DAYTON PLANNING BOARD
Regular Meeting
August 21, 2006
Members Present: Nancy Harriman (Chair), Rick Shaw, Derrick Vezina, Ron Wormwood, Dick Hall, Valerie Cole (Alt.)
Members Absent: None
Others: CEO Jim Roberts, David Ordway, Mike Lord, TJ Roma, Plumbing Inspector Mike Polakewich, Lisa Morse, Steve Hodsdon, Lyla Kyriazi, Janis Johnson, James Logan, Jodie Ahearn, Rick Ahearn, Roderick Tetu, Roger Irving, Ronald Stewart, Pat Frasier, Leo Menard, Michael Frappier, Skip Preston, Jane Preston, Kathy Spellacy, Claudette Levesque
ADMINISTRATIVE:
The meeting called to order at 7:15 PM. The meeting was moved from the Town Hall to the Dayton School modular to accommodate the large number of attendees.
Minutes from August 7, 2006 approved with two changes:
· Nancy clarified that she does not know of a person who provides cisterns for $10,000, she had been told that there may be someone, but the amount is unverified.
· The Ahearn property is on Route 5.
Dick Hall moved to approve, Rick Shaw seconded, all voted in favor.
Vote on procedural rule changes as detailed in the August 7, 2006 workshop:
Dick moved to approve the changes, Derrick Vezina seconded, all voted in favor.
OLD BUSINESS:
LISA AND STEVE MORSE, BICKFORD ROAD SUBDIVISION: The Morses decided to withdraw their application for a subdivision on Bickford Road. They asked for a partial refund of the $4500 they have paid toward application fees. Nancy asked Mr. Ordway for advice, as the Board has not this request before. Mr. Ordway advised that an applicant can withdraw at any time, although some fees need to be applied to the administrative costs, the remaining money should not be a tax or a way to generate revenue for the town. The town should reimburse unused funds. After discussion the Board voted to refund all but $520 ($350 for the site walk, $110 in advertising, $60 in postage.) Dick motioned, Ron Wormwood seconded, all voted in favor.
PAT FRASIER, HUNTER’S RUN SUBDIVISION ON WHISPERING WILLOWS: Mr. Frasier presented new plans for Hunter’s Run, detailing four lots that he would build along with the four existing homes. The area beyond the brook would be one lot for now (Lot 7) and would be developed later due to the amount of time it would take for him to get the proper permits.
Mr. Frasier was reminded that he has to redo his road from Hollis Road. He is proposing a hammerhead to go back toward the fourth lot. He would use existing road and power lines as much as possible. The road currently is approximately 20 feet wide. Nancy explained that the road standards would be upheld: a paved 20-foot road with a 5-foot sidewalk area, marked off with a white line.
Mr. Frasier explained that he only has a 50-foot right-of-way going over the gully and had no room with the steep hill to create any more width for the road. He thought that section was currently about 24 feet wide. Nancy reminded him that he had agreed to adhere to road standards and improve the road to the town specs. Mr. Frasier noted that he was not creating anything new and he felt that the town was asking for improvements that he might not be able to satisfy. He noted that he might not build all the lots right away.
Nancy explained that the Board has to assume that all lots would be built, and reminded Mr. Frasier that they would be single-family homes. She noted that the town is enforcing its existing standards, the requirements are not new. Mr. Frasier felt that his existing lots were grandfathered. Nancy noted that the subdivision was not currently approved, had never been approved, and in fact was illegally created by the former owners.
Mr. Ordway explained that once it becomes a subdivision, then the criteria for subdivisions come into effect. The Board should start with its criteria; if waivers are requested then the Board considers them. If someone comes before the Board seeking subdivision approval, then the criteria must be used.
Mr. Frasier asked what would happen if he cut the numbers down and built on two lots. Nancy explained that it was an illegal subdivision before Mr. Frasier bought it, through no fault of his. Jim Roberts noted that it was not true any longer, due to demise of the previous owner.
