Hollis Planning Board Prepares for State-Mandated Zoning Updates

[10:22] Tom Wieckowski: Good evening. Tonight is, let's see, September 23rd, and this is the Town of Hollis Planning Board meeting. Now call this meeting to order, and if you wouldn't mind stating your name for the record. Tom Wieckowski. Heather Sullivan. Brett Marquis. Butch Gannett. And we do have a quorum. If we could stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. [10:56] Butch Gannett: I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. [11:09] Tom Wieckowski: I'll make you wait. And we will roll right into correspondence. We do have correspondence from the Saco River Corridor Commission. It looks as if we've got, we had an application approved and we including us the Sucker River corridor act findings with that. We just take this in and if this project requires planning board oversight then it will come up on an agenda for us, otherwise it's something that I think the Code Enforcement Officer handles in the alternative. Excuse me, I'm sorry, I've got a little bit of a cold tonight. Does anyone on the board have anything to say about the Soccer River Corridor Commission letter? [12:10] Brett Marquis: I question the fact that we need to go over these things. Okay. At our meetings. I mean, it's something they have to provide the town, provide to the to the clerk and she maintains a record of them and you know sometimes I mean tonight it's very short very but sometimes they send us a big packet yep and I if it's something we got to deal with I think we [12:36] Tom Wieckowski: ought to deal with it so I guess one question would be if something came through from soccer River corridor Commission and we felt that it may rise to the level of requiring planning board input, would we want to bring it up as correspondence then, or would we just include it as part of a review process when an applicant actually came in front of us and they had previously been in front of Soccer River? Yeah. [13:12] Brett Marquis: I don't think we need to deal with these things unless they need to come and see us. Okay. And that, you know, I mean, that's up to the code officer yep absolutely and he usually lets us know they're not permitted and [13:27] Tom Wieckowski: then and then we can deal with it yep and he does usually let us know right if he's got something that he thinks is going to end up in front of us so we get good advance notice from our code [13:37] Brett Marquis: enforcement officer right and i just think you know it takes up a lot of time that we can be [13:43] Tom Wieckowski: Be doing something, in my opinion. Nope, says anyone have anything else to add? Do we have Greg on, the phone? Okay, given that nobody else really has anything, I'm comfortable with Ashley. When we get soccer river corridor commission items, why don't you just send them to me and I'll take a quick peek at them, and then if I feel like something would be definitely coming in front of us for some reason, then I would come back to you and say have the whole, send it to the whole board. How does that sound? That sounds good to me. All right, great, good suggestion Butch. All right, are ready to move on to the next one? Our second piece of correspondence is an email that came from the Select Board to the Planning Board, where the Select Board was asking the Planning Board to do a joint meeting to discuss the potential for a date, what is it called, data center protection ordinance. And then, as I was trying to get a little more information about what the Select Board was thinking in terms of a joint meeting, my understanding was that the Select Board wanted to set up a citizens-driven committee to write an ordinance related to data centers. And then I didn't really understand why a joint meeting would be necessary for the Select Board to put together a citizens committee. And we, of course, would gladly put a member of the Planning Board on such a committee because I think it would be in everyone's best interest to have someone who understood zoning, or at least kind of understands it. But in the meantime, the Select Board has decided to take the concept off the table right now. What the note said is after extensive research, deliberation and consultation with leaders from neighboring towns, there was a conclusion that the meeting and its objective are significantly premature and reactive. So they are going to postpone. And I believe that there is continued discussion at the Select Board level. On this topic, I did not watch the Select Board meeting from last week. Tommy, did you? [16:34] Heather Sullivan: I went to the Select Board meeting last week. [16:35] Tom Wieckowski: Did they have a discussion about data center protection ordinance? [16:38] Heather Sullivan: Sounds like they, from what I remember, they moved it forward to ask legal to get them a moratorium written up. Okay. So I think they're still working on moratorium. I stopped in and talked to the town manager, asked them to do a data center ban ordinance when they do that, so that the planning board can fulfill their obligation with the state's requirements for moratorium so that there's actually action on the moratorium while it sits. So if the moratorium, and again, moratorium and ban are very separate things. If they put a moratorium in place, there needs to be certain objectives that are met during that time that the moratorium is in place. I'm sure you're familiar with some of it. So asking for a ban ordinance from the lawyer fulfills the planning board's side of that, and it lets us put it in front of the voters in public hearings earlier. So I'm hoping November, December, we'll be able to have public hearings as a planning board to get the public's input on how they want it done. And then it'll get that whole thing circled around and then hopefully end up on a ballot in June for next year. But that was what I gathered from the last select board meeting. Okay. [18:01] Tom Wieckowski: So as we know, anything that we put up for potentially being on the warrant is subject to select board review and approval to go on the warrant. It so it is plausible that because they are potentially putting in up a moratorium that they deny any request that we might make to put a competing ordinance up. So I don't know that they will, but that's the potential. So it could be work done in people so the moratorium will be done before that they [18:39] Heather Sullivan: have 90 days to ratify the moratorium from the time that they put it in place last month. So they've got 60 days left on that ish, give or take. Well, there's no moratorium right now. Nope. There will be a special election at some point the next month or two to ratify their decision to do a moratorium. So that's why they're getting moratorium put in at legal and then coming back so they have [18:58] Tom Wieckowski: 90 days from when it gets introduced. Correct. They did it at a meeting month ago, but no language was actually written, so that's not introduced. Okay. I don't know. I'm guy that was a question that I'm sorry that was said it didn't sound [19:16] Heather Sullivan: that way when they, yeah, from what I understand, they have, they have 90 days to ratify their moratorium. Again, we'll double check to make sure. Yeah, 100 correct. Okay. What but [19:29] Brett Marquis: you know, I mean it [19:30] Speaker E (unidentified): Sounded to me like that was a backstop right, for sure. So regardless, the town has to make forward [19:36] Heather Sullivan: progress on whatever the things they're putting the moratorium in place on while the moratorium is in place. So this part fulfills the town's requirement to make forward progress on that and make sure that everything stays copacetic, first step and along, yeah. [19:57] Tom Wieckowski: And is the con, is the idea of a citizens committee putting together what you've asked for? I'm not [20:06] Heather Sullivan: sure what they're doing. I don't know, it sounds like from this that it's off the table, but again, just reading, just reading the email, which I hadn't seen this email, it seems like the select board does not agree across the board that it's a select board decision to take this off the table. So I, again, I can't speak for them, I'm not 100 sure, but I haven't heard anything about a citizens group, committee, board, or otherwise regarding this. All right, I will go and look [20:38] Tom Wieckowski: at the select board meeting from last week. I'll go look at the transcript and see if I can't figure out what the status is for us for our next meeting so that we stay on top of, because I think that we have not voted as a board to recommend, of course, some kind of a band, so language is valuable. And I think that if the select board is putting a moratorium in place, the select board is also taking some responsibility for what the action steps are to move the town forward in one direction or another. Right. That's my only. Fantastic. Yeah. All right. So we'll come back to this. That is what we have for, was the, was the citizens memo and attorney response, was that part of correspondence, or is that part of, okay, all right, so that does it for correspondence. Now we can move to reviewing meeting minutes of our last meeting, which was August 12th, to 2026. If you all would take a quick look at the meeting minutes and let me know if there is anything that may need to be updated, changed, or clarified. Actually, you did a really good job on a pretty complicated meeting. The majority of the meeting, our last meeting in August, related to a project that is on the agenda as old business, and at that time there was a considerable amount of items that we were waiting for others to provide us with updates on, whether that is the developer or our own fire chief and our town attorney. We'll get to that in a minute. Can I, does anyone have any updates? [23:09] Brett Marquis: I? Move acceptance of the minute and I get a second. [23:15] Speaker F (unidentified): Second. Any discussion hearing [23:21] Tom Wieckowski: none, Tom? How do you vote? Yes, right? Yes. Yes, so moved or so. Yes, what [23:30] Brett Marquis: You had these out? [23:37] Tom Wieckowski: Perfect, so these minutes will now go down as on record. Next item is optional reports. This is an opportunity for town committees, boards, and town leadership to share anything they'd like to share with the Planning Board and therefore with the residents. Do we