TranscriptPlanning Board Meeting ~ April 1, 2026

I understand. This is week 5, right? 6? left. Plus one more here. Same with the second. So. Yeah. I have a late night meeting. They have a late night summer on their hands. No, let me let the conversation flow. Question is okay. I'll have that on my iPad so we can all witness. Yeah. I'm for another song. Just as coffee is all. But I think that I understand. The old way of doing it. Yeah. Freeze out 5 more minutes. I want this. But I can't. Okay.

of the sound. Check it out. It works. launch. Okay. We'll meet in today. All right. Welcome to the April 1st meeting of the Durham Planning Board. Um everybody's here. Uh so we have a quorum. And uh we can stand for the Pledge of Allegiance.

United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Um Okay. [laughter] Any amendments to this night's agenda? Um all right. Let's roll into uh George's based on our last meeting and what we were anticipating tonight. Um George has drafted up a uh continuation policy. Um George, you want to take us through that? Yeah. Um Falmouth and other communities that have very long agendas like averaging 10 items, um in order to bring predictability to the process for applicants as well as board members and members of the public, uh pretty much what they do in many towns is they have a point at in the during the meeting at which they review where they are on the agenda and then uh determine whether they're not whether or not they're going to take any new items after a certain time. Uh so that if they have pretty good sense that they can finish

up the agenda in a reasonable time, then they will continue beyond say 8:30, 9:00, whatever the cut-off time is. And if uh they determine that they're halfway through a very long application and it's clear that they're not going to get to the last three items on the agenda, they basically announce at that point that they [clears throat] will not be taking up any new items after uh that time period. And then what happens is so that people who are paying their consultants, for example, to sit and like they're watching and wait, they can be aware and just we indicate that they're asking to be tabled to the next meeting and then uh then they don't have to continue to sit there and wait to see if they're going to get heard. So, uh as I said, it it helps lend some predictability. Up until this point in the last 7 years that I've been here, we've not hit that point yet, but as you can see from tonight's agenda, it's uh

it's getting to that point. Um So, pretty much that would be a policy that you could adopt like we just did the meeting uh cancellation storm inclement weather. This would be another policy that you would actually put so everybody knows what's going to happen. And uh and we put that right on the agenda in terms [clears throat] of letting people know that that's the way it's going to be handled. So, um that's pretty much the policy and I've laid out the whole thing for you to consider. So, if we run to a situation where we have a deadline for um making a decision, Mhm. uh 30 day, 60 day, we'd have to have the applicant approve or um agree to extending that if they're the last person in line. Yeah. Two options in terms of just um what you do at that point. You can obviously carry over an item to the next meeting, uh but you could also schedule a uh special meeting. So that, for example, if there

was one more item and you did have that deadline and you wanted to meet following week, um I think, you know, in terms of if it's ever an issue, uh if you're making every possible effort to meet the deadline and you go over it, um I don't think that that's a problem. Uh obviously, if there's going to be a lengthy delay not caused by that meeting continuation, then uh you should be checking with applicants to make sure that they're okay moving beyond it. But hopefully, it it won't be an issue, especially if you consider uh doing an extra meeting when needed uh to continue to get through the workload, I think you'll be fine.

I think it's a great idea. Applicants are probably paying their experts and consultants by the hour, so if they're sitting there doing nothing, we can see if that cost beneficial to them. Yep. And obviously for our personal time, too.

Durham Planning Board meeting continuation policy. I'll second. All in favor? Okay. Thank you, George. Yep. comments from the board? Motion to approve. So moved. I second. Okay. All in favor? Thank you. Yes. Um I did include, as I always do, the monthly report and that summarizes the actions that the board took last month, which is communicated to the select board as well as the town through the town manager. And then I updated them on the draft land use ordinance amendments and then on the economic development program. So, I'd happy to answer any questions that you might have.

uh [clears throat] L U O amendments, land use ordinance amendments uh will go to the select board on the 20 5th? 28th? 28th. 28th. So, George and I will present to the select board then. Um After that, there is a meeting in May for public comment, last and final presentation before it goes to uh the town meeting June July June.

[clears throat] Any resident or non-resident comment on the live at 52 Shiloh Road. Um I'm in the process of selling my house on Hollowell Road and I have an accessory dwelling on my property and I'm asking this question because of what I'm going through right now with that. Um in the land use ordinance amendments, and I apologize I didn't look at it, but if you haven't looked at that, maybe you have. I'm sure you have. Are there adjustments that are being made to so that that's more in line with um for ADUs with state law. Are you guys working on that stuff? Yeah. Okay. Okay. Perfect. Never mind.

continuing business. Um substantive review review of Durham Heights. civil engineer with Site Lines and I'm here on behalf of the the applicant. Um So, I wanted to run through quickly what changes we've made since the last time we were before you. Um so, the not the last meeting, the one before that, there was uh questions brought about about the land that was retained by the owner and whether they had legal frontage on the right-of-way and if when the property was conveyed, if it was a non-performing lot. So, since that time, uh the applicant has come to terms with the um previous owner to acquire that last section that was going to be retained by the owner. And with that, um that section of um property has been incorporated into the subdivision. So, with that, what changed is we were previously proposing uh 18 lots, we're now proposing 19 lots. So, we kind of already had 19 cuz the 19th was the land

retained, but now it's a numbered lot in the subdivision. And uh the open space went from 44.9 acres to 67.2 acres. So, the majority of the land retained by owner has been now uh put into that that um remaining open space. Um there were also some comments made about the configuration of the lots and whether they kind of met the intent of the cluster subdivision uh ordinance. I think most of that was related to the presence of uh steep slopes kind of bisecting some of the lots and wetlands um bisecting them and and creating kind of very tight areas um on the lots for those for those buildings. Um so, we have kind of redesigned the the subdivision just kind of try to create more open lots. Um there we've tried to locate the steep slopes kind of on the sides of the property so they're not kind of bisecting the property anymore. Um and we can I'll show that more as we go on the plans. Uh we've also gone out

there and mapped the the stone walls on the property. Um and I also reviewed um aerials dating back to the as far as I could go, which was the I think mid-1920s to see if they were 100 years or older. It's really difficult to see if there's any uh stone walls on an on an aerial from 1920, but um I would say based on the use of the property back then, the ones that are around the kind of perimeter of the lot were most likely still in place cuz it most of this lot was just uh farmland. It was just uh you know I think that house was or similar house, I don't know if the house that house was, but there was a house in the approximate location where the house is now and the remainder of the property was mostly farmland. Um and there is a stone wall that wraps around the the private cemetery and that private cemetery was um created 1974. So, I don't think those stone walls are probably older than 100

years old. So, I know that was question that was brought up the last meeting. Um and then there was questions about um soil classifications and in the ordinance, um one of the things that says that uh I think it's building envelopes can't be on um soils that are mapped as very poorly drained. Uh I did look at that and I provided a map in your packet. Uh there's only one soil type um on the property that's classified as very poorly drained and uh it's in all contained within the open space. So, none of the building lots are on that type of soil. Um limits proposed tree clearing have been shown on the on the um plans. Um one of the things that I broke out in the in the revised plan set was I have three sheets that are just intended to show the building envelopes and kind of they turn off a lot of the other um layers to kind of clear that up cuz I know there's some there's a lot of lines crossing others, so I was trying to

create a plan that was as um basic as possible, but I did show the limits of clearing uh on those plans so you could see um how much of each lot was proposed to be cleared. And then lastly, about the um uh capacity for Casella to drive up the new private roadway and uh serve those lots, I did send a letter and a plan out to them maybe 2 weeks ago. I did follow up with them recently and I have not heard anything back yet. So, they I did speak with someone on the phone and they said that shouldn't be an issue, but it could take some time just for their internal uh process.

[clears throat] you have your intention to have Casella come in to each individual household? Just like the like the um the road frontage, they wouldn't come into the actual driveways, but they would drive along the street and pick up the trash at the street. The private road. The private road. So, you're saying it would all be accumulated at the end of the No, no, no. No, no, it'd be at each individual lot. Yeah. Curbside Curbside pickup. So, um that's that's the intent and they when I spoke to the woman, she didn't think it was a uh major issue, but we obviously still have to wait for the the formal letter. Thank you. Uh so, this is the plan showing the um very very poorly drained uh soils. See here, this is um the subdivision lots and that soil is down here, which makes sense cuz it's down by the um closer to the where the major wetlands are and where that stream uh corridor is. So, um

plan. The the road configuration of of the road did not change much. It did lengthen a little bit to get some more frontage on those lots at the end. Uh we did have to shift a little bit the road here where that cemetery is just to get a little bit separation from the the 25-ft setback from the private cemetery. Um we couple major changes we did was uh this area beside lot one was previously part of lot one and I know that was a concern because it was kind of one of a larger lot, which is not the intent of the cluster subdivision standard. So, we just carved that off and now it will just be part of the the open space uh as well. We also, I know there were some comments from um um abutters about um

you know, having lots that would butt up directly to these um abutting subdivisions. So, we tried to pull those back as much as possible, created some separation um from the lot the lots in this existing subdivision to these new lots and that has been put into to open space as well. Um we also, there was um some discussion. This is where the existing house is on lot five. The the the existing house isn't shown here, but um and there was um some tight areas where you could fit uh a new house on there just based on the configuration. So, we five and seven used to be three lots. So, that was divided up um and the lots were reconfigured a little bit on either side of them, but and that was to create more space here to uh be able to fit in, you know, uh driveway, uh building, septic, things like that. Um

is actually lot 17. So, I numbered it so the the north side of the road are um I guess north on the screen here is um odd numbers and and the bottom is even numbers except for this last lot 19, but the new lot is lot 17 and the previous lot here got renumbered to lot 19. So, um and then we shifted there's there was a stormwater uh pond here at the end and we shifted that over a little bit uh to allow for lot 19 and uh that also, I'll show on next slide, but that drainage system was previously designed as a uh grass underdrain soil filter. It ended up getting pretty significant in size and it those systems don't tend to work when they get really really big. Um so, we converted that to a wet pond that is more functional and better for large uh watersheds.

plan. Obviously, this scale is tough to see, but um the stormwater ponds have stayed in the same location for the most part, these three. And then again, we have this wet pond here at the end. Um and you know, you can see this in better detail on the plans, but this uh just shows you the um kind of locations of the stormwater management systems.

