is the request for a sketch plan review of a proposed for la pierre de subdivision at forty four raceway road which is in the agricultural zone in district and the second piece of new business is a request by robert  and then the only other piece of public business we have for tonight is that will have to will we'll be reviewing the minutes from the previous meeting and approving those republican and then we plan to up to adjourn to deliberative session for some work that we have from previous sessions but that's after the public meeting is that's going on tonight i want to just remind you that we're going to do this in an orderly manner consistent with our rules of procedure i'll walk you through what we're going to do tonight so you won't need them in nothing so at this point we need to deal with the question of interested persons interested persons or those who want to vermont law have a right to appeal an actor decision of his own administrator or d or do interested persons include the applicant or if the applicant does not own the sub shop or the person owning title to the property and innes apology that has a plan or bylaws issue in an appeal or any municipality adjoining that musicality a person owning our occupying property in the immediate neighborhood of a property that decision only those interested persons who have participated in a deal be proceeding may appeal a decision re entered in a proceeding in environmental court pursuant to state statute participation consists of offering through oral or written testimony evidence or statement of concern related to the subject of the procedure so i read all of this because it's if there were to be an appeal which is only sketched plans that we're doing tonight so there's no action to appeal but in general we do keep track of who participates and so to help us do that there are some sign of sheets going around there's two hearings tonight if you want to participate in one or both of them please sign on those sheets so we know that you were here and that helps us determine who participated and also when you hearing all those that intend to speak must be sworn in so i'm going to do it read the oath and you can all just say i do i hereby swear that the evidence i give in the cause into consideration shall be the whole truth and nothing but the truth of the pains and penalties of perjury this is on the left hand side of the road kind of across from the farmhouse the portion of mr davis parcel on that left hand side of the road that's involved with this proposal there's twenty eight point two  it's in the agricultural district the staff notes talk about agricultural in village the right of way that mr atwood has an auction on comes off of metal drive and that right of way somehow was privately owned but he has an option on it and that is within the village district so that's why the staff notice that's the only part that still is district opposing served by drilled wells not connecting to i'm not proposing to seek approval from the foothills to connect their water system or anything like that to doing our own trail and we doing  pretty pretty straightforward and in that manner i was just going to go into the staff notes and start going through those you can stop me if you have questions the proposed hot ones two point three acres lot there are restrictions within that common land lot that show on the land and that are noted in the staff report as far as previous activity staff notes that   in the sixty's and that zone village district so you've got a one acre district that's more remote than this ten acre parcel and i apparently there has been discussions of increased density on mr davis property but we weren't part of that we're not proposing to be part of that we're just proposing this project the dimensional requirements without going through them  we exceed the half acre required lot size by four times we're not looking for any variances of law coverage side yard front yard really are except back the buffer zone the buffer zone for the agricultural district is one hundred feet the plans currently show fifty foot strip to the common land that's part of law four and show a fifty foot set back over by propose unit one that as compared to the hundred foot for the agricultural district i don't believe that one hundred foot is necessary i think that it probably when you are agricultural to agricultural that would make a lot more sense but because we have but village and we're residential to residential use that it's appropriate on what we're proposing i would know that the buffer the waiver would not be the fifty foot as i suggested the waiver would actually be to the we can we can shift the buffer is either in common land or outside the building envelope so it's not only includes the fifty feet but it also includes the side yard setback so right now it would be fifty feet over by unit one and it would be sixty five feet by unit three currently as shown unit one is eighty feet away and unit three b one a is eighty feet away at the closest point and unit three b is ninety feet away so  it's quite excessive i don't think that there is an issue as far as mitigation here so we would we love would like that to be entertained to be able to do this this cluster proposal on a lot layout staff suggests or points out that the will need to address whether the layout of the subdivision appears to function in harmony with the existing site features and character of the surrounding area the as i said this is a plateau area it's ideal it functions incredibly well with the access and this parcel the difference here is that these are duplexes and foothills are single family homes in your d s this is a p u d n n your p u d duplex are a intended use it's not a conditional use or anything like that it's it's been allowed it even goes further than that somewhere here in this in the staff report so there's no waiver being requested there's no higher review for these duplexes the duplexes are implicitly allowed  what didn't show i don't think in my submittal is that these would be two bedroom duplexes so that keeps the the impacts it down as far as fair fairly fairly low impacts on complained compared to single family as far as children but quite a big difference when you go to the to better minutes instead of the three bedroom units the staying in the lot layout it talks about the mapping in the natural resource him and tori and it talks about a lot one through three being grassland habitat that's important to deer and songbirds with a tier three four two or three fours about as low as the an argos and if you look at that an arm at everything that isn't currently develops has some form some tear so the tear that's higher is lot for that's being preserved if you wouldn't be able to develop any land if you couldn't show up on that map in a in a tear three or tear for more importantly your