have any reports? Well, [24:09] Brett Marquis: I can report about the Comprehensive Planning Committee. Terrific. We asked for and received some funds from the TIF account, I believe, for some professional work from Southern Maine Planning on a comprehensive plan. Plan. We're in to January or something, I think. It's not going to be next week. It's going to be later on. And I believe because the town manager asked them to work the planning board program before they worked the comprehensive plan thing. But that's where we are with that. We're pretty well finished going through it and reviewing it. We just need to get it put into a final acceptable stage. We have identified fairly decent expansion of both village zones that would obviously have to be accepted by the town as the zones were drawn out, drawn out. Now there's really no room for any kind of growth, so it's, it's a little ridiculous to call them a growth area unless you enlarge them some, which we, which we have proposed and we'll be doing. You're [25:43] Heather Sullivan: Do you say you're enlarged, you want to enlarge the growth zone area? Yes, hopefully if it's approved, we recommend, we're [25:52] Brett Marquis: recommending it. It's going to, in the north college village zone, it's going to go over and probably encompass that area where the solar panels are and come down some, come back across the road, going to come down by, I don't know if it's Forest Lane or something, it's up there, not pick up that development but come down by there. It's going to pick up the development across the road, across the Plains Road, Rope Walk North or something, I don't know what it's called, up in there. I'm going to come around and back over to 117 and pick up some more area there and come around. It's just kind of expanding all around, and the same things happen. I've been down in the Hall of Center where we're coming around and meeting the pond to back up from the dam on both sides of it. And coming up, there's what they call a camp road down there, which goes to a couple of camps. We're going to come up that road and come across, pick up some of that trailer park, and come across and pick up some other land. Okay. The same thing again, just kind of expanding out. [27:20] Tom Wieckowski: I will say, Butch, I was actually looking at the comp plan in preparation for the ordinance changes, that work that's going to get started that relates to the state legislative changes. And when I was – so I just went to our town website, pulled the comp plan, and I am reading right here residential growth area amended June 2008 by town meeting vote so this was called so I'm just trying to figure out whether or not [Speaker F (unidentified): we've] got this term growth area and I think that there's opportunity to for some confusion around whether or not calling something a growth area means residential growth means commercial growth both growths and I was not aware of this residential growth area that was amended in 2008 and I don't think that we've really talked much about it in terms of the growth the where residential growth should be happening in Hollis at least I know I haven't because I was thinking we just had the two Hollis Center Village and North [28:40] Brett Marquis: Hollis village zone as our growth areas they used to be rural residential two acre rural residential ira two ir3 North Hollis village Hollis Center village and the North Hollis conservation yeah they changed that and that's when you now find these names residential growth tradition traditional I don't know exactly what it's called but transitioning from one to another they've got rid of this the r2 and three and so forth and called it differently so we have some confusion [29:22] Tom Wieckowski: Yeah we have residential two and residential three we currently have that but that's where I got confused so what is this what is this so description northwest of the Hollis Center growth area which again I think that became Hollis Center village and it there was about 800 acres of undeveloped land in this area and it can accommodate up to 400 housing units [29:54] Heather Sullivan: At two acres owning which would now be 1600 housing units in two acres zoning don't don't don't get that far down the road no because I'm just [30:09] Tom Wieckowski: trying to figure out so the area is located on the west side of Route 117 and it is recommended that all types of residential uses be permitted in this district including single family multi-family mobile homes senior housing and other diverse housing so is this also is this area that is unclear to me you know I don't see any you know in other areas I you know when I look at is that is that the plan we're working on well I say the plan we're working on this is what's online so I would assume [30:52] Brett Marquis: This is the most probably the comprehensive plan from oh this is oh [30:59] Tom Wieckowski: Wait, amended. Oh wait, was it amended again? It [31:05] Brett Marquis: was started to be amended a couple three years back, so this [31:13] Tom Wieckowski: is the current cover, and the reason why I'm so concerned about it is because we're going to be writing, where we're tasked with writing ordinances that update based on the state requirements, and a big piece of the state requirements relates to residential growth and what is defined in the comp plan as a residential growth area. So I need, we need to know what today our comp plan that is in place today, despite the fact that it is 20 years outdated or 20 years old and certainly reflects things that have changed since that time, that's all we, you know, that's what we have. We have an approved comprehensive plan, that's what the state expects us to [32:00] Brett Marquis: All right, I don't know if that ever went to the state for acceptance or not. Okay, I couldn't tell you about that. I don't know either. I'll find out, or I guess I won't. We don't go down the hole. [32:15] Heather Sullivan: I guess just have the, maybe just keep in the back of your mind and the back of it. I know you guys are doing a lot of good work. Just expanding the growth zone means that any new area that growth zone encompasses ends up allowing four houses per two acre lot, so that's, you know, my opinion is obviously different, but it's something just to keep in the back of your mind. Let everybody else in the comp plan know that when they're talking about expanding the growth zone, they're talking about allowing four houses per two-acre lot, something that's never been allowed in the town of Hollis. [32:54] Brett Marquis: Well, right. I know that's what this says that's coming down, but they have to meet some other requirements, too. I mean, it isn't just two or four houses on a two-acre lot. Lot, you know, there's, there's space required, there's septic systems as wells, there's all kinds of things, and you get a two acre lot, let's say an acre is 200 by 200, so let's say you have 400 by 200, and you got to have a hundred, a hundred foot between your well and your septic, you know, you're running out of space real quick. Yeah, so I don't think it's, it's just automatic we're going to put four houses, or they can put four house a lot, they have to meet some requirements to do that, you know, I mean Obviously we do need some areas for growth, okay, but I think we have to be careful how we allow that to happen, that we don't cause ourselves a problem down the road. [33:54] Heather Sullivan: What is the, what is the benefit of the growth area now as opposed to a non-growth area? What can you do in a growth area or designated growth area right now that we can't do? [34:06] Tom Wieckowski: Well, we're supposed to be, when we're looking at zoning ordinances, we're supposed to be prioritizing growth in the areas that we've identified as being appropriate for growth. Otherwise put a data center in a in North Center Hollis North Center right not we necessarily but that so that's one piece of it our comprehensive plan will be reviewed by the state I believe that's now one yeah that is because it's [34:43] Brett Marquis: going to affect state revenue sharing all the kind of stuff if you don't have state approved copies and I think possibly where the growth areas came from way back in 91 is when we started with comprehensive plan and there was a pretty extensive survey that went out I have some copies of it in my comprehensive plan package where do you want your growth and this so forth so forth so forth and I think people said we want our growth in the village area so that's how they ended up being and called the growth areas. [35:20] Heather Sullivan: And they're basically built on. [35:23] Brett Marquis: So, you know, I mean, it's just kind of used up. So it needs to be bigger. You know, if you still want to direct your growth in those areas, which they used to have a term about rural sprawl or something like that, and that's just houses any way you want them, and no control of what it looks like. So, I think that's what the growth area is trying to work on. [35:51] Heather Sullivan: I guess that ties into your question about whether it's residential growth or commercial growth. And then we've, the planning boards in the past and the residents approved EOZs that allowed commercial growth to travel up and down the two main corridors going through. So, I feel like the commercial growth, especially in growth areas, is expanded already. So you're already allowed commercial growth up and down 117 and 202 and for because of the year because of EOZ is right and it [36:22] Tom Wieckowski: Centralizes that up those main but then that takes away from the opportunity to grow those locations Resident with residential right, you know in a sense. Yep. Absolutely. