualified for in state law and stuff and we decided to take that out as well okay so the overlay we’ll get to in
A moment okay sounds good hold your thought okay um any other comments or questions about the Adu Amendment okay um I’m going to leave the public hearing open for their um entirety of our discussion of the zoning amendments um back to the board um I’m comfortable with this and I
Think we’re we we cleaned it up so that it can move forward regardless of the other uh zoning changes and I and I think this should have in my opinion I think this should have broad uh public support I think it’s we’ve simplified the process for the majority of people seeking to
Install or to have a an accessory dwelling unit and you know this is part of our goal of um providing for more cost- effective Housing Opportunity in the town Mike um one item that hasn’t been brought up is some Lots in the azone are pre-existing and can be some very small
Lots from 0. one of an acre I’m thinking of the small lot that um is the old grange on Route three to some quarter acre lots there’s probably I don’t know in town I think we did an assessment is there what a hundred of them quarter
Acre maybe aund half acre maybe a few hundred even in the single family there are some 10th acre lots yeah so we covered it in the single family that an Adu would have to get a special exception but there are some Lots in the a azone that are 0.1 of an acre quarter
Of an acre half an acre and uh I think of someone who’s got 100 acres it’s not a big deal you know their Adu may not even be noticed for 10 years before their neighbors might find out but on a small 0. one of an acre or
Small quarter of an acre it might be a bigger deal and that’s what I lost sight of when we were talking about single family and uh getting the getting the special exception for that I’m wondering whether there’s a middle ground here where it’s not a big change but just to
Say hey in keeping with the small Lots like we did with the single family what if we did 2 and 1/2 acres or 2 Acres you’d still need to go for a special exception but if you got more than 2 and A2 Acres there there’s probably a good deal of distance between
The buildings and maybe it’s not that big of a deal and we can reassess it another year um so my thoughts about this are well I mean a would be if you have a really small lot you still have to follow various dimensional requirements and setbacks and and all of
That um but B um the way this is written at this point um that’s a use table issue which we’ve already passed and put to um the vote at town meeting um and the ballot and all of the uses have been removed from this um Amendment um
So all of those are already put forward to um in the use table um have already been put forward to town meeting and we can discuss that another year again if if we want to change that making another amendment um to the youth table um but it’s not covered in this particular
Amendment so it might be a potential discussion for another year how do we all feel um if if the are we keeping the hearing open yeah we I’m keep we’re going to keep it open for the remainder of the um zoning amendments um are you looking for a motion from the board at
This point if you if you want to make one I I well I I thought we had to close the hearing on this one before we did that we didn’t we didn’t do that at our previous me public hearings on the zoning amendments so I think we’re okay
I I would move that we um move Amendment um uh 7 section 416 on Accessory dwelling units to the town uh to the legislative body I second that um any further discussion I would just say this has been a hard a hard one for me MH and I could go either way and
Um on Accessory dwelling units really okay what about the I mean is it the the table of use issue that you’re talking talking about or what’s what’s an issue here for you my only issue is that if there’s a small lot and someone wants to put in Adu they
Go to the town in the way that it stands now the town pretty much rubber STS it as long as the lot is big enough and can handle it and it meets all the meets all the criter that are in the zoning Town planner would rubber stamp it and they
Start bringing 2x4s in electricians and plumbers do as of now doesn’t it still require conditional use permit as of now be before before this change before the potential changes this year yes it needed a yeah go the plan they come to us so we made a change that if they want
To put an Adu in the single family Zone they would have to alert by letter their neighbors so the neighbors could have some impact by saying hey you know there’s a lot of cars going in and out all you know all day long and you know
It’s only when the shades down or you know that’s type of good information that the zoning board might want to know before another unit on that lot or you know maybe it’s not the shade maybe there’s something else with things that are going on in the like illegal things
Legal that you’d call the police board you get own Apartments to know how this stuff works Claremont not this town um but you if there might be things that the town may not know that’s going on and if the abuts aren’t got haven’t gotten any type of notice they may not
Have a chance to come forward and let the town know hey you know there three um unregistered Vehicles maybe this stuff needs and which happens a lot maybe this needs to take be taken care of before he gets the stamp to go ahead and start building that’s and it could
Be a whole host of reasons that the neighbors might want to have a chance just to be notified to come in and just say their peace before it just happened now and I’ll just remind everyone that is a use table issue which is separate from this issue at this point um but
Noted um I think it’s a different Amendment um where where that’s needed or not um um any further discussion okay all in favor hi hi hi opposed abstentions all right all right uh the motion passes uh so this will um go to a ballot on Tuesday what is that March 12th March 12th
Um all right so and our Second Amendment that we’re considering this evening um article 3 zones maps and regulations and this is where we get to the overlay U amend article 3 the zoning map and article uh 14 to create a fairgr road residential overlay District which would preserve the underlying zoning while
Allowing Property Owners the option of using the overlay District standards as an alternative which allows dimensional standards to be in accordance with the single family residential Zone and allows single family detached single family attached and two family dwelling units as permitted uses and accessory dwelling units as permitted by special
Exception this District would overlay portions of the A and HC districts roughly covering land along both sides of Fairground Road stretching West from Main Street to the old Fairground site and as far north as the Plymouth Town boundary and just as a reminder if you’ve been following along all the way
Um this particular amendment was changed um in one way since um our last hearing which is to make um accessory dwelling units a um not a permitted use but a um permitted by um special exception um which would mean you have to go to the zoning board for
Approval John do you want to um address the question that was already raised about the motivation for why we did this in general like you were on the Housing Opportunity you’re better suited to summarize that I think look I can toss it off to someone else in
The I can take stab at it if you want um if you’d like I think um we were looking for many different ways to to allow housing for because of the housing demand in Plymouth the value of what was happening to the prices of homes imp plet that it was being priced
Out for young families or uh folks looking for affordable housing that we thought we would try and do what we could to bump up the inventory and by allowing a an acreage to have more housing units on it to have that ability could help to increase the housing units
Which would hopefully at some point start to allow the prices to come down a little bit with supply and demand um we looked at many different other options and uh we decided we looked at this as being maybe the least um uh evasive least um problematic for the town rather
Than allowing we also looked at allowing more than six units per building to get more units of rentals um so we thought that would be the a little bit easier for the town to accept and we looked at it that at one point um if you had Town water and town
Sewer you could go to a much smaller lot like a quarter acre um in some zones and we got away from that at some point and only allowed that acreage to go to Halfacre so we thought rather than allowing the entire town that we would identify one area that are already has
Water and already has Town sewer already identified with those services that we would try it kind of as a test um an overlay for that single area and what we were hoping was by notifying everybody which we didn’t have to do but we decided to notify everybody within that
Zone with letters so we could get your input on whether you thought that was a great idea because there are some people with acreage that may like it and there maybe some some that may not so this is our chance to to listen to you and uh
And get your input thank you well said Mike uh just to clarify a couple other things um so the identification of this particular area as a possible place for more housing um for all the reasons that Mike explained well um has been around for quite some time going back to the
Master plan um several years ago as well as some of the Outreach we were doing um this time around with this um Grant we’ve been working with uh so that that’s worth noting as well and the other thing that’s technically how this is implemented is worth noting um if you
Want to use the dimensions of the overlay which is the smaller Dimensions you can do that for housing and a specific types of housing identified here if you want to do um if you want to do some of the other uses in the a Zone um that are not housing and residential
Uses um you still need to use the um a zones um itional requirements um basically because if you’re not doing residential um you might not want to like have a neighbor on a really small plot of land um doing something more commercial for example and so this really kind of you
Either choose the aone regulations as are currently written or you choose the overlay and you can do either but you can’t mix and match them so you can’t do an azone use on a really small plot of land if I can say one thing too the you know one of
The Alternatives could have been that we could have proposed to rezone this whole area as single family residential but that’s somewhat limiting in terms of allowing the continued use you know continued agricultural use you know there’s certainly some properties in there you know there’s some there’s some
Farmland in there so you know the nice thing about the overlay is if you like the agricultur zoning you can continue to do what you’re doing but if you are interested in you know somewhat more devel you know more dense development as we would have in the single family
That’s also an option so it you don’t you don’t lose any like rights by doing this but you add a few more for residential uses and we already have a lot of housing there so um kind of Builds on that and utilities as Mike was
Saying you have any follow-ups or no I I mean I so the uh you’re not saying that you have to chose if you’re in the area whether you’re going to take part in one of the other it’s it is a basically new new proposals B for new
Development I see yeah so if you’re there you can just keep doing what you’re doing I know uh I was maybe I might go back 20 years ago I was considering putting a uh mobile home on my lot for my son to live in they were you know young young couple starting out
And at the time I was told I went to the town I said you know what I was thinking of doing this well you know yeah you could do that but we’d rather you subdivided it made it a separate tax map and I said you know we’re talk you know
It’s a financial situation here you know don’t want to you know incur more costs you know and and uh possibly be a temporary thing too so you know I’m just you know wondering about stuff like that I I mean I’ve thought about possibly putting a a small place there either use
It for you know helping family members out or even rent it or whatever what you know I was just wondering if this was something that was going to kind of put an end to that but it doesn’t sound like that’s the case should you should get
Have an advantage that you could do a smaller lot if you wanted to making it more liberal yeah for the most part yes and um well certainly yes and we we don’t want to like speak to an individual proposal or something but um mean manufactured housing is not listed
As one of the uses for the um overlay but um certainly it just does make it easier to um subdivide into smaller lots for residential uses yeah John if I recall though I mean we have approved conditional use permits where someone has added a a manufactured home to an
Existing single family lot well yeah I’m I’m just yeah as an Adu as an Adu yes um but I mean sometimes you know when it gets to developments of manufactured homes that can be different than I’m I’m just trying to be careful not to speak to any individual questions about their
Property right right no I agree yeah I agree let’s say uh this proposal didn’t go through I know you don’t want to speak to specific but let’s say I did want to put a a a small not not a mobile home but a small building maybe a cabin but know would
Have all the facilities of the house you know pluming heating with would that be something that’s possible now and later or is there that’s that’s the one we just approved actually that’s that’s the accessory to be less than a thqu if it have to be less than a th Square fet