Nancy informed Mr. Frasier that the criteria calls for a 20-foot paved road with a 5-foot sidewalk, and if he felt he needed anything different he would have to request a waiver in writing and provide reasons.
Ron Wormwood noted that there must have been two deeds previously. Mr. Frasier explained that he now had one deed and referenced a paper in his application packet. He explained how the land had been moved from one owner to another before he bought it. Mr. Ordway explained that a zoning ordinance provision might require one deed over two lots, and that it is division/sale that starts the subdividing process.
Nancy advised Mr. Frasier that the Fire Department is working on the issue of cisterns. Mr. Frasier asked about the possibility of having sprinklers in the houses. Mike Lord said that the Fire Department has a written recommendation on water supply, he then read from the recommendation. It is possible to have sprinklers but the Fire Department still wants tanks. Nancy reminded everyone that the town ordinance requires a fire pond. Mr. Frasier wondered if he could do that, noting that he has a brook on the property. Mike Lord advised him that, if he goes with a cistern, the seven houses would require a 10,000-gallon tank.
Dick Hall informed the Board that he had checked with Saco about cisterns, they require one 10,000 tank in a subdivision. TJ Roma explained that Saco has more centrally located plumbing and constant access to water. Mike noted that the potential for loss of power is a problem in rural areas.
Mr. Frasier asked if his application is complete and if a public hearing could be scheduled. Plumbing Inspector Mike Polakewich noted that he had not been present for the test pits, and that not all the pits were shown on his map. Mr. Frasier explained that the new test pits are on the new map. Mike expressed concern about the amount of clay. Mr. Frasier offered that Mike could come out and check the pits.
Nancy asked for clarification that Mike Polakewich would like to be present at the digging of all test pits; he confirmed that he would. Nancy reminded everyone that the Board had decided that the current requirement of “a minimum of one test pit” was appropriate, unless there are concerns. Mike noted that it would limit where the house could be and Mr. Frasier pointed out that another pit could be dug.
Nancy asked Jim Roberts to let applicants know that the Plumbing Inspector would like 48 hours prior notification before any test pits are dug. Derrick said he would add it to his subdivision checklist. Mr. Ordway noted that the requirement of having the Plumbing Inspector present is a procedural change, and could be voted in by the Board.
Dick informed Mr. Frasier that the application is not complete because the fire pond is not on the plan. Mr. Frasier was advised that he might wish to compare costs between fire ponds and cisterns. Mr. Frasier asked if other subdivisions had been approved without cisterns or fire ponds. Nancy explained that it had happened in the past, but now the Board is going by the book and holding applicants to the standards.
Nancy asked Jim about the storm water permit requirements, Jim explained that it is required for a subdivision having over one acre of pavement. Nancy advised Mr. Frasier that he should talk to his engineers at BH2M for advice. Jim reminded everyone that the requirements are in the subdivision standards, the Board is not requiring anything new. Mike Lord noted also that the requirement of water supply is not new. Mr. Frasier explained that he would rather have sprinklers, but it was pointed out that the standards require fire ponds.
Mr. Frasier asked to be on the agenda for the September 18 meeting. After he left, Dick showed the Board a copy of a price sheet for cisterns for reference.
LYLA KYRIAZI AND JANIS JOHNSON, LINWOOD ACRES ON ROUTE 35: Attorney Steve Hodsdon was given a copy of the fire department recommendations for water supply. He noted that his client is in the 12-23-house category, for which two cisterns are recommended. He asked if eliminating one house would put them into the one-cistern category and explained that only 11 houses could be built instead of 12 (there is one existing house.) Nancy asked him to clarify if he was changing the plan. He explained that the land area would be the same. Roger Irving asked if that lot would go into open space, Mr. Hodsdon answered that instead each lot would be slightly larger and perhaps the road would be shorter. Nancy explained that all houses must be considered for development and water purposes. Dick asked for clarification if the
existing home should be considered for water supply, he was told that it is also counted.