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. I, you know, I can't necessarily say that. I guess I'm still kind of stuck on the, like, as a board, we're going to be proposing ordinance changes that relate directly to what are identified as growth areas in Hollis. And I believe that the growth areas in Hollis, based on the comp plan that is available to the public, so I can only assume that this is the most recent version, there's a whole area, well, there's two things it appears in this plan that we already did that expansion to Hollis Center Village. It was, I have seen some maps where it looked like they [37:17] Brett Marquis: did that, but I didn't see anything official about it. So, but it's in the [37:23] Tom Wieckowski: comp plan as that's something that I mean, it doesn't say try to do, it says this is what we now resident, you know, residential development trends. Oh, that's just development trends in 25 years. Relevant now. But where they talk about future land use plans. So I'm looking at this section and, you know, I see the five different future land use zones in Hollis were created. So it sounds to me like these are things that were done. The future land use plan was created by the comprehensive planning committee with input from the public. The land use policies and strategies for the town of Hollis that follow are linked to that plan. So there's five different land use zones and Hollis that were created with certain objectives in mind. Those objectives include controlling growth while respecting private property rights, encouraging commercial, industrial, and residential development in growth corridors that is appropriate for the surrounding character, etc. So the first area is called Hollis Center growth area, and it's described as being the existing Hollis Center village district around the intersections of route 202, 117, 35, and 4a, plus properties fronting on route 202 and 117 located within one mile of the existing village area. So that would be E-R-E-O-Z. Is that what that became? [39:04] Brett Marquis: I feel like that became the village zone you were talking about. [39:07] Tom Wieckowski: So it's the Hollis Center Village Zone Plus. So I don't think that the boundaries of, which you can't find a map, by the way, that has those boundaries on it. [39:18] Heather Sullivan: It's close to the northwesterly of this area, but it doesn't have an actual. [39:23] Tom Wieckowski: Yeah, you can't find an app. You can't, you can't go on to a GIS map, right, and say it is my address in Hollis Center, growthville, Hollis Center village. Yeah, there's no map with that zone identify. Well, there is a map, but it doesn't have, it doesn't, you can't read on the map any road names, so you can't tell where the zone begins and ends, so [39:52] Brett Marquis: It, there is a zoning map, right, it's, it's very difficult to do that. The town right now, there's a project on, there's like 79 maps, okay, yeah, this thing that I just got done working on the hall of studies takes land out of four or five different maps, so you know, I don't believe they're going to develop a new map just for that one thing, but they would take the map, should identify boundaries of the Hollis Center Village Zone on it the way they do other things. [40:39] Tom Wieckowski: Well, a zoning map should have all of our zones, and we should be able to tell. I mean, realistically, we should be able to go onto a site, [40:47] Brett Marquis: onto a website. But the zoning map should bust a town up in zones and show that. Yeah, which I believe it does an assessing map if you want, then maybe can do it differently. Yep. When I first started here, I think there were seven maps and each map had three zones on it. And, you know, it just got as more places were built and more lots set out. You need to have different maps so that you could see them better. And that's the case now with the amount of maps they have. And it's not published. I think you can maybe find it on the website, but that's not what we're using right now. It may be what they're using in their current re-evaluation. But that's going to make a mountain of work whenever we go to that. Because every lot is going to have to be changed as far as the map it's on and things like that and going over the things I found some places where there was a development and it was let's say it was map nine lot 64 and it was developed or made into a development house development and there would be 9-64-1-10. That's going away with some of these new maps. So it's going to be hard to identify that this was a housing development, you know. [42:31] Tom Wieckowski: So this so I'm just looking at what I was able to find as we were discussing this. i'm looking at a map that has zoning it's a tax you know it's a index tax map that has zoning on it 's not very easy to read it's not color-coded but there are dotted lines that one can kind of follow in terms of what the hollis you know just thinking about the different areas So what I see is that the Hollis Center Village zone is still that very small 35-4A-117 intersection. Then the comp plan talks about the expansion of that about a mile. I don't know if that's a mile around or if that's just a mile in one direction. But that, to me, sounds like what we call the EOZ, which that is defined in our zoning ordinances. [43:42] Brett Marquis: Well, the EOZ is the Economic Overlay Zone. Right. And there's a certain footage back from the highway. [43:49] Heather Sullivan: I know it's 250. I think it's 500. [43:53] Brett Marquis: I believe so. That you could go back that far. And that's all the way up both sides of 117 and 202. And I think even on 35. That's like town wide almost, so it's not down on the Mansion Road, not on that down into four A, even, I believe. Right, yeah, it's almost a town-wide development's the only thing, we call it that comes from way back when you want to be able to do small businesses anywhere there was decent traffic anywhere there was, right, so [44:32] Tom Wieckowski: That's, that's the EOZ, and that's for, you know, was designed for growth, business, commercial growth, not, I don't see anything in here in our zoning ordinance that talks about residential growth, it's all about economic, commercial, business activities. Right, the EOZ. Yeah, all right, so the EOZ is part of the [45:02] Brett Marquis: the Hollis Center Village zone. Yeah, well, yes, it is, because those roads come through. Yeah, okay, so but now you take in the village zone, I think Hollis Center is a two acre residential and a one acre commercial, and Deer Pond area or the, what was North Hollis Village zone was a four acre residential and a one acre commercial. So, you know, the reason for the different acreages has to do with the drainage of the soil. It's not just willy-nilly come down somebody's property line and call it a zone. There's a lot of contention about one side of 117 is a three-acre zone, and the other side is a two-acre zone, but, you know. [45:57] Tom Wieckowski: It is so going back to the comp plan, I think. So I guess what I'm trying to understand is when we are considering, when we are going to be working on these ordinances with SMP DC, which by the way contract has been signed, that will start on October 1st. SMP DC will be reviewing our ordinances, comp plan in subdivision regulations to identify what areas of those documents are going to need to be updated, and then they're going to help us figure out how to write those updates. I'll be honest with you. It's going to be really complicated because we have these growth areas and the standards for these growth areas will be different than the standards for non-growth areas, and currently, we have like Hollis Center Village, residential, commercial, but it's not written that way. It's written, you know, one acre, two acre, without saying this is for commercial, this is for residential. I think there is going to be a need to, what we want to make sure we do is that we are clear in what areas we are changing zoning for and what areas we are not. I think that's I mean I think that 's really essential for us right [47:28] Brett Marquis: But those rules are gonna apply across the town, yep, it'd be different in [47:34] Tom Wieckowski: growth areas right then in non growth area, but what I'm saying is I don't know what our growth areas are so I can't tell people right now looking at the comp plan, because I'm looking at the comp plan and it appears that we have a growth area that goes a mile from Hollis Center Village, not just Hollis [47:51] Brett Marquis: Center Village and North Hollis. It's going to become Hollis Center Village a mile up the road. It's going to become the Village Zone. They might not think they're in the [48:03] Speaker F (unidentified): Village but they're going to be part of the Village Zone. And that has, we have [48:07] Tom Wieckowski: identified that as a growth area, although I will say that I think that our identification of that or comp plans identification of that as a growth area, there isn't a lot of support that says that is identified as a growth area for residential growth. Well but we do have areas that they say residential growth should be occurring in rr2 and rr3, so are those the growth, like so again it just gets very complicated in terms of how we are going to be looking at our ordinances and saying okay this the State requires us to change this to where only you know the state has restrictions on. We're not going to be able to have, we aren't going to be able to necessarily choose two acre, one acre. The state's going to say the minimum lot size is this in the areas that you define as a growth zone. That's right, we aren't [49:05] Heather Sullivan: going to have the opportunity to do that anymore. So they're taking away the ability to dictate tape minimum lot size for growth areas. Yes, for growth areas, they're putting it [49:14] Butch Gannett: what, a half acre I believe it is, a 20,000 feet, which a half acre, yeah, okay, [49:21] Brett Marquis: which 100 by 100 by 200, okay. You can, you build, you build a house that's 40 feet long, okay, including your garage if you want, and then you gotta have 35 feet on both sides of it, or 35 feet in the front, 100 feet or 50 feet on each side and in the back. [49:43] Heather Sullivan: You know where you're going to put your house, and then it also raises the limit for height. [49:48] Tom Wieckowski: Correct, only for, only for affordable housing, just for affordable housing, yeah, just for affordable housing. Let me pull up, so Tommy and I sat in on a, on a, on a training session from SMPDC, and I mean I left that training session being more confused, I mean because it is very complicated, but we did get some resources from them. Let me go and grab those. All right, this topic, they had a bunch of people in here and [50:21] Brett Marquis: they were spitting out a lot of information and you couldn't really tie it specifically to your, you know, there was a guy that kept trying to, yeah. You know, but it's, I have to take sympathy on the people giving the presentation because, you know, they