preliminary and final plat review for a p u g minor subdivision this parcel is located at forty four raceway road it's in the agricultural zone of district the second piece of business we have in the meeting tonight is to approve the minutes from the previous so this meeting will be prison will be conducted in an orderly manner consistent with our rules of procedure copies of the rules are available to the public on request if you want to the written copy if you get one from jan but i'll walk you through or what we're doing tonight so you won't need them decision are active confirmable violate the municipal plan or by law the petitioners must designate one person to serve as their representative and a department in administrative subdivision of the state owning property within the municipality and the agency of commerce and community development only statue of torah lee defined interested persons may appeal a decision of his own an officer a d or b if it is to person fails to make a timely appeal they are bound by the officer of your business interact only those interested persons who have participated in a day or be proceeding may appeal the decision reacted in that proceeding in environmental court pursuant to state statute participation consists of offering through oral or written testimony evidence or a statement of concern related to the subject of the proceeding so i bring all this up because if there were to be an appeal of anything that we do interested party status is not what is not something that we determine it will be part of an appeal process but what we do need to do is know who participated so to that end we're going to send around a sign up sheet if you want if you're going to participate in this hearing or just let us know you were here if you would just sign in there so we know that you are here and also when you when you s tell us your name for the records of him that we know that you are here and participated so at this point i need to point out this is a quasi judicial hearing and that means in all those who intend to speak must be sworn in so what i'll do is read this oath and you can be sworn in by just saying i do i hereby swear this the evidence i give in the cause under consideration shall be the whole truth and nothing but the truth under the pains and penalt the same proposal that very similar proposal to what you saw at sketch plan on may twenty second the parcel is owned by mr davis mr atwood has an option on the parcel and has a separate option on the right of way from the metal drive the proposal is for three duplex units on one hundred twenty it's a hundred twenty three acre parcel on that side of raceway road that mr davis owns of which just shy of twenty nine acres is involved with this proposal the all of the land with the exception of the footprint for the units is now common land when the attorney did his legal review previously we had three lots in common land he said everything's going to act just common land anyway so the the interior lot lines were removed and it's just the footprint for the unit that shows that everything's in common the on that at sketch plan we had the staff notes had feedback from the board and had a fair amount of feedback from neighbors as well as letters that came in or memos that came in before and after and we took a look at what we had so in addition to ten ten sheet set  plans this is a minor subdivision so this is a final hearing it's quality it's yours it's not a major subdivision and we made several changes mostly to  address the neighbors comments item one in the letter that i submitted on august say we did change the buffer from foothills from fifty which was previously posed to one hundred that also involved a slight shift of units one to five six just a very slight shift to make sure that they were beyond that that one hundred foot one of the neighbors asked about the utilities being underground they are there's a note on sheet two now that states that you all utility shall be underground there was comments on screening mostly from the two neighbors on either side of the right of way and the plans to call for evergreen cedar had on the portion fortunes of the common line with those two folks that are adjacent to units one two and and five six the there was a question on the source protection area for the foothills well that is a state jurisdiction item but regardless the that was followed up on and the state did revise their area their well area per mr allen's mr allen worked with them and they agreed that their boundary had not been updated and so they updated their boundary we've incorporated that boundary on these plans our propose sewage areas outside of that bank boundary there is about a half a dozen foot hills homes that are within the boundary but we are outside of the boundary of that wellhead protection area mr mcafee and really it's on both sides of the right of way conveying up through that right of way on to our little and into our storm system so that they're treated in controlled so we've improved we certainly haven't made that situation worse we've actually improved it for both sides where that drainage now has a place to go instead of being captured the roadway we talked about gravel versus paved it could it can be either driveway we are proposing that it be paved to the property line and to clarify from the staff notes that's to the property line of the development we're suggesting that this whole stretch so that we're not causing dust issues with the two neighbors is paved you know and then once we get on to the parcel itself it would be graveled so there certainly won't be any tracking out on to onto the main road the  units again there's three duplexes proposed last time we had suggested that three would be fifty five plus housing and three would be market rate housing unrestricted  we are proposing all six to be fifty five plus housing now the regulations talk about include senior housing or fifty five plus housing