The applicants proposed a paved road area of 24 feet instead of 25 feet; they have no preference if it is 19 feet of road with a five-foot sidewalk or 20/4. They noted that on June 10 the Board discussed a 24-foot road. They pointed out that Lyman has a total requirement of 24 feet. Roger Irving of the Lyman Board replied that it is an ordinance in Dayton, not a procedure that can be changed by the Board. Mr. Ordway noted that it could be waived if properly requested. Ron Stewart of the Lyman Board noted that two 10-foot lanes were necessary to allow fire trucks to pass each other; they are nine feet wide.
Ron Wormwood clarified that it is not a 25-foot road; it is a 20-foot road with a five-foot attached sidewalk.
Rick Shaw said he would be agreeable to a 24-foot road if the proper waiver process were followed.
Jim estimated that the subdivision is 50% wetlands, and wondered if reducing the road would eliminate the need for a DEP review, which he feels should be conducted. The applicant said they did not know at this point. Dick said he was not concerned whether or not DEP was involved; his concern is the safety factor of the road. Derrick noted that the issue had been discussed in previous meetings. Mr. Hodsdon said that the applicants were interested in the Board’s reaction to their request; they may look into shortening the road. That may reduce construction costs and help in their concern about the length of time. He indicated that in turn they might acquiesce in the issue of the cistern. It was pointed out that these are two different issues.
Mr. Ordway explained that Mr. Hodsdon is proposing a waiver of a foot for the road, and the applicants were looking for a general consensus from the Board. Dick noted that the Board had decided on 25 feet and expressed concern that everyone before the Board would be asking for a waiver. Nancy noted that every subdivision is different, and Jim pointed out that each one’s circumstances should be considered. Dick noted that it was assumed that dead-end roads would have children playing in them, and that the design for roads should be consistent throughout town.
Mr. Hodsdon noted that there was a reference in the Comprehensive Plan to a 4-foot sidewalk. He felt that cutting down the sidewalk by a foot so that it meshed with the Comprehensive Plan was not a big issue.
Nancy asked the Lyman Board how they felt about the proposed change to the road. Rod Tetu noted that Frasier’s subdivision had a circumstance that could not be prevented (the gully) but felt no reason why this subdivision could not have a 25-foot road. Roger Irving stated that Lyman has a policy of adhering to its requirements and not granting waivers unless there is a case of extreme hardships. Ron Stewart asked for clarification as to whether the sidewalk is required to be raised; it is not.
Dick noted that he feels the town needs to adhere to one standard that is consistent through out all, unless there is a hardship. Nancy asked how the Board felt; members felt that the standards should be followed. Mr. Hodsdon stated that the Comprehensive Plan should be considered. Jim explained that it was not complete and the proposed four-foot sidewalk may not be voted in. The Board agreed that the road and sidewalk would be 25 feet; they would uphold the standard unless there are hardships to be considered.
Mr. Hodsdon indicated that the applicants would work on the plan to present to the board, as the current one does not have a sidewalk on it. He explained that they would not go to DEP without approval on the preliminary plan. Mr. Ordway noted the 30-day deadline from the public hearing needs to be extended. The applicants would like to bring the preliminary plan to the next meeting for approval so that they can go before DEP. Jim asked if they had applied to the state for the road entrance yet, they indicated that BH2M was working on it.
Mr. Hodsdon asked if there were other issues. Ron Wormwood asked about the test holes, Mike Polakewich said he had talked with Al Frick but had not been out to see any yet. Mr. Ordway noted that the request for a waiver of the fire pond and the proposal of cisterns should be part of the next meeting’s submission.
The applicants asked to be on the agenda for the September 18 meeting.
RICK AHEARN AND JODIE AHEARN, MOBILE HOME PARK ON ROUTE 5: Mr. Ordway indicated that he has a conflict of interest as he has known the Ahearns for many years, and has advised the Selectmen of the relationship. He left the meeting.