Currently you’d have to come before the planning board to get a conditional use permit if this goes through you would go to the zoning board if the other Amendment the one we already approved goes through residential collocation well right yeah yeah there couple what’s the difference between the way it exists
Now and the way it would exist if we if we pass this proposal it’s well it there’s cascading amendments so right now if you were to put a an accessory dwelling unit on a piece of property as long as it meets all the dimensional requirements right
Now you’d come to the planning board for a conditionally used permit um provided all the zoning ordinances pass um actually this is a good question because you the Zone he’s in the EG zone so it it would be right by right you would just come to unless you wanted to
Be by the unless you want it to be by the overlay then you could go to the zoning board for a for a special exception so it would be you’d be better off so that’s really interesting yeah so if you have a proper property already um in the a Zone
Special exception wouldn’t apply you do not need a special exception for an accessory dwelling unit if you start subdividing um you like being anybody really but start subdividing and using the overlay to do so with smaller lot sizes and then you want to add an Adu to
That then you need to go to you would need to go passes to get a special exception to do that on a smaller lot but if you just have an existing lot in the EG Zone um if everything passes you would no longer need a but everything passes you mean everything meets the
Structure meets oh the the zoning I just got confused but the condition but the table of uses changes and the minimum lot size has Chang too so like it’s possible you could actually this is going to free up more ability for someone to subdivide and put that that is the goal that is
The that is our intent is to create more opportunity for housing to be developed even if it’s infi development yes especially where we have the utilities to do so to yeah to reduce the regulatory barriers to to encourage housing that people can afford okay um would you like to come up
And speak Brian just heard something he didn’t like no it’s not that I think that that you know I’m not against the overlay I’m I’m just um to kind of piggyback on what was said yeah I mean it gives the opportunity for more housing true uh in an already dense
Densely populated area of Fairgrounds Road and I understand why it would be easier to add housing there however there are many people who live there because they don’t necessarily like the L populated downtown my family lived there for 10 years in the single family residential area downtown 10 years we moved to
Fairgrounds Road to have less dense housing this is already a densely populated there’s you know the 55 plus uh Community was just put in and it’s you know that adds to the density already existing in that this portion of Fairgrounds Road um so this would make it more dense easier to make
It more dense densely populated adding more homes um subdividing property to add places that you know I mean if we stretch I mean there’s more a area on Fairgrounds Road but it’s right here because it’s easier and it will make this makes it for the PO the um the
Possibility of becoming more densely populated in this area um I’m not against this again as you know in theory I do think it needs more time I think that there needs to be more people on Fairgrounds Road in this area to weigh in um I understand that we
Had you know there was letters you know delivered to us um and some of it confusing if somebody’s just coming in and you know coming into it and realizing hey wait what’s going on um I’m not for this going to town this year I’ll just say that
And um mainly because of the possibility of it becoming more dense in the area where I live so okay thank you would anyone else like to speak through this amendment okay um bring it back to the board for now any comments or [Applause] thoughts my only thoughts are there
There going to be questions about this and and I I feel like it would benefit us if we had a couple people uh outside the polls to answer questions about this mhm voting day is that in the planning at all or I I want to actually talk
About that in a moment um a little later in the meeting yeah um so yes um don’t let me forget to come back to that but um um can I ask a question yes I was just going to but yeah go ahead do you need to do some type of a
Public information meet public meeting before the for March 12th I would like to have a in we were the Hop committee was talking about having an informational meeting and I wanted to bring that to the board tonight um to try to schedule that um perhap perhaps at our um um
Um our work session in March which is like the week before um the vote and be able to answer questions from the public and um yeah so I was just going to say about this particular so so yes absolutely I I maybe we can be at the
Polls as well to answer questions but I certainly want to have this kind of informational session that some of us have been talking about um and we’ll talk about that a little bit later this evening perhaps once we get through these amendments um my my own take on
This is that um there was Outreach done at for the last um master plan there’s been a whole lot of Outreach done this year trying to get feedback um we a lot of Outreach during these public hearings I mean in terms of like the letters and
Stuff like M Mike said TR try to get like people aware and um to come out and speak up about these and in terms of what the planning board and the Hop committee um as a subcommittee of the planning board can do um we we’ve done a
Lot to kind of really try to reach out to people and it it feels to me at this point like we’ve had the resources um with this grant to do a lot of Outreach and we’ve got a lot of positive feedback um about this potential overlay and we’ve
Also got hurts and reticence about it as well and at this point personally I would want to just push it forward and if the voters decide not to go for it then that can happen but I mean I can’t imagine this board doing much more Outreach than we’ve already
Done to um there was there was a strong amount of support at this at the at the listening sessions yeah I would say that you know with the understanding that I think we’re going to have an outward each meeting and if we can have some uh some members of the zoning
Planning board available to answer questions U on the day of town meeting um I’m going to say that uh I recommend that we move article three zone maps and regulations to the uh legislative body get another comment from the audience I I I see that and I have not closed the
Public hearing so it’s okay I can hold my I can nobody’s nobody’s made a second I will I will hold my motion you you didn’t you said you recommend that we move so I didn’t even hear a motion say move okay yeah so technically yeah all
Right I’ll wait anyway so if we’re still in public hearing let’s take public we are um if would you like to make a comment the answer is yes yeah sorry um so I would like to recognize the work that you all have done I’m not trying to diminish that um
All I’m saying is that you know I I understand you did Outreach I understand that there was listening sessions um I’m not sure how many people for those those listening sessions actually lived in this area um I would be interested to know that um maybe I would sit down and
Be quiet if there was a lot of people in this area that had listened and said hey yeah this is a great idea um I’m sure there’s other people in town that say yeah it’s a great idea let’s you know let’s let’s uh promote development here in this area because it’s maybe not
Where they live so that’s why I’m speaking up that’s why I’m saying hey you know maybe we should put just push it off a little bit off of this year’s ballot um maybe you know I would be volunteering to work on this um I could try get more people in this
Overlay proposed overlay District um to sit with you guys um I just don’t this could affect um numerous people in ways that I don’t know if they fully grasp um as far as uh neighbors putting up um you know what is proposed um next to them where they currently
Live um so that’s why I just say I’m not for this pushed on the ballot this year and I would be willing to sit on uh some sort of committee to further work on this as it is um so that’s it thank you I have to say that I
Have I I think this is the right thing to present I do have concerns about the what we’re asking the town to to approve this year um and I think that this one is they’re all confusing um having some of this very technical stuff getting improved by our general population is
It’s a big ask um because I think you know I’ve been on this board for nine and a half years and there’s things that I’m like you know have to really read through to understand so I do have concerns that we’re presenting something that doesn’t have a lot of um that’s not
Easily understood and just reading through the the notice um I’m assuming this is going to be the language that goes on the the warrant yes um yeah it’s not straightforward and you know having people at the polls um you know I don’t know if we need signs that
Say like not a candidate or something that’s you know so something that makes it you know we’re here to help you understand what’s on the ballot um not to try and sway you to vote for us um but yeah I just I I just I do feel
Like we’re asking a lot of of the town right now um of our voting population and I think that was one of the reasons I know for myself I was happy that we were doing another public hearing on this amendment because after listening to this gentleman last month I could
Understand the fact that you know it’s easy potentially for me to vote for this when I Live Well across town it doesn’t necessarily impact me and it would be interesting to know I think when we did some of the townwide uh meetings we had people kind of pin where they lived it
Might be interesting to see how many people who were there pinned this particular area so they would maybe would have gotten more information about it um because it it seems um I think this is the third meeting we’ve had on this amendment um you know not that we’ve done a poll
But it seemed to me that maybe the folks that live in that area have more concerns than positive feelings but um so I think that’s just something we have to consider um because you know it’s like uh putting up windmills uh in a way for some certain folks like yeah if it’s cross
Town you know it’s not you know the it’s not in my backyard type of thing it’s it’s um or I don’t want that in my backyard so I just I think that’s something we should consider Mike um one of the listening sessions at the Bob CA Cafe I had
Actually had the two people that were residing in the potential overlay Zone and it wasn’t explained exactly what was going to happen with it but they said yeah overall they were happy with everything that we were talking talking about but their concern was the infrastructure is not there to handle it
And you have to take care of so the only two people that we really heard from said it can’t happen till the infrastructure is ready for it and out of this board I’ve probably been more pushing this more than anybody because I saw this as the good alternative to the
Other ideas that were coming forward and I don’t see the harm in waiting a year for for this because I can bet as much Outreach that we did and and Judy did an excellent job it was up to us to try and get as many people to come forward and I
Think in some ways we succeeded in some ways if each of us went knocked on 10 doors in that zone and we asked them are you where they’re going to have no clue and that’s 70 people out of whatever no one has we know because we’ve been doing
This for the last year and a half so I would probably have to agree with Rebecca may I ask what you mean by a lack of infrastructure um the amount of traffic on that road the um the condition of the road they’re concerned about who’s going to take care
Of that the town doesn’t have the money to so you’re talking about the road the roads mostly the intersection is going to be probably need some attention both on um Smith Bridge Road which is not ready yet there’s probably a plan to do something but we we’ve been talking
About a plan for 15 years on the 10- year plan it is so we’re just not there yet but we’re close and I would have to agree with Brian that he volunteered to work with us I’ve been the guy out there before and Brian’s brought up some
Really good points and I think he’s willing to help us let’s go with what we’ve got for a base and let’s we definitely don’t have enough consensus from from the people that live in that zone I I I just in terms of the infrastructure issue um and and first of
All so the the road issue um I mean if this passes it’s very unprobable um it’s not probable that you’re going to see just a boom of houses all of a sudden sprouting up everywhere where and a huge increase in traffic right away and there
Is in the tene plan um a proposal and a plan to improve that intersection on yet that that side and um so I don’t necessarily see that as a barrier and one of the reasons that this place has um been um looked at is because it does have a lot of other
Infrastructure um water and sewer like water and sewer that um really allow for a density that could um at least potentially um alleviate some of our housing needs I me if you look at all of our ments I mean this is the one that really has the potential more than any
Others to allow for some more affordable housing in our town um where we have the infrastructure to to do that and where we have some of the space to do that um as as opposed to single family residential for example which is pretty full already and I mean has some outer