So, these are the plans I was talking about where I kind of stripped away um the the information um and unfortunately just basically, you can't really see the setback lines on this one. Um you can on the actual print plans, but it's not showing up on the the uh the sides here. Um but you can see here, you know, we have lot one. So, this is the first uh 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 lots um here and to go

further know there was discussion in the packet that um the the planner shared uh that there was concerns about this cemetery being located on lot um I don't know which lot that is. Yeah, lot 10. Um you know, we can definitely discuss that as we move further. The the thought was that um you know, the cemetery itself is protected with with easements with a 25-ft no disturbance uh setback. And I

don't think from a future development perspective or future impact, I don't think there's any concerns to future impacts to that cemetery. It was probably protected with a stone wall and a and a recorded uh deed easement. Um

these lots, especially on the um downhill side of the road, which is just down here, is um on the bottom of the lots we have a forested buffer shown. And that is intended to provide uh treatment um for the stormwater runoff from those individual lots. Uh the DEP provides um best management practice standards for um wooded buffers that treat um single-family residential lots, and it's based on the soil classification and the slopes. So, for this um project and these slopes, it would be a 54-ft wide uh wooded buffer that we maintained, and that would be uh deed restricted um and usually um those are Well, actually they usually are and those will be also um marked in the field as well. So, there'll be signs there for no clearing. So, you know, 50 years from now people know that those are meant to be um maintained as wooded.

Um Again, we're we're showing we're showing the approximate um building location, test pits for the septic. Um these are the proposed clearing limits here. And then these hash areas are the wetlands as well. And then again, these are the wooded buffers here as well. Up on the north side, we do have some wooded buffers in between the lots. One, those provide the stormwater treatment requirements, but they also provide some uh buffering and screening screening between the individual lots. And then again at the end, we have this easement which will be used for uh the stormwater treatment of the project as well. So, I noticed in some cases they had uh two test pits. Yes. What's the reasoning behind that? Um the reason is the um this project requires a a DEP permit, and as part of the the DEP permit, if a um test pit falls within a certain classification, the DEP requires multiple test pits of

so so much distance apart. So, in the lots where they were running issues, not issues, they they're all passing test pits, but because they're a lower classification of soil, they need to get multiple tests to make sure that you can fit a you know, a 20 by 40 septic system, and it's not just you're not just hitting one spot that just meets it, and then you know, when you try to dig out for the larger septic, you don't you don't get it. So, there's a couple

[clears throat] I think there's Yeah. What was the reason for the other four lots? Was the reason they were um questionable or whatever is because they were poorly drained, or what was the Um I think I don't know the individual ones. I know it can be the depth to the the wa- the the where you start hitting the seasonal high groundwater and the modeling of soil. Oops. And that can um uh that can change the classification of the soil. And when you get the and I can I mean, as part of the uh final um package, I can I can get a summary from the the uh septic designer. Yeah, Alex, he right? Alex, he went out again. Yeah.

relatively recently. But but it's Yeah. if if this wasn't going to um a DEP site law permit, then this wouldn't wouldn't be a requirement. So, when you get to those larger permitting thresholds, they start to look at things.

like why he had to go back out there. You know, and what the reason is. I think the original one he did test he did 10. And then he did another based on the letters that were submitted, then he had had another one of four test pits. I think he had actually had submitted three letters. Yes. Yep, so when when we had first looked at this project, we were going to do I think it was 14 lots. Mhm. Um and that's when he did the initial test pits. And then when we were looking to do the larger project, we got the additional four test pits or whatever it was, four or five, to get the 18 lots. And then once this was submitted to the person who's working on the um the hydrogeologic study, which is what's required by DEP, he said, "Hey, for these X amount of lots, I need a secondary test pit on here because it meets the certain threshold of uh soil." But all of this will be reviewed as part of the DEP permit. It's

you know, it's extensive process. Um it's part of their state review. So, where when the test pits are located, I imagine they're still marked, correct? Yes. And that is where the septic will be. Yes, and there there is um potential to relocate it, but you have to Then you'd have to do another analysis. Yep. Good. So, you you are or you did have the hydrogeologic survey done? It's being It's being done. Okay. So, that was one of my questions if we were going to have that. Um you can have the project final, you can have the copy, yeah. Yeah. Cuz what happens we'll submit to DEP, and they'll come back with comments on it, and they'll want to revise it. Um not really for me, it would be more for um Coral Palmer for review. If we wanted to just discuss that.

Okay. I I would say too, it is I mean, it is reviewed as part of the state process. The the more reviewers you get into it, the the sometimes you have one reviewer saying this, and one reviewer saying that, and it's it's kind of you know, I prefer it just stick with one reviewer if possible. Well, we're having the peer reviewer is going to be reviewing many of these things, so yeah. Yeah, I I hear what you're saying. Yeah. Yep.

I think that's pretty much all I have on this. Yeah, no, it was the last one. So, I guess from there I'll go back to the subdivision plan, and then we can talk about any questions or I actually have comments. Um if you can, can you show me where the tree clearing is proposed? What what the line type is, and what's already cleared? I guess. Oops.

let's do Yep. is the proposed Okay. here. Okay. Um the existing would be this lighter color. Okay. Um and I'm trying to see if there's any other and proposed is the darker. Yes, you see that's lighter there. Yep. And then on the existing conditions plan, which I don't have here, uh there is a um you can see the limits of the existing. Yeah. Fair. So, what's been done to date out there, tree clearing? Uh they cleared for um kind of the entrance into the property, and then they did do some clearing on the um individual lots as well. But they were very What for? What did we do clearing for on the lots? What do you mean for the for the clearing? Like what what reason was the clearing done for? Uh the reason clearing was done is it was brought up at the um site walk that there was concern about clearing within the clearing window for the bat habitat. So, it was tried to do that to allow for um

you know, some work within that if the project were to be approved within that clearing window timeline. Okay, so is clearing continuing, or is it stopped? I believe it's stopped. Yeah, it wouldn't be continuing till Who are you? I'm uh Max Stoney, uh owner of Stone Arch. And uh clearing wouldn't be continuing till development happened on the individual lot. So, we we just cleared pockets, like a little pocket, like not the whole envelopes, just pockets so we could get into with the excavator to do all those test pits for the hydrogeological So. Those that go down like I think they're like 5 ft or 6 ft in the ground or something like that each of those test pits. Mhm. So. I believe it's

it's one thing to to clear trees to get your um you know, your equipment in there for test pits and such. It's another thing to clear trees for the project before you get a permit. So, I don't know. You said it's stopped, no more tree clearing? No, I mean, it was done done months ago. Okay. Yeah. Okay. So, I don't That was just to act Yeah, when cuz we couldn't build the access to those test pits cuz there was when we had done the site walk, and then there's portions up in the field, obviously there was no trees, but when you get into these lower lots [clears throat] on the bottom, the trees are like right in your face, so.

regarding the trees. So, I think I'm looking at the existing conditions plan, so the current tree line is the only um tree line type on that sheet, right? That was the the the line the line where tree line would be is the the tree line prior to any of the clearing that was that was recently done. Because when we want to do the for the purpose of like the stormwater analysis, we want to take a pre-development snapshot before anything is done on the project. But what about all the trees that were cut? So, that that would be part of what the proposed is showing as well.

that be included in the stormwater analysis? For the post-development, yes. Okay. pre-development stormwater analysis, we wanted to show it kind of in its natural condition, you know, that's been previous to any uh any any clearing before you know, recent clearing. Okay. And so, this is existing or proposed? This is the existing conditions plan. Yes, and that shows Can you point out

this is Well, this is better here. So, up here, this is on a budding property, but I'll show you. So, that's existing uh tree line, and then this solid more solid clouded area, that's proposed. Mhm. Fair. I think it's more like existing.

prior to any any That you've done so far. Yes. Right. That's kind of what I was getting at, too, is like yes, it was prior to any cutting, but currently now that that is not what it looks like. Right. Yes. But, when we do the the stormwater analysis, we want to look at it as before any recent clearing was done. Cuz that gives Yeah. um lower uh peak flow rates that we want to try to match into. Yeah. And is there going to be a a lot more tree clearing needed? Uh for the individual lots, I would say I mean, a lot is is relative, but yes, there's going to be more tree clearing required on the individual lots. Um But, the road is pretty much in. I would say generally, yes. That was a lot of tree clearing.

Uh beyond the road, there's a lot of tree clearing, yeah. Yeah. So, without having an approved plan a lot of tree clearing. Can you clarify down at the end those predictions on there are not what's cleared down? Cuz that's an existing conditions plan. It looks like those are cleared areas. This over here?

Yeah. Yeah. This is an existing conditions and demolition plan. So, it's intended to show the existing conditions and what needs to be done prior to the say the main main project. have not been cleared of trees yet. There has been limited clearing in there for access for um test pits and pockets on the individual lots.

limited, but Yeah, so it sounds like the road has been cleared in, the entire road, all of the the sub- This is the existing. If you want to go down to the next plan, but the road the sub roads, the lots themselves have been cleared already. The lots have not been cleared to to the extent.

the not the whole thing, but like a a pocket. Yeah, the pockets, yeah. Okay. Can I ask a question about this conversation right here? Yeah, who are you? I'm Heather Roy. I'm part of the administrative team for the project.

Yep. So, I feel confused about the line of questioning because I feel like in previous meetings, what the conversation was is that that window of time that the clearing took place was going to create as minimal impacts and in you know, like damaging type impacts clearing during that time of year because the ground was frozen.

Yep. And so, now it feels like the conversation is leaning towards that wasn't the right thing to do, and so I feel a little confusing. I can clarify Heather. So, the time of year that we that is recommended to clear trees is the winter for the frozen conditions and for bats and other species. However, you are supposed to have your permit before you do that. So, the idea was you get your permit and then you do it. Not do it in the winter and then get your permit. So, yes, we were talking about how the conservation commission highly recommends the you know, the tree clearing window and clearing trees during frozen conditions is the best for the ground. I think that's the message that we heard, and so that that's why that occurred at that time frame because that was the message that we heard out of those meetings. Um and so, I'm just playing devil's advocate at this point to to make sure that that's understood is that that was

the message that right? I mean, is that accurate? Yeah, well, yeah, and also worked out with the time frame of we had to access the test pits. So, so you're you're during the February meeting, [clears throat] you had mentioned that due to the schedule for your state permits um you weren't expecting to start construction until a year from now.

we can realistically get permits this year and start construction in the fall. Right. They have like that 6-month thing, but then they can Right. Yeah. Yeah, they can extend for 6 months. But, there's I mean, I'm going I'm going to speak for Max here. I think I don't think any houses probably start until next year, but that's I mean Right. I don't know how quickly Max can get in there. I have one more thing [clears throat] to say about the the clearing, especially for the road. Until we came before the planning board and there was the conversation around the land that was retained by owner the the first house that was intended to be built was a house for her on that back lot. In order for that to happen, that road that drove That was a driveway. Whether like if he never got if he doesn't get subdivision approval before that conversation came up, that driveway was going in regardless in that location