when it talks about on institute traffic engineers very low trip generations essentially your regulations are tied directly to the i t standards and fifty five plus is about fifty percent of non fifty five plus single family homes when you look at traffic generation it essentially is equivalent to slightly last than three homes the again the attorneys  review we've eliminated the interior lot lines we show footprints for those last lines and i was going next i was going to go into the staff notes but i know that mr davis wanted to make a statement and i think it's probably better that he does it for i get into the staff notes road so there's not a danger of people coming off the road and getting hit because there's a good view of everything and you look at the the complaint about the trunk or the banks but it seems like it's been thrown over a bridge well i've never had access to that part of my property because of i'm on to previous neighbors and then i noticed that there's been christmas trees and stuff thrown over them of storage to see that but that tends to so what i was going to do and you can stop me whenever you want or if i skip something that you wanted to go over i was going to go over the parts of the staff notes that i assume if you want to go over and or i want to go over i think the staff notes are thorough i think they're supportive of this proposal our job as as our company for this proposal as it is for any proposal is to make sure what the apple camp wants me regulations this meets all of your regulations i've been doing this twenty six years and i'm very comfortable that this meets all not only your regulations but state standards  also on the staff report page one there's there's two numbers and i just want to clarify there's a twenty eight point nine six acre number and there's a twenty seven point nine nine acre number the difference between the two is the right of way to separate strip so the land the total land involved is the twenty eight nine six but the twenty seven point nine nine is pertinent that's the portion that's actually mr davis  property or portion of mr davis property on page two of the staff notes at the bottom of project overview and i think that you should say the directly adjacent to the southern edge of the foothills residential to subdivision rather than western edge or just off the kind south side line of of the foothills and previous activity it notes that we are located between two one acre village zoning districts i think think by today's standards if you were to look at your zoning map we could agree that mr davis's parcel is essentially spot zoned at this point because foothills came about in his own one acre residential  and he's trapped in between those two one acre residential i think that's mostly because it's been a farm and it stayed agricultural because it recognized that it was a farm but it does allow for residential we're proposing low use residential on that piece and i think it's appropriate but i think it's also important to note that we are in between those two districts staff as pointed out  on the bottom of that it talks about the input and i touched on what we changed and i'm happy to answer questions as as you'd like me to later on the use and permitted density i think this is part of tonight whether on whether the board feels that we need to get into this to a higher level than the planned unit development so with a planned unit development character the area is part of a planned unit development that you're in harmony general harmony with the area but the question came up sense sketch plan as to whether or not the duplex es are also conditional use within a p u d i did a submittal follow up that you should have i believe that the way the regulations are written it's a conditional use in a conventional subdivision but it is not a conditional use or you could still say it's conditional use put in a p u d it specifically states that it's entitled to have multifamily  duplex and that's the exact wording is entitled so that so we can get into that now we can get into it later if you'd like but i think that's a board decision as to whether or not we get into the  on page three of the staff notes it points out that we have changed the one hundred foot buffer in the lot layout appears to be in harmony with the existing site features very little  griffey changes on this parcel we're doing some for the storm water drainage we have a combination of these units are one level units they do have basements put their one level homes and we have a combination of just a straight foundation to a walkout foundation and one of them to a garden style foundation on one to work with the topography of the land so there's and up being the least amount of finished grading possible character of the surrounding area we feel we are and kick in character of the surrounding area again multifamily residential to family is permitted intitled within a p u d per year regulations i just want to point out that that's the character of the surrounding area and i know that there's been suggestions from some that it may not their feeling is that it may not be in character with the foot hills that's not the criterion the criterion is the surrounding area not be a budding development but if you do look at the abutting development there's five distinct styles of homes in there and you have a colonial ranch you have raised ranch there's a tri level there's five different styles of homes in that development so there's a wide range  i do have a handout when you look at character of the area of all the different projects within a mile or you there are multifamily you bless there are certainly in the about a half a mile from the project you have a seven seven plex on woodlands drive about seven tenths of a mile you have a fourplex right on raceway road about four tenths of a mile right across from the merchant bank and then you have the gardiner subdivision which is three quarters of a mile so there