were getting questions, you know, lead me over here, lead me over here. That's, you know. [50:42] Heather Sullivan: Yeah, it's very town-specific, situation-specific questions that they just, you know, it's hard to ask those on the spot and get, you know, answers that you can stand on. [50:51] Speaker F (unidentified): All right, let's see. [50:53] Tom Wieckowski: So what I saw was. [51:01] Brett Marquis: Well, I don't think we need to reinvent this thing either. Yeah, you know, the state's going to come down with some requirements, but they did, and the code office is going to apply them. [51:10] Heather Sullivan: I think the, I think the biggest, I don't want to say issue because it's not the sticking point of the conversation is, the growth zone thing. So expanding the growth zone has a lot of ramifications besides, you know, it's just a bigger growth zone. If it is a residential or commercial, what are we shooting for with the growth zone? If we're shooting for residential, it can be argued that the state is already expanding the residents' ability to grow by allowing three houses on a lot. If it's commercial, we already have an expanded commercial growth zone through our EOZ. We have miles and miles of land that is on EOZ that's commercial growth zone. Only one. Actually yeah so I don't know like I said it's it's definitely a bigger conversation but it's truthfully it's dictated by how the comprehensive plan plays out and that's why I'm questioning [52:03] Tom Wieckowski: Because we have to put these in front of the voters before the new comprehensive plan is ready so we have to use the current comprehensive plan as our frame of reference and what I was What I was reading in our currently available, I don't know if it's honestly the real current plan, was that this residential growth area was supposed to be, using just shorthand, Hollis Center Village plus the mile which is I think a little bit different than what about a hundred tabs open on my community but [52:51] Heather Sullivan: I just feel yeah so I [52:53] Tom Wieckowski: Think that it's just we need to I'm you know when I'm reading the comp plan and I'm seeing that it identifies certain areas as residential growth areas that is, my brain automatically goes and says, okay, how are we going to update the ordinances to reflect these areas? And if it's not a real zone, I'm not sure how we would cope out doing it. [53:21] Brett Marquis: Well, if we have to make sure the zoning ordinance complies with the state requirements, it has to be against the present comprehensive plan. Right. And when the next comprehensive plan comes out, if there's required to change some zones, then we go back to the table and change some zones again. But, you know, we're not going to get that comprehensive plan approved before next summer or later. [53:52] Heather Sullivan: I was going to say, you're shooting for, like, November, the next November at the earliest. [53:56] Brett Marquis: Yeah, I went down that a bit. So we need to go with what we have, and then it'll have to be corrected when the townspeople say they want to do something different. [54:07] Tom Wieckowski: That's what I'm trying to do. I can't even get myself I [54:11] Brett Marquis: Will find out exactly what the village zone amounts to now, and I'll have it for next meeting. [54:19] Tom Wieckowski: So I think more my question is, what does the current comp plan identify as? Residential growth area, because that is what we have to speak to. [54:32] Brett Marquis: Report on that next meeting. Oh, very helpful. [54:34] Tom Wieckowski: Well, and I think you know the fact that Hollis Center Village currently has a minimum two acre, and that is going to go down to whatever the minimum lot size is for septic under the main septic rules, which I believe is that's the half acre, that is you know that's going to be a significant difference in just, you know, the current, the current growth areas, yeah, if we just it, which again what we identify as the current growth areas, but it appears that according to this comp plan that what we Identified as the current growth areas, they are actually bigger than what we initially identified them as. [55:25] Heather Sullivan: Right, I feel like this, the conversation, I've talked to somebody about this before, where the, where the current growth areas, where it's, they call it residential growth area. Is that classified as our current growth area? I think that was the conversation that was being had, and that's what they were trying to figure out. But I don't know, they said I never heard about it again. [55:44] Tom Wieckowski: So I assume they realize it wasn't, I guess, you know what, I'm looking at the comp plan, and it says residential growth area amended June 2,008 by town meeting vote. I feel fairly confident that is the area that's intended to be the residential growth area. Right, at least it was intended in 2008. [56:02] Brett Marquis: Well, those are the terms they used to describe it. Yeah, okay, what they were thinking? It's beyond any of us. We have a problem with terms here that has to be corrected along with everything else. [56:20] Tom Wieckowski: Yes, and that will be one of the things that I include when I'm reviewing, are making the changes for the state. I want us to include language in the zoning ordinance that talks about what a growth area is and what a growth area isn't, which, what is the, what is the comprehensive plan doing about the extensive references to cluster subdivisions now that we no longer have those? What is, so this plan identifies cluster subdivisions as the primary way that Hollis can meet some of these growth goals That the state has back in 2008, now we no longer have it. How are we addressing that, or how is the comp plan addressing an alternative to clusters? I [57:16] Brett Marquis: Don't know that there's a specific paragraph or whatever in the in the comp plan that discusses cluster subdivisions. The town voted cluster subdivisions out. Cluster subdivision were developed quite a long time ago. In my estimation, it was made it easier for the developer to build a lot of homes. Didn't necessarily, wasn't necessarily appealing to the eye. Or anything else again. This is my opinion. Okay They built right now next to the road You know and left a lot of land open in the back and their theory was we're leaving back land open for the wildlife We don't have to build a road back there if we build it up by the road That's that's never I'm not going to say more about that. But all [58:23] Tom Wieckowski: right so I guess I it's unfortunate in a sense because there's a lot of reliance in the old comp plan on clustering. [58:35] Brett Marquis: I think cluster developments allowed one acre lot, I believe. [58:43] Tom Wieckowski: It did do that? [58:45] Brett Marquis: I'm thinking it maybe did. It was reduced size. Yes. It was reduced size residential lot. [58:52] Speaker E (unidentified): It traded for holding. Yeah. [58:54] Brett Marquis: And, you know, one acre, except for three acres only, and you had to have two acres of open space, whatever the case. Okay. Okay. And in some cases, they gave the developer an extra house lot or two. [59:07] Tom Wieckowski: Yeah, we stopped that. We reversed that years ago. A few years ago, we took that away. I guess that's the issue. But then what is the incentive? [59:17] Heather Sullivan: Well, my hang-up is that the residents voted down, got rid of cluster subdivision, which situated houses closer to the road because they're visually unappealing. And then we're actively having a conversation about expanding the growth area to allow smaller lots with houses closer to the road. [59:37] Tom Wieckowski: Yeah, I guess not in the form of a cluster subdivision. [59:42] Heather Sullivan: It's essentially, well, because if you can do it on a half, say you put a trailer on a half-acre lot. [59:46] Speaker E (unidentified): I don't think we're voting on that. I think we've been told by the state that 's what we're going to do. That is the difference. [59:50] Heather Sullivan: In a growth zone, yeah, absolutely. But we're voluntarily talking about expanding the growth zone to allow a trailer on a half-acre lot when the residents got rid of clusters because they didn't like what it was doing. [1:00:03] Speaker E (unidentified): So, I mean, the residents should have the ability to then turn down the expansion of the growth areas as well. [1:00:09] Heather Sullivan: Right,, absolutely. [1:00:10] Tom Wieckowski: They would, but what happened then is that our current comp plan, the one that we are writing towards right now, would stay in place if the residents did vote it down. And that would mean that we're referencing, you know, the current complaint references clusters 20 years from oh well it will be it will be yeah it'll be 20 it'll be 19 years old that's the unfortunate side effect is that as a board [1:00:41] Heather Sullivan: we try to do hey vote on this if you like this stuff we try not to lump too much stuff together it's that pork belly thing but if the cluster or excuse me if the comp plan goes to the to the voters and the voters realize that hey this makes this expanded growth zone allowed to put trailers on half acre lots which is more liberal than you could do in clusters like in cluster you had [1:01:01] Speaker E (unidentified): to have an acre now with that cluster had to be a part of a subdivision as well and you won't have [1:01:08] Heather Sullivan: to do that you can sell you can sell correct so you could have half acre lots on you know in any of the expanded zone with one trailer on it and that's what residents didn't want so you [1:01:19] Brett Marquis: could take your 10 acre lot turn it into 20. But I don't I don't think you know if they come down with it with a half acre minimum lot size you're not going to take a two acre lot and split it into half acre lots you're just going to need that's your density requirement is going to be 20 000 [1:01:39] Heather Sullivan: square feet is the I know subdivision law we talked about it they talked we didn't talk or anything we listened they talked about subdivision law changing our subdivision definition is changing where it was we're gonna have to change ours that's what I mean like subdivision what triggers a subdivision which changing from three to so we're going to [1:01:59] Tom Wieckowski: be restricted so the way it works and I'm looking