But, didn't it need a permit? Didn't it need approval? We have a driveway permit. We had a driveway for that for that back lot. We had an entrance permit. For that one house. And so, he did have the ability and the right to be able to cut that in. That Now, I'm not going to argue with you guys about the lots, but that that was the situation until the issue was brought up about the land retained by owner and whether or not that all worked. And so, now we've heard that feedback and adjusted. Now, he's gotten that land to be incorporated into the subdivision and now that house isn't being built as land retained by owner house with a driveway going to it. Now, here we are with a road that's cut in. But, the road was always going to be used in the subdivision. Well, it worked out that it was going to work that way, but that house had the right to have a driveway out to it and it and it worked out that that's where the driveway was

going to be. Well, that's a different conversation. That would have been a back lot. That would have been a whole different situation and I don't even know that it would have met the back lot requirement. So, let's just put that behind us. You're not doing that now. Let's just move forward with what we have right now. Okay. All right. Um yeah, there's a lot of clearing there that probably shouldn't have happened because you don't have an approved plan right now. But, let's just move forward. I know there was also I saw on the agenda there's a agenda item being brought up about about the clearing stuff. I thought how the ordinance does not state that clearing cannot take place before project is It does. It does state it. It's just we are clarifying it and like confirming that everybody understands what the ordinance says. So, it does say it. I think it's section 6.13. Yeah. 6.13. It is in there. It

could be a violation. I just to clarify, the town attorney looked at it and basically her interpretation was that if that clearing was done for the purposes of the development that would could be considered a violation. Yeah, so section 6.13. Um if I could just uh sorry, nothing about the trees sort of um we had talked before about consulting with um MDIFW

and like pro- uh providing them with your full plan to show your tree clearing. Was that done? So, that will be as part of the GP review Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife is consulted as part of that review. Okay. So, well, you'll you'll get a letter from them you know, they would have reviewed your full

think they send an individual letter, but when we submit to DEP, they submit um sections of that application to IFW to review. Yeah, I understand the DEP permit. So, in our ordinance though, we do require the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife consultation. We had talked last time that you did that, but they didn't see the full plan. Um that they only saw I think certain clearing limits. Like not everything was shown to them. And the issue is bats potentially.

Yes. And you had mentioned that you were going to update them. Which will be done as part of the DEP. I I guess me sending them to before before I get the DEP, they're going to look and say, "What's this?" Well, you already did. You We send them just a USGS map um of the thing saying we are doing a development in this area. Do you have any comments about protected habitat or species in this area? That's it. And we do that for every project we do in the entire state. Um so, it's a kind of a general form letter and they send us back say, "Yes, there's protected um wildlife here. Could be a turtle, could be a um bats, whatever." And they asked for more specific plans. Not always. So,

But, they did here. Yes, which we will provide those plans as part of the DEP permit. So, I'm just saying if we could see that. What yes, yes. Whatever they provide back to you would be great. Yeah. And they and they won't provide it back to us. They'll provide it back to DEP and then DEP will

Yeah, that's fine. Yeah. And then I think another point of that was uh vernal pools. They had asked for more data on your surveys. There was like a potential Maybe you already did that. There Yes, there was no potential significant vernal pools found out there. Right, but did you do another review or something because they had come back in that letter and said That's kind of they say They pretty much say in those letters, if there are any potential or or significant vernal pools, they need to see those sheets to determine if they're significant or not. Mhm. When the wetland biologist went out there and looked, there was no areas on the property that were uh vernal pools or any potential vernal pools. So, there's no there's no sheets that need to be sent to the DEP.

Okay, so I as I understood is that there weren't any found, but that they needed to needed to follow up with them and let them know that. And again, that will be submitted to them as part of the DEP. Yeah. Okay. Thank you.

have out there right now? What do you mean? There's a permit listed on the or tagged to a tree at the end of the road. That's pretty uh the loggers to clear that section up up through the roadway. It's a forestry permit.

Like what Do you have a copy of the permit that we could see? What were you asking to do? So, loggers are required uh by cutting I don't know if the amount is X amount of trees they cut over X amount of trees. Uh it's more like a proper practice by them. A lot of logging companies fill it out every time even if they don't cuz they're not going to cut count all the trees before they cut them. So, if they cut over X amount of trees, they have to file a permit for that.

It's the same like I had selective cut around the property at my own house and it was the same idea. It's so the foresters can check in if they want and see what's been cut. Do you have a sign-off from this? You You just need You need a permit to to do so. Okay.

Yeah. So, the It's like main you go on like Lions the main forestry.com. You register so we have an account number. You apply for it. You get the get the approval. But I don't believe you don't I don't believe you file a notice of termination with them. Right. Just Just when your when your forestry clear Yeah, ends then you

It It It gives a forester a location that's It's a common It's more of a common practice up north where you have loggers, but down here it's less common than that. Okay. Um [clears throat] there's a stone wall that's still missing on this existing conditions plan that kind of cuts through

Oh, I got you. Um Could you change that? We We tripped over it when we went out there with the site plan. We site walked. We also saw that stone wall there. It pretty much cuts right through those lots in the road. [clears throat]

It goes right through the lot north to south. Where does it start? What line are you saying it's on? Um you show me where it starts and ends, but it's out there. Um it's It runs through like In the field area is what you're saying? No.

[clears throat] It goes through Where's the existing house? Is it Is it five? Yeah. One or five and seven. So, it goes through like the where three the let's call it the north Oops. Let me switch over to that. So, does the stone wall show on this plan? The one that runs right

Yes. Uh Let me zoom in. Yeah. No, we there's a cuz there's a stone wall if you look at the driveway at the house, there's a stone wall that extends Yeah. So, there's a stone wall right on the other side of that driveway that Right.

[clears throat] You said that you've been out there or you looked at aerial views. For the stone walls, we we had a break break through the property. Right there. And it crosses your road. wall three-ish If you go back to the other map.

there is a separate one. wall right there. Yeah. The existing house is on seven or nine? Five. The existing house is on five? Yeah. So, then no, it's further it's further say west. I think it's the one right there where his clicker is. It shows the wall that is a is a break in the wall around five and then it starts back up there. Nope. There's no one. It goes right through the property. I just looked at some photos that I took during our site walk a while ago. So, we had our surveyor go out there and crisscross the whole property and shoot the wall. So, I'd be surprised if he didn't pick that up, but Yeah, me too. I mean, your your excavators tripped over it every time they went up and down the road. Sometimes you can pick them up on the lidar. You can see a stone wall right there.

Anyway, that's definitely missing from the existing conditions plan. It'd be great to see that. Okay. Easements, um storm water uh storm water What are we calling them? Sediment? No. Storm water easements? Yes, storm drain easements.

Yeah, drainage. Thank you. Um those are going to be easements between who and who? The Between the HOA and the future lot owner. Okay. So, I don't know some towns want the town to be made a third party to it. So, I don't think if the HOA doesn't maintain it, then the town can come in and

I don't think we need Yeah, it's not going to happen. Yeah, that's what we know. Okay. All right. And so, there's you said I think three ponds plus or two plus There's three ponds and then there is a wet pond at the end.

Wet pond. What's the What's difference between wet pond and a storm water pond? So, there's there's the two types of ponds we have here is one's called a grass underdrain soil filter that for 90% of the time it's dry. There's no water in it. When you get a large storm event, fills up, filters through. It's supposed to filter through between 24 to 48 hours after a storm. It's supposed to be dry again. Um a wet pond has a section of it that's a what's called permanent pool, which is usually I mean, depends, but could be 6 to 12 ft deep that that is supposed to maintain water all the time. Uh that's usually lined with either a uh PVC liner or a if it there's clay in the soil, then they can use clay as the retaining material as well. Uh and then it has room above that permanent pond, which is called the channel protection volume, which is pretty much that's the treatment volume. So, when you get

storms, it goes in there, fills up, filters through a gravel filter. Um but that permanent pond stays the entire time. So, part of the construction of those wet ponds cuz there were concerns about all right, you have the standing water there is a safety issue. So, they have this what's called a safety bench around the whole perimeter of the wet pond. So, at that elevation of the permanent pond that stays um full the whole time, you have a very flat slope that allows people if they were to fall in, they can climb out of it and get to the dry areas. So. Where's the fire pond? So, that was the the fire pond the the wet pond was oversized. The permanent pond area was oversized to account for additional storage for fire pond purposes. Um I That was one of the questions I was going to have for the fire department if that was an acceptable solution or not um to provide for fire protection. And if it's not, what what's your solution?

Uh the other solution would just be slide the wet pond and then just provide that fire pond in front of that um wet pond. [clears throat] At the end of the road? with the fire department? Um I have I I didn't know if it's part of this process this the plans were sent to them for review or not.

Okay. Oh. So. No, that's up to you to meet with the fire chief to discuss. All right. Yeah. Discuss that. Um Have you looked at alternatives to the um storm water wooded buffers? constrictive to the homeowner. a great way to maintain buffers along the perimeter lines. Uh especially, you know, in these I mean, in these rural areas, people tend to like to have trees [clears throat] between um house lots as much as possible. Sometimes you you can't avoid having that especially when you get these smaller lots. So, I think it's a great way to effectively require these wooded areas between these uh building lots. And it's generally recommended by TEP DEP to try to implement as many of these wooded buffers in the project as possible because they are a low maintenance. They require no maintenance actually. The only maintenance is don't clear them. Um, and um they provide very effective removal of

uh pollutants within the storm water. Um, the alternative to that would be to clear trench and install some type of structural um system that is honestly not as effective as what the buffers are moving Mhm. pollutants. nice home lots here. Not

smaller lots that are restrictive. I mean they're they're tight, right? And um this isn't an affordable housing development. Um, I'm sure these houses will be might want to expand outside boundaries and it just risks there's more risk to expanding into these wooded buffers. Um, if you the alternative being putting these um storm water systems into open space.

I I've done a lot of these projects and a lot of the lots that are tree covered and buffered are the ones that are most desirable to people. I mean people I I I've seen now a lot of times when you you see uh you know, subdivisions that happen on these kind of farmlands that don't have a single tree on them, you know, people aren't as as excited about those as they are with um you know, locked in wooded lots. Especially, I mean, you know, all you guys live in Durham. I'm sure you live in Durham for a reason. You know, you don't want to live right on top of your neighbor. Um, and you know, I think everyone likes a little bit of buffering between their properties. And I think, you know, these house lots these sorry, these houses we have shown on the um the conceptual footprint of those, it's a large house. We we show that specifically to be like, all right, you can fit a very large house on this. I mean, I think that was

I think just the footprint of the house is at 2,000 square feet without the garage. So, I mean, most people go two stories so they don't have to do a 2,000 square foot footprint house, you know, so um lots, I mean, if you're looking at lot four, which is probably the narrowest one, I mean, that's very easily um to fit a uh suitable house there with a driveway and lawn areas and septic. I I'd like to chime in on this, please, if possible. I think I consider myself an expert actually about this considering I'm the one who sells this type of home. Um take for example Deer Creek Crossing. Those are 1 acre, a little bit more than 1 acre on a few of those lots, all have a wooded buffer um between every single house and all

along the backside. Um very proud to say that I sold that entire subdivision except for the spec houses in 9 weeks and every single person that came up into that subdivision said that the reason why they love that subdivision so much is because of the natural wooded buffer. He didn't clear cut the entire thing. There's another subdivision in Brunswick I can show you where their marketing it and if you take an aerial view of it, the entire thing has just been clear cut and they're plopping the site plan map on top of it and there's literally no buffer between the houses. That's not how people in Durham want to live and I think it's the reason why Deer Creek Crossing has been so successful. There's a couple other points that I'd really like to make about the design. Number one, can you can you expand I mean like shrink it so I can see the whole thing? Is that possible, please? Thank you, George.