is a lot of multi use duplex other than single family in the  area on lot layouts the second paragraph is the discussion where mr mcafee had asked about the drainage i've already hit on that again we're picking up that low point and making sure that it gets conveyed in this case onto the parcel and into our stormwater system we did submit stormwater calculations this does not trigger the need for a state permit but  we did design it as if it was per state per state standards on the last part of that is the discussion where mr allen had brought up the well head protection that is sense been corrected and we are outside of that i will know based on those revisions we had entertained the idea of having  individual septic for each duplex and if we had one of the unit five six we would have been within that area for five six so we did modify our sewage  initial sewage plans to go to a shared system and keep it as far away as possible not just outside of that zone but as far away as possible beyond  some point beyond the bottom of the slope what i've added to the plan is i've added the dimension from the bottom of the slope which is very conservative to the point of closest stur five the closest disturbance which is the closest portion of the sewage field the class two requirements are fifty foot buffer so we are ninety five feet plus  i did not spend extra money to have a consultant when you wetlands consult and when it's there is no wetland on that slope the slope precludes it it's more than ninety five feet but it was easy to show that it was well beyond and if the fifty foot still in the same section we start talking about the legals legal documents were provided with our august states the middle and it does talk in sections six point one one six point one zero one six point one one of the illegals on pages eight nine of the legals that talks about the use of the open space six point one ologist says passive use only six point one one gets into more detail as far as clarifying that no a t v s or e subtract twenty five percent from the land area to establish the base density so when you take the twenty eight point nine seven acres of track ten twenty five percent divide by the more acreage per lot come up with i think two point one seven units so it's then applying the fifty five plus you're somewhere just shy of the up to fifty percent bonus for that with the r p approval to to get to the three lots and your lots are allowed to have a single family or four duplex on them   as your regs state they're entitled to it the the language in the regulations came up in and one of the correspondence it's very clear that the twenty five percent is not a starting point the twenty five percent is too it's to make up for or to acknowledge that you're doing a p r t and it's a set number it's not a floating number it's subtract twenty five percent and do the math if you want to go to a higher base density your regulation starts talking about density plans and show a conventional layout that's only if you want to go higher so there is no magic way to go lower your regulations also allow up to twenty percent of the natural area to be for post for development that's not to suggest that only twenty percent can be used for density the twenty five percent is what you take out for density we're not proposing that we use twenty percent we're not proposing we use any percent of development within that natural area we're protecting the natural area that's what a p u g is supposed to do and that's what this development does on the density bonus he may provide up to a fifty percent increase i will note that at sketch we didn't hear any negative feedback from the board or from staff on the three duplexes or the six units so  in determining the density bonus which it's a requirement that we did this if we came to sketch sketches elective but if we came to sketch it was required that we talked about the density bonus at  sketch talking about it again but i think we've already i think the ship is already sailed but indeterminate density bonus is warranted the d r p shall consider the overall layout compatibility with the jericho comprehensive plan i did review the plan on like some towns your plan i should say years owning regulations comprehensive plan does a good job of incorporating your town plan a lot of towns they just go through the motions on their town plan every five years and they're really dragging behind on incorporating those into their sewing and subdivision regs so you've got this planning tool but you're regulations haven't caught up with that planning tool it appears in jericho that they are very much in step with each other the agricultural district definition is the exact same in your town plan as it is in your and so forth so i didn't see anything in the town plan that that our proposal contradicts but the most important part i think it talks about is the ability for the site to support the additional units so on water we are doing individual shared well for each duplex and there is in that area there as been decent water source provided provided that information i am in to the state for their permits sewer we have a fully conforming in ground system here have good soils at this site have relatively flat slopes we've done the storm first state standards even though we don't trigger the state requirements there is less traffic for these fifty five plus units as compared to three homes so the six fifty five plus units we provided you the  will produce less traffic by the then three homes that are not fifty five plus the school impact is less we did provide the school letter noise levels would be into spaded to be last the again these are one story units the per the three single family homes creates two m peak hour and three p m peak hour trips and twenty nine daily trips six of the sr creates one a m peak hour one p m peak hour and twenty one trips so it's a little bit less than three single family homes they don't need a lot of