comprehensive plan does not have anything listed for this farce on map seven for the portion that's to be developed so you have a natural features map in your map seven in a comprehensive plan and certainly lot for should be protected the common land but there's nothing in the area of lots one two and three and i kind of skipped over that so each duplex somewhat skipped over each duplexes on their own lot so those two acres that were given two acres plus individual lots with a duplex on each lot you'll see a gas line around the around the units these are intended for sale so they would include footprint  lots so there would be it doesn't preclude somebody from buying a duplex but it's set up so that you can buy one side i can buy the other and we own the land that's underneath us we own the lot in common and we're part of the lot for common land but we own the land that's underneath us which is important for for financing on page three still in the section about lot layout it talks about the hemlock ball some for black swamp which is a good portion of lot for it's kind of a low area of  law for and it also goes on to talk a little bit about whether there's any potential impact on wetlands whether there's any portion of lot three that has wetlands and or buffer and whether that would contain pose any impacts on septic plans include contours and while i haven't had a wetlands specialist out there yet i will after school after the sketch level i can assure you that there is no wetlands on lot one two or three there the wetlands if you look over on lot three with the contours it drops off total from the top that drops off a total of about thirty feet down to the lower area where the swamp is the back of lot three is still about ten feet higher  there isn't going to be an issue there the one thing that could possibly be an issue there are class one wetlands are ready if there are there's very few class one wetlands in the state of vermont and they're already named so this is not a class one wetland it's very likely a class two wetland which comes with a statutory fifty foot buffer and will honor that buffer there might be there maybe i wouldn't be surprised if there's a tiny bit of that fifty foot buffer that gets close to the back line of lot three but it won't impact us as far as lot three or septic on septic septic is sol purview of the state of vermont i need to propose septic that has at least three foot of separation to groundwater table from the bottom of the system i'm proposing after sketch i will be out here with the state engineer to do testing with his with the state engineer present and we will design a system systems in accordance with the state rules it will not have any impact on the wetlands the wetland protection is the fifty foot buffer and that doesn't matter if we're one foot higher and fifty feet away or in this case we're twenty or thirty feet higher and fifty feet away it just makes it better in this case so there's there's no issues there but i will follow up on that point on density page for the we basically back to the density here you know we're trying to keep as much as mr davis land that is currently usable to him open to him for continued farming so we looked at the requirements and said this is what we need to do how much  we need to do it as you know your regulations are totally acreage minus twenty five percent and then divided by the the zoning district it comes up for this proposal comes up with a little over two lots again the duplex being allowed on each lot and not nothing different there we have asked for per section ten point thirteen point eight a density bonus  include fifty five enough for what's considered elderly housing i'll qualify pretty soon but so so anyways in are some middle or at least when i talk to jan if i didn't have in the in the middle when i did that i originally thought that all six units would be to be restricted to fifty five enough i don't believe that's the case i'm talking with jan and looking at the your regulations closer what it says is that contains designated affordable for elderly housing your definition of elderly housing is at least one person in the household is fifty five plus and i would suggest that's at least one owner i don't know that it says owner but i think it goes without saying that it's one owner so what i'd put on the table tonight is  that consideration for a minimum of three of the units to be fifty five and up and three to be they may all end up being fifty five and up that's the market for these units these units are one that's that's a request for the board on access as i said there's a sixty foot existing right of way from metal drive from the foothills development was in as part of that development for use of this development regulations encourage that type of connection and it makes perfect sense to use it in this case it was privately owned mr atwood was able to  lot of a little bit of dr versus road staff points out that concurs that that access is the ideal access for for this proposal the halfway down access still on page four it talks about a projection of the increased trips the increase in trips if if you compared a single family it's about fifty percent for condominiums vs single family in student traffic engineers does not have data for two bedroom units but it's going to be on the low end or lower than the id numbers but i took a look at it today and all  supplied as part of the final submittal and with the the reason that i said three and three on the fifty five plus is that if i look at condominium again it's not restricted to the two bedrooms so it could be a conservative number and then i look at detached elderly housing and do three and three it comes out to one last then three single family homes so it's it's sensually sensually the similar similar impact here about twenty eight trips per day with three and three here and there are three trips in the am and three trips in the pm it's goes into some detail on private drive vs private road i had shown i want to say that i had shown a twenty i think it showed a twenty two foot wide and twenty four wide i didn't state whether it was paved whether it was gravel what we were doing in that respect because we're at sketch we could technically qualify at your level for the regulations i think we could qualify as a driveway and have less however today this afternoon from the fire department comments i think it's a moot point you know that they want twenty the only point that i don't think is move is they want the twenty four staff pointed out twenty two with two foot shoulders and i think that that's certainly the way that i would go is based on that  most of the fire department letter is recommendations but i will certainly stay away from trying to narrow it up as a private drive and stick with the private road so the road details will be included with final but it will be