Um I you guys know me, right? In a different capacity. I have relentlessly advocated for buffering in all projects that have anything to do with Durham. I think that buffering is without question the way that we preserve our rural character. The existing driveway is right on the property line of these other neighbors, right? We heard over and over again at Deer Creek Crossing that that road going in is right up against all of those back neighbors road going in to where it then opens up. This being moved down intentionally moved that road away from those abutting neighbors. And that was in order to create that buffer so that that wasn't that same complaint that we heard over and over again about the road going into Deer Creek. Another thing I'd like to point out is that especially with the um acquiring the the land retained by owner back into the subdivision, this subdivision alone in a cluster format is

preserving forever with no development 67.2 acres of land. We all talk about over and over and over again how the rural character in Durham is so important to everyone. Max can get 19 lots on this parcel. He can get 19 lots whether it's well, I mean, you guys have to approve it, but all the way pushed up here and it preserving 60 plus acres of undisturbed

natural tons of resources out there, right? Or he could develop this entire parcel. You're talking about bigger lots. We're trying to preserve the rural character. We're trying to shrink all of the development over to one side to preserve nearly 70 acres of land here for to never be developed. I think that's amazing and I think that's the goal of this project. When we were here last time we heard maybe this doesn't meet the requirements of cluster. Maybe it doesn't in your opinion. I think this is exactly the point of why we do cluster subdivisions. I look at the other subdivisions and I don't want to compare anybody, right? We're preserving more land than both of those other subdivisions are in total in one project. I think that's amazing. Also, look at all of this land that is not wetland, right? Part of it is I I don't want to say junk, right? But they don't you don't want what's left in a subdivision

to just be the undevelopable land. Everything that's white there can be developed on and we're not doing that. This isn't just wetlands that's being left over as open space, right? So, if this comes out of a cluster situation, he can do roads out into all of those fingers and develop that whole parcel. Is that really what we want? Is that really the goal? Because what I hear over and over again in town is the goal to preserve rural character. And I think the way that happens is by buffering and I think the way that happens is by pushing all of this over and preserving nearly 70 acres. So, I just hope you guys will take that into consideration when you're thinking about whether or not this plan makes sense. Yeah, I don't want to talk about Deer Creek and whatever those buffers are, but these are restrictive buffers. Um, I don't know if there are restrictive buffers around the houses in Deer Creek, but this is restrictive and

my fear or my my concern might be that somebody would expand into those buffers. Regardless, that's that's up to the developer to make sure that you put up certain signage or indeed restrictions that say that. And I'll say too just on that point, um because this is a DEP qualified project, those buffers are I'll say protected by DEP. We ran into a project that um uh somebody bought a property, let's say like lot four, and they said, "We don't want to maintain these buffers." So, they just cleared it. DEP found out about it, came in, um gave them a Well, they gave them a choice. You can either pay a fine of I think it was like $85,000 or you could replant almost 80 trees. So, they replanted 80 trees to replant those buffers. So, you know, you do it this the the maintenance of these buffers is not going to be coming down to the town. Um, the DEP will go in and they will enforce those buffers.

Sure. I don't want to make sure that just you know that the town's not going to be uh on the hook for these. Sure. And um Ms. Roy, as you know, our land use ordinance updates will include, hopefully if it gets passed, road buffers. I'm very happy to hear it. You brought it up. We're implementing that.

I'm very happy to hear it. So, don't think that your words go unnoticed. Thank you. I appreciate that very much. Um, I'll continue. Where do your transformers propose to go? Um, they are shown on sheet? Uh Sorry. Yeah, right there.

Um Where? Right there. Oh, yes. There's one here and there is one [clears throat] down there and there's one other. There's there's I believe I had four of them um designed along the roadway. I will say too that um part of what Max will have to do as a builder is um you know, if this project were approved, he submits to CMP a plan. Um, they go in there and they take our design. I don't want to say they ignore it, but um They make their own

They make their own plan. Um, and they they they in my experience, they will not look at it until there's an approved plan. So, we design the location of the transformers as best we can based on we know their standards, but um you know, typically one transformer can serve four four lots. So, we'll need four to five transformers out there. Will the poles will the line be underground? Below ground. Yeah, it will be one ground one one pole onto the property and then it will go underground from there.

So, I think we all can agree that there's been some clearing that more clearing than we would hope would have taken place at this point in the in the application process, but there are no soil erosion. So, your plans I don't know if you're your construction documents will say um lay out what the soil erosion measurements are to be taken and there's none out there right now with more clearing than we would have expected. Is something going to be done about that before sometime soon? Um I don't know when you're going to get your state permits and when you're actually going to be able to start construction, but um it's it's loose soil out there that

[clears throat] is not stabilized. I mean we took Yeah, I mean I've been out there. I think so they didn't do any digging in the roadway, but you're talking maybe where like the skidder had ran through is what you're saying. Well, there soil erosion soil um uh control measures Yeah, I yeah, I know yeah. What hay bales? Whatever. Right. Um rip Um so, I think the thing is we we could put in um There's nothing out there right now and and we're getting into the erosion control Yeah, yeah. Right. So, there is there is erosion control in the wet areas from erosion control is a mixture of dirt and wood chips basically. So, that's what erosion control mix is. Um if there's areas that are of concern that are truly eroding, um we would put up silt fence. So, that would be the easiest thing to do. Less damage than going in with machinery and installing uh hay bales or or something like that. Uh Right now, I just don't see where where

you are with the state permitting process and how long it's going to take for you to get that and like I said in February, you mentioned that you wouldn't start until spring of a year from now. So, this is going to sit like it is without any soil erosion control until you get those state permits. Um I just think something needs to be done.

Maybe that's something that we should talk about. Like because that's a really good point. If nothing else is going to be done for up to a year Yeah, we're I'm happy to put out some silt fence where I think that you know, areas that could potentially maybe they don't need it today, but if you had a big rain or something like that would have collected down there. So, Or maybe a a mulch berm. Yeah, so yeah, so um

we can put out erosion control mix mulch berm. Yeah. Yeah, I I I think I agree completely something should be done soon. I don't think we can wait for a condition either of the permit because I don't know when that's going to happen. No, we we we would be I think as as the owner of the property I'd be responsible for maintaining um so Yeah, even now. Even in your house, you know, if you had major erosion the code officer would say something to you, right? Um So, I think as the property owner I'd be responsible for maintaining erosion control measures. Even now? Yeah, I just as anybody would, right? Yeah. Yeah. We we can we can make that a condition with a time frame that has to be met. Right, but I guess what I'm saying is the conditions come with some like I don't know when we're going to be able to make conditions. I think Max is willing and able to If you're willing to do it now Yeah. I don't want my property washed out just

as much as you guys don't want it to. So, we'll note that for the record. Thank you very much. Sorry, I spoke for you, but Condition based on the preliminary approval. Okay, if we get If we do get to that point. If you want to um you know, Max I can meet you on site and we can walk the lines to that see where it makes sense to put in some erosion control berm. Yeah, Brian anything else on that piece? Or is that okay for you? Um regarding soil erosion Uh that's a potential approval condition to address that when you get there.

Your project description it still says that there's a portion of the land that will be retained by the owner. If it doesn't that's erroneous. I apologize for that. Okay. Um be on lot five? No, lot five is where the existing house currently sits. Once it's developed it will be lot 19. No, the the the the existing owner or the previous owner I should say will no longer have any if if they want to to live on one of these these units they will have to to purchase it just like anyone else. Okay, okay. Yeah. Okay. She's already under contract somewhere else.

[laughter] All right, so I think that kind of that addresses a few of my my other questions where um your current um purchase and sales was for 76 acres. So, that makes up the difference of the 17 acres. It's 94 total. Yes. The purchase and sales was for 76 and then there was 17 that you would purchase previous to that. Is that No, I believe that the 17 would be the remaining land that is under contract right now.

one, right? The new Yes. And the old lot 19. Yes. the original application was presented. That's why we're we have these questions. Um So, the original application was the plan excluding what was lot 19, the land retained by owner and now that is being purchased and incorporated into it. So, now it's the total 94 acres. That's where that extra additional land all came from. I need clarification because yeah, it's there's a lot that has changed in a month here. Absolutely. Um

that wraps up my comments here? [laughter] I don't have any additional ones based on what I've been discussed. [snorts] Yeah. Oh, um okay. I'm sorry. There was there was one other comment. This this is actually very significant. Um there's been a um we've had some opinions about what um um a um the building envelope is and the building site is and we received

thankfully from our town attorney um a clear definition if you will for lack of term what that means. Um so, um we talked about steep slopes and um um wetlands and soils that are poorly drained uh in a building envelope.

Um This only just came out this morning. Um so, I'm trying to still make sure that I get this right, but um what [clears throat] each site needs to contain 40,000 contiguous square feet. Um That's not wetlands, steep slopes or very poorly drained soils. Right. Yeah. Yes. So, um let's look at lot three for example. Can we pre zoom in on that? Uh I'll go to the

it's a worst case, right? I'll go to these lots. Right there. Yeah, right there. All right. So, This is lot three right here. Right. So, based on our last meeting, you've done a great job to show the buffers, the setbacks, uh setbacks from lot lines, buffers from um wetlands. Um

but we need to be sure that you have 40,000 square feet of contiguous buildable area. So, if you look at the the table on each um sheet here, George I see this is I guess I can tell you that lot three has an acreage of Oh, man. Let me roll my plans here.

column on the left is the total lot size and the column on the right is the minimal buildable area, contiguous buildable area. Um and lot three itself has 43,000 uh and change of uh minimal contiguous buildable area. So, um It's got the smallest. Eight is the smallest.