them don't need to rush to to work and back on page five of the staff notes in order to be eligible for the density bonus there's a couple ways i've already touched on that our proposal is that we're on the access staff points out that that this access is appear your than coming off of the river road we certainly agree with that this right of way has been there since day one when foothills was done it was put there to develop mr davis property and mr this proposal is i think probably far last than what was originally envisioned with that that right of way this proposal is a function of permits before the building permit about half way down on page five the access road is twenty four feet wide that is a change from sketch at sketch we had it is twenty two feet and the fire department asked for twenty four we changed it to twenty four it's actually per your standards a driveway because it serves three lots and a lot is entitled to a single family or duplex so it's a it's a private driveway per your regulation regardless we meet the cross section and higher standards of as if it was a road at the bottom of that page talks about becomes pavement as it approaches metal drive i think in my cover letter i said we were going to pave it to the property line and i'm not so sure that that was thought about just this portion  we are going to pave it to the interior property line paving it to their  six i wasn't planning on going over any of the top part i'm certainly in agreement with that i think we need to regulation requirements for a dead end the fire district review distant sketch and was in the latter even though they asked for the twenty four feet the letter also stated that it posed no concerns but we did change to the twenty twenty four feet and at the end of the staff notes i actually think this might be incorrect it talks about the seven day notice before commencement of construction for town inspection per ten section ten point twelve point twelve point one i believe that section is for public infrastructure public roadways i think the section that applies is section ten point twelve point lead seven point three which requires that they have our office or another consultant certify that the construction was done per the approved plans and that would make more sense the because there are not public improvements so live with the town be spending time on time and money on their consult the only other part of the middle that i had was whether or not you wanted to further discuss or enter entertain the need to discuss conditional use criteria of what's going to be conveyed though before there was basically a lot line here and a lot line there that split them into lot one two and three and then by default everything has size was common land when the attorney reviewed it he said doesn't matter if you have a lot of lines because it's all going to act as common land anyway it be a lot easier that it were all clean in common land so the conveyance is really just for mortgage purposes but right around that unit itself this interior dash line is called a footprint lot for legal purposes and what that does is almost all our money goes out of state when we try to get a loan and it changes the out of state lingo from condo to p u d not the puti that we're talking about put it's better mortgage rates and it's less questions so the attorneys and our office generally always do footprints it allows what your house what your unit sits on your wall and then there's an additional line that's in the front here that basically would encompass where you'd be parking your car and a little bit in the back that is called a linen limited common element and that gives you more control over that area so if your neighbor from the land itself is all in common with the exception of what the unit said on so the illegals that you're proposing are essentially a condo association yes it be similar to it would be similar to what brad gardner did and there's not a lot lines there sometimes the older developments that you see some of the ones that i gave you in the in the google image there they were probably done as condominiums where after they're built you go in and you do a floor plan and you file a floor plan for each one with a footprint you don't need to do the floor plan because they own that so do i understand that there's three of those footprints or six there's six footprints there's a footprint for each unit is falls in the definitions i'm not positive whether i can come up with it right now but what most towns have done is just simply stated it in their in their  approvals because it can't be a lot it doesn't need any lots of yellow zoning requirements some towns have gone suvi staff of adding footprint to their regulations and simply saying that this is not a personally purposes but acknowledging that that's the way everything's being done i've got to believe that whether you do it or not that there's got to be several developments one way to leave it would be that either it is appropriate pirtle of the regs and i don't know if that's something that that you can ask your town attorney to verify or not or if we had to go to condo we could but it's not prefer robel because of mortgage purposes same exact plan with or without the footprints it's just that we do floor plans and we wouldn't have individuals would not have as easy a time with their with their loans weird so just to me let me quote to make sure i understand what you're proposing is exactly one was crap so why are we talking about a subdivision and all that since there's i mean there's a subdivision of the davis to split off this twenty seven point nine acres from the davis property what were clearly a few d so you know that sketch is elective but sketching final is the standard process for be so i don't know that but but you're right it's not a you know in my opinion it's not a subdivision because we're not proposing any lofts except steps the subdivision into two lots from correct