Welcome to the July 2026 Franklin Township Planning Board meeting. Um, please rise for the flag salute. >> 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. Our chairman, Joe Pesh, is ill this evening and I'm taking his place as the vice chair. And um Chrissy, can you please
read the open public record statement? >> Thank you. And um okay uh roll call please. >> Mr. >> here >> here >> here >> here >> here.
Okay, we're going to make a quick statement in case anyone's here for PB 2603 CASAB on proposed a I'm sorry, not Cassab uh Rhdino on proposed Avenue. If anyone is here tonight to hear that uh hearing, it
will be postponed until August 18th. And if you don't wish to sit here through tonight's meeting, you can leave at this time. You good? Okay. All right. Our first application tonight, we're taking it a little out of order, will be PB 2604, a
minor subdivision on Chew Avenue. Mr. Christina, >> yes. >> Please state your name and your address and be sworn in. 62.
>> All right, Mario, tell us a little bit about your application, what you're doing. >> Okay. bill basically is when I give my house to my daughter a small house next door so live next door. >> Okay.
>> And you're seeking how many variances? Uh I believe it is the frontage of frontage and area. >> Okay. So in the engineers report we'll have the engineer state all that. Uh any more
comments? U Mr. Christina? >> I've been a resident for 40 years here and uh several times and I want to say that the house was too big for me to live in with just me and my wife. So just had a baby. She's working to be well with her family and it's a great
opportunity for her to immediately get back into graduate she so we want to say that. >> Thank you Mr. Christina >> engineers report Wayne >> my letter of July 8 I have some comments
here first one the application complete there is one technicality per checklist that there's an item requiring that the that applicant show proposed improvements on their actual subdivision plan that it's a subdivision plan only
it is not here for a grant plan or development plan it's really the board's discretion as to whether to bring a waiver for that item for acquiring the the actual thing. I guess the future Mr.
You guys have any questions, concerns, I would have, you know, me personally, I have no objection to the the waiver. Again, the technicality for your guys are okay with that. >> And how many feet short is he shy on frontage? >> I'll be dead.
>> Oh, okay. So yeah, so that's that's the first time you actually complete this. But going into variances required, so there I believe three variances needs. First one is for lot area there. So in this particular zone, there's a minimum lot area requirement of 1 and 12 acres.
I believe overall he has an oversized lot. I'm going to stay in the 2.6 acre ballpark and he's hoping to split it up. I'm sorry, roughly 2 and 1/2 acres. So, one lot wants to have maintain 1.4 acres
and the other 1.1 acres. So, normally we'd ask a question if you know curious to see uh in regards [clears throat] to variance of nature. Is there anything out of the ordinary as far as providing a slightly under loting lots in the area? It's not I'll say
unheard of in terms of pawn shoe as well as on federal. There's some lots in the 1 acre range. So, we're going to go 1.4 for 1.1 is not necessarily out of character. The other variance he needs is a road to lot frontage. So the
portion of this procedure lot is on a corner lot the intersection of two federal. It gets a little weird with frontage because there's also uh the way that the lot is the lot lines are drawn. His frontage is actually
short at 14249 where 150 is required for the main lot. The other lot he's looking about 137.1 ft. Again, same thing in terms of what's in the surrounding area across the street. We're south of this lot. You have frontages. There's a few
lots have frontages of 135 ft. So he's not necessarily any more uh I hate to use the word it's not any more offensive than his neighboring lots again not about character the the remainder lot if we actually measured the the lot of the
long width actually be over the 150 ft but because of the radius it comes up short the radius didn't exist have over 150 ft on the remainder lot just short technically it's it's a lot width bearings on both lots and And the third
is in regards to lot coverage. So with reducing the size of his lot, he actually existed. It was about 20 is approximately existing. So the lot coverage it's not supposed to
have more than 15% lot coverage with the change in lot size. resisting it's a little over 15% in terms of lot at the end of the day Mr. to looking for variance would be approximately 19 or 20%. That's close to 15%. So the
square footage of the house, the driveway, the garage, patio, it puts them just over the uh the amount allowable. So you'd be about 20%. That's the varian lot. You'll either have to abide by the