Ling areas um so do you live in that overlay area no I do not if I can if I can say one thing though well go ahead it’s it’s okay I’ll go after you no no no I need I need to make sure that this is what I want to say so
If if I can say one thing I mean the process of zoning in general is never easy um you know we talked about this a few years ago um you know I I can say with great confidence that nobody on this board looked at this area and said
I don’t live there let’s put it there you know we looked at it and said you know what area has water and sewer what area has um other natural features that are favorable for development there’s not a lot of steep slopes in this area there’s
Not a lot of ledge outc crop you know there are other areas of town that have water and sewer that are less favorable um you know the the the characteristics of land that are in this Zone make it unique in this town as a good place to discuss
An Innovative proposal such as this overlay District we didn’t talk about going strictly to single family in this in this zone so that it would have to be that but we said you know let’s give people the option that if they have if if somebody wants to
Do uh a development of homes that is more in character with the single family residential that they could use those dimensional requirements or if they like their land as it is and they want to keep it in agricultural use they can do that so you
Know I I really think this is a very flexible and Innovative way to allow people the choice of of what to do with future developments um you know I I think to the existing concerns you know if you’re on an existing lot um you know there there’s you know we’ve already proposed
The change to the condition uh to the accessory dwelling unit so that if that is approved you know anybody in this Zone as it sits can add an an accessory dwelling unit without a conditional use permit where the overlay comes into play is if somebody wants to create new Lots
They can then use the smaller uh dimensional requirements of the single family Zone and not be bound to the the lot sizes of the Agricultural zone so I I actually think this is well thought out it’s I don’t you know I would like to say that this is not targeted because
Nobody on this committee or board lives there you know I have friends that are there um um it’s it’s a nice area and honestly you know I think it’s I do think there’s untapped potential but yes I I can understand that there would be a negative impact if
There are families living there because it’s somewhat undeveloped yeah it would be a change for them but you know their individual Parcels don’t have to be developed when we say somewhat undeveloped um given all the places in town where we could Target for the potential for added density um in many
Ways it’s least out of character in in this area where there already is quite a bit of density I agree um and so we’re not really thinking about an area where there’s not already some density and I mean I don’t think at some level there’s always room for more Outreach and
Talking to more people and I always want to hear from more people but at the same time I mean I think we’ve been busting our butts this year trying to like reach out to people and talk to people and get as much feedback as we can and at some
Point you have to say like you know we did our diligence and I think this board has about has done about as much Outreach as a volunteer board can do we do have a message what does your master plan say our master plan I mentioned this a few
Minutes ago um does um indicate this as one of the areas for potential development for housing and that was five five and a half years ago I guess at this point um and so that’s that’s been out there for a while as well and it was also Outreach that went to that
Process we do have a message in the chat uh comment we would like to express our appreciation that this proposed amendment does not curtail agricultural activities in the a Zone from Clare eert and Chris Woods 157 Fairgrounds to submit a written comment yes so I would agree 100% with
Phil that we identifi why we identified this area I would there’s nothing that I would um contradict on that it’s just a matter of from the beginning I’ve wanted to see as much input from the folks that live in that potential overlay so that they could be here and give us their input
And we tried as hard as we could but I just they all got a letter yeah and I just think that it would not be the end of the world to take one more year to look at it and bring it back next year I would also add that I mean typically
Um those who are not nervous about amendments don’t show up um and the fact that we haven’t heard more also might part of that is yeah I mean there are people who weren’t paying attention got the letters they didn’t understand it or whatever but it’s also probably people you know who just said
Yeah sure and if if it doesn’t bother you you might not just show up I don’t disagree with you I do think that’s a fairly we uh yeah I mean anecdotally I’ve talked to some people who live there yeah um who seemed absolutely fine
With it um and I’m sure I could talk to other people who wouldn’t be and it’s it it seems like one of the better and more well thought through opportunities we’re trying to create here to allow people to build more housing that is Affordable to our community
And I would personally um be upset to see like one of these more impactful opportunities not followed through with and I mean that that yeah John I don’t think people are saying that it’s won’t be I’m not saying it shouldn’t be followed through with I’m just saying let’s take a little bit more
Time with the people who actually live in this yeah that’s all that’s that’s what I’m saying I’m not trying to go against what you guys are have done how much time you spent I’m just I just don’t think that enough people like to your point they got the letters yeah you
Guys sent out letters I’m not denying that I had to go back and look at the some of the terminology myself to like sift through everything to make sense of it because I’m not sitting on that wall m i I will say when it comes to that this is complicated because that you
Know we’re getting at land use issues with turn simple and in New England we’ve chosen a a represent you know we’ve chosen a a government style that relies on every citizen to vote so you know there’s with that respons or with that benefit comes the responsibility to do some work to
Understand this you know other other states have less direct forms of government where you elect somebody and they tell you what the zoning is going to be without your input because you elected them so you know there’s there’s somewhat of a responsibility incumbent on us all to understand what’s proposed
Opposed as voters as citizens of this town we are the legislative body so we all have a responsibility to kind of understand what we’re voting for when we vote to change the zoning ordinance because this board recommends changes we draft them we say this can work if the
Town approves it but we you know this is direct democracy and its most basic form each one of us is is the legislative body of this town when we come together to vote at Town meeting you there’s there’s a responsibility that comes with that um you know I think I think we’ve
Done a good amount I I think we’ve done as much as a volunteer board can do we’ve en enlisted um a consultant that had several public Outreach meetings you know this was one of the the culmin this is the culmination or this proposal was one of the recommendations um of that
Process and you know I almost feel like it would be disingenuous for us to notice the public and say hey we’re going to we’re considering this you know we’re going to have a hearing on it and then not give it to the voters and say we’re going to do it next year I’d
Almost rather say let’s put it to the voters see what they say and if they don’t approve it then maybe we can say are there elements of this that you liked can we tweak it or should we should we not look at this again for
Next year is there is it going to be soundly defeated in a way that it’s not worth talking about next year you know we we’ve done a lot it’s almost like wading this up and then throwing it in the trash to say we’re not going to vote on it this
Year you what’s that I think that’s well said thank you I do agree with um Rebecca in that um it is very complicated for people to understand and especially to read that um the lack of understanding I also think this is a situation just like any big project that you’re trying to
Present you always present it you hope that people want it and if it it usually will go off till the next year because you just have to explain some more they it’s all okay until it’s not and they realize what’s going to happen so um whether it’s put off another year or
We let the voters I think it’s still going to be very unclear a year from now with a lot of people um let’s keep the public hearing open for a few more moments would you like to speak sure yeah please thank you I’ve been waiting to hear from other
People to um my name is April tashima I live on Crescent Cresent Street and I’m not opposed to the to what you’re saying I am taking advantage of the over 55 community it’s a great really love it and thank you um but hearing the talk so presumably there will be young
Families moving into some of these homes that um maybe will probably be built and I’m just I just want to point out that Fairgrounds Road is a really busy road and I was wondering if there was any in discussion about building sidewalks um because I’m about building sidewalks but uh just for safety
Purposes there are no current like active discussions about putting sidewalks on Fairgrounds Road um and interesting it it is a pretty like Well traversed Road on foot you see lots of people walking on Fairground Road and and cycling as well and there are definitely concerns about like pedestrian other access there because it
Is a popular road with multiple means of Transport going down there all the time um but there are currently no plans to put sidewalks in there there has been a proposal to put sidewalks from downtown to Fairgrounds Road um which is not going anywhere at this very second but
Um that has been talked about which maybe down Road could lead it to even more um but all of that is stalled at this point um so the easy answer is no there is a bit a more complicated than theary I mean the planning process can
You know if if someone were to bring us a proposal to put in you know 200 single family homes on the old Fairground you know that might be something where we’d say Hey you know this warrants offsite improvements and we’re going to ask you to put sidewalks along the entirety of
Fairgrounds Road although it must to be noted that that if that happens that’s also Um you’re probably not going to ask them to pay for the plowing as well so there’s a whole another conversation has to happen there right I mean you know my my point is that you know a development you know a new development we we could require that they put sidewalks within
Their development but if it’s substantially large I mean the the planning process can say hey this this is going to you know connectivity is important and they might be requirement for offsite improvements you know it’s typically there has to be more work done but it’s not out of the realm of
Possibilities and as far as infrastructure there’s no light from Fairgrounds Road to the bridge and Beyond there’s just no lights I was going by last winter there was a woman on the snowbank because she lost her grip and she was just laying in cars just drove
Right by because they couldn’t see her I finally stopped and but there’s it’s just not the infrastructure is just not there yet and the sewer I yes the sewer is there but um the Sewer District really doesn’t have a lot of capacity for all of this excess and then you’ve got to
Think about the school system so I think I think the sewer I think when we’ve talked to the the Jason from the SE Water and Sewer he said there’s there’s like double capacity almost everywhere right now understanding too it’s I think when they built it they overbuilt it
Understanding is there’s a lot of capacity almost they overbuilt and expected much more development on Tenny Mountain as well so yeah sorry so how do we feel at this point well I I don’t want to I don’t want to jump to conclusions here
But I I I kind of feel like I would like to still move this to the voters with the effort you know with the understanding that we’re going to continue to do Outreach and answer questions not that we’re going to advocate for it but just explain that what the impacts would
Be and you know allow the voters to choose I agree and here it is and those that would like to see it go off a year can and if it goes down it goes down that’s okay we’ll reach out to people and explain them so yeah you know I think that our
Intent is we we’ve received a lot of input that said houses are expensive it’s hard to develop land we’d like to see some options to make more affordable development options so that young families you know uh Working Families can afford everybody there’s affordable housing housing that people can afford
It it is a Statewide issue I think I think the state has identified that we’re currently 40,000 units short Statewide in the next 20 years it’s supposed to be like 990,000 units or something like that I mean there is a Statewide shortage and I still blame the state’s education funding for that
But but we don’t have to be you know feel that you know [Laughter] um we are going to be working on the overlay um is it for the Tenny Mountain area as well next year yes we’re going to be working on that as well and and I
