emily will beat you if she can't read  once you get yourself settled if you would state your means and your addresses for the record please the proposal there is i should say there's an existing single family dwelling on the property today so this is approved it would create two lots one would be approximately two acres second would be approximately eight point six acres and then there's a pro proposal to build a an additional dwelling unit so this is really the second time around for this request  it went through our process back in two thousand and nine however it did not get management allocation so it stalled out this time around it went through pre application back in june of sixteen and then protected and it was reviewed by the conservation commission their recommendations include that there be a minimum seven point nine five acres for open space which would meet the seventy five percent requirement that i just mentioned they're also making a recommendation that watershed protection buffers not be required for the existing p lisa tends to be kind of picky about applicants providing a written response to all of the things that she put on her list and if the applicant didn't provide a written response regardless of whether the issues were addressed or not we get this you're going to get that so it's also worth noting that lisa added an additional thing on the list this time around which was to provide erosion control plan out the the the applicant would be well advised to make sure they provide a written response to the shelter of otherwise you will get her signature on the final plans checklist and that will help things to move forward i have not seen  any other questions from the board this is a request for pre application one one one second i apologize we are william and andy spencer living in a loving seventy one ledge with dr who agree with that spencers have submitted the application presented here today the subdivision that created the subject parcel has been approved and plat recorded the applicant  a subdivision applied to have its previously awarded allocation returned without having to compete against other subdivisions if it meets certain criteria including there's a time  it's you have to request pre application prior to the end of the calendar year when the expiration of the allocation  continue to apply to any subdivision awarded allocations under these provisions the d r v shall only and impose additional conditions of approval in cases where it is necessary to preserve the public health safety  welfare in order for subdivision to reestablish some portion of its allocation under these provisions the d r p must find that the subdivision is in substantial compliance with the current with the intent and purpose of the current development regulations any that's expired under these provisions and was not reapply for within the time constraints or that doesn't meet the  criteria that specified that i've just reviewed will be returned to the pool of available units of allocation and shall only be awarded through the competitive process of specified hundred eleven  four and and five so the subdivision is met the criteria under the first to create here is the time limitation the substantial special findings criteria if you decide that the subdivision does not meet the criteria for reinstatement of expired as stated above the can require the applicant to compete read everything that you said but everything you just went through we have not had a chance to you have not had a chance to see any of that you are familiar with it at some but in this case yeah it where it applies in this i don't have  none of us here you have subdivision and they've met that requirement as well and then expiration provision just says that they have an additional five years question well the conservation commission feels that it does not meet the intended purpose of the current development regulations because the open see what the conservation commission is recommending is that you basically draw a line from here over to that southern half of that building envelope and then this becomes open space not exactly a building envelope but it's not protected open space either i think the intention was to kind of reserve the right to be able to build structures out there so you  this how are we going to do that if the apple if the application i understand there's a can how do we know how are we going to implement that if that is owned by somebody else and it is not part of this live so depending on your answer to that question what happens after that change is dramatic procedural so if you if you were to determine that it isn't substantial lives with the  purpose and what the applicants would have to do is they just have to get the allocation reestablished if you say now that basically they've got to go back to growth management they have to compete and then again have to file a new subdivision  like the way i'm reading this and maybe i'm reading it wrong is that we can find that they are in substantial compliance but the conservation commission is suggesting that we please anybody joe anybody anybody who's on the board here please jump in because i'm not making it so we're being asked to reinstate a single allocation for a lot b we're being asked as part of that we need to find that as part of reestablish the application we have to find that there are seven criteria that  as part of that conservation commission is suggesting that we make a change to somebody else's lot that is not here that is not part of that so i understand that it is not part of this even though it's not part of this law but it was plants are part of this but it was of part of the approval don't we think that that person will be screaming bloody murder if he finds out that we made a change to his open space and he's not here and has been notif in this situation is a little bit different from some of the other you know when you've seen these growth management allocations come back because typically they began to lots of plants were now wouldn't it and just right so here is one where the because i see it as i see it as i see it right now the board is going to need to decide whether we agree to reestablish the based on the information that we have the board is going to need to decide if we reestablish the allocation and ignore ask for a legal opinion or simply handed forward months so that it gets it gets cleaned up and all parties come together in your office to figure out how  that's my that's my suggestion that we talk about please we're not trying to terminology actually i'm actually sitting here trying to figure out how to get you know that terminology that if we try to get that accomplished if you try and get that accomplished what conservation commission wants and they are interested in they don't need to in order to reach their advisory to this board and we try to follow the recommendations of so i'm asking the questions and i hope the rest of the border also assuming that they wouldn't get sufficient number of points on the other criteria to remember the open space break areas only one of the criteria given where this property is located is there a possibility they could score points for invisible development i would say highly likely so so they may be able to get the thirty point anyways without that the space number one and the number two horse you have exemption each year that you give out so we offered them the available allocation that they didn't have a time limit on it so we're the ones that are going back to apply you know we have to determine who was going to get it right john so there is a house up on  their new hot but yes the other departments basically the only other department that had concerns for the fire was the fire department about the driveway grade are allowed as soon as possible next year that's out like every other statement i've heard that's the  and one more thing plan review