50% or development is bigger and you get back to the board asking for variance is going to be more than 50%. I believe Mr. >> I don't know if you have any concrete plans yet so we'll >> I don't want to swallow house fair
within that 50%. >> Yeah. >> Okay. smaller house on the new lot, the existing house, the radius wasn't something else. The frontage now because of the radius of the turn of the corner, it's still all wood. It's still all wood
except that the existing property now will be uh the back piece is still 300 ft >> on the right. >> Yeah. ball for both but >> 167
to it appear that way when you look at it looks like 167 woods on the right side of John Street >> yeah I mean >> just apart for whatever you do for track >> I think Wayne was more so referring to your development on the new lot are you going to be okay at 15% of the the total
lot coverage >> that would be 200 miles >> yeah well let's say if it was an acre it' be about 6,000 f feet between the driveway and the house. But sounds like >> a little over about 7,500 ft between driveway and house and maybe the patio
shed as long as you're less than 7500. >> Yeah, I I mean the house 2,000 tops that >> How far away are you from uh finalizing that? >> How far away? >> How how what's your timing on on the >> I don't this is my timing like this gets
approved then I'll be the process. There was I'm not put >> you know what I mean. If I get this then we'll start looking at some things. It'll be a one story >> garage for us to be driving in the weather. You know what I mean? Three
bedrooms. That's all. I'm not looking back. >> Okay. So that covers variances. Of course, general comments. There's nothing too exciting here. There's some
technical stuff that we need uh Mr. Cena into our survey to update and revise the plan. As far as Mr. Cena, if you have any issues, but we have general comments or you comply with everything. >> Yeah. Whatever you need. So most go
through comment by comment. I increase your acceptance of the student's testimony. you will address all the comments or general comments in my letter. So with that, any questions, concerns, comments? >> I just have one quick question, Wayne. I know this impervious cover issue is somewhat new to the ordinance. It's is
it 15% total? >> 15% total >> and 10 and 10% for building >> 10%. >> So you it's not 15 and 10. It's 15. But the building itself can't be more than >> 10
>> than 10 of that 15%. Okay, understood. >> All right. Um, at this time, is there a motion to open it up to open public comment? >> Make a motion. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I. >> Anyone wish to speak on uh PB 2604.
Please come up to the mic. State your name and your address, please. >> Michaelio, 21922. and directly to the east and marry the property. One concern I have is septic in the well. I know he hasn't yet
positioned a house yet on there, but that would be my concern. I'm not sure what his existing septic is, but it's going to be pretty tight. So, with a lot of that size. So, if there's a drawing with your house plan
and your well location, the new lot uh his retirement home would have to still maintain a 100 ft distance from any and all wells, >> right? >> And and also from any and all septic systems and uh I believe [clears throat] Wayne any comments
>> comment it's it's out of jurisdiction of the board county health department and national jurisdiction. They would make sure whatever that go as far as the development plan. One thing they're going to require is to locate all authority stuff. So he'll be able to
represent and should represent to the county health department. Here's where I'm looking at a building. Here's where I'm taking a park. County health departments can look at his existing house over here. The lot next door, your lot, but he's required to show those subject locations.
>> Yeah. that he's did you show that now? >> But again, he's just >> I would say comfort knowing the county is going to be through making sure he >> the house is position. >> Yeah, that's what I'll
>> Well, is that on there right now? Uh, I don't know if you guys >> I can't see on this plan. >> Yeah, >> I think it's one. >> Yes, it is. southwest house on the other
>> so you could reill >> but then you got another >> lot depends on how it works >> county was going to permit it potentially reuse that well that's >> yeah that's >> [laughter]
>> Thank you for your concerns. >> Any more comments on this application? Seeing none, is there a motion? >> Motion. Motion to close. >> Second. >> All in favor? I. >> Okay. At this point, I'll ask the board if there's any comments from the board
members. Okay. Is there a motion to approve 2604? >> I'll make a motion for PB26-04. Second. >> Roll call, please. Chrissy. >> Mr. >> Yes. >> Mr. Clark.
>> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Mr. >> Yes. >> Mr. >> Yes. >> Mr. >> Yes. Congratulations. Thank you guys very much. Thanks for your service.
>> Next on tonight's agenda is Cassab PB2602 minor subdivision creating one new lot. Please come up to the mic. Marie >> address3.