Think if we don’t put this forward I think we’re going to be behind the eight ball on that one because we won’t know what people feel how if if if this concept of an overlay is going to fly or not the conceptual part of it I mean if
We move forward with this and it goes forward then people will say yeah we did we looked at this last year for an overlay and and it went through and we like how it’s working out you know I think if we if we want to do if if we
Don’t do this this year and do it next year and have another one for Tenny they’re going to say this is what’s what’s with all these overlays all at once you know that’s the other other side of the coin I don’t know all right I’m going to move that we uh present
Amendment 8 for the Fairground Road Fairgrounds Road overlay District to the voters I’ll second that and oh I’m going to actually um it is currently 7:35 I’m going to close the public hearing um is there any further discussion from the board all right um all in favor of moving this amendment to
The ballot I I opposed n n okay 3 three it doesn’t pass next item okay okay that was Exciting you did it less than all right so it does not move forward then um that’s okay not going to I’m just to clarify if I didn’t say anything um all right um so before we move forward to the um osrd uh while we’re talking about amendments
Um I’m going to propose that we take our March um work session which is is March 7th I believe written down somewhere here it is March 7th and um use that for a kind of community Q&A where we can do some give out some information and take questions and um hear from
People where um you want to we can look into that like if we do it here or somewhere else thank you for coming thank you thank you um I think we can talk about the location I think but do we want to see if the school is available and have it
Back in the cafeteria we could have where those sessions were we do whatever you need us to do would that work for you Joseph if we reached out to the could see if it was available that sound good to everyone I like the concept of having all the
Amendments out and so people can ask questions about it yeah agreed okay so let let’s mark that in our calendars then um we’ll do a Q&A session on March 7th um the week before and the location to be determined location to be determined would that be at your regular meeting time that will
Be at our regular meeting time I think 6:30 that sounds good yeah okay so it will be a regular regular work meeting of our of the planning board but not here um and if we have to fall back to here we can um but we could probably I mean I don’t know
How many people are going to show up but so how I mean my question is what are we going to do to get people here um and so if it’s just a regular you know pbtv and stuff like that I don’t see any reason for us to hold it elsewhere yeah um I
Feel like we’d have to do something to get people to to come to it I still like the sandwich board idea where we do the town common uh concert notice mhm yeah couldn’t h if we can get it out there um oh out here right out in the
Com maybe if we put something something that says big change coming come to the planning board meeting there you go draw some real rotten pictures or something that’ll get their attention we could go with the maybe we could get Vermin Supreme and say free ponies for everybody so it’s getting late
Already and I do want I do want to talk about for president wearing a boot I I would like to talk about the osrd um and so assuming that passes um the osrd will be removed um in like a month and a half now from our
Um zoning ordinance and um it will not be anywhere um unless we adopt something into our um subdivision regulations thank you and so it didn’t come in a packet but also over here if you are looking for one there’s a copy of our old um osrd as
Well as the um proposed um language here and um I’ll just say a few words to kind of get us going here um so the old osrd open space residential development um language I would say you know in various places um lacks some clarity and specificity um and there are various kind of
Shortcomings in it it also includes things we might be interested in talking about like density bonuses um there are things in it like all the uses of the underlying Zone um look like they’re included in the osrd language which would be a bit um much in some ways not that anybody’s used it
That way um and then so we have this new language that we can look at here and um go through and I went through a quick checklist last time the end of the last meeting when we didn’t have a time to um look at it in more depth um I think
Peter asked me to kind of go through my checklist um just to get some ideas um yeah so um I do have a list of questions and things I’d like to talk about with that but I also want to give everybody else a chance to talk so hopefully you’ve all
Had a chance to look at this language and um already to comment on it um but um does anybody want me to go through some of my checklist or I you should um I have a quick question I have the 2002 subdivision regulations okay that’s those are the most recent ones right all
Right that’s what I okay I I know we did the yeah that’s what I thought but I just want to double check that um I when we do present this I will have something that I would like to see also part of the subdivision a minor change that
We’re we need to put in there okay no so yeah I and I will I will say right up front there’s other stuff in our subdivision regulations a good amount of other stuff uh that couldn’t use some updating and I I think for now there’s a lot that needs to be updated
In there there’s one thing that we we that we have been told by Council because of a court case that we should put in our sub got it got it got it um so this time around we can make that one change perhaps as well as the OSD and I
Certainly think going forward there’s lots of other stuff that can also be updated um yeah in the event that it takes another 20 years to to get to it like let’s put this one change in that we were requested to do after after yeah after extensive Court situation yes um
So I’m just going to go through here then um Joseph mentioned um and he makes a good point about some of the terminology in here not quite lining up with a zoning ordinance and just kind of aligning those better could be um interesting to do uh I know Joseph also
Has some questions about slope issues which I’ll let him describe if he would likes to in a moment um I think an easy fix that we just have to make probably um is for stories mentioned in the osrd here and as I mentioned at our last meeting there
Could be four very short stories but um we have 35 ft in our zoning ordinance which takes presedent um yeah that’s my mistake and so that’s not supposed to be in there no it’s my mistake okay so it’s um can I just say one thing before you
Go into this yeah almost everything in here is policy right so just so you know where we were coming from where I was coming from in July or August I gave gave you all a copy of do’s just so you get a sense of what you can do with subdivision
Regulations the fact is you got a lot of wiggle room in here and you just need to tell us what you want this to do I try I mean I this isn’t a perfect clone of Dober but there’s a lot of the Dober influence in here usually when I work with a planning
Board people want to sort of get m maximum quality out of a project in exchange for the flexibility to do something different I don’t know if that’s where your heads are that’s just usually my experience so you just need to tell me what you want so actually I
Should I should say up front before I go through like my checklist year that over overall I see this has a real Improvement and I I like a lot of what I see um and personally at least and so so liking a lot of what I see I also see
Some issues that like I have questions about or concerns totally fine um and so the fact that I’m gonna list off a bunch of like negative things does not mean I don’t like overall what I see and I think um that’s worth saying um let’s see there’s an mandate for osrd and the
A for major subdivisions which there are a couple of reasons to question that which we can talk about um in our old subdiv in our old um osrd there are density bonuses for various things and I think that’s worth considering um I think that’s also
Kind of um actually no I I was going to say the density bonuses would also be interesting to consider in relation to the overlay which we’re not putting through this year um because it would yield you about the same density and it wouldn’t yield you more than the overlay
Already gives you in that area um but that’s kind of a m point right at this moment at least uh um some of the buffers and setbacks seem a bit large um for me at least the others disagree Um I guess I one one one last thing I would mention um what kinds of residential uses um are listed in here that are allowed yeah I wouldn’t mind seeing allowing all residential uses that are already allowed in underlying Zone as an alternative um whatever that might be in
That zone do allow the same uses in the osrd if was up to me U others again might disagree those are some of the things that I noticed but again I think this is a real um has I like most of what I see here yeah I would be curious because I
Did like look at the setbacks um and um they are bigger than what we have and I’m just wondering if there is a reason in a open space residential development where you’d want to have bigger if what’s the reasoning behind that I would reduce them but every messaging I’ve gotten in
This town for months has been we don’t want to see it so I made them generous but you can tell me what you want and well before you go M just one thing worth noting there there’s the setbacks and then there’s separately the buffer yes right right um and I think the
Setbacks I think should in my opinion definitely be smaller um oh you can you can have no setbacks if you want yeah well I mean especially if you’re going to have attached single family yeah um the buffer on the other hand is an interesting issue I see places where a
Buffer will be totally appropriate and it would be INF fitting with the character of certain places where you might put this and I see a buffer in other places being completely not necessary and maybe even counterproductive and and there is language in here that says that could be
Waved by the board I might want to see that a little bit more up front M but um just so anybody reading this say oh yeah it’s right there but it it is in the language is in there and yeah I appreciate that so the distance between units I want to specifically address
That yeah because you could do um multiple dwellings on a single lot in a project like this you have to take into account whatever the code is on separation the fire code mhm so I mean this is probably something that you might want to take up with the fire
Chief like what would the fire chief require um but that’s why that’s a different measure than set back to the lot line so you know um building separation yeah yeah exactly so I me fire fire fighting equipment in between buildings safely yeah they need to be able to access structures from at
Least three sides and so I’m just saying that I I would just Joseph maybe even talk to the fire Chief about the minimum separation and go with what the fire chief says MH um that would be my recommendation then you can put a note in there so then 20 years from now we’re
Like why did we say this and it’s but we’re not still puzzling over the 35 ft do we address um I I noticed we discuss a yield plan do we discuss standards for the development of the yield plan in terms of you know can they are can they
Just take a 50 acre parcel that’s in a 2 acre loan zoning and say there’s 25 Lots or do we make them calculate areas exclusive of wetland that kind of so I mean it’s a question for us I mean I guess I guess the question is does do we
Address the standards for a yield plan um I haven’t but I can um so typically what it is is you’re allowed to use existing data um and you would have a an automatic sort of percentage reduction for like say um Wetland or yeah they’re like assumption about wetlands and then you
Have an assumption about roads yeah you know 15% or whatever um and that comes all that that’s all out so then you end up with the Development developable Area you’re trying to sort of mimic what’s the the analysis somebody would have to do to do with standard subdivision right
What about steep slopes did that get thrown in there ever well do we have that in zoning or no yeah the current osrd has you put together a conceptual subdivision plan to determine your yield so it would be a different different format of you know different way to get
To that number potentially less cost that was a controversial thing like the the last town I lived in was hilly and wet and we had you know we had prohibitions in in sub in our general subdivisions about steep slopes you know minimum lot sizes could be were exclusive of steep slopes and wet
Areas um so that’s already in the sub that’s already in the subdivision regulations right uh is it I’m asking because I don’t have I don’t have I just have the OSD open right now contrl F on this ancient Thing I don’t think I I don’t think we’ve had anything more than a minor subdivision in my time on the score SL we don’t have a slope overlay or anything like that that prevents development of the slope lot sizing is not a you you know using a soil based
Formula so right unless there’s okay you know I I don’t I can’t think of a reason if we don’t do that now I’m not suggesting we make it more complicated I just wanted us to have that discussion if we’re if we’re talking about making a change and adding this let’s all be on