Jim Logan, representing Al Frick Associates, presented a conceptual plan on behalf of the Ahearns for a mobile home park. This is intended to be an age-restricted community for residents who are 55+. He noted that the sketch plan shows 10,000 square feet around each unit, not the 12,000 square feet as mandated by the state. Reconfiguring this would add two-three acres to the size of the development. The homes would be owned by the residents although the land would be leased from the Ahearns. All units would be double-wides, perhaps with breezeways and garages.
Mr. Logan asked if a detailed topographic map would be required for the whole land piece, as it is relatively flat. A detailed map would be provided for the areas containing roads, but the engineer would consider requesting a waiver for a detailed topographic map of the whole site. Jim Roberts noted that the important points to note are wetland delineation and the road elevations. He did not feel that a topo map was necessary for the whole area. The Board indicated it would be willing to entertain that request, pending more research.
Mr. Logan noted that the test pits were marked on the plans; pits were dug in May. He offered to Mike Polakewich that the pits could be reviewed if he wished. The septic systems will be clustered, so that each pod/area produces less than 2000 gallons per day. Six-eight houses would be on a single system.
Mike Polakewich asked if the on-site well would be the drinking supply, noting that the applicant would have to go through the Health Department in Augusta to have it approved. Mr. Logan explained that it would be a back-up well, as it is a good supply of water, and indicated that the engineer intended to fully comply with all state requirements regarding well location. Jim Roberts asked if it was located at the old hatchery. Rick Ahearn said it is; he noted there are approximately 12 wells across the street. There is an existing line that runs down the street and over to that side of Route 5. (He owns property on both sides of Route 5.)
Nancy asked if he was considering two phases, Rick explained why the map is labeled with as such. Total area of development would be approximately 25 acres of the total 270+ acres. The area is all in the residential zone currently, although the map shows it in two zones, based on the Comprehensive Plan. The applicants asked for clarification as to whether the Comprehensive Plan would allow the rural/forest zone to have mobile home parks. Jim explained that state law reads that mobile home parks could be allowed with half-acre lots.
Dick asked if the phases noted on the sketch map would happen at different times. Mr. Logan explained that Phase 1 as proposed would start the process; Phase 2 would start the DEP site location and development review. Phase 1 would allow them to start the development; then when necessary they would go to DEP for site location review and at that point the road would be started.
Dick asked about cistern requirements for the proposed 90 units. The applicants are proposing a fire pond, although a location has not been proposed yet. TJ Roma asked if they had considered sprinklers. Mr. Logan noted there are no provisions in modulars, as far as he knows. Dick noted that the town requires fire ponds.
Mr. Logan noted that the project would be located so as to not affect wetlands. Phase 2 would impact one stream crossing which would require a DEP permit, he was not sure if it was accurate on the map. There are streams present; the 75-foot setback is noted on the sketch plan. Most of the wetlands appear to be forested.
Mr. Logan pointed out rock outcroppings, small streams, and other features on the map. It was noted that the area is low ground.
Nancy asked if the applicants had any questions for the Board. Mr. Logan indicated that the Board had answered most of the issues: the Board has suggested that this is an acceptable use, the applicants need to make changes to some of the notes on the plan, and need to reconfigure the area around the units. He explained that the plan was intended to show the Board members that this is a viable project and that it needs still to be fine-tuned. He noted that on the final plans the lots will be designed to fit the land and may not be perfect rectangles as currently shown.
Nancy asked if the road on the plan was separated into an entrance and an exit. Mr. Logan noted that it appeared to be that way, as there is an island in it. Jim asked if that would be the only entrance. Mr. Logan said that if the Board felt strongly about two entrances, he would bring it back to the engineer. He thought there had been a second entrance that had been dropped because of sight distance concerns. He pointed out that DOT would look at that when issuing a road entrance permit. Lisa Morse noted that Tara Estates had been required to have a second entrance after it went over 13 lots; Nancy noted that different standards apply to mobile home parks. The State mandates how many entrances are required and state requirements supersede town requirements.