>> Thank you. >> Tell us a little bit about the application. Mrs. Cassab, >> about 16 years ago, we subdivided piece of property for my daughter to be close to us. We have a 50. So now I'm in the process of my own
daughter. We're getting older now. We want everybody close to us and uh we're just asking for a minor subdivision taken off any property.
>> So the proposed >> we would need >> on the new lot >> on the new. >> Okay. Any other comments? Okay. At this time, I'll ask Wayne, our engineer, to give myself engineers report.
>> Go through my letter of June 4th, 2026. Couple things. First one is similar to the last application show. We propose improvements on the subdivision plan. It's again for subdivision only. We check what's required for the state I
mentioned earlier. It's kind of I always say it's moot point. So it's as long as you know Mr. understands that anything she needs for a variant as she knows it doesn't know depending on the development of this block
something >> I mean again without knowing what you're proposing it's a a loaded question in terms of what I think it's safe to say >> so we need a driveway. >> So yes, you will need a driveway. There is one thing I'm going to bring up before. >> So it will be in the driveway.
>> So regards to second thing regards to the completeness checklist agains to show scale. So I have no objection for a waiver for completing this and moving forward and then should you have
the revised plan just tell your survey make sure it wasn't worth >> oh yeah >> simple thing >> that'll be a very important remember right >> that's in the way >> I keep making the comments but you guys have any questions concern
comments otherwise >> any comments from our solicitor okay so uh Mrs. Cassab was in front of this board with a prior application on the same property PB2106 and this board approved it but she
failed to uh file the deed and the uh limitation of time has passed for a deed extension and that's why she's here this evening with a new application. >> All right.
02 the bearings required. So again the street is 100 ft required as well as the 50 foot. Again this is a flag lot you know as part of our property. That's why the the 50t the 150
if you were to try to chop it up you know give 150 take away a lot from the joining lot and then it would also interfere with Mr. just the Q-shaped kind of like she's trying to figure out how to make it work.
There's no prohibition flag just the variance. And the second comment I made and I understand the testimony with the width of 50 ft just you know you're not looking to have any access to the driveway. So you make the driveway work.
Is that correct? >> With that you'll need your advantage there. And again, this is more of a uh just a catch all in regards to the lot coverage. So yeah, depending on what you're proposing, just know that you do have a cap of 50% of the lot area overall lot coverage. You would probably
receive that if you decide based on the house you want to build. Just be aware that depending on what you propose and what you may be back the only I'm going to ask in regards to general comments on the list of items again
these are more a little more technical in nature adding notes north to that effect nothing exciting should be confirmed again getting the address confirmed confirmed checking the county.
Other than that, so M would be fair to say you have no issue with complaint. Okay, with that questions, concerns, comments, >> uh, yeah, I'm sorry, maybe I missed it. How long ago did this come in front of this board?
>> So, this was before the board is >> 21. >> 21. >> So, she's back again before the board. Same thing as a technicality submitt was never filed or expired.
>> Are there any revisions to this application from the prior application? >> Only the date has changed. >> Just the date for the right. Thank you. >> I thought I had it.
>> Thank you. Any comments from the board? All right. At this time, I'll entertain a motion to go into open public portion. >> Make a motion. >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I. >> Anyone from the public wishes to speak on PB 2602
CASAB, please come forward at this time. Seeing none, is there a motion to close open public portion? >> A motion to close. >> Second. >> Second. >> All in favor? I. >> Okay. Uh, any more comments on the board? >> I just had a question. You know, because
this comes up at every meeting and, you know, we've had some discussions about it. Um, they they have a farm buffer here cuz their their property is Q farm uh labeled on the plan. Is that is that going to impact their proposed lot? And if so, do we need to consider a waiver
on that or It wouldn't be a waiver. They uh they just have to abide by uh you know keep addressing things with the county regarding roll back taxes and so forth. Yeah. So >> the subject of roll back is also
language tax on their actual either the plan itself and so forth provided you know >> I mean it's severely going to impact their their proposed lot. So that's what that's why I was asking
>> and I don't know how they would propose to install the driveway because it appears as though it's completely within the buffer. >> Where's the phone? >> Okay. So this is where >> No, it's just the residence. >> So anything could be in the buffer, just
not a principal structure. >> Interesting. So swimming pools >> could be in the buffer. >> No swimming pool and no shed. And what's our side lot buffer on that? Uh 50 ft.