The same thing yeah I do like the idea of having a little more information or the criteria for the yield plan because I read that I don’t even I I didn’t know what I mean I could guess what that is but giving more guidance partly for the
Applicant but also for the board to be able to understand what what looking at when they when they receive this that’s totally fine one thing that um as far as slopes and soils it’s always been out there so that you don’t put as many houses on areas with steep slopes am I
Correct you wanted to minimize the amount of houses that go up onto like Plymouth mountain and that type of thing am I right that was the intent I mean it’s impervious surface it’s construction it’s the existence of these buildings and the the access to get to them so
Sometimes we’ll limit yeah slope on driveways in particular sometimes driveways in commercial areas as opposed to residential so I almost part of it too is that you know you don’t if somebody has like a you know five Lots on the side of a hill and they’re all
Two acres but they’re all like straight up and you can’t like what what good is that you’re not really protecting the public interest by allowing them to be created in that manner sometimes it’s view shed protection too mhm and I always I always flip F the coin on that
A little bit because we’ve got some great soils in Plymouth and then we’ve got the Uplands do and it almost seems like you’re forcing the development to go in this beautiful soil mhm rather than the Uplands that can’t be used for anything else put the houses up there and and one
Way to get a lot more soil on those uh those lower areas one way to get a lot more soil on those lower areas so it’s just something to think about I’ve always never been a 100% advocate of slopes and soils to minimize housing I just think that’s
Where it needs to go especially in light of what we’ve been talking about the last two years agricultural land should be preserved and for agriculture I agree with that as well it just forces it out there and it’s not right yeah it’s also a lot cheaper to develop exactly I will
Need some guidance from the board about what you want to say can I ask you a question sure um So currently we don’t really have a whole lot of osrs in Plymouth and I’m not surprised you pretty horrible bylaw um and I don’t know if it’s because of
Our poorly written bylaw or for other reasons um but this brings up the question of whether the enticement of density bonuses like we currently have in our poorly written bylaws um would be help ful here to encourage Public Access or other things like that well especially if you’re
Going to make the whole thing voluntary because I understand you don’t want to require it in the EG Zone um if you’re going to make it all voluntary you really need to put a density bonus in here MH which we’ve kind of accounted for in the footnote to the dimensional
Tables that Amendment so sure we can do that even without a density bonus there still is an advantage in that you might have less road construction costs less s development cost but I agree a lot of developers don’t understand is there not a density bonus in here am I so yeah
There’s not there is a density bonus in the currently adopted standards and there’s not in the draft proposed you can have the same number of units as you would otherwise have in that plot of land I I would be more than happy to factor in some kind of density bonus am
I looking at a so the current again there’s something called a density bonus but not actually it’s not actually a density bonus there is a heading there number sort of is because you’re providing for the possibility of including so I do see a word on there a
Phrase that says density bonus but we’re talking about something different okay yes in light of the discussion that just took place in here I need direction from you about what is going to be a palatable density bonus okay because I’m not going to make it up yeah so the I’ll
Just for background on what the current is they’re stackable up to 100% density bonus which is actually quite a lot subanal but you can have density bonus for Perpetual protection of the open space up to 100% so that’s a two% per percent of the lot that you protect perpetually so protect 25% 50%
Density bonus um there’s a 10% Public Access bonus a 20% agricultural land bonus and an additional protection bonus um for historical buildings Flor and fauna waterfalls Etc um that’s 10% and just to clarify one thing before we go on the Rewritten that’s a lot the Rewritten osrd here um
I think mandates in perpetuity yeah it that would no longer be a bonus if go why is that a bonus Den City bonus that should be mandated for open space can can you just I I have a hard time with hearing numbers and understanding what it means could you say like a 10%
Density bonus could could someone translate that into like what that would like your 11 houses instead 10 you put your yield plan together though and whatever you could do under yeah thank you okay no this this is helpful I like I realize it’s silly question I just
Can’t no it’s not a silly question it’s a very question in the current if you if you have a yeah 10 acre lot with one acre lot sizes you can put 11 but he’s also talking about different percentages depending on which zone you’re in too so
That confused the quite a bit yeah um I have a question about this land and per pepper it’s been a long day well I mean if you’re going to if you’re going to give somebody a if it’s an open space development and you’re allowing them to increased density in one part the goal
Is you’re not going to develop that other part that has to be Perman like otherwise you might as well just let them keep doing smaller subdivisions was that your question Mike I you get to actually ask it you’re creating a development right that includes that land that you’re transferring if you
Will the development right of the property you’re saving yeah to the rest of the site so otherwise you’re end up you end up creating the very density bonus that I think people are worried about so so we don’t know um perpetuity is a very long time it’s in perpetuity
Or the maximum perod Allowed by law yeah so it’s a very long time and um who knows in two 300 years whether we’re going to be living 10 high because there’s no land we don’t know and all of a sudden there’s this 10 acres and um it’s Mad Max and who
Knows can’t touch that land so if I if I can respond to this forever is a long time for is a very long time and I also get nervous about forever very much so and I actually did do some reading up on this and there is a procedure in place
To break this if if need be for very specific reasons the bar is high as it should be it shouldn’t be easy to break this um the town or the the Attorney General of the state right I forgot um but it’s talking conservation it’s it’s yeah um it’s
Possible to break these um you have to have a really good reason and a really arduous process as it should be because it shouldn’t be easy but if unforeseen circumstances arise that make it important to change this well the that forever can actually mean not quite forever right in the
State the federal government always has has the right to take it no matter what for roads and and that type of thing I always think about all these the people that put their land into conservation needman and can have for 100 acres and they keep two out for their kids and you
Know that’s forever and I know that there’s offices in Washington in basements where they’re working on this now to break these in the future I know they’ve talked Al about that there’s offices and so I just always um Wonder because as zoning changes and you made
You you you did your deal for uh four per acre and then in a 100 years the zoning is now 30 per acre or whatever that kind of there’s some land there or thank goodness we still have some open space in this town that to that to and that’s
Why it’s there and I would say that there’s no way we can do this without putting in perpetuity because right you know that that to me is the whole point of you know encouraging more density in certain areas while maintaining more open space instead of having single I’m
Going to just rant for a second um instead of having you know a bunch of single family homes on single Acres you get a lot more open space a lot more contiguous open space um that’s a much much more higher conservation value and maintain some of the you know the
Remaining ecological Integrity that we have and maybe and and and in a 100 years when Plymouth looks like Manchester we’ll still have all this nice park space yeah yeah I I see I say that developments as kind of like aside nature preserves in each subdiver knows what’s to happen when all
The land around it is developed you’ll love having that 5 Acres that was part of a to break from here you actually make it easier here than some other states really yeah but I I agree 100% John I know that there’s there’s procedure out there and
I’m sure and you need them yeah not forever it can’t be um so I I feel similarly uncomfortable about that and at the same time I think it’s really important to for the whole logic of this to to happen now takes care of the of this common
Land that’s that’s yeah yeah and that some of my just chatting about the that and who how that’s going to happen and where it happens proed I there’s more than one way for it to happen y um whether it be a conservation easement or some other agreement that is made um but
In some way it has to be legally binding and perpetuity agreement generally the conservation eement has to be held by a third party who has enforcement rights over that development so holding any other restriction yeah the town can hold it well it’s generally better for the
Town not to hold it but like it’s better for a third party like an independent nonprofit land trust to do it I mean Plymouth holds a handful of conservation it’s a it’s a responsibility it’s responsib an encumbrance on the town to enforce those then which we’re I mean
Honestly I’m not if you don’t have a select board who’s supportive of enforcement then they’re no good no I and I do agree with that I do think it whereas whereas a land trust that all they do is manage those conservation ements like that’s what they do they say
Hey you’re not supposed to it becomes a non taxable piece once it does that no the taxes are still generally the taxes are still assessed to the development now like they they get as a they go as a share to the the 11 homes each get an 11th of
That share of taxes on it so it would be probably good to be as specific as possible in some of the directives we offer this evening so um didn’t reason given that’s our first discussion but so we can kind of start to move forward on
On this um do we do we address the requirement for covenants to be filed when when somebody does something like this that defines how the shared spaces to be treated and paid for is that already in your subdivision sorry if I I should know but I don’t I don’t either yeah we don’t
Have anything in our subdivision regulations really that gets much into detail on that I think there’s something in the draft about um you know open space seems to me that given our energy put into road maintenance issues in the past year that that’s something that we should be considering is like if there’s
A private road there should be covenants in place to Define who’s responsible for the maintenance of the road until such time as it’s taken over by the town you know that type of thing should be recorded and everybody should be recorded on the Deeds of everyone buying property in that development so that
Nobody can say I didn’t know this was a private road or I didn’t know I was responsible for a share of the maintenance on this private road you know typically when you do a subdivision with a private road that’s you kind of have to deal with that and there’s a you
Know covenants set that expectation and legal documentation for how to do that I will say that with a lot of subdivisions that are going on now we’re running into it and two of them is um the boards are actually asking you you have to in the
Deed you come up with an HOA and the owner whoever’s doing the subdivision is responsible for the lots and as they sell this HOA is so people do that until the town so that’s actually something that most towns are really demanding and and if we don’t do that now we
Shouldn’t I’d like to go back one step um as far as the um land set aside and the third party holding it and being in control of it um I worry about the fragmentation of the town and I was in a planned unit development where there
Were 22 acres and 20 cottages and at any one time there are in the documents a way to dissolve that Association where they could sell the 22 Acres everybody gets their cut of the 28 20 owners and then that land then can be used for whatever
Else new purpose but if it’s sold off to a third party if we force that and not just let the association handle that acreage um then they can sell the whole thing and it can be a different purpose and manufactured housing comes down or the the trailers or the single family
Homes in 50 years 100 years and it all becomes a different purpose without trying to then go back to a third party to bring it back in and so you just fragment the town all over I I just get concerned about that you’re talking about the conservation easement on a
Piece of property that’s a third party might not even own the parcel they might just hold a conservation easement on it that’s the ENT yeah I’m worried about thata it fragments the land and the land is one entire parcel with a conservation easement held on the the part that is
Allowing for the more density and if if that lot that had six homes on it and had they got the density bonus and then they had to leave six acres off but then at some point those six people in the HOA decide to each sell the whole thing