And that takes into consideration the setbacks and buffers? No, that is just the minimal contiguous buildable area. That does not include wetlands, steep slopes, or very poorly drained soils. this is I refer to to George in the letter from the attorney. The the setbacks are what applies to the building site. Um But to get a driveway to lot three, you need to have a setbacks for the driveway. And it looks really tight there. I think George, I think that the the driveways not would not be subject to the 50-ft um setback cuz those are sub for the building sites. What about I I think I I disagree. We haven't had to do that in any other building permits in town before, though, I will say. Based off like the last 20 houses I built in the town. Only cluster subdivisions? Yeah. There there there was no setbacks off the driveways. Generally, setbacks do not apply to driveways. However,

Uh okay. buffers, it may be a different situation. And DEP may look at that as well. Yeah, cuz you got Is it 25 or 50 ft from for DEP? Setbacks For forest wetlands? Buffer for forest wetlands, is there any? There's not. No. Okay.

ft off the sides and the back for positioning house, oversize shed, buildable structure. where we where we can put a driveway or where we can't cuz it kind of depends on what type of house you're building, those are kind of answers that nobody knows at this point.

our attorney said that those buffers need to be included. No. Actually, my interpretation of and I did circulate the legal opinion to the board members is that the only exclusions you can apply are those specifically stated in the ordinance. Which are the steep slopes, wetlands, poorly drained soils, and areas in resource protection. Sorry, I just want to clarify. I think it's very poorly drained soils. This you have poorly drained soils, but

you only have a little bit of that. 10 different classifications. It's somewhat poorly drained, poorly drained. poorly and poorly is a big difference. Like so we have to make sure In any case, only those that are specifically stated in 4.1.1A for building on a lot can be deducted by the board. And the poorly drained soil is only within the building site, not within the envelope. The site doesn't appear to have like any minimum size according to this opinion.

none of the area whatsoever has any very poorly drained. That's all Yeah, yeah. We're not Yeah, we're not questioning that here. It's the um what we learned today from our attorney regarding uh contiguous area is what we're talking about. So the one thing that the the future uh either home builder or the future owner, if they build themselves, um they are still restricted to they cannot impact any of these wetlands. And if they do, they have to come back um one, they'd have to adjust their DEP wetland permit. And then you'd probably, because we'll show the wetland impacts on the subdivision plan, they'd have to come back to the to you uh as a town to get uh an amendment to impact additional wetlands.

that would say for any of these lots that you're concerned about, you could require an engineering site plan for each lot showing exactly what's going to be built We might want that. grading and otherwise. Well, possibly. Yeah. I saw that too and

I was unsure of why they were included on there, but um It's up to the board. Yeah, it's up to the board. attorney has indicated that you if you're concerned about the suitability of these lots, you can require more detailed site plans to show At the final plan.

not going to be impacting those constraints that are contained within those lots. Would those be required at um final planning board or would those be required as part of the code enforcement package that's Again, that's been a discussion. Um my recommendation would be that the board review those at final plan and approval.

concerns and questions about. You know I I understand that. I guess my concern is, you know, back to the concerns about restricting the future owner. If you're restricting it to their house has to be in this exact location, um that's pretty, you know, onerous on the on the future homeowner as well. Um If the board wants to be sure, that's the way to do it.

want to add an addition 20 years from now, they need to come back to the board for an amendment. the buffers. Do we want to talk about this right now? Yeah. Or do we want to get Is there anything else before we get into the uh conditions of approval, like the run-through the prelim approval? Or we can talk about this now. I just said Those are I mean, that's part of the conditions. So it makes sense. Yeah, yeah. Yeah, so I didn't know if there's anything to go over that into that.

anything? into that? Yeah. I I could see on like if [clears throat] you guys had like certain lots that you were more concerned about than others, like requiring like a grading plan or something on those lots to to show proposed house. But uh

doing it on every single lot saying exactly where a house has to go, that doesn't feel like a Durham thing. It's not like the again, preserving natural character. That's a very uh Portland, South Portland, you know, you would feel like you're building a city and that's not what I'm trying to do. I'm trying to make it a little bit more natural. You know, maybe maybe this house I want to face this way and maybe this house I want to face this way and that's and I try to take all that into consideration when I develop these projects. So

Um there's to speak to that point, you know, like at some of the other builds, people have very specific locations, their directions or Max is really good about to be if they want to have solar, right? Positioning a house in a way that it makes sense for them to be able to utilize solar the best way. And so at maybe it's a compromise of like within this window, the house this is where the house needs to be, but like the actual like staked-out positioning of the house, maybe that's a little bit too micromanaging. I I'm just saying. Maybe those are things to consider. For for those reasons, like there are people that want to be able to utilize solar in the way the house is positioned matters for those types of things. I mean, I think like one's for lot three, if you want us to show you a driveway that could wrap up from the new private road up to a buildable area, I think that's more than reasonable.

Um Right. Yeah, proposed driveway entrances. And and showing the first whatever 100 150 ft of the or it wouldn't be 100, maybe 100 ft of the driveway. Yeah. Yeah, I think it could be more fine-tuning. My thought is fine-tune it especially on three and others in the area that have these restrictions. Um I don't know if we need to get into like the detailed detail site design, but

superior lots, not not inferior and and meet the our definitions. Absolutely. But I think you you can do that with more like a fine-tuned building area than what you have in here at final stage. But like the details of what the house is going to look like, where it's facing, like, you know, you don't think we need that.

No. And maybe, you know, part of I mean, this would be more of a final condition, but if there are any changes in the future, you know, or if let's say we show you that and and they want to shift uh you know, let's say we show an approximate location for a building, they want to shift it, you know, maybe allow that flexibility to be reviewed at the staff level rather than come back to to planning board. Especially if it's just

would be We don't care where the house goes. We just want to see where the where the limits are. Yeah. I think it's just fine-tuning the limits. Okay. I think that's what we're talking about. Where's the building site? Yeah. Exactly. First a little bit more than what we've got here.

Yeah. Grant it however you want. Make it as big or small as you want. We're just concerned about the limits. I think so. I think I think we'll just I what I want to be careful is that, you know, we don't show like a building footprint that we're tied to. We just show a building area that they can build within. Exactly. Yes. Yeah. We want to know where your test pits are. We want to know where your wells are pro- pro- proposed to go. Um septic. Yep.

George. I did uh circulate draft conditions of approval. We should review those and decide whether we modifications. Sounds like it might be. Do we want to go through all of the sections? You know, in the ordinance in the ordinance. He's [clears throat] got all He has the draft conditions of approval. Let me point out that the draft conditions of approval are intended to line up with the standards. Okay. With the intent that you're not giving a final approval here, you're giving a preliminary approval that indicates that with the level of review that you've done, which has been extensive, uh you are confident that this project will be able to meet the standards of the Article 6. And these tie into those to say that for final plan approval, they will need to address every one of these items which follow those standards. And we're just saying

[clears throat] Okay. Can I ask a a general question? So, we talked about timeline. Um I think in our ordinance we we say 6 months from prelim approval to final. Yes. I don't think if we give you prelim approval today, I don't You could have That's not the 6 months isn't going to you're not going to be ready, right? Um Never say never. Um DEP has been dragging their feet. I have a project that was supposed to be approved in uh September. I still haven't got a permit yet on. So, um but I guess we'll just keep you'll keep extending it. I guess the question I have is is there like a Are we allowed a one-time extension or is it It just says you have to extend it.

Okay. Right. Is that just a letter we send to you to request extension and then You submit a request for extension. Okay. Yeah, the timeline's more on us to make sure we're doing our part, not so much Yeah. What that prevents is somebody coming back 3 years later with the same plan and say we had a preliminary approval and the ordinances changed. Yeah. Okay. So, I think one of the areas, Brian, on this uh draft conditions of approval, I'm quite sure we're going to be adopting all of these that have been presented, but we also would want to include uh a better presentation of

possibility of a missing rock wall that you had a concern about. Looking at these sections, you'll see whether it pertains You could just add it as an extra. Okay. So, what what are you looking for? Field verification by the surveyor that there is not a stone wall in the vicinity of lots Whatever the lot has. There is a stone wall there. Not that there's not a [laughter] stone wall. There is a stone wall there. Uh So, verification of

was your picture surveyed? [laughter] It's probably geolocated. I mean, that was one concern. Uh Stabilization. Yeah, yeah, the Yes. Erosion and sedimentation problems. And what what I would suggest you do is require the engineer to submit a report with the final plan saying what has been done for site stabilization. That's clearly laid out in your construction documents. The um developer just needs to follow your standards. I Yeah, I think Yeah, I think what what we're talking about the what the what's currently in place out there. So, I can meet with with Max and we can walk the property. He can put the measures in place. I can submit a report

that those measures have been been in place. I don't know if they I mean I'd actually like to see it before final plan stage. Absolutely. Well, [clears throat] they go out and do it now, submit a report with pictures for the final plan. Well, no, I mean, I want to I want it in hand by then.

We'll just we'll submit it to George as soon as you as soon as we have it and Yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah, I'm just saying like final plan stage could be a year from now, more. So. You want the site stabilized now. Yes. know that. Max does, too. Uh We're all on the same page with that. Can we talk about Gorrill Palmer and what they are going to be looking at? That is uh The first one. Yeah. Draft condition of approval one, which currently is was review of the engineering designs for road construction, utilities, stormwater management, and the MS4, and their probably construction cost estimates. Just in preparation, I did include uh their peer reviewing of the calculations of the individual lots, building envelopes. And also uh as we did on Deer Creek on a couple of the lots that were similar concerns to this, that I we did you did require individual lot site plans for compliance with standards. Sounds like you do not want

to go that far on this one. You mean have them look at No, an actual grading plan for those lots. That's what you did on Deer Creek. of the applicant Yes. Yeah. And then peer reviewed by That would be condition three in the in the updated one. And again, you can modify these any way you you decide. All the steep slopes are identified, right? And you have I think 2-ft intervals that you No, that's another application. You have your 5-ft intervals there. No, we have 2-ft 2-ft Yeah, 2-ft. We have actually 1-ft out by the road cuz we we got additional topos over on the road, but as you get into the lot, it turns to 2-ft contours.

which talks about the erosion and sedimentation plan, I think that's where we could include the erosion control to be implemented. in the original or the updated ones? Uh the one that's on the agenda. one, yeah. No, I think we I sent out by email an updated one. It's got today's date on it.

Yeah. Today? The one drive. Yeah. Yes. Um Just happened to be today. I didn't It's via email. I think I got it today. I can I can read it. I I didn't need that. And that's happy to uh Oh, thank you. Get some sugar. Yeah. Okay. Yeah, so Oh, yeah, this is about Based on the town attorney's input, I and assuming that you were really concerned about some of these lots as you've been expressing, um if you really want to be sure number one that the calculations are correct, that peer reviewer with the CAD check all their calculations.