>> Farming is 50. I don't know if that means I wasn't aware that >> this question came up about two months ago. Unfortunately, the discussion that transpired was on the application that you had to recuse yourself on.
>> Um, so that's why you're not um it's not ringing any bells. So, and we we had a discussion here at the board. Uh, we have differing opinions on the necessity and the legality of these buffers. So, the last thing I want to do is see this this applicant uh get jammed up when they go to develop their property. So,
area. >> Is there a strict program? Anything in the buffer? >> Buffer strip shall be restricted widely. But is a driveway a structure? >> Driveway hedges. >> But would a driveway be defined as a
structure? >> Right. >> So officially, Brandon, this application is okay as long as they don't want to drive. What? Yeah. Wait a second.
But are they going to have a problem if they take down trees to go to the driveway? >> What's that? >> Could have been over. >> No, I guess the question is >> we just don't want you to get jammed up
afterwards. So you subdivided for >> Yeah. You'll what happens is you you're going to lose the queue on the new lot because it won't meet the qualifications. >> Yes. No, cuz No, cuz the farm is still there.
>> The neighbor owns the farm. >> Wait a second. This is 1501. 1501's the farm. >> This is the farm. >> Did they own the farm? >> 14. They did. >> They do. >> Mhm. >> Oh, July 14th. Right here. >> Yeah.
>> That's the farm. >> Right here. Right here. Existing. This is the >> So, Wayne, they own the farm. >> What's that? >> They own the farm. >> Oh, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. >> Okay. But in putting in a residential lot and modifying the QR status, they
may be subject to roll back taxes and portion of the land that we're taking out of the bar, >> right? >> Yeah. But I guess getting back to Broadway, I'm still not I mean maybe it's more of a semantics. I'm not convinced that a driveway is a
structure. Structure to me is an actual building erected. will be a shed whole barn a house driveway just would be an improvement but let me ask you this
>> well I mean the simple solution would just be to grant a waiver for all the eye buffers on the lot I mean >> we'll grant a waiver for the actual buffer driveway specific maintain Well, even the rest of the lot, I mean,
you got a 100 foot buffer in the back and 50 foot. I mean, there's a very I mean, >> this is a question now for Brandon. At this point, should we entertain, as Mr. Bran has said, a waiver on all buffers
on this application to proceed with an approval? It's the board's choice if they wish to go in that direction. >> Well, I think it's the applicant's choice to request one. >> Okay. >> Does the applicant understand what just
happened? >> All right. >> Speak on that. Well, I I mean, if you're going to grant that waiver, you would limit it limit that a um buffer waiver to where the driveway is going to be located and leave the rest of it alone.
>> Only if the applicant asks for the wave. >> Yeah. Right. >> Okay. I'm asking for a waiver. >> Please come up to the mic. [laughter] >> Yeah. Yes. Yes. >> So, you're asking to limit to to provide the a waiver to the area where the proposed
driveway will be located. That's what you're asking. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Oh, thank you. >> I don't know. >> This is why you have to go there. >> [laughter] >> She already forgot the deep on the case.
At one point during this application, I was going to recommend postponing a decision until we did the research. But by asking for the waiver, and should the board agree to the waiver, then we won't have to postpone and do the research on whether or not a driveway is included in
the a buffer. >> Just make sure you get it recorded. >> 190 days. I already called my doll office to call me. [laughter] >> All right. So is Okay. You formally asked for this waiver.
>> Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. You can. Okay. All right. Any other comment from the board? >> I just >> Louder, please. just for moving forward like not with this application specifically, but do we have
confirmation that like any applicant that comes before the board moving forward >> can put a driveway in a buffer because there is that >> verbiage in there that says about removing trees. Like I just I wouldn't want like this application when it gets to that next point get jammed up for
that and then the next one and the next one and the next one. >> So what Mr. Clark is doing, he's tasking you Brandon to research this and make a report at our next meeting. >> Yeah, absolutely. >> Right. Just so we know that way nobody
else has that same issue come up. >> It's definitely not a structure. We can agree to that. But the last sentence in that code is about the trees. >> But somewhere structure has to be defined in what the structure includes.
