3A isn't here yet.

So we're going to move on to item 3B and we'll circle back to her shortly.

What we have item 3B is a preliminary plan application.

Steve Allen for two lot conservation development proposed that assesses plat 158, lot 14, 155 Essex Road, located in a neighborhood residential zone in a groundwater recharge area.

And we've seen this a few times over the last few years, and we did have a site visit out there.

And uh I think the applicant's attorney knows the process better than I do because he did it longer than I have.

Um I'm sorry, engineer.

Uh not to look at this, but what we'll do is staff will walk us through first, and after questions, we'll let the uh applicant uh present anything that they have.

And Becky, you're gonna I'm I'm all there is tonight.

Is this not working?

Can you hear me?

I can hear very it is okay, all right, good.

Um again, this is the application of Steve Allen uh plat 158 lot 14 on 155 Essex.

Um it's located in the neighborhood residential zone and also the groundwater recharge area as well as the um oh actually this one is not in the scenic overlay, the first application was um there is an existing dwelling on the property, and then the remaining property is largely wooded.

Um the applicant is proposing just to add one additional house lot and then some associated open space, which I'll get into a little bit later.

Um they are proposing a conservation development, and as proposed, the development meets the lot area requirements.

Typically NR is 40,000 square feet, um, but for conservation development, you only need 10,000 square feet, um, 20 feet of frontage and 25 feet in um depth, and the proposed lots do meet those requirements.

Um the as you recall from earlier this year, the groundwater ordinance was um changed, and as part of that change, we adopted new mapping.

Under the previous mapping, only a portion of the lot was in the groundwater, but with the new mapping, the entire lot is in the groundwater.

And really the only difference that makes for this application is the way in which we determine density.

It used to be that it was one dwelling unit per two acres of of land.

Now it's four bedrooms per two acres.

So we're taking the lands unsuitable, which the applicant calculated for us.

Um and again it it it gets a little bit confusing because I think they're gonna be we're staff is proposing that they merge in the two open space lots, so it could have given them a little bit more land unsuitable, but as presented, we used the land unsuitable and then did the calculation for the number of bedrooms based on that.

Um similar to what we would do with a typical subdivision, doing one, you know, two-acre, you know, the density based on two acres.

And so they can have about nine bedrooms for the entire site based on the amount of land unsuitable.

There's four bedrooms in the existing dwelling, and that leaves them five bedrooms for the rest of the property, and they can either apportion them, you know, one to the new house or all five to the I mean five to the new house, none to the existing, you know.

However, you know, and we're gonna have to figure out at the staff level how we're gonna um monitor that because you know now it's not based on acres, you know.

So once a lot is is divided, it's done.

We're gonna have to somehow monitor over time that that number of bedroom, not just for this one, but for all applications, that that number of bedrooms is restricted to what was approved as part of the original um subdivision.

So that's something we're working out as we're using the ordinance.

Um let's see.

I think I covered that.

So um in a NR zone, the con and for conservation development, 50% of the land unsuitable um has to be for open space.

And so they are meeting that requirement as presented with that lot C and not even including the lot X in the back.

Um and I can jump right to that.

We we found when we were reviewing the application that it was getting a little bit confusing to separate.

We were uncertain as to why that lot in the back was kind of kept as a separate unbuildable lot.

And I spoke with um the applicant in their engineer.

I spoke with with our engineer and he spoke with with Steve that it probably made sense since he wasn't planning to build on that lot at any time anyway, just to merge it in with the lot C and make one big open space lot.

Um so I think they're amenable to that, and staff definitely would support that.

It it just makes it cleaner for review too, and then you only have one lot instead of um two separate open space lots.

In terms of um traffic and access, there's an existing driveway to the existing dwelling, and they're proposing well the original plans that you have in your packet were was proposing a private per private pervious drive to access lot B.

Um as you saw in your comments, it's related to a couple of different items at the TRC, the Department of Public Works, um, Deputy Director Allie Sparks let us know that the road was recently paved and there's a moratorium on cutting into the road at all for five years.

So then that doesn't allow Mr.

Allen to put a water line because it's on the opposite side of the road, so they have to cut up the road to put the water line in.

Um if he had to do any kind of excavation the right way for the driveway, that would be limited too.

I think the main concern was the water.

So at the TRC, um Tim Cranston was there also, and I think there um he's open to having um a T or or something put in from the existing water service to the existing house at 155 and allowing water service to extend to the new house.

And then in you know, in the future, when the five years is up, they could then go and get the water service to the house.

So we have um two different ordinances that kind of are in opposition to each other because we require if there's water service in front of your property that you hook up to it, but then we're saying you can't hook up to it right now because we just paved the road.

So we we think there's you know, no one is overly concerned other than it does change what was submitted on the plans as came up last week at TRC.

And again, I think the applicant is certainly happy to look into doing the the shared water service um working with the water department.

And um they also are proposing to change their approach for the driveway.

I'll just talk about that now too, kind of based on on um some of the discussions at the TRC.

Uh the fire marshal had some concerns with the fire trucks making that turn as presented on the plans because it is a pretty severe um uh right angle turn there.

So the applicant is proposing to use the existing curb cut into a shared driveway um to access the new lot.

Um they will have whatever revision is done, they do have to show that the turning radius, even for the new proposed driveway, does still meet the fire truck radius um specifications, which I did share with the applicant.

And uh I don't think there's any more on that.

There's no right now there is no new impervious proposed since the existing barn will be converted, so there's no new roof area for the um lot B.