relatively fast flat it will meet your requirements as far as drainage this would be open shuttles will drainage at final we would prefer to keep it gravel versus paved but it would not be curved it would be open shelves whale the cul de sac so the for some reason you're not the only town but very few towns still have this hundred twenty foot cul de sac it's it's huge it's on we'll be it's it's over kill i show a ninety foot radius cul de sac which is the common radius in almost every minutes polity most missed minutes polities in the greater chipping county area but there are still a few towns that for some reason have one twenty the ninety foot meets all requirements for an emergency vehicle that's going to go down there it looks big as it is if you put in a one hundred twenty it would just i don't know if anybody's building you know not telling you this at a hearing and just building something different because if you ever got to one hundred twenty foot cul de sac you would just wonder why it's was sold or built so i am looking i guess it talks about tying that to the fire district so i think i'd follow up directly with the fire district in regards to that that ninety foot it's this one is not well because of the duplex it's not well served by a changing it to a hammerhead we would want to stay with the sec design we know that we need to include the full storm water design it will be shallow as wales were well below any trigger for you know the one acre trigger for a state storm water permit and we're likely below the lower trigger that some of this bill minutes polities have a  half an acre but we will still have storm water control treatment in control of water and wastewater we again we didn't really show that on the plan i haven't done the soil testing yet it is again it is mapped to stats and soil which is a extremely good soil almost always conducive to ground septic conventional sceptic and the wells in that  area are generally good so there's no reason to at this point to have any concern about that my biggest thing with the wells and with the septic is that foothills is sure that i honor proper isolation distances to their septic as well as when i design the water and sewer for lots one to three i need to honor the isolation distances to each other  is that these would be individual systems and or system for each duplex on the septic on the correspondents at the time a staff notes there wasn't further correspondence but we did have this afternoon the fire department so the fire department did review the proposed three  duplexes off the metal drive after reviewing it would not add any undue burden to the fire department's ability to provide reasonable protection your driveway must be a minimum of twenty four feet which it will be was with the shoulders  even if we stay at the twenty two that's the town standard because it serves more than five five or more residences so even though the duplex is so we're not going to argue at all about driveway v right of way is not quite right it's probably shifted a little bit more over towards the mcafee's than it shows and the wyatt's have some landscaping that we have located along that side  we'll show all of that with final but there is a slight shift in the surveying the additional surveying that we've done sense to that we have no problem with the additional nine one one information except for a at the very end of the letter they say that there's a suggestion that we install a pond with a dry hydrant we do not intend to do that  last page of your staff report the lined lined is the suppose it wetlands so if you look at that on its own it was very reasonable to say is there an issue with the back of lot three but again if you go to the site plan that i submitted which has accurate contours you can see the six seventy six sixty six fifty six forty elevation six forty being just west of the lot three's westerly property line and then it climbs up that hill the wetland is down very likely six forty to six thirty five where it where the wetland itself is thing that i have for you is for what it's worth that's just the soil conservation service ma with the light blue line around the outside is the is the parcel so this shows the entire davis parcel on the west side of the road it doesn't show just our twenty eight acres or so but the part that's important is if you look at those soils mapping over by where are areas you get s t a an s t b that's the stats and mapping and then below it you've got the s t c the s t c goes down into the woods all that is it's all stats and mapping a is flat the picks up will slow seas a little steeper stood still and then if you wrap around the back of the houses that are on foot hills you can see some old s t c and some eighty eighty s adams winds or ease very steep but all that gets down if you look at the big area in the middle of the woods the horseshoe kind of there that has the m so it's not there there is some nice areas to those woods but that horseshoe part is generally going to be your wetland area i'm not going to send a wetlands specialists out there to map the entire wetland complex i'm only interested where the bus lot three that's all i ha well until i do the testing it's kind of a waste of my client's time but i did play around with a little bit on the computer because i have to have isolations from each other but for instance as long as i meet proper isolation to the  s septic system a good place for the well would be here for unit one a one b same thing for three a and three b as long as i meet the isolation from the mcafee's to a to b usually those are going to be close to is to the face the house and ten feet or fifteen feet off the building through the drilled well septic ideally is right out the back of the unit so i'm hopeful that i can with isolation from this i can get the septic over here get the septic there the septic in the back i need to do that do the testing and do a little bit more work on that mitigating measures i don't see that there's the need for mitigating measures here but so what i'm really have is i've got sixty five here and this side right now is showing fifty i don't have a problem if the bo feels that boy that's too much we'd like more i don't have a problem going right now and saying i can take those setbacks to at least seventy five you know on both sides right so that the requests would be seventy five instead of fifty but i do think the hundred is excessive your you know your cluster p u g regulations encourage this type of design and as i push it back i have heard time getting the backyard septic in the wells and the isolation the left side they do not come all the way to mcafee that remains part of want for roads if i do understand that right yeah and the reason that there's a difference there rather than proposing an easement on lot three lot three walks out their back yard and they can go through