>> I would say something with a foundation on the safe side. This story resolution. Yes. >> 50 in the rear. >> Mhm. >> That's supposed to be 100 foot in the rear. >> 50 in the rear.
Well, they show the setback from the buffer line. >> Correct. So I think effectively >> yeah it's not 100 >> but that would be for the principal structure around
>> yeah around the barn. >> Well I'd like to wait the whole thing but that's just my opinion. Yeah, >> I mean they they own the adjacent property. It's completely ridiculous for them to have a buffer period.
>> You can ask for it. is the supervisor. >> The waiver you're asking for is to permit the driveway once that's >> Yes. Once you have a waiver for that, you put the driveway. Just make sure you abide by my letter set back.
Well, ultimately the zoning officer would would review this plan, determine whether or not it's compliant, and if he sees it's within a buffer, he would go back, look at the resolution, see if there's been a waiver. >> Yeah. >> Is that? >> Yeah. Right. >> And if not, they would reappear and ask for a variance.
>> Correct. >> Is there any more board discussion? >> We've already had open public comment. So, at this point, is there a motion to approve? >> I'm sorry. I just want to make a comment just because I'm not always fond of these flag lots.
>> I understand. >> And um I just want to make a comment that uh hopefully hopefully it's maintained for the fire department moves. You know, everybody thinks it's the width for a fire apparatus to get down, but they don't make these trucks
any smaller. So, just remember something happens, it would be a for that truck to get down the driveway. >> Well, we could add in the resolution a a minimum width for no tree coverage and a minimum height. Do you wish to interject
those numbers? Is that legal? >> Which we >> Yeah, we're granting variances so we can put conditions upon them. >> We did that just previously on another one. We had a uh a tight driveway. So your recommendations for the width, minimum width,
>> I mean the width is I mean it's fine. It's >> they have 50 ft of land but suppose they plant a bunch of trees and the trees 30 years from now narrow down the driveway. So in our resolution we need a clear path of so many feet.
>> Do you recall what we did um in the past? >> Yeah, I think it was 1450. I think you're right. >> So, I'm actually going to ask you, Joe, to make >> if you wish to make a a motion to approve. >> Sure.
>> With this amendment >> and along with the waiver. >> Along with the waiver. >> I'll make that motion. >> Is there a second? >> For clarity, that the waiver is of the eye buffers. >> That's correct. >> Yes. >> All the eye buffers. >> Yes. Yes. >> Yes. Okay.
Well, >> the driveway >> driveway. >> You want You want all, right? >> Whatever. >> Is there discussion on all buffers or just driveway buffers? I mean, I can I am I allowed to discuss a future vote
based off of the criteria being asked for here or no? >> No, no, no. I'm saying I will vote one way if you ask for one thing. I'm going to vote another way if you ask for another thing. So, I I don't know if I'm allowed to discuss that before we take a vote or not. >> I understand what you're saying.
>> Well, depending on what variance they ask for dep is going to depend upon my vote. So, am I allowed to discuss that before we take a vote or no? >> I I just wasn't sure of the legalities of it. >> Um, I'm I'm fine for the variance for the driveway. I'm not fine for all egg
buffers. >> Okay, >> that's my personal opinion. >> Any other comments from the board members? >> Yeah, I mean I can substantiate my why I believe there should be no buffers. one um and I think I've made these statements before is you you're asking
to buffer I mean and Ralph made this point I think he was going to say yeah you don't need these cuz it's their own property you're buffering from from yourself is one number two you're taking a 2 acre lot and if you apply the buffers as they're written you're
basically reducing the developable area on that lot to one acre so you're taking away half of someone's lot for a buffer that arguably is not even constitutional in my opinion. [clears throat] Um there
there's no practical reason for the buffer. Nobody can tell me what the buffer exists for um and why it would be 100 ft on the rear and 50 ft on the side. I mean uh it just makes no sense. So, you know, I think Ralph would say it's
because farmers spray obnoxious chemicals and things like that. I mean, this here looks to be like a horse farm. So, you know, there's just no rationale be behind blanketing the entire township with these unnecessary buffers and
putting the the onus on the neighbor. I mean, when when someone has obnoxious content, it's the the buffer is generally put on them. When someone builds a commercial use that's going to impact the residential use, the buffer's on the commercial use. Uh farmers are
already protected under the Right to Farm Act. They don't need additional protection by way of these buffers. So they just make no sense to me. So and and they severely impact people's properties. So for that reason, I I would absolutely support a waiver of the
buffer >> for all >> for all buffers. Yeah. >> So I think that was your motion. >> So well, >> yes, that was my motion. >> So the motion as long as they want that. Yeah. Okay. Well, that's covered in J's
motion. I would second that motion. >> So, the motion has been made uh to wave all egg buffers and >> 14 wide >> and 14 wide on the driveway clear and 15 high. >> Yes.