Mr. Logan noted that all required buffers were on the plans and that the next plan should have sewer system plans, piping, etc. He explained that probably two units would share a common tank, and seven-ten units would go into a common pump tank, which would go into a shared system. TJ Roma asked if water supply would also be on the next plan; Mr. Logan noted that the fire pond location would be picked also. Mr. Logan noted that although 90 units are depicted on this plan, the numbers might change. Units will be located toward the front of the property with open vacant land to the rear.
The applicants asked to be on agenda for September 18.
NEW BUSINESS:
PERSONNELL: Ron Wormwood informed the Board that he would be resigning this fall.
The following is a near-verbatim transcript of the final item on the agenda. A request was made for a copy of the audiotape. Due to the inability to obtain a clear copy, the following was transcribed directly from the tape and given instead. It was noted on the transcript that as of August 28, 2006 the following has not been approved by the Planning Board.
Nancy Harriman: (to Ms Spellacy) Did you come with an issue? (To Secretary) Is she on the agenda?
Secretary: I had a call this afternoon; I assume it was your boyfriend? I explained that we really had a full agenda for tonight, and I explained that this lady here was welcome to come and listen, but in no way could I guarantee that we could hear anymore tonight. So...
Nancy Harriman: Briefly, what is it?
Ms. Spellacy: I will take two minutes of your time.
Nancy Harriman: Okay.
Ms. Spellacy: I am not a builder, a developer, or a realtor or anything. My fiancé and I bought a lot of land in town, we bought 21 Ridgewood Drive.
Secretary: I am sorry, could I have your name?
Ms. Spellacy: I am sorry, it is Kathy Spellacy, and my fiancé is Scott Grappone (sp?). We bought that lot in March of this year.
Nancy Harriman: Where is Ridgewood?
Jim Roberts: Jack Taylor’s subdivision.
Ms. Spellacy: We bought it from Jack Taylor. We went out and looked at it on the tenth of March. We’ve been out there on three occasions. We spoke to Jim and he was great, he met us out at the lot and told us that we need an elevation certificate. We want (...) that we would have built with the house and he told us we should contact DEP and we did that. We got permission for the pond; the notification came to the town. We bought the land for cash and started the excavation with the rest of the money we had, we got approval for a construction loan and the day of our closing we got notified that we are in a Class A flood zone, and that we’re not eligible for a construction loan until FEMA comes in and does a LOMA and redesigns the map, which could take two months, two years, six months, they don't
know.
Nancy Harriman: Didn't we have the flood plain on that map?
(Skip Preston): It showed it...
Nancy Harriman: It showed it lower...
Ms. Spellacy: It showed a blue dotted line. It said 100-year flood. We talked to Jack Taylor the first time we looked at the property, we inquired as to what that meant, he said that the town demanded that he use old overlays and that’s why it’s on the lot, it does not matter, it does not mean anything, if you need it I will get you a certificate of elevation, that will wipe that out, you will be fine. We met with Code Enforcement just to make sure that we were all set, he showed us where we needed to put our septic system, etc, etc. There’s only one spot on the lot to build where we could actually have a basement, otherwise you’d have to have a slab. So we went forward, we met with Mr. Taylor again out there, we walked it again and again we asked him. "Are we going to have a
problem getting flood insurance, what does this mean?" Again he reassured us, nothing, we don't need it, you are all set. We closed on the property, I think it was the 24th of March, we started all the excavation, we’ve moved our two outbuildings over there, put everything from the buildings in storage, spent $4000 moving our two outbuildings out there, and so then we contacted Mr. Taylor who could care less at this point, and he recommended we try other banks, 'cause other banks might say that an elevation certificate would far exceed the LOMA. We tried other banks and they all said that we need to apply for the LOMA. We had an elevation certificate from Abbott Engineering but our attorney pointed out that it was never signed or dated, it was just stamped. That was provided to us by Jack Taylor. We called BH2M who did the original subdivision; they don't really want to help us out because they consider Jack Taylor probably their customer. So we contacted a third entity,
Sebago Engineers, who is charging us $2500 to go out there and resurvey the land, and Lot number 3, Mr. Sargent, is joining in with us because he is in the entire flood zone. So we just wanted to make the Board aware that that’s the situation going on out there. These are...could be… our neighbors and now they’re looking at mounds and mounds of fill and sand and gravel and we can't do anything. We had to cancel our builder, our mason, everybody...