the common land if i did not include that or i did if i did include is part of law for i would have felt the need for an easement there so that lot wanted a lot to kin get over there without crossing lot three so that's the difference it would just be it would just be a strip of land over by lot one where it's a strip of land with a purpose by lot three right being completely inside the agricultural district you got a lot wind between four and three deaths you're showing a fifteen foot side yard setback right to that wire right and based on what i just said on the the buffer question that chris had is that fifteen would become twenty five because i'm agreeing that seventy five might be more reasonable than the in the fifty foot radius if you clarify your understanding of the buffer versus the side you had set that in your regulations it clearly states there is no definition of buffer in your regulations the part that's buffer comes up in is in a table but it's more of a separation than a true it's a separation rather than a landscape grave but i think you might have put it i've got it in my book but i thought you had it in the staff it's just one hundred more clear oh we're talking about yes so the footnote six what it talks about is that the buffer needs to be included in the common land and or and or outside the building envelope so the building the portion that whether it's a fifteen foot side yard setback or i increase it to the twenty five that i said i will that is i'm going to move the lot one side to seventy five feet back and i'm going to move the lot three side to a twenty five foot side yard setback instead  documents with the with the final but each owner would own one six of the common land the common land would be for passive use only they basically what kind of the trees with the exception of dead down diseased snag trees so that you're not in with the wetland that's by non mechanical means if you're doing it within the wetlands area but if there is a hazard out there  we want them to have the ability to to take care of that but it's basically leave it alone but let those six owners enjoy the ability to walk walk out there if they'd like to and can you tell us what you know about the present use of this parcel i can and if it's ok i can turn to mr dean i know he uses it some but i don't know what tremendous amount about it other than that it's vacant get i guess my point is is that the the development technically provides more protection or does provide more protection than the neighbors currently have for life in regards to l and i did say that that drive is preferred in terms of its location not creating a new car kind of race way but i think that you need to evaluate the traffic impacts him i wanted to share a comment i got on the phone today i talked to the fire department and they were talking about the called sack and so when they when they said the call when they said it looked ok and they didn't provide comments in the cul de sac it was because of the current dimensions of a cul de sac so he felt comfortable he could know is a truck into a driveway and use it almost like a hammer had to get turned around but if it were smaller i'm not sure his recommendation would be the same so you're saying he was ok with the current size and yeah you can actually drive around the outside of it up to use it almost like a hammer and take thing for any of th had today about one hundred foot buffer being considered too much opinion or the developer may just have a question about that but i think it's a standard right now is one hundred feet i'd like to see that stuff do you think that would benefit or contribute to the neighborhood rather than a fifty foot buffer i just don't want that to be taken too lightly i understand that that would make it inconvenient to put in six wells or septic fields but maybe that's why one of the rules that rule exists terms of density i want to second mr allen's comment about the neighborhood having  characteristic density level that use six units don't take into consideration the density bonus that's being asked for also contributes to that i'm not really sure you understand a poet is encouraged i understand it applied concentrates development on one part portion of the land but i'm not sure that that is entirely appropriate designation here  the neighborhood has a certain bent city this is quite a bit more the idea of duplexes instead of the single family homes doesn't really contribute to the neighborhood the access is going to be off the metal drive i think but some of that should be taken into consideration you know extending this neighborhood rather than developing something that's very different from i don't have any objection to the neighborhood be extended or mr so i apologize in advance that i haven't kept up with the zoning ranks my understanding is that this property was in the agricultural district and is it true that that is no longer a ten acre apparently is not correct is that all six units would be fifty five plus decreasing by quite a bit the traffic patterns so i'm a little concerned  that that's not the case and that it's only a partial percentage post also i completely concur with my neighbor about the need for the hundred foot buffer should this development go in and it's one of the a budding landowners  i would hardly disagree with the developer who says who claims that it was no big deal to change it from one hundred to fifty feet that is indeed quite a big difference if your land is a body that probably is totally rotten in fallen trees the idea that it would be developed into a usable common land you know what's what's that mean commonly usable  wooded areas hard to walk in you know that mean a lot of those trees a lot of education can be removed this is a large percentage of it is what's allowed to be removed uncommon allowing the the other layer to be aggregated to create the greater density particularly in in light of the fact that i think were originally what was on the original sketch plan was for fifty five and older property goes typically has quite a problem with him and water we've also had a lot of problems with born in the basement so i'd like to understand the plan to mitigate th a village it just means that that's the name of the zoning district and it's a one acre minimum lot size there and it's really feel sales are not allowed in a village district and a lot of other sort of denser village type uses are not allowed in the village district either so it's sort of a misnomer in a lot of ways but it's merely the name of the zoning yesterday at that i guess we are the other comment i was going to make to sort of answer the question is that it is clearer if you look at the plan and the descriptions of the view of the difference on the different so many districts what the intentions are and i  think the village the village district here is that is