>> All the way. 14 wide. >> We're just saying no tree cover for 14T. Maintain, >> not the driveway. >> No, no. Maintain. >> Yeah. >> Wayne, correct me if I'm wrong, but does the ordinance not lay out uh
specifications for driveways >> as far as 12t wide? >> 12 ft. >> Again, what we're asking for is an 8in clear. >> Clear. clear area, right? >> So, not the entire clear. >> So, motion's been made. A motion's been
seconded. Every one, please add the same time. Doesn't matter. >> I third. >> Okay. So, then we're ready for a roll call vote, but I want everybody to know what we're voting on is to wave all buffers.
14. >> Yeah. The frontage variance. >> That's correct. That's correct. >> Yep. >> Mr. >> Yes. >> Yes. No.
>> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. Congratulations, Mrs. Cassav. >> 90 days. Where's 90 days or 120? >> 190 days. >> 189 days.
>> Yeah. >> From the resolution, not from today. >> The resolution won't be until uh next month. >> Next month. third Tuesday in August. >> That starts the clock.
>> All right, Chrissy, any communications? >> Good luck with your project. >> Okay. Are there any correspondence? >> Correspondence. She's busy. No. Okay. Uh, minutes of
June 16th, 2026. >> Need a motion. >> Need a motion to approve. >> Make a motion for the minutes. >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> All in favor? I >> I abstain. >> Okay. >> Uh, Brandon, is there a reason for a close session?
>> Okay. Any last comments from board members on what happened tonight? >> I actually got a um comment. I just like to see us get on the same page with these flag lots because I thought we talked about in the past and maybe it's
just me and we weren't in really in favor of these flag lots and I know this was this flag lot tonight was basically I guess I'll say pre-approved years before. So either we're going to be for these flag lots just because I said if someone comes tonight and they got a 50
foot driveway and then somebody comes next month and they got a 12ft driveway you know what is our standard and you know tonight we're calling about 14t wide 15t height for a fire truck like and then next month somebody comes I want it to be the same like we got to
start I wanted you know I I kind of thought and maybe it's me I almost thought we didn't weren't doing anything with the flag lots anymore. >> Well, we're looking at each application on its own merit number one. And uh maybe this is where Brandon can chime in
if he wishes to. flag lots in general. >> Applications all stand again. That's what a C2 variance. >> Yes. I just don't know how that we could like I mean if you're subdividing and making
a flag lot on a 5 acre piece or a 10 acre or a 20 acre or 30 like there's like no >> there's no st there's no standard >> there are no standards right currently the ordinance does not prohibit flag you can lobby to council to consider
amending the ordinance to prohibit the flag lots in general >> so in terms of configuration so if there's a desire not have black laws anymore. You can certainly have an ordinance adopted and provide voting ordinance to say no black define what
they are and prohibit them. And then that way if anybody would try that would be position together at this point they request them. There's no prohibition against them. The only thing that they ask for flag is front. They don't have to front it.
I I guess what I'm looking for is not so much that I'm against the flag, right? But, you know, this is a 50 foot wide driveway, right? But what happens? I'm just gonna say somebody comes in next month and now they got a 14 foot wide driveway. You know, like be a lot easier.