if that becomes a sticking point i guess the takeaway is i'd rather it be either or i'd prefer that the board asked the town attorney for their opinion or if you want us to provide an opinion we can have our attorney provide an opinion but i prefer that the town asked the town attorney for their opinion and if it comes back that they disagree the condition would be that these are condos rather than footprints i guess we'll have to guess we'll cross that bridge when we come to come to the heat of this and we decide that we're going to proceed five for here around and the reason for that the one hundred foot buffer is a requirement against the village just so it is next back to the standard seventy five which most of it is all on and on either side the trees are supposed to be a buffer yeah is there anything in the agreement for their meat needs to sit in the homeowner's documents there's approval most towns have a three year guarantee on landscaping also and i think i read that in your regulations somewhere yeah you would be a requirement for not only the maintenance but the guarantee should one or more of them die that they be replaced of the bottom of the steep slope of the wetlands how about the rest of it which is what's the present use present use woodland mostly contains wetland within it there is a high or maybe and in this general area you're looking at your map and that's all kind of being shown as high and dry but it's mostly woodland  on the parcel but it's on the adjacent part of dean's lambright correct ok i just wanted to make sure i'm going to understanding what the present use is in the neighborhood and the rest of the law yeah that's that's a fair amount of the portion that you're getting from him and you understand understand scale that i'm just look they were kind of planted in a straight line in the right of ways not quite straight right so we need to we've really tried to work around those with our finish creating so that they can be kept because four of them are on the right of way one of them's kind of right on the edge of the right of way and tool them around the why it's property but the intention is that all of those would be preserved so those are enough trees you know the other side doesn't like it has as many to the other side to provide a visual buffer between the driveway and and yeah i mean the other side actually has quite a few  can see on their proper rights you know as you know a lot and there was some comments i think from both of those landowners about the possibility of saving more in the right of way i think first and foremost the people that b next to a right away by next door right away and at some point that right away is going to be used and it's not that that right away is going to block from you so they have benefited that it has not been used since  hundred seventy four it was just before act two fifty that the foothills was done or it would have been a different development if it needed back to fifty but so all i can say there is it's rather unlikely with the twenty four foot road the required slopes and then picking up the drainage so that we can take away that low point it's unlikely that additional trees can be saved you can only you can't really cut and if you fill much more than six inches maybe a foot they're going to die anyway i mean we're comfortable saying that if we can save a tree or two here we certainly will just cost more money to take it down but  i'm not suggesting that we can beyond beyond what's shown and specifically what you own brilliancy i'm curious as to the regulation regarding the fifty five itself does that mean it appears that you know the consultant know addition to that fifty five year old individual which then would prove to preclude the comments made by the consultant regarding trip density of trips and frequenc and to be fair to be fair the consultant as well i'm not sure i understand the whole of the requirements regarding the fifty five year old eligibility a lot of fertilizer containers oil containers and it's quite extensive it's pretty old and so it's pretty deep so my question is is there going to be any sort of in my and then all the testing done on that material to see if it is safe to be that close to a water supply and also if it's determined that it's going to be the roof there's two trees behind my property the white ribbons tied around them i don't know what that means they weren't there before proposal you know so while the question is if there is some sort of removal to be done how will that be accessed because it's pretty wet down there i don't know that they can drive in and where they were it was your plan to go through the properties in the foothills by written written comments both tonight i have one that was that was submitted tonight and there have been others in the interim on the process with those and they said that was the case that sketch and that's the case now we've they've been received by the office jet has had a i've had some submitted tonight and partly to answer the question about about the the written comments and how they are used the next question i have that's open is the fundamental question is what is the  legals that back up this this definition of senior senior housing maybe you could just describe that he was so again we are proposing that all six units be the fifty five plus not going to come up with the right acronym here but in talking to chipboard a warden babb who did the legal documents there's an actual requirement that he went by the legal requirement so he i didn't really worry about the reg your regulations at that point he went straight to the legal requirement and on section twenty seven point one page twenty eight of the documents  there must be at least one person who is fifty five years of age qualified reside in the unit if your spouse's is younger that's fine persons under the age of nineteen may reside in norton me guest for a maximum of ninety days in a twelve month period so