intended for this kind of residential development or describes this the places that have that sort of denser residential development on density residential area transition from village center is that it is sort of the keyword standard for residential single family houses know that that describes that adjacent area of the four hills area encourages a blend of single and and mo questions was about the density calculation of the overall sort of the purpose of a p u g is to do what's sometimes called cluster development which is to say taking a larger person rather than put it scattering in this case three units across thirty acres thirty plus acres to cluster the housing together to leave the rest of the overland in one block that isn't  units part of the foothills in the village and the answer would be yes or would be no no this is it's part of the agricultural district and it's for use by the future that there was a question about the size protection area that they didn't respond to it maybe using this map care now well it sounds it can't be done mr davis property so if it's purple here with that shows is the ground one expects protection area for that lout right and i have to look at those previously as you can see were well outside of those the quick answer is that since two thousand and seven state has soldiers stiction on water and sewer and i require a water and sewer permit from the state on this so i'll be out there with the state engineer who will provide all the information in the future submittal and the states the only one that can say anything on that but  it will be all state requirements so there is increased requirements for wells that are serving more than one home or two home or such as there is it's a further distance and all of those will have to be met but it's it's beyond the scope of the sketch plan ok that the common line would then be developed into a sort of usable common by removing trees and that's where i would suggest over time if the owners of those units enjoy going out there that they're going to find the pass and pass are going to become more usable if they're not already from people from foothills i don't i don't know that put the intent is not that i think to answer mr childs question is a good portion of that land is the muck in peat swamp so you're going to have a lot of debt down disease trees certainly not the intent to go out there and clean that up so it's parkland it's to allow the residents if they feel it's a liability mostly on stag trees and something like this if there's a tree that's fallen and it's caught on another tree that's a high liability and it might just be falling naturally and letting it decompose but  other and that is because of what you just explained the p u d s is specifically to stop us from cutting everything into equal boxes and using up all the land and to cluster the development in one place and that's what a planned your development is for so in the agricultural district your requirement for a few is a minimum half acre lot size we felt that it should be larger here these are over two acres in guess my thought was that if it's ten acres owning and using the appeal deed what you've done is you've acquired the other acreage to grant you that those extra in fact the three homes which you then allowed to turn and you take out twenty five percent constraints it's just a rule of thumb and then you divide that number by the minimum lot size in that district which in the i district is ten acres so if you did that on that full parcel size you get just over to the welling exchange he creates an open space live so you're sort of trading density from the area you want to preserve to the area that is developed along so you get a little you get smaller lots on i develop a little area and then you leave the other housing units they want and train for the amount of open spaces the the amount of open spaces and sat either so there's something these guys want to work out between themselves take a look at it and we'll have a reply has been part of the final submittal i mean it's to me it's whether it's a safety concern or not if it's a safety concern he should be cleaning it up so allow the concept that if this developer is forced to do one hundred foot buffer then that makes that driveway road longer and it pushes all the development further away from the foothills so i agree with mr trial when he says that we're trying to kind of replicate what's already there and what you end up doing when you push it further i mean you've got fifteen foot setbacks in foothills you're going from a fifteen foot setback to one hundred foot buffer which with a longer driveway and the like a little lollipop with density at the end of it so a thanks yeah and then i have you know i just have one more question to get answered yes or want to i guess it was more of a comment that maybe you might want to talk about because we did talk a little bit about storing water and the storm water effect of the driveway and how that here and there is a little in the spring kind of a wet area right along that side of the the right of way obviously we need to do proper drainage for the road so while i haven't done the design yet i think anything that we do is going to improve his situation the best thing that we can do for him is possibly offer him an easement so that if he wants to now or in the future be able to discharge today like where he's not recycling it on his own lawn that he has that opportunity so so i will look into that and i'll discuss that with mr out wood but i'm comfortable that my drainage on the road will improve his situation but if he it's it's not our requirement to fix an existing problem it's our requirement to to properly handle the storm water for our project none of the storm water from our project is going to go in that direction goes away from those homes changed tonight i did not take it loosely i took it in the context of what's out there so that when you get a agricultural district in it says one hundred foot setback my belief is that you don't want to agricultural use within one hundred feet of that different use here we have residential the residential some of my neighbors may not like the duplex but the duplexes implicitly allowed in the p v it's not on the table it's just part part of your regulations so it's residential residential a p u d if this was not a p u g and it was in the agricultural district i don't have it i'm trying to conventional development here i could have houses lined up twenty five feet from the property line the other thing that i looked at is that the mcafee's in the wyatts have pretty good backyards particularly the wyatts if they were pushed up against their back lot line like they possibly could have been i would have been looking at it differently so so i did not look at this loosely tonight you heard me say that i'm going to increase that