at this handout 1829 handout it's based on whether or not you have if you're in a growth area I've identified growth area or not. If you have public water and sewer or not. So for Hollis, we don't have any public water and sewer. So we're just talking about whether a property is located in a growth area or not. Minimum lot size in a growth area with no sewer or water is the minimum lot size. We are not allowed to have a lot sized greater than title 12 septic minimum, which is typically 20,000 square feet. I go and look at the septic, I go and look at the septic, yeah right. So there are, even if the lot size, the system must also meet the setback distances in state law. I would assume it also means right. So it's just it, this is just going to become a little bit more complicated because now we're not going to be able to have, is going to be based on these main septic regulations which can change and we're going to have to keep up with those changes as well. But let's see if I can find real quick a minimum. So it looks like the state requirements are mandatory 100 foot setback from private wells, which mentioned earlier, and 100 foot setback from perennial water bodies. And then let's see, and all right, I don't [1:04:12] Heather Sullivan: know, I guess, I guess that's the conversation needs to be had. I want to make sure that residents are very much involved in understanding both sides. You [1:04:21] Tom Wieckowski: minimum distance for a septic tank from the property line according to the state is 10 feet. I was gonna say the septic to property line is very small. That driveway is five feet [1:04:32] Heather Sullivan: right. It's the setbacks for the houses that are actually more restrictive. Yeah, like it's, it's a huge conversation. Yeah, I just need to make sure that the residents understand that expanding a growth zone expands half acre lots and allowing them whatever you want for the house on there as long as you can meet setbacks and setbacks I can promise you are not hard to think [1:05:08] Tom Wieckowski: oh so I'm, this is AI, a single family residential unit must be on a lot of at least 20,000 square feet with 100 foot frontage. If the lot abuts a lake, pond, stream, river, or tidal area, we are going to be required to follow that standard in a growth zone, in the growth zone. So that is 0.46 acres right. For multiple-unit housing, the lot size and frontage must be proportionally larger based on additional wastewater load. [1:05:45] Heather Sullivan: That's what you were talking about last time, where just because you have a half-acre lot doesn't mean you can put four houses on it because you don't have the septic capacity. [1:06:00] Tom Wieckowski: So that's going to change things pretty drastically in Hollis. And, you know, we are going to be charged with figuring out, you know, we're going to have help from SMPDC, but they aren't going to help us figure out how to implement it. [1:06:22] Heather Sullivan: Yeah. Yeah. Yep. And all this stuff, it's not a, you know, other changes that have come down from the state in the past are, oh, you need to change this sentence, this definition, and this performance standard. This is a, your entire ordinance is changing. There's a lot of stuff, which is, again, the reason that the planning board's not putting anything on the ballot that isn't state driven, because it's, it's that expansive, it's, it's, it has a lot of, a lot of roots going a lot of different things, a lot of branches. [1:06:54] Tom Wieckowski: So, and the state law says that a single family residential unit shall be determined to be 300 gallons per day of wastewater. So, there's not a lot of 300 gallons per day. Yep. And then it also says that multiple unit housing, for multiple unit housing, calculate the daily wastewater flows based on 120 gallons per bedroom per day. [1:07:20] Brett Marquis: That's a whole lot more than 300 gallons. [1:07:24] Tom Wieckowski: Yeah, but that's only for multiple. So that's only for multiple unit housing, which I believe would be, that would not be ADUs, that would be apartments. [1:07:43] Heather Sullivan: But I'd have to double-check that. That's the other side of it. I didn't realize from that meeting that ADUs are subdivisions as well. [1:07:52] Speaker E (unidentified): Say that again, please. [1:07:56] Tom Wieckowski: So subdivision is no longer going to be three-plus. It's going to be the new one. [1:08:01] Heather Sullivan: From what I understand, what they were talking about is you're allowed an ADU in a subdivision, which our ADU can be a standalone, full, 900-square-foot trailer. [1:08:11] Tom Wieckowski: I think it's more than that. [1:08:14] Heather Sullivan: And that's, that's something that needs to be baked in there because I didn't really, I said I had no, I thought that was for sure. I've learned that we can't touch anything. ADUs are allowed everywhere there is nothing you can do. [1:08:27] Speaker E (unidentified): Are they allowed in all our growth there. I mean, beyond growth areas or to our [1:08:32] Heather Sullivan: everywhere in Hollis is allowed to have an ADU. [1:08:35] Tom Wieckowski: So I didn't realize that you can have a single, family. [1:08:39] Heather Sullivan: Correct. Yeah. I didn't realize that it went over to subdivisions as well. So if you're approving a, you know, down the road, a five lot subdivision, you're approving a five lot subdivision and the possibility of five ADUs. So I don't know how that affects traffic studies. [1:08:53] Speaker E (unidentified): Well, that's what I was going to say was how does that affect if you have a 10 lot subdivision? [1:08:57] Tom Wieckowski: We heard from the attorney that we can only consider the plan as it comes in front of us. So if the plan doesn't have an ADU on it, we can't consider that as part of the analysis. [1:09:10] Heather Sullivan: We also can't restrict the ADU. [1:09:12] Speaker E (unidentified): So maybe when we write our subdivision regulations, when we update them, there needs to be a mechanism in there that gets triggered based on traffic. What do you mean? We have, we already have, I mean, say you've got a 10 lot subdivision going in and you do the traffic study for that, would be 20 cars or 60 trips, something like that, right? But maybe, I obviously do not have the answer for how we would do it, there's a mechanism to say we all seem to look at the fact that 10 sub, 10 lots in a subdivision could actually have [1:09:54] Heather Sullivan: 40 20 houses i thought it was one it was three per subdivisions divide this and this is where i had to step back and like research divisions have different adu i just had to refresh my thinking i always think we always think of subdivision as one law one house or one lot one house in the edu subdivision is the dividing of land it has nothing to do with [1:10:17] Speaker E (unidentified): So that law can have three ADUs on it. No, one. [1:10:21] Tom Wieckowski: We are required to allow one ADU for every dwelling unit, right? [1:10:25] Heather Sullivan: For every lot. So each lot gets one ADU. [1:10:29] Brett Marquis: But in some cases, three. [1:10:32] Tom Wieckowski: That's not for ADUs. That is for multiple unit housing, right? [1:10:43] Heather Sullivan: So I talked to that lady for like a half hour afterwards. [1:10:47] Brett Marquis: You know, my opinion, we're getting off base where we are here. It's complicated. [1:10:53] Tom Wieckowski: But we're going to be looked at as the people who can explain it, and it's getting tight. Time is getting tight, in my opinion. [1:11:00] Heather Sullivan: And if we can come up with the questions now that we don't understand, like just that alone, is it three houses, 380 years, so that we can go to SMPDNC and say, hey, watch this meeting because we stumbled over some stuff that we need exact clarification on. So that when a resident says hey can I put three houses here or can I put a house and three ADUs or can I put you know what can I have, I can tell you that code enforcement's going to be just as confused about it as we are unless we do the research and help them figure it out. So they need to have answers that are, well, we're not going to have anything to do [1:11:36] Tom Wieckowski: With sewage disposal rules, that's set down by the state. Our zoning ordinances will, that's what our minimum lot size will now be based on in growth areas, right? So the state redefines dwellings per lot, any residential lot must allow at least three dwelling units, lots in growth areas or public water and sewer areas must allow at least four dwelling units. We can have dimensional requirements, but those dimensional requirements for multiple units could not be greater than those for single units, right? [1:12:14] Butch Gannett: so that's how they close that loophole growth area without public [1:12:18] Tom Wieckowski: water sewer the minimum lot size must be greater than or equal to the state subsurface waste disposal minimum lot law 20 000 square feet accessory dwelling units adus can be attached or detached from a multiple unit structure and no owner occupancy is required and you cannot require sprinklers in an ADU. We, Planning Board, will no longer be reviewing four or fewer dwelling units within a structure. [1:12:57] Heather Sullivan: So, apart from that. They said we could still do, and this was the question I asked the lady after, is we can still review it for independent lots, [1:13:06] Tom Wieckowski: lots or independent houses? Subdivision definition is partially changed. This is fun. Subdivision is now the creation or division of a structure into five or more dwelling units within five years. Previously, the threshold was three or more dwelling units. And partially unchanged, the part that's unchanged, a subdivision is still the division of land into three or more lots within five years so they've differentiated between lots and well structures i would say structure because right so [1:13:48] Speaker E (unidentified): did any of that answer the original rabbit hole which was in a subdivision on a lot and you put 3 ADUs in addition to your primary [1:14:01] Tom Wieckowski: It would be 80, so 80Us [1:14:06] Heather Sullivan: It would never be 3 ADUs, it would be 3 dwelling so 3 houses. Or 3 apartments. Or 3 apartments, or 3 unit apartments, correct. So it would never be 3 ADUs any way you cut it, would always be 3 houses and that was the other question was is it in a