there's no no children no school age children and if you have a kid coming back from college or in the summer that's ok if they're there in the summer time these age restrictions applied to the owners if the owners were running the place it applies to the runners and applies to house guests who occupy the unit in the absence of the qualified owner on the there is a occupancy x exception that if your spouse passes away and they were the fifty five plus you were entitled to remain there  until such time that the surviving spouse remarries and then that exemption goes away and they would have to go back to a fifty five plus household unless their new spouse was fifty five plus so it is perpetuity it does restrict all children under the age of nineteen for a ninety day maximum period v is the industry standard in your case your regulations specifically say so whether it's higher or lower it's it's the same for single family as it would be for the other  category that was looked at was single family home i looked at three so those numbers i gave if you know is as far as what are we comparing and then the category was senior adult housing attached and i was six units on that that's category to fifty one of the standards that i think the more important part is that your regulations have trigger events for when traffic is an issue and we falls so far below those trigger events the triggers in your regulation are that we increase traffic by twenty five percent if you look at just the foothills which it's not clear but conservatively if we just looked at the foothills we will increase it by about five percent within based on one thousand numbers and if you have more than fifty a m or p m peak hour trips standards in your regulations and we fall way way below the standards for any traffic issue here so let's see there was a procedural question i think the form of this hearing this applicant is in the procedural things this african chose to do a sketch plan and then combine the conditional preliminary and final hearings which is one of the possible routes in the regulations that means that when this hearing closes we would have forty five days to render a decision  sketch the staff notes that sketch in the staff notes tonight are for a minor project so there is no need to talk about a combined plenary final we we need the he won or subdivision bank that day has not much really to do me and i looked at most of the stuff i didn't see any wealth in ten years or any toxic we select would really pick up we're talking over forty years since anybody's drawn anything over that bank that should per and that's the only stuff i see down here and it's mostly because somebody that live there threw it over the bank not the property owner the ones that my grandmother brought that property from peter's and i think have access to old we can get access easily i mean there's there's a dirt driveway right here and it's just easy walking the whole way so we're not we're not going to go in there by a put up or anything we're just going to pick up the loose stuff that's on the ground there right thank you ok so at this point i want to give you an opportunity to see if there was anything he wanted to get testimony on primes from that we had missed yet so i haven't i don't think i've read the letters they brought for night that i've read other letters and i guess one comment from the letters that we incorporated them in the changes that we made or we feel we incorporated in the changes we made to us from scratch yes and i'm happy to if there's other comments i'd rather try to answer them to you and not be here to answer  them but one of the comments to the the mcafee's had a letter and then they had a new letter after they reviewed the final actually appreciated the changes we made asked about the possibility of saving some additional intersection world k with that that that's something that i do as a standard but it's not a requirement of your regulations in this case this is actually a driveway so we would where we call for a street light yep the right page for you here it shows on sheet one and two right near the entrance but on the cover sheet cheap on sheet two it says so i have gotten some feedback a while back because i had shared letters that came in with the engineer which is perfectly fine for me to do because it's public record the reason i do that is because that's how you get the things you want you can see that that he's made a lot of changes like that there are really beneficial to that the writers of those letters some kind of wondering and it's not my decision but it's this is a staff suggestion that we should skim these letters today or bring them out loud to look for other yes i was just sleeping through them also and then i would tend to review there with what we changed or what we talked about but when i want to over the triggers for traffic study in your regulations the one that i left out of four point eight single family homes that's just taking the it's approximately eighty percent triptans for a duplex ok one unit of a duplex as it is for a single family and what if you know the numbers or for what the assumptions are and ideally for a single family home in other words would sort of like the upper limit be if it wasn't that's the number that i get i did it based on three on what i submitted through the rush hour trip and that's just taking what i submitted was three and doubling those numbers ok thank you and another question from a board a change the status of this from like a minor to a major or just well just what is it there were actually i want to make sure that we do that we're clear before we close the hearing what's  the legal form between what was proposed at sketch can now is not substantive as far as whether the beauty process is appropriate here that it's all the same process it's just he's proposing something slightly different legally and what we had talked about seven is commonly and maybe i'm not reading it right