seventy five feet i think that's more than enough for this proposal and more than enough for the for the intent of the regulations i would tend to agree that it's probably maybe a little bit too much but with a comment from staff but i'm ok with  and that the developer would have to comply with this far as any kind of exclusionary so there are regulations that we understand that have to get that are going to have to get a look at from both sides and the isis state saying that within that  comply and it's not i mean it doesn't even make sense or it's a testimonial to well years except just to reassure you that in fact the state knows where the well is there is a well have protection rule and everyone will have to comply with  purchased the remainder of the parcel so if you look at this map right here is the bartletts home and the three acre parcel that they split off and this is the parcel coming around there all the way up so the this proposal is as far as the use is mostly in the rural residential district ural residential district line is right along that dash line right there and beyond that is the forestry district so there are nine total lots shown there is in the front there's six slots of a private road lots seven being common land eight is a larger lot posed for for bob in june and a lot nine is a lot for j d get into a little tweak that we made due to this based on staff notes and in the discussion since i submitted with with bob and j d but essentially you've got on the plan the plan you can see and i brought another plan might be  the forestry district so a lot nine is the only law proposed on this for on this that is within that for street district the envelope for lot nine that you can see on sheet one is that in just into the fringe of the wood line there's there's a front metal nothing is being proposed in the front not a long brown strace road then the property rises and there is a wooded section though this is the part that i'm calling the front metal here this rises in this is wooded and kind of trying to tuck this development behind that woods line and keep this front area nice and open these lots are generally point four seven is the smallest point nine two is the largest of those front lots in that district point the third of an acre or point three three is the p u g requirement so they exceed the puti requirement but they are fair amount smaller than what we were just talking about i'm going to go deviate from what i did on that a little bit and just kind of go over the overview and then i'll go back to the staff notes so currently there's an access right here and there's a drive that comes in and there's a woods road that comes across right here goes up to the back meadow this is this is a high pla u in the back metal and then this just rises to the woods line the woods line again being right about at the end of where that was road is is about the woods line so you can see about half of that envelope that's being proposed on nine would be into the french of the woods so you've got us some fringe impact back here of what's considered core habitat for the woods not not deer yard or anything like that but a big chunk of woods if you look at an aerial photo and then the only other place that we're into woods is this fringe impact on lot three so this drive has proposed to serve lots eight and nine and it's also a i don't know if it's i think it's a secondary access but it also provides access to the to the bartletts home and this would probably provide access to these lots lots three as we currently show it it doesn't show the detail but the intent w submittal is that it would come off this driveway there's an easement here to the lot that's up in this area on the plan there's a house way out there and it has these through on on this land and that comes right along this drive that you can kind of see through the woods so at this point we are looking to access that would slide from here thinking that we can preserve some woods around it and make it kind of a different different lot than the rest of the rest of those down there this would be shown as a twenty two foot wide road i think the fire comments are the same so we would conform to that in the private road standards we will not i don't believe we will be triggering states to mordor discharge but in the staff notes it talks about appropriately suggesting shallow swales which is the direction that i intend to go we like shells wales and we would take care of our storm water on site we certainly are not going to pushing it out towards  road which was one of the the staff's comments these would be individual drilled wells also there's no water in this area we have done some plenary testing back in this area this area suitable for a moun we've done some in this area suitability is is fine there too and up here we've got conventional septic that's going to be available that was with the state engineer but it was just a nischelle round of testing once i  actual locations down i'll have to fill in make sure that i have adequate coverage of test pits not just not just the random test pits that we did the first time around going to the staff  description the polls would pretend lots nine lots plus one open that should be nine lots eight lots plus one of them and then it's all the way through the staff report if it matches up so  that we're at sixty three bounce traceroute i talked about being rural residential i took a look at that today and we'll get into it on the density bonus but what i didn't do was i didn't really get into a density calculation here because we're quite a bit under this was just a matter of let's do a reasonable development in that lower field one so the bees want to be here the other want to be there so it wasn't a max out potential really it was what  they would like to see happen but i'll get into that were were well below the density on this parcel on page two i talked about it being the parent parcel of the former to lot going to skip down to previous activity parcel contains several cleared areas and forced to area the site proposed design appears to be sensitive to concentrating development in areas that are already cleared absolutely that was our intent it was set up pretty nice for us to begin with with the woods road that goes up to through lotty in lot nine and that front area it was a conscious decision not to try to do anything in that lower field closer to brown's trace road on the departmental reviews and comments major subdivisions it talks about they are at the is to identify significant issues what i'm hoping is that you'll allow us to do a combined plumbing area and final because i think if there is any significant issues i don't think the staff report suggests that the significant issues and i think tonight will mill if there is any significant issues there won't be the need for the purpose of the the  on major