Nancy Harriman: Well I am not sure I am getting...I meant I understand what you are saying, but I am not sure why this did not come up.
Jane Preston: I brought up the flood plain in the original discussion with you; I guess the first time was almost three years ago.
Jim Roberts: It shows the flood plain on the subdivision plan, that is all that is required.
Jane Preston: Right.
Jim Roberts: ... And apparently this time (...) with flood insurance, I guess they want this to (...)
Ms. Spellacy: Yeah, and we don't have any...I mean, the town of Dayton has been great, Jim Roberts has been great, We don't have any problem with that. We called to get flood insurance; it is $4000 a year on the land without the house. If we build a house we can only get up to $250,000 worth of flood insurance. Just because of the parameters of that subdivision…you could never meet the parameters of the lot that we bought and build a house for $250,000. It would not work. So we went to Sebago, the engineering, and the man looked at me and said, "you have a loan application in place, right?" We said no. He said anybody that would have dealt with the planner would know this, you can't build. I said, that’s why we are here. So we are applying for our application and whatnot, but I just
wanted you to know that this is our issue and our problem. Mr. Sargent next to us is running into the same problem and we put a for sale on the land because we have no more money.
Nancy Harriman: There have been houses built up there, right? There’s four?
(Several people): No, nothing.
Ms. Spellacy: There are four lots.
Jim Roberts: Unfortunately a subdivision can be approved in planning on houses that can't be built on a lot that (...)
Ms. Spellacy: But shouldn't someone tell us that we got a non-buildable lot before every penny of our life savings was spent?
Jim Roberts: I am not sure that the way... the town can accept things without liability and say you can't build ...If you have one small building envelope it would be about it. Jack Taylor has deed restrictions and you can't, so, it is kind of a catch-22 situation out there. I really do sympathize with you, and I really feel bad, but...
Ms. Spellacy: I am not looking for anything from the town, I wanted to let you know what is going on, there is a gentleman looking at Lot 1 and my understanding is that Jack Taylor has sold Lot 4 and all he has done is lie to us since the minute we stepped foot on that property.
Nancy Harriman: But that is an issue you are having with Jack Taylor.
Ms. Spellacy: But there is someone else who has called who is interested in Lot 1 and he is telling them it dries out, you can put a house...Well, we had three different excavators out there saying it never dries out, you can't put a basement, so there are some problems going on out there and as the Planning Board I think that you should know.
Jane Preston: Nancy, I have a question. You were on the original meeting, when Jack applied for this, and I was at quite a few of the meetings and Mike was too. If you remember correctly, he had this provisional thing drawn up of all the rules and regulations that he expected that these future prospective landowners were going to have to abide by in order to build houses on his lots, or three lots plus his own, because he was supposed to have to be there for five years. So he sold all four lots, his included, so that went out the window.
Jim Roberts: But a four lot subdivision, there was nothing to say he had to be there for five years.
Nancy Harriman: No, there was nothing.
Jane Preston: But he never made these folks aware of any of those. Isn’t that part of the thing to get that subdivision?
Nancy Harriman: No. I think Jim just explained it.
Jim Roberts: You have deed restrictions, and you have deed restrictions versus what’s on file and (background noise) that specify what is allowed.