I would like that. Yes. Yes. That's uh 1C in the updated one. Okay. Yes. And then uh if you're concerned about the suitability of some of these lots, like lot 10 being squeezed between cemetery and steep slopes and what that's going to do, uh what will it produce as a building site, then you could require an actual site plan for that for that lot or any of the others that you're concerned about.

something in between with it that now on that extreme, which is a more refined building envelope plan. So, the the only um question I have and it's obviously up to the the board, the review from Gorrill Palmer, part of that review right now is the stormwater management systems, which I think would make sense in almost all cases, but this is being reviewed by the state and is being peer reviewed by a um uh an engineer. Um

that to be delegated to DEP for their review. Why? The stormwater management systems. maybe, but I I I would strongly want could bypass that if you were confident that DEP's is going to We have the same standards as DEP. All Gorrill Palmer's going to do is look to see if they did that at the Yes. And I I feel I feel good about that. I don't want to change that. So, keep it in. Yes. I would like to keep it in. But, I'm one person, so I want to be consistent with all of our applications. I hear what you're saying. And hopefully they come back with the same, you know what I'm

it's they they they won't. They won't. [laughter] But, it's the more cooks you get in the kitchen, the the they're going to have different comments, but we will we'll deal with that. Especially with DEP's delayed review, it's it's just hard cuz we'll make changes based on Gorrill Palmer and then we just send it to DEP while they're in the middle of their review, so it's kind of it's a rolling ball, but we'll we'll we'll work our way through it. Okay. So, sorry, we're back on We said yes to C. Um D individual's site plan.

should jump down to number three first to see see which one to do with that. This would be basically [clears throat] the same thing as C and D, but it's specifically to saying which lots we want them to look at. Uh okay. And so, you pulled out the ones that have issues with steep slopes, wetlands, and yeah.

Yeah. Yeah. Okay. or eliminate them all. What do you all think? at a minimum. Yeah, so so it sounds like at least some of them, yeah. Yeah, I I mean, I I'm okay with what's listed here. Okay. Does it address the uh stone wall which you had a concern with? Um no. We're talking about something different, but that would be added to this. Okay. And added, yeah.

three. Yeah. So then then goes back up to D. Well, sorry. Yeah, go ahead. So so that means and then [clears throat] detailed engineering site plan, does that mean we want Does that require footprint as well? Cuz that's what we wanted to avoid.

As drafted, it would. Okay. Well, could be could be no. Cuz that's where that's where you start with the grade. If you don't have the grade If you don't have the footprint, you don't have the grade. Mhm. mean, my question is if we provide a area on the property that's I don't know. 50 by 80 or something that the building could be fit within that area. Mhm. That way you're not saying, all right, you know, your building is shaped like this. We're saying it's within this area and then we grade up to that area. That area is just a flat area that the building would go, you know, rather than saying, you know, here we're going to have a 2-ft bump out here for the building and a 1-ft bump out there. I don't think No, we don't Yeah, we don't You could put up a You could show a building pad Yeah. which is 10,000 sq ft and show grading to that and then they could put their house in orientation they want within that. That

would work. Mhm. Yeah. maybe a final we could see, you know, if during construction if they want to shift things out of that a little bit, if you think that needs to come back before planning board or if we could shift that to staff level at that point. Just cuz sometimes you try to stagger houses, you know, you don't want them all right all All right.

yeah. It's like I like to set one back, set one forward. Maybe this one allows to daylight, you know. then a bit? Yes, we don't see May maybe instead of detailed engineering on these eight sites, we just get the pad it on every site. And is that a reasonable

pad driveway. Right. Yeah. Development pad. Um all sites are the ones that you're concerned about. The ones we're concerned about. Oops. It's pretty close to all Yeah. Submit. So pad Do we have to sell everything here? I mean, driveway.

It's have a Looks like the applicant shall submit detailed development pads for uh lots 1 3 4 6 and 8 10 15 and 19. I mean, that's really reviewing the the slopes and the wetlands and the Right. very poorly drained soils. So yes to that one. Um

soils I I wanted to make sure soils was looked at by Grol So it sounds like that will be added in there. George? Uh under one. Yes. I think it's included in D. That's what I'm referencing. Within those lines 6.23. Yeah, yeah. Um Actually, I mean, it goes beyond the lot. No, okay, never mind. Um hydrogeologic survey, so that's being done now. If you could provide that to Grol Pummer and they'd like that. Do you want them to peer review that?

Yes. I guess we did talk about that the first meeting and and I know you obviously the board can change their mind at any time. say anything about But we you just said cuz it was a hydro hydro hydrogeological study and there was one other one in the in the ordinance that they can request. Um high intensity soil survey. Yeah, that too. Yeah, soils I say no, but for the I was thinking more about maybe I said no before, but this is a 19-site subdivision. I'm just thinking of like water yield and you know Yeah. We deal this question a lot with with uh subdivisions. When you have uh projects that have well and septic Yeah. for most part, what you use is what you put back in the ground for lack of better terms.

Mhm. So there's really no export out of the property out of the the area cuz you're putting back in through the uh septic system. So um and that's I obviously haven't read the hydrogeological study yet, but that's typically what they say and and one of the things you do they map the nitrate plumes just to make sure they're not um impacting any properties off site or the wells. Yeah. I mean, I'm thinking if you already have it Yeah, I mean, you can submit it as part of final. I just to you it would One I haven't reviewed don't know if Grol Pummer reviews that type of thing. Um maybe they have soil scientists on board now, but um that will be reviewed part of the state, you know, thing as well and they have their state scientists that review that pretty extensively. We can definitely provide it as part of our final application. I just don't need know if it's something that needs to be peer reviewed by Well, is this Is it going to

be done soon? Um depending on what happens here, they have to update their plan to reflect the changes we've made and then they'll reissue it probably within I don't know, a week or two. Um That soon? Yeah, open soon. And then when we One thing that when we submit our permit to the state um we will also be sending a copy to uh the town and usually it's a physical copy, but we can submit a digital copy as well that um George can share with all of you so you can see the 600 pages of materials that we'll submit to them. Yeah. Cuz I'm sure you're going to want to get this to Grol Pummer soon, right? For their review.

Yes. I mean, we asked with the their Yes, but we also wanted to submit it to DP because they're going to be the longest in the town. [clears throat] So I mean, my thought is is if you're going to have it, let's get it to Grol Pummer. But if y'all don't think it's needed, then that's fine, too. Okay. And maybe they don't need to look at it. That's a good point. If you had questions about it, they would.

Yes. Okay. Generally, they wouldn't. Okay. My question is yield. Yeah, in terms of the the wells being able to produce an adequate water for each lot. Yes. If there are reports of ground water problems or well problems, then they could look at that, but unless you have some indication that there is Well, the hydrogeologic survey would indicate I think it does look at They should be looking at those surrounding area wells to indicate if So that's if they could do that review, that'd be great, but again It's okay. No.

So yay or nay on the hydrogeologic survey? Yeah, it's Okay, that's included. All right, good. Um to delete delete the applicant shall implement erosion and sedimentation control measures for areas that have been cleared of trees and with a report provided by

the consulting engineer to submit to the town planner. With a date associated with that. Within 30 days. Is that okay? a week. I [laughter] said two. I said two. I think you said tomorrow. Just let me wait. There's a difference between doing the deal and having their engineer peer review it to us. Yes. Also Correct.

on posted road. We have to get material there. No, probably just me. Not saying we can't do it with a smaller truck, but like efficiency-wise. Yeah. days? Within 30 days to submit the report. Joe? Okay. Yep. Okay, great. What about adding wetlands review to Grol Pummer? We've done that in the past.

If there are concerns and questions. So a lot of the sites are wet. Right? A lot of the sites are wetlands. Again, what you're looking Are you looking for them to go out and verify the wetlands? So what would they be doing? Just what they've done before, right? They review desktop materials.

if you if there's been a dispute as to where a wetland boundary is, Yeah. they will look at that. Okay. But they don't normally check the wetland scientist support report if it's certified. Really? So we haven't had Grol Pummer do that. Again, the only time is when there has been like on Day Road Mhm. where there was a dispute over where that boundary was, you did have a peer review that. Okay. Yep. Yeah. Yes, there was. And they're also looking at the most recent subdivision where there was a dispute on uh the nearest stone. Yeah. So if there is an issue Okay. they will help you with that. All right, but they don't do general reviews. Okay. Noted.

pops out to you that leaps out to you? no, no. No, no. I don't have any specific concerns. Just like the fact that this site is so wet. I thought it would be a good idea. Okay. Let me just quickly run down through with you the with the changes. Yes, please. Okay. So, So, is this is this going to be for vote? You're running through this right now? Yep. All right. Let's hit it. Okay. So, number one is the peer review which includes A through C and then um D and you're adding E which is a review of the hydro- hydrological report. Yeah. Okay. And two is the estimated cost of the infrastructure. Three are detailed site plans which has been amended to require detailed development pads for those noted lots. Uh six months final submits first final in six months is number four which can be extended. Uh five is the DEP's permits being submitted. Six is the erosion and the standard erosion and sedimentation control plan

meeting the DEP uh uh best management practices. Seven is uh placing on the final plan the limits of clearing. Eight is getting the addressing officer to code officer to assign the road approved road name and street addressing. Uh nine is the engineering and road design which they've kind of already submitted. Uh [clears throat] but that will be peer reviewed by the local planner. 10 is again the clearing limits. And again, what this does is it hits every one of the standards. And sometimes they're in multiple places. One is the clearing limits being established and the second one is putting it on the plan. Uh 11 is the cost estimates for all the engineering. Um engineering cost estimates for all of the proposed construction of the road and other infrastructure. 12 is the DEP storm water plan and easements on all of those proposed treatment facilities. 13 is the proposed homeowner association

documents or meeting the templates of the town attorney or submitting ones that will be reviewed by the town attorney. 14 is approval of their cluster concept and 15 is the performance guarantee which is either an irrevocable uh letter of credit or they could propose a conditional agreement where they do not get any building permits or sell any lots until all the improvements are done. And then 16 is that erosion and sedimentation control measure being implemented through report by the tech- the consulting engineer within 30 days of it being done. Two things. Yep. Um the stone wall added. That'll be number [snorts]

wall. And um you all need to meet with the um fire chief Mhm. about the on the fire pond. And and the third one I would like to see the updated um consultation with MDI and W. And that can be through the DEP application is fine.

Per what we talked about. Yep. Do we want to add anything about Casella and ensuring that we get the letter from them? That's already They've already submitted their They've already submitted their application. yet. No. We're waiting on it. Yes. I say yes. I think that's a great idea.

[clears throat] you all would like to add? I guess, because it does somewhat relate to conditions. So, we made all these conditions that come before final but also as part of the final before you can approve a final plan, all the permits have to be in place with DEP, everything. You don't approve contingent upon DEP permits. Is that correct or Yeah. Okay.

um we accept the conditions presented by the planner as read to us and as amended. As amended. I'll second. Thank you. Thank you, guys. What's that? No, no more. Don't add any more water. [clears throat] You're back. The bubble burst.

going to really say. Um okay. Next on our agenda is right. No problem. How's that for tonight? No town tonight. No. He's actually in Florida. with Krucker. Brett Fossy, VP operations. what you have in front of us tonight? Yep. So, this is um conditional use application for continuation of gravel and sand operations within the property limits. The yellow area that's highlighted.