subdivisions still talks about the east meant successor of basically legal documents again will include those in the be included with the submittal so it's we're not looking to delay that as a condition of approval for provide that information on the survey when the survey was done if you look at that plat it says right on that plath by another firm lot to not not survey and that's common when you have a huge lot like this you survey as much as you need to to protect yourself and protect the client but you don't survey the back forty if you don't have to and to be honest we're out there surveying now we're not go survey the back forty because it's so far back on lot nine we're going to survey as far as we need to so that we have accuracy so those numbers are you can see that they're just marginally different but those numbers are going to bounce a little bit in this case i don't think it's crucial because we're we're well the low density on dimensional requirements i dropped the ball on the seventy five foot buffer area on this i just one to three is currently shown are fifty eight feet away from the common from a lot seven so great here if you go along the back the last one through three that is fifty feet down this line but there's a twenty foot through nothing that i've talked to on this but in talking to j t and bob what they would like long term is they want the ability to go on what they call the wood t so what we will likely be doing is we will like leave the taking blocks forty five and six down below which are three law combining them  so it's still the same footprint area for the last one three four five and six so right here four five and six we might tweak lot three a little bit before five and six these two lines you get dissolved in the in those three lots would become two and they just be bigger purpose for that is that we would likely then instead of going all the way over to the common line there with  bug we would likely make that lot smaller and we would make j d s a lot smaller just in compassing that area and have this huge forestry lot that i think better service what the clients want but it also serves your regulations better it would be a not to be developed lop it would be in combat lot would just be in common with lot eight and nine so i want to get that on the table tonight i don't think it's right it's a reduction really but i think it goes to the staff notes in that we keep the majority of that wooded lot in developable common hands park it talked about a lot now so i think with what i just said it's going to do an even better job but this to me you know it's a fringe impact we're well below the water below the density requirements here nine we're all so it's getting back to where there's that core habitat but again on the fringes of it if you look at the purpose of the forestry district it talks about some land not being usable due to steep slopes except for a we're staying below where it gets real steep at that location there's there's a woodrow that already goes up to where we're proposing that that footprint on page four density some new information again i didn't provide a detailed breakdown because we were well over staff based on the total acreage do the calculation and came up with twelve for max developable lots here i'm going to suggest that the number is sixteen and the way that i came up with that is and this was not part of the information that i supplied but there is twenty four point three acres within the row residential district so if i divide that by three acres and subtract twenty five percent and then i take the remaining hundred thirty nine acres divided by ten acres and subtract twenty five percent you come up with sixteen point five so whether it's twelve or whether it's sixteen really is a moot point but we're we're we're well below it all provide that and as far as the town requirements we will be a while it's a private road we will meet the public works requirements we are not going to be looking for restrictions there i do show a ninety foot radius filled the sack i do have the younger fire districts letter here not specific to the folks but i don't know if that was a catch all conversation if not all follow up with the fire department on the ninety but i would suggest that it isn't going to change project to project i'm going to skip over all that because i'm fine with all those comments we do intend to do shallow swills we will have some check dams as you go from you're going to come in this is going to drop down so that we don't have drainage out on the ground strays through but then it's going to start rising up the those this tear up here is and coming up to that upper upper plateau and i guess my point on the check dams believe needed in the section where it's climbing up they won't be needed in this area they won't be needed in that six this is a relatively rural location in my opinion and i would like your consideration it's a private road we'd like your consideration to  regardless well not regardless with unpaved i would be showing the first hundred foot paved so that there is not tracking out on two grounds tr welsh the next section talks about dead ends we're proposing a dead end here and staff talks about it in context of what's being proposed states that they're just pointing it out but the design does appear to have sensitivity for the rural context the main sensitivity in this case is the elevation difference and preserving this was and not proposing anything on the low you know on that lower the next couple of old items are three percent away from the road we agree that proper storm water runoff shall swales we agree to that check dams were necessary  and we will provide more information at final plan as suggested storm water kind of gets wrapped into that same thing will be taking storm water taken care of storm water as part of the road water and wastewater i already went over that individual wells is what we intend to do here the difference here the soils on the lower part appeared to be pretty reasonable but yes yes napping on the upper part it was my recommendation that we get out there was state engineer before sketch make sure we know what we have before we start playing with layouts so that's what we've done is still testing here because the soils are as wonderful as they were on that the previous project correspondents i didn't ask on the last one same question here doesn't matter which way it happens do i and i think the school on this one or the fire district which did give a letter today does talk about looking at obviously looking at future plans  same suggestion on try hydrant and pond and it would be my suggestion to the clients that they not do so but we'll  driveway as often happens it was pretty loosely written we were going to make sure that it's that the proper with the center gone driveway as it sits there today so that the survey