They all go their separate ways now you’ve got this 12 acre lot it may be that whatever goes on goes on the back part you can’t put anything on the back because there’s a conservation on right that’s what I’m saying I don’t if if a single person bought all six homes and
Voluntarily merged them they could dissolve it but they would have to have six individual families willing to sell those homes yes but they get but they I don’t think they can get rid of that conservation e that’s unscrambling the egg it’s very unlikely right but there’s no need to sell the conservation if
Those six homeowners just continue so the conservation e is not something you sell it’s simply an enforcement mechanism on public so it it’s it’s meant to protect the public interest on the on the value of that land on the on the open space it’s not it can’t be
Resold it’s still owned by the development and the HOA own it’s owned in fee by one entity and the Restriction is held by another right right so if it’s held that they get their permission for the six units that six acres let’s say stays empty they can’t do anything
More anyway they’ve already you’ve already said what they can do they’ve reached the limit but at some point the zoning changes in the the community they want to sell and now it’s a different Zone and different um dimensional requir dimensional requirements now if they sell it might be worth some more money
And if it’s fragmented they’re limited on what they can do in that fragment maybe there’s it’s not fragmented it’s it’s I mean it’s an intact conservation easement to actually to prevent fragmentation um it’s the whole point is to say let’s put more density here by and protect other another space
So so the oh sorry no no what I was going to say is often times there’s a there’s a sometimes when you subdivide you might say you know no further subdivision of lots in this development will be allowed and that’s like that’s a deed restriction it’s legally enforceable yes so that’s that’s
Of that what that would happen with that open space as well no further subdivision of this partial and and and that is enforced by the conservation eement okay and I don’t see the need for the conservation if they’re already limited on what they can develop and
They’ve done it they can’t go back for another pass but in theory you could like yes you could and that’s what I’m talking about and that’s the whole point like this board could approve a subdivision by conservation easement and if somebody says I’m going to come to
That same board next year with that lot for a conservation need with a subdivision proposal like if we want to put blinders on and say oh we don’t remember doing this subdividing these Lots off we could grant that subdivision and we would be in violation of our own subdivision
Regulations but if development Zing if that development ceased that’s what I’m saying can developments are Perpetual like that’s the whole point of development it’s not like it’s a for-profit entity it’s it’s these are these are restrictions that run with the land in perpetuity can I can I make a
Recommendation um for for now at least um I think it might be beneficial to kind of keep the broader kind of discussion of these bigger issues aside and um maybe it’s at least for the time being assume that some of these best practices can be kind of moved forward
With and if we want to question them at some point along this process we can um but it might be it might be really helpful at this point to um get some concrete recommendations to Judy that she can work with to make some recommend uh changes here and give us another
Draft um before the night’s out and I think some of these bigger kind of philosophical questions can be left for another discussion so we can get some concrete um ideas to Judy yeah I think it’s nice to flush out a little bit and then go deeper another
Day it’s hard for me to know like even what what kind of input exactly we need to do like for example so are we comfortable with the idea of giving density bonuses yes I am I’m happy okay and how and to what extent to the extent that we have
Um I would like I would like to a percentage I would like to say an upper limit like I would say if we’re going to preent present options for you know you can get a 10% bonus for this a 10% bonus for this a 10% bonus for this I would
Say a maximum of 20% density bonus in any given open space development regardless of how many combinations they use like I don’t think we should be going to 100% density bonus yeah I think you’re right I go to 40 so keep in mind we already made we’re already changing the minimum lot sizes
In zoning like yeah right we’re already adding significant density with the proposed zoning changes in some zones more than others we could make this specific I mean honestly if we did a 20% in the azone I’d rather just have it be simple though I mean honestly I mean but it’s
Just it to me it’s like that’s not much of a density bonus there right depends on how big the parcel is and I feel like encouraging more density in a smaller area in particular in in the EG Zone could be important because we could potentially have an agricultural conservation easement that protects um
Permanently protects you know yeah and in fact if you can make the egg like density bone is like a really big one um to really encourage that it’s currently 20% the current agricultural protection I don’t think I’ve ever seen it higher than 50% mhm just for whatever it’s worth the
Total bonus except in except in our cluster development and then yeah well just talking about best practices right I don’t think we’re in a position tonight to come up with a percentage I think just talking about it is good so we’d like to see one the consensus about
That though see one I think the number for maybe for agriculture for making it more publicly available to out people outside of the development yeah Public Access is good preserving yeah agricultural soils those are publicly available information from the road yeah well quality open space is usually a
Consideration just saying I think yeah if you’re worried about fragmentation you ought to be worried about fragmenting open space yeah yeah you have some pretty significant wildlife in this town and it would not be responsible to consider interconnected Wildlife Pathways is that something we want to Value like sometimes you talk
About actually we have in our master plan we have um Wildlife corridors I think noted I think is that right I mean that that that could be a benefit there could be a you know highly valuable wildlife habitat um that’s readily available information isolated habitat is one thing Pathways from Habitat to
Habitat is another and if you have something yeah it’s connectivity y we you have a bonus one of the current bonuses is for linking open space Parcels or Trail corridors to the site which is kind of similar but I like that a little bit different yeah so I think we’re
We’re thumbs up on um density bonuses like some of the things we’ve heard um let’s see what else could be clarified I I’m person personally interested in allowing all residential uses in the underlying Zone yep okay um all permitted uses yes in the underlying Zone yeah permitted or
Permitted res uses not all permitted uses which we currently have about permitted residential uses not special exception not whatever residential uses it as of right yeah and that would allow manufactured housing which one of the two it is notable that one of the two osrs that we have is manufactured
Housing yeah which and it seems to be very popular as we found tonight so it’s it would be any permitted residential use in the district in which the osr is occurring because this is not an overl yeah yeah um that keeps it simple and and gives a little bit more flexibility in certain
Places um So currently um in in the current language here um in the a zone for any major subdivision it would have to be an osrd um say that again somewhere in here um it’s under General requirements um any major subdivision in the exone she’ll be required to ad totally up to you
Guys and I I just wonder what the appetite is on that um I understand the benefit of that I mean obviously it’s a great benefit and there are two relate two questions whether or we want that because a major subdivision is a pretty low bar um as opposed to like giving it
Minimum acreage or something and the other question is like I don’t Joseph and I have talked about that like would that actually need to be in the zoning ordinance to require something like that or not what that it that NOS Rd would be required that it would be required for a
Subdivision um major it’s it’s a land use I have not seen that no it wouldn’t need to be in there because it is one use in our table of uses um among other uses and we don’t regulate uses right now based on the you know the number of lots in a subdivision
So we would require any major subdivision to adhere to the osrd no the osrd to adhere to any major okay thank you so that was a suggestion you do not have to say that you can simply say that an osrd is available for any project that’s a major subdivision I
Mean I I I like in principle I like that idea because in the azone it would preserve more open space and make that mandat um no at the same time I I could understand they’re being pushed back and what I guess I don’t understand the conversation at this
Point I’m I’m confused too somewhere so what page is it so it’s right on the first page it just says if you’re going to do um a cluster development that you would have to go as a major subdivision no it says any major subdivision must follow these procedures
Here which osrd I didn’t I didn’t take it are we talking B1 you’ve already got a definition C1 a huh C1 a b bottom of the first page you’ve already got a definition in your subdivision regulations of a major subdivision all this is saying is if it if it’s that
Then you would have to do this um you don’t have to say that you can make the whole thing voluntary it’s entirely up to you I like it in principle I don’t know if it’s going to be push back um but if it’s not I’m I’m I mean the
Reason that a town might do this is because you’ve got an area with larger properties and the goal is to try to preserve as much of that land as possible if that is not plymouth’s culture then let it go yeah that would never go well it it only has to go
Through us with public input yeah um so it’s not this is not going to a town meeting to be clear and I I want to be respectful of that if people don’t want this it do you know bear bear in mind I gave you guys the do draft do actual
Months ago yep and I never really got any comments back on it so I started with the philosophy of when you have larger lot properties you would want to encourage you would want to require the preservation of open space unless somebody can get a waiver if that is not
The culture of Plymouth then this whole thing can just be if this is a major subdivision you may do the following so I guess my my issue there is um the bar for a major subdivision is pretty low right and I really like this in principle to
Like preserve open space in the egg Zone and even give like bonuses for agricultural use of that open space yep um and at the same time I wonder if a better bar if we even could go with this mandate would be an acreage bar rather than any major
Subdivision well if it’s going to be in the subdivision regulations you have to tie it to yeah okay yeah you you either got it yeah you need to tie it to a major subdivision got it otherwise it would need to be Z c1a say may as opposed to shall yeah I would
Really like to say that it is this town’s culture to make sure that we protect our Open Spaces um but I’m not going to even say but I think it’s really important and I think that you know in some ways we do have to to lead the charge if this is something
That we see especially in our master plan is being of value to the town to protect agricultural lands to protect Forest to protect Hill slope uh you know our sloped hillsides Etc see it’s kind of hard for me coming in you got a master plan it’s pretty recent so what
Are planners do when they go to a community the first thing you do is read the master plan which is why I assumed there’s already been discussion about Fairgrounds Road but what do I know I mean it’s in your master plan so um there there were was discussion fa
Answer but yeah um so anyway I mean you can make this voluntary for any project that’s a major subdivision you can just do that I I like if it’s if it’s not going to be mandated like the enticement to do it um you need a density bonus yeah um
Needs to be there I was going to say even if we mandate it there’s nothing that says you have to have small Lots I mean what you you could have a I’m not sure how you would mandate it if somebody wasn’t proposing I mean you you could have a subdivision of 5 acre
Lots you know 10 5 acre lots in a 50 lot parcel yeah this is just allowing you to right but mhm yeah it’s a taking oh dear God no it is not no sure it’s actually been litigated but um it’s up to you if you want to make it
Um voluntary for major subdivision I think it’s fine I just soon keep it out so well you have to give some standard for when it applies so you might as well just say if it’s a major subdivision you may follow you may do the following as an alternative to a standard subdivision
It’s just pretty easy I think that’s what we need to do for now yeah it’s just simple yeah it’s not what I want but I think that’s what we need to do for now I don’t want you to think I’m not for conservation I’m 100% for con
Conservation but it’s got to it’s been on the backs of the property owners for a very long time and they want to actually see that concerned but to say hey you need to do this that’s something else so I always have been on the backs of I don’t understand is there a
