Good morning and welcome to the August 26th meeting of the staff review committee.

I'm Julie Ardman, Director of Planning and Development.

We've got three items on the agenda today, but before we get into that, we will go around and introduce the committee.

And I will start on screen with Ryan.

Ryan Leighton Public Works Director.

Taylor Burns, Town Assessor.

Jimmy Dillman, Deputy Planning Director.

Matt James, Lane Use Planner.

Taylor Lund Code Enforcement Officer and Zoning Administrator.

Ashley Charlson Environmental Planner.

Jim Flood, engineer with the Brunswick and Thompson Water District.

Josh Ian, Deputy Fire Chief.

All right.

And our first item today is case number 2645, Range Road Subdivision, Street Design Standards Waiver Request.

The committee will review and make a recommendation to the planning board on a street design standards waiver request application that has been submitted by Site Lines PA on behalf of the property owner.

TBWLLC requesting a waiver from Chapter 14, Article 6 of the Municipal Code of Ordinances to facilitate two proposed dwelling units that would exceed the maximum 25 dwelling units allowed on a dead end road.

The subject property is located at 20 range road, map 16 lot 2, and was is within the growth residential 4 or GR4 zoning district.

And I'll give it to you, Kevin.

Good morning, Kevin Clark from Sight Lines and Tom Wright is here with me also, the property owner.

Some of us are pretty familiar with the property.

We had looked for a larger subdivision in the past, and we brought this before the staff for a preliminary final review for a subdivision, and that's when it was determined that there were already 25 units on range road.

And so we're asking for a waiver to that maximum.

We're proposing two lots on the existing town portion, paved portion of the road.

And uh it's as Julie said it's in the growth zone, so this seems like it would be uh appropriate with the zoning and uh with the existing road that's uh already there.

Um I think uh I've got a few comments on uh on the ordinance and on the uh request.

I think uh as we indicated there's a minimal increase of traffic for two residential lots uh on the road and uh should have no impact on the safety of the road.

Um I guess we have I have comments on uh you know how uh the 25 maximum was developed.

Uh I think that's wasn't I don't know if that's an arbitrary number if there's some scientific or uh safety reasons for that number.

Uh how is that determined and uh how is that applied to an existing uh existing road with existing frontage with people being you know taxed as if that were developable land.

Uh I also have some comments from uh some prior review uh about the application of the ordinance.

Uh I think it's being read a little bit wrong.

The state you know in the ordinance says the standards may be modified only where you have three conditions, uh and it says or in between them.

And I believe that the in the pat the in the past they've applied all three and or seems to indicate a choice as opposed to and um and also there's been a application of hardship where if if you clearly read number two, it says prior conveyances or construction abutting the street make it impossible or or an undue hardship to meet the standards.

That's only applying to number two.

That's not applying a hardship to all of the other standards.

I mean, there's a semicolon and then a or for another standard.

And so I believe that's uh pretty clear the way that's written uh as clear as this ordinance is written.

Um that does that standard does not apply to all of those other conditions.

Uh just had another comment.

Um, the use of the street ordinance to control zoning seems to be a a very uh flawed way to uh construct your ordinances, something that controls or zoning should be in the zoning ordinance, not in the street ordinance.

But I think we've had that uh discussion in the past.

I just like to point that out again.

Um again, we feel that this is a very nominal increase of units on this existing street, and we request uh your support in going to the planning board to grant that waiver.

Thank you, Kevin.

I just wanted to point out the the section that you were referencing has to do with um private streets, that section of the street standards ordinance.

So what we'll be looking at today is section 14-190, which is specifically waivers, and that would apply to public streets.

And that section does reference hardship as well.

I will go around and ask for comments from the committee.

Um starting on screen with Ryan.

I don't have any questions or comments.

Chrissy, no questions or comments.

No questions.

Uh is the plan to use a shared driveway or will each unit have its own.

We're proposing each unit to have their own.

Okay.

I don't have any concern.

Yeah, um face value kind of seems like it'll just be neglected a negligible impact uh from the project, so I have no concerns.

I also, you know, given the request is just for two units on a public road within our medium density area.

Um as long as engineering and and fire and public works don't have concerns.

I support the request.