non-growth zone is it three houses three units per lot plus an adu i'm not sure that was [1:14:34] Butch Gannett: and that was they didn't give me a straight answer i'm not sure it just says three units per lot [1:14:39] Tom Wieckowski: any residential lot must allow at least three dwelling units so long as dimensional requirements [1:14:46] Speaker E (unidentified): and setbacks yeah what's a good question for spdmc when we have face time with them about graphic studies [1:14:57] Heather Sullivan: Hopefully they can watch this meeting and go home. They can see how [1:15:07] Tom Wieckowski: Contract watching this meeting is not part of that contract. I doubt they will do it They are going to review our current zoning ordinances our current subdivision regulations And I hope or assume our comprehensive plan although I would I'm supposed to be providing this to them for their October 1st start date and I would like to ensure that I'm providing them with the accurate 2008 I believe it's the one that's online but I don't know that for [1:15:37] Brett Marquis: sure the town clerk and tell you perfect that is who I will ask it's a bunch of [1:15:47] Heather Sullivan: Good questions though. You just sussed out a lot of it. We're more confused than [1:15:52] Tom Wieckowski: ever probably. And obviously we can pose, I can, you know, I can, we can talk about some places [1:15:58] Brett Marquis: there it talks about ADUs and some places talks about structures. Yeah, you know, Tommy told me that. [1:16:04] Speaker F (unidentified): I totally believe you. That was, that's confusing. So an ADU has a definition, yeah, which is attached [1:16:14] Heather Sullivan: to the, and then in some places they'll use dwelling instead of structure. Dwelling unit [1:16:19] Speaker F (unidentified): is a different word. Yeah, you are dwelling, right? They're both the same [1:16:23] Heather Sullivan: thing I think. No, that's the issues. It's a dwelling unit. You can have three dwelling units in a structure. It have, you can't have three structures in a dwelling unit or you, or 380 use current [1:16:49] Tom Wieckowski: zoning ordinance and this is why things like definitions matter. So the definition of ADU is, we have performance standards. [1:17:13] Heather Sullivan: Yeah, we have performance standards for ADUs. [1:17:15] Tom Wieckowski: That may have to be also adjusted. Correct. Finish this conversation after we just go through these really quickly. ADU, self-contained dwelling unit located within, attached to, or detached from a single family dwelling located on the same lot of land. A minimum of 190 square feet may not exceed 900 square feet. So that tells me that definition is going to have to change because the state is saying you have to allow an ADU on multi-unit, multi-family dwelling units. When I go look at, what was the term, dwelling unit? So we have dwelling unit, a room or group of rooms in a building utilized as a residence with living quarters for one family. Dwelling unit includes mobile homes but does not include utility, trailers, or RVs. What was the other word? Structure. Structure, a physical object constructed or erected except a boundary wall or fence, the use of which requires location on the ground or attachment to something on the ground. [1:19:02] Heather Sullivan: Building is a structure. So structure and dwelling unit were somewhat safe with ADU is the one that is gonna have to change. [1:19:13] Tom Wieckowski: All right, we've got, you guys want to, when you think about these things start capturing what our kind of questions are for SMPDC. I think that would be a good additional piece to this. We kind of, we got very off topic on that. Our applicant is not here for our old business, so we will not discuss the talent estates application at this time. However, I will say that we did receive attorney review of the memo that one of our residents provided to us with a number of questions about the authority that the trust has, whether or not we need to get financial and technical, or how that we have to get financial and technical capabilities from the applicant and the applicants chosen developer we determined that the trust is a legal entity that we cannot consider anything unrelated to the trust when it comes to the applicants prior practices with the town and what else was in there that oh and our review of the subdivision plan is we are expected to review the subdivision plan as presented to us not as potentially in the future it may look so the phased approach it's nice to have it's helpful I think in the long term we are not, we are looking at a 14 unit subdivision, that is what our traffic analysis needs to be based on. Future planning board when, because any subdivision that changes has to come back in front of the planning board. Future planning board has to deal with a road that a substandard road if that is the case, because they want to add six units and we agreed to standards that were appropriate for a 14 unit and now it's going to become a 60 unit or a 20 unit, it's not, you can't, so we are expected not to consider so that future, that potential future, potential future issues. That being said, I don't know how that affects our review of things like sight lines or if that, you know, we talked a little bit about the well, I don't want to get into the details because we do not have an applicant [1:22:09] Speaker E (unidentified): Can I ask you a question? You can certainly tell me that we cannot discuss that. Sure. Okay, on number four in the memo, yeah, it's recreational trail, yep, yeah, so that was about that. I think your response was the board determined that if an easement or designation of this trail area is open space is offered by the applicant, no additional open space would be required. Our preference is a voluntary trail ease, but is willing to hear from the attorney on other potential options. I'm not, I don't know that we is the proper, that I don't think we agreed to that. We actually did, we discussed it, we discussed the fact that there could be, we could even ask for five acres out of the whole thing [1:23:02] Tom Wieckowski: Yeah, and I mean we didn't vote on it. We did not vote because you're right, we did not vote on it, but I remember saying my opinion is if we got the trail that is being asked for, the trail easement that is being, that members of the public have identified, then I would be comfortable, that would be the, you know, that we wouldn't need to ask for any more. And I believe I asked the board if there were any, I made the comment that night [1:23:30] Speaker E (unidentified): that I would like to see that we took some space for open space that went from the second hammerhead or the lower one of the two on the map and connected to that trail, isn't that some residents could access that trail in that area [1:23:51] Tom Wieckowski: okay so that would, I mean I think I might have shorthanded that to include that in the trail area easement or whatever potential form [1:24:06] Speaker F (unidentified): that it took so they [1:24:07] Tom Wieckowski: were going to come back, they were going to just, he was going to discuss it with the applicant and [1:24:11] Speaker F (unidentified): they were not done yet, I get no, yeah, I just wanted to, you're talking about the residents in [1:24:15] Speaker E (unidentified): the subdivision having access, I'm talking about the residents of Hollis could go park down there and walk down to the snowmobile trail, no place to park down there isn't right now, but I'm saying that we have the ability to take some of that land and make it so the residents of Hollis could use that to access the trail, maybe, I'm just saying we should look at that, I'm not saying that's the end answer, but you know there's an open space plan that the conservation committee has and they're always trying to get access to trails, mm-hmm, and this is an opportunity where maybe we could provide that, so okay [1:25:02] Tom Wieckowski: all right, well I think then maybe we need to have that discussion with the applicant, would happen when they come back with their updated plan, absolutely [1:25:12] Speaker E (unidentified): so like I don't want to catch you off guard with that, I just, you know, we had discussed it but we discussed so much that night, yeah, and I think that you [1:25:21] Tom Wieckowski: know where we talked about where we mentioned, you know, how would, because we [1:25:26] Speaker E (unidentified): also talked about it being as simple as we'll just tell the person that buys that lot that there's a snowmobile trail there and that's, yeah, no, what when I did [1:25:34] Tom Wieckowski: Want something more that's tough, more formal, and ease. So what the attorney recommends is an easement held by the town or a land conservation organization is the best. Is it would be the in a form that's acceptable to the town attorney could be a condition of the final plan. So it's it's making that determination and, you know, I wonder how we would carve out, you know, access to a trail. I think it's different than providing a parking lot for people to park and access the trail. I think those are those may be two different things. I you know, I wanted to maintain access to a trail that is currently being used. So I you know, mine is a stretch, I will agree. I'm just I'm trying to figure out so that would mean that the hammerhead wouldn't actually be a hammerhead. Well no, that it [1:26:44] Speaker E (unidentified): would could be, I mean, it could, the hammerhead could still be the hammerhead. This could just be if we truly have the ability to take 10%, maybe we could take an acre that connects beyond the hammerhead. [1:26:57] Tom Wieckowski: And when you take open space, you're supposed to keep it open. I don't know if putting a parking lot on it keeps it open. Yeah. [1:27:03] Speaker E (unidentified): I mean, we could also, and I would be willing to do this, we could meet with the, discuss it with the Conservation Commission, who in their meeting here in this very room just a month or two ago, I think one of the bigger requests from the residents of Hollis was access to trails. Maybe they could help us with that. Maybe legally we cannot do that. Maybe it doesn't fit this one, but maybe it does. Probably it's worth looking at. [1:27:42] Tom Wieckowski: So they say it is a permanent protection of this easement as open space is allowed. So an easement to the