Backstory about this that I don’t know not that I know they take care of their property yeah they leave it open and they could do something with but they don’t and it’s for everybody to enjoy the views of and from without mandating the view sheds are you talking about
Open land forested land yeah unused land timber land well now here’s the thing though I mean we’re talking about regulations and a zoning ordinance um the whole point of all these regulations and rules is that not everybody is going to follow best practices for the town
And we to protect the interest from not following those interests and there’s a balance there between someone private rights and the best interest of the town as a whole and that’s what we’re talking about here because sometimes people don’t want to do what you’re just talking about and sometimes it is
Important to um Force the hand just to say like you know we have to protect the public interest here so we’ve got zoning regulations that they would have to follow they can’t just build 2,000 squ foot Lots they have to on agricultural land do at least uh an acre they have to
Follow all the rules on roads and there’s quite a bit already that is not just suggestions but you have to follow it in order if you want to develop your land and what we’re what seems to be proposed is a whole another layer of um potentially asking them to put land off
Of the side but it’s but it’s this is op in it’s not in addition to it’s instead of so if if you have let’s say you take a 100 Acre parcel in in the egg Zone and let’s say you know you subtract out roads and
Wetlands and you could get in 70 1 acre lots this would allow you to put in 70 half acre lots and put the rest in conservation so there’s no OB it’s not like it’s requiring you to put in more land that you can’t develop it’s just saying rather than developing all the
Land we’re going to give these smaller homes some Park land to enjoy with in their development arguably making your development costs lower right and probably making the housing more valuable which is what happens but I think we’re Beyond this aren’t we just saying this is going to be voluntary yes
I mean if we remove c1a that is voluntary anyway yeah in which case if you don’t want to do it you don’t do it right right it’s just Al but it would be really nice to give incentive at least if we’re going to take out the mandate to then I’ve got
That so are we all good with the buffers I’m okay we can wave it um but it’s recommended and there are certain places where we wouldn’t want to see it probably I would say and we could just wave it then yeah Joseph how many um cluster developments do we have in the
Town right now uh I’m aware of three and there is the Mountain View Farms which is the you know the prominent one there’s also River Ridge off of Highland Street and then oddly enough uh Martin Estates is a is a open space residential development even though it doesn’t it
Has one acre lots anyway so there’s additional develop plan there yeah and it it was approved as an osrd I’m not entirely clear on the history of that one uh honestly but I it it did get approved under that um I think maybe some of the lots have a little bit less
Frontage did they get a density bonus at all they’re all 1acre Lots so I don’t I don’t know that is that for Wastewater purposes you know I’m really not sure I don’t know the history of it Bridgewater Hill I think there’s sewer out there yeah there’s it’s yeah it would all be
Um they well and septics but setic yeah that’s a that one doesn’t really it has open land and it was approved as an open space residential but they didn’t really cluster very much maybe they wave some of the other dimensional requirements instead I know they had to have a
Sistern in certain areas for sprinkler systems in the buildings and that was approved um so maybe that’s part of why there’s that set aside I’m not sure by the way just so you know not to digress but there’s a bill in the legislature to forbid communities from requiring more
Land area for residential development than they need for environmental code purposes for environmental what yeah Wastewater oh oh interesting oh wow it’s in the legislature Whoa We There are a few towns in New Hampshire that require considerably more land per unit than they need in order to have a compliant Wastewater system so
Four so they’re talking about a a house in a 4,000 foot area in that n a well that’s giving you information W the state does take the housing prices seriously so yeah yeah so are we good with the um there also the what is that c C4
Um I think I think this is good just to run by everyone make sure youing it page two um project not meaning the minimum acreage requirements of an osrd shall follow these additional requirements so we’re asking for a little bit extra clarification for anyone not meeting the minimum acreage requirements which makes
Sense to me as defined in number three above right yeah so if you have a 4 and A2 acre in the village Comm Village Comm Village commercial you could still do an open space residential if you meet one of those other criteria interesting I mean I’m I’m good with it
I’m this yeah it’s interesting bring it out there something to look at [Applause] right yeah most of my I didn’t realize that this was what what type of comments we were looking for took much more detail detail you know if you want to you know take
A another week or so as board members to just think about it you can always email all your comments to Joseph and and Joseph can send them to me or you can just email me directly I mean you guys know how to find me yeah I don’t care either way
Um I don’t want to pressure anybody I I mean I have some stuff I know I can work on on now so which is fine there’s something else that I’m putting a little bit of pressure on only because I don’t think it’s going to be the end of the
World but in terms of timelines if our zoning amendments go through yeah as of mid-march we will no longer have any osrd yeah so we need to we do need to wrap this up it would be good to adopt at least close to there I mean I don’t
Think anybody’s going to like jump in line like the next day and try to do one um unless they want to be like’s problematic because they see there’s not going to be one therey is it’s your regulations right so you know if you we get osrd regulations in place and you
Want to think about it a little more and there’s something that you need to amend there’s a flexibility to do that I mean I don’t think you want to just have to amend them later but I’m just saying that the beauty of this is you really can think about if there’s something you
Want to tweak you can do it and and in terms of process me if we can give some good feedback tonight which we’ started to do already we can get a better closer draft to what we want to see that’s fine and look at that again and then schedule
A public hearing we have to have a public hearing before we actually adopt these and so there is a several meeting process to make this happen I also think that I mean if somebody’s coming to Joseph and talking about a major subdivision I feel like there are a lot
Of benefits to developers in this the plan um in the osrd and I would imagine Joseph with say oh you’re planning a you know a 10 million unit subdivision just hang on you know we’ve got guess what I mean you get benefit to the property owner it’s the property owner
That’s ultimately going to gain so but I mean if you want to keep going tonight this is fine whatever you want to do I guess it’s just helpful to know exactly like what pieces of you know what pieces you need from us um policy yeah and and even more specific than that is
Helpful well so we’re going to talk to I guess to fire about some of our dimensional questions and Joseph you can follow up on that um cuz yeah I can definitely see them being smaller um and I think this there’s a couple of points with that so there’s
This table that you know you can do a cluster or you can do individual subdivision Lots right and there’s the table that shows uh distance around individual units and clusters and then there’s the setbacks within those subdivision Lots so if you’re doing those subdivision Lots you’re in the two
Columns on the left and or sorry if you’re in a cluster so if they’re all you know like on the same underlying lot that’s a having a 30ft building separation is the equivalent of 15 ft on either side of a property line and um you know that’s that’s something that’s
Worth thinking about and the other one the building setbacks on subdivision Lots um you know how how big are those lots going to be um you know and how big should those setbacks be I think um you know I think that’s an important question to a certain extent
Because if you are going down to 10,000 square ft uh or 5,000 I think that’s I had a question actually about that um so a budding a lot line I mean like 50 is a big number for me yeah um and this is AB buding a lot line after
Subdivision or buting the current lot lines before subdivision no this is this design standard so this is like after subdivision so 50 would be on every lunch no that’s but that’s only against off property off subdivision boundaries right about are we talking about the boundaries no it’s Bing a lot line the
Buffer is different oh okay yeah I thought you were talking about the buffer can shrink these as much as you’re comfortable I would say at the street you probably want to think carefully about but we’re still going to have a well for the street within the subdivision is different though than the
Buffer so the yeah that’s different right the street within the subdivision I don’t know do we need 50 I would say whatever the setbacks are in the in the underlying zoning inside the development you can have you know do whatever you want but I it might be less
Than the underlying development CU we are giving density extra density for the question is do we want to reduce setbacks if we’re increasing density but I don’t know if it ever does become a Town Road they’re going to need that brought up to town specs and they’re going to need
That pavement a certain width because the town could take it over so the construction of the road the construction of the road should meet Road standards regardless of whether it’s cluster or not open space development or not exactly and our sub our subdivision requires that yeah yes
And so they’re not going to expand the road again later right for that reason at least I mean if something else happens that’s a whole another issue but they shouldn’t be taking someone’s land and it becoming a public road because there should already be built the public
Specs to begin with we don’t want to make 15 uh foot wide roads all the way through it because but but the subdivision rigs for major subdivisions already require the road I I didn’t know John was thinking hey we can get a little bit smaller no no no no I was
Saying I was saying the opposite oh okay good good good good good yeah what’s here minimum rer why requirement for subdivision Road Joseph I think it’s I think it’s 50 ft but the planning board can approve minor reductions in the planning board can approve minor reductions in RightWay
Width in on the advisement of the Town engineer how it’s written are we take bringing in paton’s tanks I mean Jesus really only to enforce conservation easement stipulations thank you Rebecca you can go against Joe Joe fagnet on that issue was right oh good luck with that one yeah I
Do yeah I think it’s more that we need that right of way to control the vegetation the trees and all that that if we needed to cut it back so it’s not growing into the road I think that’s part of it okay that is what would you recommend
For a road RightWay with I’m just curious 40 for a standard subdivision Road 40 12 away seems reasonable 24 for travel way 40 yeah it’s pretty typical 40 is pretty difficult but you know even for some towns actually I mean the paved width can vary quite a bit Yeah smaller roads you
Probably don’t need that much and there’s I know that wide roads tend to encourage higher speeds yes yeah MH and there’s also the water and Sewer going along the side and you’re not the only town that has water and sewer oh we’re not no you’re not and you’re not the
Only town with large trucks either you can ask Brian how it works with water and sewer in front of the by the roads all right um okay well whatever that’s that’s your standard I’m not so I oh yeah go ahead no I was just going to circle back a little bit to those
Setbacks on subdivision Lots I do think that for me a little bit of clarification is probably helpful and maybe for the board to with what so if if if we’re talking the individual house Lots internal to the subdivision 50 ft subdivision or 50 foot setback abing those lot lines for the internal uh
House Lots or 50 feet from the external I think we were talking about that a little bit and 50 ft from the internal house Lots that’s 100t building separation I don’t know I assume it that’s not what that’s referring to but I was a little bit less clear that seems
Very large it seems excessive it is so buting a lot line internal to the development is not the same as theer set back to the street the the street that you’re using to access the development yeah there typically is a deeper setback at the street because people get
Frightened about seeing a house so typically you have more of a setback at the street you might jump out of you and then internal to the development you would have you know zero setbacks if you want it’s up to you so do you think I don’t
Know what if we had a a diagram because there is the minimum buffer and then there’s minimum building setbacks for subdivision lots aing a street and aing a lot have a diagram that’s let to clarify what all these terms mean for anybody reading this have to say I’m I