Jane Preston: They did not get that.
Nancy Harriman: I do have one question, (to Michael Frappier) you built a house there, which is lower, right? So how did you get your permits? What did you do?
Skip and Jane Preston: His is all high ground.
Ms. Spellacy: And the funny thing is, I am Lot 2, Lot 1 is lower than me and it’s not in the flood zone. So we’re working through it but I thought you’d like to know in case the situation arises again that when the flood zone...
Jim Roberts: The elevation came back saying it was actually what, 30 something feet above the flood plain, or something like that, but the thing is if it shows up on the flood plain map, then that is what the bank will go with. They will look at it and say, oh it shows up on the FEMA map so you are in the flood plain. They have one in Lyman that is 69 (?) feet above the flood table and (...)
Ms. Spellacy: Yeah, they submit it to the National Data Flood something and it came back and said the property is in the flood zone and you can't build without flood insurance. So they told us if we build a house, it could be up to $10,000 a year in flood insurance. Now the measurements say… I guess Saco and Biddeford would have to be underwater before our lot was underwater, so we are working through but in the interim, we have lost a huge amount of money, all our quotes aren’t any good anymore, we have taken a dramatic hit. And I mean we are going to follow it through, but I just thought the Planning Board needed to know what happened over there and that is what happened.
Jane Preston: But I think my question is, where we were all at his original gathering of him getting this development approved, that he was very adamant and you all...Dave Clark, you and me, Nancy, Rosie Hill, all of us, Jimmy was there on some of them, I think most of them, he missed one or two... that all of these 28 conditions had to be met by the prospective houses. He didn't even propose these to his people, or any of the people that ....
Nancy Harriman: What you need to understand is that we are not an enforcement agency after it goes through. We don't...that is not our job.
Jim Roberts: We don't enforce deed restrictions; we can only enforce our subdivision plans (explaining). The deed restrictions, you should have had a copy of that when you bought it.
Ms. Spellacy: And we’re going through a legal...we have an attorney and our focus is to see how fast we can get this LOMA map, whatever it’s called. If we can change the map, because so much is riding on the next few weeks while we’re waiting. We put the land up for sale but if someone comes along with more money than us and with a LOMA in place (they) can buy that land because we’re done, financially. So, if the flood map, flood zone, flood warning shows that it is someone else’s lot, I guess that is the way that it will be. We asked three times what does that mean, so we will take that up with our attorney. So you know, that is what happened to us on that lot.
Nancy Harriman: It is hard to believe that it would flood there, but it’s what shows on the map.
Jim Roberts: Right, it’s what shows up on the map. If it shows on the map, that is what they go by, they say it’s in the flood zone. Tough luck.
Jane Preston: They were very, very minimal, because they had to do an EPA test over there and I talked with the EPA kid myself and he said, this is his direct quote, he said, "They are going to have a hell of a hard time to get anything to pass if it doesn’t meet minimal."
Jim Roberts: For the flood map they don't go over it to see where it’s wet or where it drains, they go by the stream. It’s based on the stream and they apply their rules, (...) like at the transfer station, they had that at one time in the flood plain.
(Observer): Can it be amended?
Nancy Harriman: I am thinking where I am it probably should be more of a flood plain area.
Ms. Spellacy: It does not make sense. The 100 year, (not clear) I appreciate your time.
Nancy Harriman: Thank you. Anything else for tonight?
Ron Wormwood motioned to adjourn at 9:20 PM, Derrick seconded and all voted in favor.
__________________________________________________Date:_____________________
Valerie J. Cole, Secretary
__________________________________________________Date:______________________
Nancy Harriman, Chair
COPIES TO: Jim Roberts, Code Enforcement Officer; Selectmen; and Tax Assessor
THESE MINUTES MAY NOT BE TRANSCRIBED VERBATIM. SECTIONS MAY BE PARAPHRASED FOR CLARITY.
| 