town that would consider that open space there. Yeah, I don't know what [1:28:02] Speaker F (unidentified): about that, you know. Okay. [1:28:07] Brett Marquis: Let me throw another wrench in it. Sure, if it's a permanent easement to the town, does the town have any liability? Yes, I would assume so, right? No, and maybe we don't want that. Yes, it's just a question. It's better answered now than when somebody gets hurt down there. You mean gets hurt on the snow or in a parking lot or on a easement area or whatever? Who maintains the parking lot? It's like who knows in these days what happens. [1:28:43] Tom Wieckowski: So and honestly Brett, I was thinking maintaining people's right to use that trail as a trail, meaning travel on it, and that's that's all I was really thinking. That's the most I think that's [1:28:55] Speaker E (unidentified): The most critical part of it getting that in solid writing, but I also think there's an opportunity to at least look at allowing access to that from the bottom of that world. It may be that a parking lot blows it up because, yeah, you can't park on a hammerhead. No, it wouldn't, it wouldn't obviously be the hammerhead would not be the parking area. That's why if we have an easement that goes out to the trail, you would want to provide parking so that the knuckleheads did not park it and [1:29:38] Tom Wieckowski: do you know that open space I'm [1:29:46] Speaker E (unidentified): willing to talk to Lee and see if they have any knowledge on this stuff, or if they think that would be valuable, or they may say what do we want, we don't want anything, you know, and then we drop it for [1:30:01] Tom Wieckowski: speaking of the Conservation Commission in the open space plan, Ashley, what is the latest on the open space plan committee? They were just provided a [1:30:13] Speaker G (unidentified): rough draft, a very rough draft, so they'll be reviewing that. I think we're heading towards [1:30:19] Tom Wieckowski: the finish line, and that's going to be the finish line is a report of yep, all the open space and [1:30:25] Speaker G (unidentified): what Hollis is focusing on for what they're going to do with their open space, and so is [1:30:32] Tom Wieckowski: is, are they identifying potential space that could be open space? [1:30:38] Speaker G (unidentified): I didn't see that on the report. Just current town owned lots, different trails that they own, things like that. And what's important to the residents of Hollis and what they're looking for in the future. Great. [1:30:53] Tom Wieckowski: Is there a expected date that might come out? [1:31:00] Speaker G (unidentified): mm-hmm, I think at the beginning of the year and probably have a final draft [1:31:07] Tom Wieckowski: okay, so anything else related to proposed subdivision, are we good with putting that on when the applicant is, the representative for the applicant is here? I've been trying to push, you know, responses, and we had hoped to get an updated, you know, they're supposed to come back with an updated plan. I had hoped that we would see that maybe in advance so that we could assess whether or not, you know, this is our meeting minutes from last meeting has a long list of items that we, you know, got verbal agreement that was going to be updated, or they were gonna look at that, or they were gonna consult and talk about it, so it'd be nice to know kind of where that's at. Actually, what is our, what is the current state of the preliminary plan decision deadline? Remember we've had to push that [1:32:05] Speaker G (unidentified): yeah, I think it's just continually been pushed back, so I think maybe we should ask them to [1:32:11] Tom Wieckowski: to extend that indefinitely so we don't have to keep going back and asking until it's done [Speaker F (unidentified): maybe as] Part of that, there was a discussion that happened with the fire chief came in and talked to us about cistern tanks and some of the challenges that he has seen over the years with cistern tanks in Hollis. And I went back and asked him if he would provide us with an outline, with a written outline, of the full boat of design, installation, maintenance standards that he would like to see or the use of cisterns in subdivision developments. If folks remember, in our subdivision ordinances we currently states that an applicant can propose a cistern system or in home, individual in home sprinkler systems. Those are the two options that are available to, and Brett, it's this one, no, it's, there's a second, that's that one that has draft written on it. The ones that you just had, that is the original one that the chief gave us. And of course, you know me, I went through and tried to organize it so that it matches a little bit better how an applicant would come through and how we would want to talk to them about the standards. So what I consider this to be is potential conditions of approval. If a cistern were to be used, or if a cistern was to be proposed for a subdivision, I would consider this to be a draft of what the standards would be for that cistern. The chief did a great job pulling this together. It is very robust. It includes design standards, installation requirements, how to pick the right location, the size of the pad, how ownership and use of the cistern system will work, who's responsible for maintenance, what that maintenance looks like, what warranties we want to see, the testing that will be required in order for the develop, for the cistern system to be accepted and then building permits allowed to be issued for the subdivision, and examples or recommended allowances for reserve account that the owner generally would be a homeowners association, the owner of the cistern system, what we would expect to see as a board that they have put aside in reserves in order to maintain and potentially replace the cistern system in the future. All this is chief young's recommendations. We as a board have the responsibility of determining if we think that the recommendations are appropriate for Hollis, and how slash if we want to incorporate these conditions of these standards into either our subdivision regulations or as a standalone conditions of approval that we don't really have regulations written about, but we would just say, well, if you wanna have a cistern, this is what it has to look like. I'm hesitant on that. I would much prefer to see them incorporated into the subdivision regulations, if. [1:36:12] Heather Sullivan: Can we just have them looked at? Whoa, that was loud. Can these be looked at by town attorney or the lawyer, SMPDC? [1:36:19] Tom Wieckowski: Yeah, I thought we would take a first pass and make sure that we know they were, you know, in general, that they were, it was a [1:36:26] Heather Sullivan: was, I guess it was more of a procedure question. Can we add them to the subdivision? That was my question, is if these can be added to subdivision regulations as long as we go over them and we vote on adding them, right, and then they go through legal just to make sure everything's up to snuff. Yeah, I [1:36:46] Tom Wieckowski: would definitely run them through legal, but subdivision regulations are under [1:36:50] Heather Sullivan: are, I feel like that's a very good, very good path to take, because that reserves the ordinance as it is now that allows cistern, but takes the, I don't see financial responsibility, but very much just breezing through it real quick, it puts the responsibility where it should be, and not like, which is on the HOA and not on the town, right, not putting a hundred and fifty thousand dollar bill in the last hundred percent policy residents, so that's, that's huge. Chief Young. [1:37:22] Brett Marquis: Well done. My only request is when you do this again, huge, a little bit larger. Got it, sir. You got [1:37:31] Tom Wieckowski: it. Ah, I, yes, I squinted a couple times. I'm not gonna struggle with that. I, that is a fair assessment. Very fair. I would go to a larger font. 12. I appreciate that. No problem. That's a 10. This is actually, I think this is Calibri 11. I believe. I'm not 100% sure. If you can do it real easy, make me a coffee with it. Well, I will. Everyone should. Look, we all, as I'm wearing glasses right now, I can prove that I too struggle. It's funny because part of the, part of the reason why it looks like this is because what I've given to you guys is the chief's proposal and then my red lines to how I do to make it, in the end, easier for a developer to read and follow and say, okay, it's ordered differently. I didn't change any of the material pieces of the chief's proposed plan. And so when it's redlined, we get this little side piece that takes up a ton, this little sidebar that takes up a ton of space, and frankly is, you know, I think I had one comment in here, and that was around whether the chief mentioned that cistern system should serve no more than 20 dwelling units. And my question was, does that include ADUs or does not include ADUs? [1:39:03] Speaker E (unidentified): It would be interesting to see if we can require them to hold $20,000 for maintenance. [1:39:11] Butch Gannett: We absolutely can. [1:39:12] Tom Wieckowski: We don't have to approve a cistern. We can put whatever we want in as conditions of approval. I think the question is, do we want to memorialize it in the subdivision regulations or just use them as conditions for approval? So I like the idea of giving developers and applicants much information in advance on what we will expect to see and what code enforcement is going to be looking at when they do their code enforcement and fire department. [1:39:46] Heather Sullivan: Because that's next on the list after the state regs is subdivision, because subdivision has a bunch of stuff that needs to be updated. Yeah, a ton. Yeah. It's a good time. [1:39:59] Brett Marquis: I think this ought to be in the subdivision. I do, too. I mean, it's there, and you don't have to hunt around for another pamphlet someplace to see what your requirement is. [1:40:11] Speaker E (unidentified): Just like Heather said, you've got it. [1:40:16] Tom Wieckowski: Yeah, I mean, we could make it a, you know, I think there are a lot of addenda, but there are a lot of addenda that we have right now in the subdivision regulations. Some of them are outdated, but we do have a lot, and this I would just consider this maybe to be another one. It would also serve the basis or be a