Have a hard time conceptualizing things and uh yeah that makes sense I’m confused so you can show the buffer you can show the different setbacks and behind you do some drawing show us an example start shouting out numbers and ab buding and setbacks and yeah you can insert a
Diagram in here if it would help I mean I don’t know if we I mean we have the you know I assume there possibility we don’t use diagrams in our subdivision regulations I imagine that was harder to do at the time diagrams weren’t invented in 2002
So but I do think it’s it should be you know I think diagram would be fine don’t think it would be helpful more clear isn’t intended to say that 100t building separation when they’re on individual Lots but I that my first read that’s what I thought that
Meant I mean that’s not even required by underlying zoning I mean that seems excessive mhm right so if we can get some clarification from fire and that would be good how much space they need to squeeze how much space they actually need and then we can talk about whether
Or not we want to expand upon that um or just leave it up to a developer or not and um the current osrd allows for a reduction in setbacks but it doesn’t say what that is so Mountain View Farms just as an example those were approved at a zero lot line setback on
One side and a 20 foot on the other side um so they are you know those units are all the way up on the lot line on one side of the lot and they have a 20 foot on the other side so they have a 20 foot building separation which is what the
Planning board awarded them at the time um but that’s pushed to the side you know the building is pushed all the way to the side um that’s what the board decided to award at that time there’s nothing in zoning saying that that’s you know why you would W that over something
Else but that’s what they used at at and just to clarify also whatever we put in here is in our subdivision regulations and if the board so chooses in in a particular particular circumstance we can wave it if it makes sense right ultimately we can wave anything in
Here if we want to exactly that’s what I’m saying so I mean but the thing is way to develop if a developer comes in and looks at this they’re going to use as a metric of what they’re they’re expecting to do expectations um so it’s important to have something reasonable
There and then if they have a request for a waiver or whatever we can always um do that I mean the the way I think about this is if we create cre standards here and somebody brings us a subdivision that meets 100% of those standards you kind of have to give it
You have to Grant it like but you know if somebody’s asking you to wave something that’s something you have the option to do but you want this to look like what we typically expect but if somebody brings us an application that’s 100% in conformance with our subdivision regulations and we deny it
They’re probably going to take us to court and appeal and wait mhm so we have to think about that as being the minimum standard and you know somebody can ask for a variant or ask for a lesser setback or something and it may make sense in the context of that specific
Development well that’s it the layout may need that actually I mean does does the I mean if we have setbacks in un under in in zoning I mean what what what will the zoning say about allowing do we have the flexibility to reduce setbacks in OS in osrd well we have the standard
We have the footnote back in 304 um which I don’t have open right now we put a footnote to the dimensional tables that the dimensions for lot of area set back and something else would be subject to article nine of the subdivision regulations okay and that’s
Up to us yeah that’s what we’re but that’s what we’re deciding right now yeah I mean you and the applicant get so much flexibility out of this it’s really the way to go mhm but if we make it really easy and somebody brings us an application that
Conforms and we don’t like it we can’t say no sure I mean that’s why you need to be careful about what these standards are but but we also don’t want to make it look like we’re asking for something we don’t actually want right right um so you like that’s what zoning usually [Laughter]
Does are excellent at saying what they don’t want yeah all right so I mean do you feel like you have some good um clarification from us in terms of what we’re looking for I think so um and if we have any further input we can send it to Joseph
Who can you have any other follow-up comments maybe within the next week um and then if there’s like conflicting comments Joseph just bring him back to the board you don’t want us being the Arbiter of conflict and that four story and height thing for the buildings will come out
Yes I have a couple like ply little things that I’ll just I’ll send along because they might be more relation that you don’t need to talk about here so and like you mentioned I had a couple of notes about the um the way uses are labeled and different uses and things
Which I can I can share that you just if you just put it all in one email I’m going to treat it like a checklist and it’s just much better than a bunch of getting yeah I just something’s going to get lost I don’t know I I think you could have a
Four-story house and your 70 foot tall eframe yeah all right um on that note uh Troublemaker C can I just ask there’s an exception to every rule about the meeting in March so I yes you can you guys you have to answer me tonight but can you put some thought into what would
Be helpful to you to have for that meeting okay big signs that say that we can have outside the polling place um can we but we’re talking about Thursday night right the information um oh that one that one yeah we just need time to make some
Materials as all I mean I I I’m guessing that from what we were talking about on the housing committee that a big goal is to um answer questions and provide clarification for people y and I don’t think we want to give too big of a like feel from us maybe a short introduction
To to the Amendments and then just if people have questions we can late like a fact sheet type thing like I wonder if we should have like a station proposed or something like that something that can be shared with people who aren’t going to come to the meeting
I think and some people I’m thinking yeah and people obviously who don’t understand zoning um yeah I mean should have a zoning a a big zoning map yeah that shows um and I think I I think what needs to get it needs to be stated in a very
Clear way that this is not these are the changes this is what you can do less of this is what you can do more of right and in break broken down into very very simple language so and and and and I and I’ve got to say for I think just about every amendment
That we’re putting forward there’s really not a whole lot of less of exactly and it’s a whole lot of more of Y yeah um yeah do you have large format maps from the master plan no that’s too bad I don’t believe so no I don’t believe so either have even in the rack
Downstairs outside the office no unfortunately we have some we we don’t the town doesn’t own a large format printer or scanner so we don’t know we get if we had anything during that Master Plan process um you know you know I think there might have been one large
Map that was blown up that was used for some type of Engagement activity that’s still down there you got kind of lost in some staff transitions both here at Plymouth and at North Country Council who did our master plan and and to our benefit PSU has also gotten rid of their
Large format printers that’s unfortunate if we can have a large TV hooked up to a computer we can just use the town zoning or the the tax assessor software true bring up the zoning layer move wherever you want to see it yeah CU you can’t even blow up I mean the maps
That are in the master plan don’t don’t scale well unless we could like you said get them from the original files I mean I’m happy to reach out to the person who did the maps and see if he happened to have kept them in his uh I was thinking
The same thing and I I can I can do that I’ve spoken to Tera about get some information from other projects that and then I think there was I had tried to get a copy of the parking study they did for us in 20178 and there was
No copy that anyone there had in their records of any finalized but Tara had in her personal records an early draft of it yeah I I can reach out to the person who did that too so uh I mean it’s the same person so I have his personal email
Al see if he still you happen to keep that stuff what would be really helpful to us is can you just maybe in an email this is what’s going to the ballot so I’m really clear okay because I’ve been sick for a while and I don’t know
What you guys have done while I’ve been in my deathbed but I’m not in my deathbed now and I want to make sure understand what is going to town meeting so it needs if you can mean if we had eight amendments and after tonight seven are going through yep um everything but
The um overlay yeah that needs to be on file in the office of the town clerk by Tuesday the 6th so that what we have will need to be compiled and ready by that time anyway so I mean it’s just a matter of taking out the one that didn’t
Pass from the list so that’s should be easy enough to just send over and it’ll be on the website and in the town clerk’s office but I’ll get that I just want to make sure if we work on a few kind of handouts that they’re accurate it would not be good if they
Weren’t so I’m going to ask is there any other unfinished business from board members or planning staff of two things um one is um this is a actually a question Joseph Judy you might have the answer to this a municipal project in a
Town that you know if it was a if it was a private project might trigger a development of regional impact do towns have to go through that process of notifying AB budding towns if they might have a um a project that is potentially impactful incinerator theoretic well theoretically development of regional
Impact isn’t only triggered by site plan review it’s triggered by any land use decision um including even a building permit so that’s a really interesting question and I do not know the answer to that but I would should we reach out to the town of Ashland and request that
They notify us if there a project going on up here that trash Municipal trash incinerator waste to energy they’re trying desperately to get that through yeah interesting hugely expensive project with a very very long payout um but anyway I I’m just curious cuz I feel
Like to me if that was a private project it would trigger development and Regional impact I’m just I’m just curious um I wonder I don’t know why a public project wouldn’t I don’t know especially something like that a facility like that I can ask I know the
Guy that runs Bridgewater power I can see if he did that to do that yeah so um other thing is my term is up in April and I am not going to renew so I just want to give every heads up on that so yeah it’s been n and a half years it’s
Been a long run yeah you’ve been a great force thank you are you threee terms here what are what’s your term three yeah so and I have one thing I’d like to add to the meeting it was very productive I love the dialogue and it is such a
Refreshing and I’m I’m glad you were there at the end to at the end of your term to to see this come back to this the way that it was and I don’t know if you guys realize how how much of an impact Joseph has to this board because
He is doing a phenomenal job I don’t know if you’ve picked up on he’s not advocating he doesn’t pick a side he is what the real deal like when we had cetch a fox and uh Mariam Bader and I just want to say thank you Joseph for everything you’re doing for this town
Thank you I appreciate that thanks Joseph thank you Rebecca for all you did thank you Judy and last thing I’ll do is get the word natural resources in that subdivision regulation to do there was one other change you wanted to that you said needed to be that was it okay yeah it
Has to do with a application we rejected because for whatever reason was going to threaten natural resources the way they wanted it it went all the way to the it got appealed to the Supreme whatever the Superior Court Superior something like that and the town’s position was upheld
But there attorney suggested that we make sure we make what we mean by natural resources a little more clear in our subdivision regulations so might be maybe adding Wetlands or something I’ll I’ll get the exact language when we’re ready to do that awesome so just that one thing Peter Julia and Michael
Bushard also have terms that are coming up um neither of them are here but okay yeah and of course everybody’s eligible for you know there’s no term limit when I started 9:00 is not bedtime but it is now um are there public comments I I do want to thank you for
Your offer of helping with Outreach and um yeah uh offer still stands and if you choose to go that way um but I do want to reiterate the fact that I do appreciate everything you all do um I’ve been I had the honor of serving on the
Planning war with Rebecca um so thank you for your service to this town um and uh so I know how long these meetings can be drawn out and been on that side of the table so I do genuinely appreciate everything you guys do thanks thank you thank you maybe Brian could uh
Come to the hop Grant meetings The Hop Grant meetings we meet Tuesdays whether formally put on to the committee or nice any member of the public is always welcome to join us anyway um and we don’t meet every Tuesday anymore like we were for a while but um
So contact us first that was fun huh all right thanks Brian thank you have a great night see you J make a motion to adjourn second all in favor I I all right we are adjourned have a great night Matt