I don't know why it's has that that white block on it, but Photos that come from some of that. Yep. The yellow outlined area on that map is previously grandfathered through the DEP previous to the '70s. Um map has all the property limits, the buffer limits, um Cushing Road outlined on the the north side, Hallowell on the left side.

copies if anyone wants to look at it. Thank you so much. Sorry, it's so small. No, it's okay. There you go. if you if you kind of zoom in towards the towards that yellow area, we have an existing entrance there um across from 80 Cushing Road. I'll open it too. Cushing Thank you. Yep. Fancy. Mhm. Um right here is our entrance into

the pit. There's an existing building right here. The lower level of the pit is down here and then there's kind of an upper level. It's been um we have haven't not operated the pit since I don't have a date, but it's been more than 20 years. Um it's way before Brett or I have been with the company. Um right now um like this back area is not grandfathered through the DEP. So, we um

our limits are just within that yellow area that's grandfathered. Um So, this was really a weird process for us. Typically, everything's always DEP approval. We operate within DEP limits. Where this one was grandfathered and it's been so long and we're trying to get back in and we wanted to make sure that we go through the correct process with these folks. Um so, it was recommended we come through planning board, go through this process. The intent is to [clears throat] only mine within that yellow boundary. Obviously within the setbacks. Um Get in there, start and then eventually we may [clears throat] put in a notice of intent to comply with DEP so we can get into that back corner. Um

I have a couple questions. Yep. Um Dean, does Krucker own or No. Did Can you just tell me other of this all property we own. Okay. So we own this piece up here. This is owned by Triple K. This is Duggan's. Okay, they're all pits. Yes. Yeah, okay. So yeah, you own that. And then across the road there's a firewood Yeah. processing facility. Actually we own this piece up here too. Yeah. And you own own that little like triangle.

Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Um grandfathered area? Correct. If we were to If we were to want to work outside of that grandfathered piece, we would need to go to DEP for their approval to work outside of that. They said everything inside of that

right now if we wanted to work that is not under their jurisdiction. So we need to come and talk with you folks. We do intend eventually to get back into this piece. Um but for right now before we get too far we'd like to get in here where it's been so long since we've worked the pit. Make sure that the material is advantageous and worth it.

footprint but you would be expanding it a bit really to the southeast. A little bit, is that trying to look at an aerial like your southeast corner there? Yes, eventually that eventually that is the intent. no no, within the yellow. Within the yellow? Right well to the right. Yeah. Yeah, right there. Yes. That's new. That would be new It'd be new area that we would open up that hasn't been opened before. It is part of the existing Jackson pit. It was just never cleared and opened.

cleared before. Yeah. Yeah, okay. The intent would be to come into here. Cuz that's the idea of this this new pit is to go into the areas that haven't been mined yet. Yeah. So not further down. Yeah, the lower piece is actually as low as it can go.

Yeah, right. Okay. So we would be looking to expand Yeah. and mine that sand. want to try to go for the whole thing right now? Cuz it takes time. It does take time. If we get in there Honestly, what we're looking for is we need hot top sand. Very specific for what we put in it. It's kind of a coarser material. If we get in there and we find that everything is too fine, we may hold off and stay through DEP just because it doesn't make sense to. Not worth spending the time or money.

but um has a wetland delineation been done for the areas that haven't been mined before? Um I'm not sure. Not that's beyond a survey. What? Nothing? No. No. There's a pond there. I see. On this Yeah, right there. Yeah. Um It's a heavily impacted area. Heavily impacted, I understand that but I don't know. That area hasn't been disturbed before, right? That eastern piece. It doesn't look it. Um and there are wetlands, you know, just to the northeast of that area. So

The intent would be to use DEP's setback limits. I can't remember what it is off that if it's 50 or 100. From a wetland? Yeah. Understood but how would you get that data? We would So you're going to do a delineation? Would you do a delineation? Like a wetland delineation? Yeah, I guess we would have to.

Okay. And so you have to be set back from from those per DEP. Yeah. Okay. How do you plan on establishing the water table? Yeah. Yeah, make sure that you don't get too far down. Yeah. Um considered yet. Yeah. The intent is not to go down any more than it is right now. Yeah. We know that it's close from looking at

the other pits that are right there. haven't determined where the water levels are? No. We in in other pits we have wells in the vicinity that can get that we can measure that water level on. Yeah, I think it'd be good to know where that water line is just to make sure that you all aren't getting too deep. Right? I don't I'm not a I'm not an excavator operator but I don't know how I would tell whether or not I've hit a water line or a gas line without knowing where those are.

Yeah. And just to clarify, the standard is 5 ft above the ground water table. Correct. But just for purposes of of talking the like Brett said, we're not mining down on that bottom level. It'd be that upper shelf which I don't know the elevation off the top of my head but it's significantly above that that bottom level of the pit. Okay. Um regardless, I think we want to know what that what that level is. Yeah.

want to know that cuz this is a big polygon. But I would say definitely the east, right? west. It would be wherever they're going to be excavating. To understand where the ground water is? So you do test pits throughout? Is that what we're saying? No, just where they're going to be excavating. Determine where the ground water level is. Right, where are you excavating? Could be anywhere within that yellow perimeter. Okay. So could be multiple places.

Minus the wetland. Minus the wetland inside [laughter] the setbacks. you would do test pits wherever you're going to Yeah. And typically that's other pits. If Triple K's in there and he gets too deep, finds it, okay. Got to come back up. Yeah, you're above an aquifer here. So Yes. Yeah, we were really hoping that this wasn't an aquifer zone so we could continue to go down.

Of course, right. [laughter] Unfortunately, you're not. That's okay. I might have to recuse myself for this cuz I'm friends with Justin Johnson. Oh [clears throat] boy. So I don't want to Friends with a business partner? Friends, personal friends. Yeah. Peace. I don't think you need to If you're a business partner it'd be different but we need bodies. Okay.

[laughter] Well so just for the record, the way you deal with that is to say Okay, does he have a financial vested interest and I think the answer is no. However, would he be biased in reviewing the application and if he indicates he can do it without any bias, notwithstanding the friendship, if the board is accepting of that and the applicants or any concerned parties are accepted then you can he does not need to recuse himself. It's a good point. What do you think? Let me advise you. Okay.

Friends, good friends, very good friends. [clears throat] That's very good friends. thoughts. Um Do we feel there's a need for a site visit? Yeah. I don't think so. [clears throat] Do you? Sorry. No. No. No. Bring your own shovel. I don't I don't think there's a need for a site visit. Do you? No. No. No.

findings of fact here? You can. We should. Okay. I think everybody looked at the findings of fact that George drafted. Mhm. Um so we're going to try to abbreviate this. Mhm. I you to read everything going on. Exactly. All right. Um So, [clears throat] um conditional use review criterion number one, public health impacts. The proposed use will not create unsanitary or unhealthful conditions by reason of sewage disposal, emissions to the air or water, or other aspects of its design or operation.

all read those and you don't have any comments. I'll move on. you give me [clears throat] a second? Sorry. Like we 5 ft above the ground water. This is on the public health impacts. I know, but it says emission. There are a proposed set of approval conditions that address those standards and and the requirements. At the end. But there are conditions of approval that are separate.

this. Okay, understood. Thank you. I'm good with this. Okay. Number two. Oh, Brian, you should make a motion on each of these. Each one. Okay. Yeah, yeah, I see that. All right. has satisfied a reasonable burden of proof of compliance with the criterion for public health impacts. I'll second. All in favor?

proposed use will not create unsafe vehicular or pedestrian traffic conditions when added to existing and foreseeable traffic in its vicinity. And there are four findings here as well. No, it sounds like um adequate sight distance. No issues there.

I will move that the applicant has satisfied a reasonable burden of proof of compliance with the criterion for traffic safety impacts. I'll second. All in favor? The proposed [clears throat] use will not create public safety problems which would be substantially different from those created by existing uses in the neighborhood or require a substantially greater degree of municipal services than existing uses in the neighborhood. And there are also four findings here.

I was wondering whether uh the neighborhood is aware of this, how much information has been provided to I mean, granted, it's a grandfathered But when something has been dormant for 20 years and all of a sudden the activity increases and

correct. I don't think this part has been grandfathered, right? Which part? The one that you're the reason why you're here. The reason why we're here is only inside that yellow outline, which is the grandfathered piece. Yes, the rest of it is not. Correct. And we have no intent According to the town attorney, uh the fact that their DEP grandfather does not grandfather them from the conditional use permit requirement.

Right. Right. That's why we're here. That's why we're here. Okay. So, the the reason we're having a public hearing Okay, so the first question is did you notify the abutters? Yes. So, you know that the abutters have been notified.

The the receipts are right here. Okay, that's good. So, you can determine whether or not you want to hold a public hearing or not. I would certainly think that if I was an abutter, I would certainly be aware of what was going on tonight. And I would be, I think, expressing my concern. But it doesn't appear that it does have anybody here expressing that, so As long as the abutters have been notified. Okay. Would you mind handing those to the town planning administrator, Mr. Lynch, please?

Mhm. Okay, a motion on number three. I'll make a motion that the applicant has satisfied a reasonable burden of proof of compliance with the criterion for public safety impacts. Yeah. Okay. Number four, environmental impacts. The proposed use will not result in sedimentation or erosion or have an adverse effect on water supplies.

And there are four findings here as well. but that'll be a condition, right, George? It can be. Or it can be. It might be. heavily disturbed in this area, but there is a part that was not ever disturbed. They're going to get into

satisfied a reasonable burden of proof of compliance with the criterion for environmental impacts. May I add? I'm sorry. Um Alan, um George, is this the right spot to add um that there is some proof of what the ground water table is?

Uh that is a proposed condition that they provide documentation. Okay. Okay. Yep. All right. Um the motion stands. I'll second. All in favor or denial? The proposed [clears throat] use will be compatible with existing uses in the neighborhood with respect to physical size, visual impact, intensity of use, and proximity to other structures. And there are four findings here as well. Yeah. Lots of pits in the area, lots of disturbance.

Mhm. I'll make a motion that the applicant has satisfied a reasonable burden of proof of compliance with the criterion for scale and intensity of use. Second. All in favor? noise and hours of operation. The proposed use will be compatible with existing uses in the neighborhood with respect to the generation of noise and hours of operation. We didn't talk about that. There are three findings here. Um the in the application, um they have seven complied with our ordinance. Okay. It's Okay. Yeah. If you'd like to hear somewhere where it's not you're not blasting. Okay.

hours and it it meets our town standards. Okay. applicant has satisfied a reasonable burden of proof of compliance with the criterion for noise and hours of operation. The applicant has sufficient right, title, or interest in the site of the proposed use to be able to carry out the proposed use. And there are two findings here. So,

financial. I apologize. Looks good to me. You're going to make a motion? Sure, I'll make a motion the applicant has satisfied a reasonable burden of proof of compliance with the criterion for right, title, or interest. Second. All in favor?

applicant has the financial and technical ability to meet the standards of this section and to comply with any condition imposed by the planning board pursuant to subsection 7.5. And here we have three findings. pretty much assuming we make an assumption that we know Crooker, right? And they've got a good financial backing. They have a lot of experience with DEP. Um but we haven't seen anything, but we're just saying that, you know, we know them. They're a big company. That's what we're saying here, right? Cuz usually we see something.