performance [1:40:36] Brett Marquis: standard if you're going to go with a sister. Yep, that's good. Let me very [1:40:41] Tom Wieckowski: good. All right, so review it and we will talk about it at our next meeting, at least talk about whether there's any changes that anyone, you know, wants to see in the proposal, and then if, you know, after that, after we've kind of walked through all that, then I would say we would send it to code enforcement and to town attorney for their review, and then it, you know, then it would come back to us, and then, you know, we can decide ourselves whether we wanted to do a public hearing on it, because we can always do a public hearing if we choose to. We are not required to when it comes to making amendments to the subdivision regulation. All right. I think that is the last item on the agenda. Oh, nope. So one of the things that we learned at the SMPDC training session was that planning boards, they have, the state has formalized kind of the planning board training requirements. So all planning board members, when you first come on, you've got, I think it's 120 or 180 days to take a training session. The state does not dictate who gives the training, how long the training is. The training only has to relate to land use. It doesn't say what about land use. So what, as my favorite part about the whole, what SMPDC recommends is that we step up our tracking of training. So make sure that we keep a really good record as a planning board of training sessions that members attend. And so I [1:42:26] Speaker E (unidentified): myself and records, right, who must have records? SPDMC, you drove up there and attended one of [1:42:33] Tom Wieckowski: their conferences. Well, they, you'd usually get a yes, a certification, but I, what they're saying is don't rely on my certificate. Yeah, they, so that's why I developed this form so when we take a session. Yeah, and that's what I would ask. I would ask that this law actually went into effect back in January. So any trainings that you attended this year, please, just to the best of your ability, it doesn't have to be perfect, please fill out a form and get it to Ashley. Ashley, will you share the form independently of the packet with everybody? You can fill it in on the computer. If we went to one last year, that's still valuable? No, it's the law, was the law went into effect January 1st, and what SMPDC told us is that current members and new members, so basically we all need to take a training of an undetermined length of time with a topic that is undetermined but related to land use and memorialize it in some way in the next, we were supposed to get it done by June, so we absolutely are, yep, 100%. So what I'm asking is that if board members could, so Ashley, did we just give the form or did we give the full email that I wrote? Full email. So in the email that you all got, I listed out some easy to view trainings that SMPDC and MMA, which Hollis is a member of, have recorded. So you can actually go onto those websites and view that training, and then fill out the form based on viewing that training. And that would meet the expectation, but I am going to push all board members to at least do one training session We did confirm that the training session we attended with SMP DC That session does count. And so I'm guessing that Tommy's form will be completed with that session. There you go, I take trainings all the time so I will be filling out multiple forms but that's also just something to keep in mind going forward. And I will say our town manager is very supportive of us educating ourselves when it comes to planning board activities so don't don't stop yourself from asking to attend a training even if there's an expense to it. Let's roll it up to town manager and the select board and see what they have to say. Do we have any public comment? Yeah chat gbt no public comments. Plan for next meeting next meeting would be scheduled for 14th of October is that right? I thought so yeah second you know second Wednesday. By that point, we may have some initial thoughts from SMPDC on state-mandated changes. We may not. They are scheduled to do 10 hours of research and review of our ordinances, and that is scheduled to start October 1st. SMPDC is one of very few groups that are doing this work. So my guess is that they probably have a lot of other municipalities that they're helping out with this so we potentially have that on the calendar and then potentially our subdivision applicant may be in front of us with some updates as well. He's the one that he's handling the contracting. I don't know if he will be the assigned person I can ask him that. I just sent you an email to Heather he had reached [1:46:54] Speaker G (unidentified): out looking for a meeting off the week of October 5th looking for a meeting. Yeah like I don't know if you wanted a meeting with just me but I asked if you wanted you or the town manager to be there to kind of go over timeline and to pick out which meetings they're going to attend [1:47:11] Tom Wieckowski: so I did respond to town manager letting him know that I think the right way to handle this is they do their ten hours of review and ten hours of legal work they're not legal excuse me we have to be careful not to call it that reviewing our ordinances and reviewing the requirements come back to us and let us know which sections in some recommendations on how we would go about updating them. It is on our backs to then come back to them with a draft them meeting SMPDC, I would say that after we go back to them with a draft of what we think the ordinance changes should be, and they've reviewed it, that is the time to set up. And I recommend we do a joint meeting with the Select Board so the Select Board hears what SMPDC has to say about the ordinance change proposed that they have helped us write that would then make ensure that the Select Board hears the same message that we get. That also assures us that the Select Board's questions are being answered by SMPDC properly, not properly, but with all of us hearing the same answers, and allows us to move into our work of finalizing, holding public hearings, and then getting the proposed ordinance changes rolled up to the Select Board for their approval for the warrant. I believe last year that happened in like March or April for the June warrant. I assume the time frame would be very similar. That time it will come quickly. I would be absolutely thrilled if we were having a joint meeting with the Select Board sometime mid-January. I think that would, that would tell me that we didn't delay anything, that we really got this moving forward, and then we will have to decide as a board how we want to, after Select Board approves it for the warrant, then we do have funding, and in our proposed plan we can educate voters about it. So you know we would look at maybe having a flyer that goes out to all residents, or you know that, you know, having someone draft that, holding additional public hearings to explain it, maybe joint public hearing with the Select Board that only talks about the war, the zoning ordinance on the warrant article. That brings me to the data center issue which we did talk last time about limiting any planning board changes to the warrant article, any planning board changes to our ordinances that aren't state mandated. Yeah, so that would, that would fly in the face of potentially a ban, is what it is. Just wanted to kind of put that out there as well, that we would have to make a determination on whether or not we feel that the potential ban has, is necessary, and we, you know, over time we may find [1:50:35] Heather Sullivan: that absolutely is. Can you make sure that they get a, like I want a red lined, yeah, actual [1:50:42] Tom Wieckowski: Yeah, I think I actually put it into the, yeah, no, there will be no, yes, it's a nice change that [1:50:49] Heather Sullivan: this more recent planning board is required anytime we do anything is that there's a traceable, trackable red line copy so that residents know exactly what's being changed [1:51:00] Tom Wieckowski: And altered subdivision as well when it comes to resident information. My goal here, my greater goal, is to ensure that the residents understand that these proposed changes are state legislative driven. They're not planning board choices, they are state legislator driven. And that is going to likely take a pretty considerable amount of communication and things like posting on the front page of our town website and the select board reinforcing that statement. So it's important to me that the select board really understands where these proposed changes come from and how and why. Just because we're the ones proposing them because they fall into zoning does not mean that necessarily we agree with them. They are mandated. And I think it's really important that [1:51:54] Heather Sullivan: people understand that and they can't say no. Sure they can, so I can say no, we're not allowing these on the order. Yeah, these state mandated changes. Sure. Yeah, that sets us up for a lot of lawsuits. [1:52:05] Tom Wieckowski: That's select board. Yeah, that's their, that's their choice. They do not, they are not required to take any proposed ordinance changes and put them in front of the voters. There's nothing in our, in our ordinances that require them to put things to the voter. They get to choose. [1:52:25] Heather Sullivan: We used to just send them up there and they'd look at them and say, okay. We just never used to have the joint meetings. [1:52:29] Tom Wieckowski: Yeah, the joint meetings are new, but I think that it is helpful, given the new structure of the select board, the size, and their expanded size are reduced size. I think that the joint meetings, I certainly feel that with those joint meetings we get a much better understanding. There's no miscommunication about the why of certain things. [1:52:52] Heather Sullivan: Yeah, it makes them feel more included. I like that. [1:52:55] Tom Wieckowski: Yeah, well, we need them to, you know, promote it because we do want whatever we come up with to pass. [1:53:02] Speaker E (unidentified): Yeah, where possible, we want to be in. [1:53:05] Tom Wieckowski: Absolutely. Yeah, when it's, yeah. Where possible. Where possible. So on that, I will take a motion to adjourn. So moved. Second. All in favor, yes. All right, we are adjourned. Thank you. Thank you.