>> You understand? Yeah. I mean, that's something you look at and say, you know, traditionally out 50 ft, 75 ft. >> Well, that's what I'm trying to I'm trying to be consistent with the board and say, okay, like what's the board's feelings on where we are with flag lots? cuz somebody could have a 100 acre piece
and choose to subdivide a 25 acre piece of that with a with the pole of the flag being 300 ft wide. Then it's like, >> well, that's a no-brainer, but it's still a flag lot. >> Right. >> Right. Cuz he's exceeding 150 ft of front. >> I mean, I think to Joe's point, you
know, we're the planning board, but we see what goes on in town and we see applications that go to the zoning board. And there's a lot of applications that end up with the zoning board for flag lots that were created over the years previously. And I thought that the and again I haven't really given a ton
of thought as to whether they should or should not be permitted move forward, but that the the sentiment was that for proper planning, we don't generally want to approve flag lots based on the history that we've seen uh with some of the flag lots in the past. And I think
what Joe's saying, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that if we're going to just disregard that position, at least we should have some sort of standards set forth of, you know, what we're going to accept, uh, if we are going to, uh, grant these these variances because, you know, it doesn't
again seem like some of them are necessarily meeting the burden of the hardship, you know, under under the law to to be granted. And if we're going to essentially accept these that there should be some sort of guidelines um to be followed. So um
>> you can have an ordinance specifying fly permitted. However, these are the conditions you have to meet in order to >> Right. Absolutely. >> Hole no less than 50 ft 75 ft something to that effect. So you kind of predetermine this is what the board's willing to accept. So they don't have to
ask their parents. >> Right. Right. >> Yes. >> It would have to be done by ordinance. Right. >> And it's no at that point it's no different than the, you know, the the poleborn uh trying to reduce the variances for for buildings. It's here's your standard and if you can do it, you
meet it, then you don't have to ask for. >> So we'll let's ask uh our two committee liaison, Jonathan and uh Mark uh maybe you guys can work on that for us. I'll say that I was majorly
supporting of this because, you know, it was pre-approved. I'm not a huge fan of flag lots myself. Just like Mr. Suede said, I think that, you know, we we have an ordinance that says 150 ft frontage. So then why are we going to come up with
another ordinance that says, "Oh, it's 150 ft frontage, or you could narrow it down to 75 if you want." It just seems like a really silly thing to do from like a legal standpoint. >> That's why we're in the position we are now. >> So, I think that's what we're asking for guidance from the governing body if
that's the the will of the governing body. Maybe the governing body should consider prohibiting flag lots so that we have something as Wayne said, you know, so we have better guidance uh as to uh from a planning perspective on how how to move forward with these things. >> I I agree with that. I think it would be
nice if we could have some sort of position from our planning board being as you know if you guys I would like to to maybe have some sort of motion or discussion here as a working body to make a recommendation for that ordinance to us as as a governing body
>> table next month. >> Yeah, maybe we can table that and maybe we next month we can have a discussion on >> uh yeah, would someone like to make a motion to go into close session next month to discuss flag lots? I'll make that motion. >> I don't think it's closed session.
>> Does it need to be enclosed or can it be in open >> just included in the agenda? >> Yeah. >> And I'm fine. Thank you. >> Moving on, I have one other quick comment. Um,
procedurally, uh, it seems as though, you know, Wayne's been with us for like 6 months now. He when he does his review letters, he has a completeness section and chime in here at any point. It seems as though maybe some of the other boards you work with will actually vote and
discuss items of completeness. Would it be for the flow of the agenda? Would it be better if we started voting on completeness items, >> right? That's what I'm used to seeing in other boards. We've never done it here that way. Some >> I've seen it. It's really the board's
draft as far as if it was a general consensus and moving forward that it would be incred. >> Right. So, I'm just suggesting >> maybe maybe we start voting on it because it seems as though once Wayne gives us completeness review, we kind of all look at each other and we're like, well, I don't know. Like, should we do
it, not do it? Like, so >> that's an excellent recommendation. Yeah, maybe it's a a trial next month. We can we can proceed in that manner. >> Vote on completeness. >> Complet. Yeah. That way in case there's any discussion items, unless anybody objects to that. >> Thank you, Jason.
>> Oh, also I'm sorry, I'm I'll wrap it up. This is I just wanted to say uh my thoughts and prayers to uh our chairman uh Mr. Pesh as uh as he deals with his uh his medical issue. And I'm sure that's uh that sentiment is felt uh through the entire board and staff. So,
>> yes. Okay. >> Yeah. That's it. Is there a motion to adjourn the meeting? >> I make a motion. >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I. >> Thank you, everyone. Thank you, Jason.
Yeah, you're right. Come on, Pete.