The applicant has made statements in their conditional use application to that effect. Okay. Okay. I will move that the applicant has satisfied a reasonable burden of proof of compliance with criterion for financial and technical ability. Second.

basically these mirror the ordinance provisions in Article 14 for gravel pits. So, they uh obviously the general standard is under conditional use article 7. Is that they meet any specific requirements of the ordinance and 14.6b

and c d include the water supply setbacks which would include wetlands and they need the boundary and road setbacks. They have indicated those on the site plan, I believe. Buffer strips along the property lines. The specifications for those have to be the same as the state. Erosion sedimentation controls, ground water protection, we talked about that. Including establishing it by competent technical data. The bank slope cuts steepness, the hours of operation, inspections and records being available to the code officer. Control of the access for safety. There is an annual registration requirement. And the pit reclamation is specified and

then finally compliance with state law. So again, those are all right straight out of the ordinance. Okay. So I need a motion on conditions of approval. I would like to add the wetland delineation or I'd at least like to talk about it. It sounds like you need it anyways. Right? Didn't you say you need to be within X feet from Yeah, I would have to verify through the DP notice of intent. Okay. Then it would need to be done and for your own And we would like to see that yes. If [clears throat] everyone's okay with that. You should make a motion. I'd like to make a motion to add a wetland delineation um will be required at the site. Um

approval with the addition of number 14. Is there any other additions that we needed to add? That's that's already in there. That's um number six. Okay. Yeah, I think that's correct, Brian. So you want to require a wetland delineation, but where would you want to just submit it to the staff? Mhm. Yeah. Yeah.

Hopefully you know that setback buffer is from the pond. Yeah. Yeah. I can just we can update it on this site plan map. That'd be great. Thank you. No. Yes. Yes. Yes, Al Al in there. Mhm. All in favor. Thank you. our final decision, but I'll move that the planning board grants conditional use approval of the reactivation of the Jackson gravel pit on Cushing Road subject to the adopted conditions of approval. Um I'm really sorry here. George, did you want to go through your stuff notes? Um You're good. Yeah. Okay. All right, perfect. All inclusive.

I'll second that. Perfect. All in favor. Okay. Good to go. Thank you, gentlemen. Thank you. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. [clears throat] No, that was Yes. We need a continuation rule. Mhm. Continuation rule. All right, so we um

the agenda. Right? Is that right? Yeah. All right. Um Alder Drive maintenance agreement and maybe push um Ivy Ridge to next week next month? What do we have? We have Alder Way maintenance agreement which Ivy Ridge, yeah. We'll be

Ivy Ridge and then the LUO stuff that needs to get to the We need to do that anyway. Yeah. We need to get that through that. Um yeah. Post haste. I guess what would the applicants for Ivy Ridge uh review that in a week or a month?

[laughter] I didn't know if we had a meeting next week. What we we not normally No, right. Um so the this this evening we just um agreed on a continuation rule, if you will, um if we go past this time. Um so we could if everybody if if we have availability, we could move it to next week um or next month or at another time.

Right? Um Those are the nights I don't know those will be the nights that the meeting will be available, so Yeah. Wednesdays. Either yeah, either next week or hold it off till next month. Oh, just next week or okay. Okay. Next week would work. Works for you? It's not possible next week. Next Wednesday would be What's the availability of the board? Good question. I cannot do next Wednesday. I cannot [clears throat] do next Wednesday. I can do it. I think I can. You can?

I work for Kilgore. I can though, but I can also and Sunny can. Can Brian? Can Brian? It's a good question. Yes. Yes. Yes. Sunny, yes. No, no. We need four. Mhm. I can be there. Okay. All right. So Great. Um Craig, is it?

Yes. Thank you for being flexible. Um yeah, we'll push this out to Wednesday the uh April 8th. Thank you for being able to get to it next week. Yeah. Thank you. But yes, let's try and uh do you want to try and hit the maintenance? Yeah, let's do this now. All right, and then we'll do the LUO stuff after that. Okay. So

um your staff notes here? Yeah, so I did do summary notes which [snorts] I have shared with the applicant. Um and this is typically the back lot provisions, but in Durham you mix private ways with back lots. So this one was established before the current standards and the town attorney reviewed it for the code officer and determined that in order to make lot was designated 15e buildable, they would have to get that existing deeded easement upgraded.

They have uh worked with the code officer and the public works director uh excuse me road commissioner here to improve the road prove the existing driveway that serves lot 15c and you the road commissioner and so under the under current ordinance, the they need the planning board to approve the maintenance agreement which has to have all of the component parts. They have submitted a draft maintenance agreement addressing those component parts and a simple motion to approve the maintenance maintenance agreement would be adequate for the decision of the board.

don't have anything to present other than what he already shared with you, so I don't know if I need to come over here, but What's your I'm Sue Linick. I'm the realtor for the property owner. He's also my son, so I've been doing the leg work on this for him. Okay. The parents are home.

[laughter] He should be here tonight, but he's home with his kids, so I wasn't even sure if I needed to be here, but Sure. Just wanted to. And interesting timing because it's off of Cushing Road. Not loving the previous application, but that it is what it is. Mhm. Oh. Yeah. Any questions or comments from the board? I don't have any. I don't either. No, um everything has been quite great order here. You I'm just looking at the letter from the code enforcement officer and it looks like you hit uh his three issues. Um including as George said uh the letter and and and you can bring the road up to standards. The letter from um the Calvin. Mhm. Um I I I say this is good to go.

I'll make a motion to approve the other drive maintenance agreement. I'll second it. All in favor. Thank you guys. There was just a 2-hour waiting period. [laughter] It was good informational up front. So, thank you so much. You're very welcome. All right. Well, the last thing this evening is the other

two other or two parts of the land use ordinance updates that um one uh some [clears throat] some in We received some comments from some local folks regarding the uh marijuana policy. Wait. Oh, sorry. Cannabis. I Take me a while to do to get there, but cannabis. Um I and it's still this all still meets the intent of what we're trying to um accomplish here. I don't see any issues with it unless anybody else sees anything that they'd like to amend or comment on. But I could just bring to the state what it is. And then the last one is an update to

the violation enforcement regarding uh tree [snorts] clearing. Yeah, thank you George for putting that together. I feel like it meets or it is help going to be helpful. Mhm. I do too. If you run into this Absolutely do. So, what I I guess the question I would if an applicant came came to us initially for a subdivision and

would be asking for a waiver to put a road in prior to final approval or would that not even be acceptable? Well, I ran that by the town attorney. And uh it's it's not a waiverable standard. So, then I explored whether it could be a procedural waiver. And there's like three parts of the waiver provisions. Uh one is the waiver of the procedures. Actually two. The second is the wave the waiver of the standards themselves. She said that's really not a standard. It's a procedure. Timing issue. And if you look at the language for a granting waivers, procedure it only allows combining preliminary and final. Uh does not allow you to bypass that.

Or site. And and again, though the intent of it, which is what she was saying you could treat it as a violation, is that as you've discussed, you don't want them going out there and ripping up the site Right. before they get the approval because then if you deny it it stays that way. So, she felt pretty strongly. It's really an issue of their timing, not your problem. Right. It's also not a matter of denying it. It's if things need to change based on

That too. Right. I mean, yeah, if if if we we asked them to do some more research on more than half the lots, if we find that they need to be adjusted, he's already correct altered the site to the point where So, that it's if if but it's totally different that if someone an individual farms timber harvesting on a lot which doesn't that's not really many times there's no road that's been created. Or there could be. Or there could be. The issue is once they file that subdivision application they shouldn't be doing that.

am. I'm glad we brought it up. We talked a bit about this last time. Um but looking at the tree clearing subdivisions admin change document um are we is this going to go to voters? Just the language change. Uh that's just a summary to explain it.

Okay. And that will be included in the packet that goes before the public. Okay. I do just the last point there, the flexibility to deal with specific situations if we don't have waiver authority. Yes. Then we want to scratch that. Yeah. Okay. I I understand what the the the previous applicant had tonight, what their intent was, but their intent changed so much from day one to now. Every time you turn around they were Originally there was 10, then there were 14, then there were 9 and then the orig the orig the previous owner is not included in this equation anymore.

good thing to have. Yeah, absolutely. Yeah. Is there a line and and maybe this is too specific cuz if you list everything you don't list everything then you've listed nothing. But, you know for the purposes of uh developing roads or home sites in the example of tonight where we felt that they were doing more clearing than what was acceptable, their argument was well, it was just the road and then to get to the test pits. Where is there a line and and I don't think we want to put this. We don't want to write it down, but just something to keep in mind, you know, what is too much? What is But we In the there have been other subdivisions that test pits have been done prior to any road being put in. Yeah. They do all road at all. No road at all. They've done all of the surveys. They know where the lots are going to be and they do the test pits. So, Okay. So, it's it's possible.

Oh, definitely. Okay. Yeah. There's a there's another cluster What's Greystone? Yes. Greystone Beach. We did a site walk for Greystone which in there. another cluster subdivision. We did a site performed a site walk and um there were test pits with no road. Yeah, you didn't need to do Like very minimal clearing. Very very minimal. Okay. That's that's good to know. This this is extreme. This isn't

it, but Yeah. Not much I can do. They already got the trees. You can do this. So, this doesn't happen again. Yeah, exactly. All right. I I'd like to make a motion Is there anything else to talk about? I'll get back. It hurts. I'm sorry. It's what happens when they hold over. I know. Thank you. [laughter] So, yeah, I'll make a motion um to approve the tree clearing and subdivisions administrative change um subdivision regulation section 6.13. Second. And and the added language on the cannabis. Oh, and yes, and the cannabis one. Uh apologies, I don't have that section in front of me, but whatever that one is. Second. Um sorry. Um it says exempt marijuana. Do we want to strike marijuana to say cannabis? Well, the the amendments themselves say cannabis, right? It's the summary. Are you looking at the summary sheet?

Yeah, that was the summary. Yeah, yeah, yeah. to change my language. [laughter] Julia. No, I Yes, I I put the motion on the floor. I second it. Okay. All in favor. George. What do we know about uh Greystone? Anything more? No. I haven't heard. Oh, I'm sorry. They have submitted their lands to Gorham Palmer for peer review. Oh. Oh, okay. Okay.

Ahead of prelim. Which makes No, they've got their plane Oh, yeah, right right right. They're ahead of final. Which is good. Yeah. Thank you. Nothing new other than There is a solar farm coming. And you have standards in place. We do. That's a good thing.

I'll second. Okay. All in favor. [laughter] Thank you. Thank you all. Yeah. Thank you. Good night, everybody. Everybody needs to take off.