crew still needs to run it all the wanders back and forth across a property line presumably in and out of the right of way if if if the right of way is over the subject personal if you show the driveway as wandering off to the neighbors yeah i'm actually and again i see what you're saying i  think the intent and with full survey i'm not so sure that on the sketch plan that that southerly property line isn't going to shift down because the intent was and i believe lots three we do have the possibility now that we're talking about eliminating one of these three just to come off of the cul de sac and then that may be have don't meet minimum frontage onto the cul de sac they're well part of the reason that a lot three what's coming up here is you have in your regulations if you have right of way so that the answer is eight and nine you have the right away back to them they don't need from the general public road if you have two or three two or three homes off so this would be the same thing coming in this way it's off of the right of way does not need frontage right as soon as i put it over there i'm going to need a waiver because i'm not going to have seventy five is it might not be that much so this is the this is the you know what i'm just wondering about you know can the exact configuration of the loss as think it may be it may be useful to shift things around and get the access off the right you've got you've got the year since it's just money that would sticks in the ground yeah it's if you could you could also kitty corner of the divide between what's now four and far what's remembered but that was the main reason that i was coming off of that dr phil is that right now i don't have the front of right but i but i will in the rural residential fifty for me it's only here so i can get fifty feet so and then so then that that then comes back to the question of what's the status of the right away if you do what you're now what you're saying there'd be no difference really no change the right of way would be work as it still would be and change  the access to that other house right will be run in this property the benefit is that we're doing a modern day survey all the way up to that house and along his you know the common line there so it'll be for the current owner and future owners it what i was driving at was if you make no change to the use of the right of way then there's no issue but if we had access to our three to the right of way now the existing right of way to work the existing right of way he has now got this other traffic on amount of clearing and there will be a fair amount of clearing on it because we're you know we're dealing with smaller loss right now shown as a larger lot on paper the largest point nine two but still you're going to have at least a half an acre well so so there will be a fair portion a lot three that'll be cleared what i talked about before wayne was just that it's not stuck out somewhere and being cleared it's right there at the very edges of where the woods are and you can see i'm not quite sure why they did it but you come along here here's the woods line and then it jumps back out so all we probably be doing is doing something like that with the woods line keeping that back corner w did we talk about it the specs that you propose for the at the i'm glad they going into lots eight you know what i did i agree with the suggestion and i haven't had a chance to talk to my clients about it i agree with the suggestion to keep it narrower and have all of those so if if if they don't like that part of that is the fire department too but if they don't like that it would have to be sixteen or eighteen foot wide minimum to allow to a passage i prefer to see something about fourteen feet wide and every three or five hundred feet have that pull out but when i was up there today it looks like the driveway that really goes and it's kind of why you now i can see it nearly now the beginning of it's kind of wide here and then obviously once you get back into this area this is just this is all this is woods road it's beaded down you can drive right out there without very he wanted to be up against it you know it's it's more in it now and then he wanted to be because i needed to climb up that slope to find my suitable septic system and then i need to separate from that suitable septic system so it's a little bit further in but it's still french impact and if you look at this photo you know i could do the calculation but we're probably impacting of about one percent of the trees on this parcel it's just such a  so at this point i'd like to go to for the current moment i'm sort of just something else so i don't know if if you're going to find yourself want to look at this say at some point possibly but if that's the case then you may want to ask if they would kind of stake out some of the the one thing we talked about on the site that one is we could preserve the trees it would be an opening in the trees instead of two to the cul de sac so that's the benefit of coming in the other way  that would have and i would that affect us maybe to the right of way and this is a pretty unique one i've been doing this for twenty one years and i'm not sure that i've had a driveway existing missed before but on the common law so my answer is going to be that it will be discussed with the attorney but my suggestion would be that while it's on common land it's a restricted portion of the common land if lot three remains off of it for a lot three and mr buddha for that first part and four for mr buddha for the remaining basically excluding the people to use that area at all and obviously know that they wouldn't have the ability to do any cutting or anything in that area even if it were a snag tree but something that all have to discuss was an attorney so maybe you can explain to me what i mean what the status of that right away is now what dismissed you like for example mr wood is it just you know it takes a lot of work to do that you know that right away i presume he's law will become law seven nine and become law and the new lot nine which is the undeveloped land so it becomes more of a moot point the right to the point is that whatever that whatever the management plan is for that adjacent piece of the land practice we see to make sure that there's that it's that it's clear that the right of way has a different status and i see it as an opportunity to clone a clean up a loose easement to the of combining the preliminary since we don't get historically that's been a reasonable way to do it but we'll feel that when you make sure when you make your summer so i feel like taking or if there is a need for a site visit and i don't need stakeout i don't need that expense i can show you where anything is because it's easy with the fields and it's easy where bob wants to put his house it's easier j d is i don't leave the stakes so