Planning Board Meeting ~ August 5, 2026

2026-08-05 · Planning Board · 2:18:19 · watch on YouTube →

The Planning Board's August meeting covered three applications. It held the public hearing on the Pinkham Brook GLC Solar conditional use application for a 600 kilowatt array at 360 Pinkham Brook Road, took comment from the conservation commission on tree clearing windows and wildlife fencing, worked through the conditional use criteria and granted the permit with amended findings and conditions. It then tabled the site plan review for that project pending a third-party technical review focused on the solar standards and the stream crossing over Pinkham Brook. The board found the final subdivision application at 335 New Brook Road, referred to in the motion as Ivy Ridge, incomplete because required construction cost estimates, a firm financial capacity letter and street addressing were missing. It took a sketch plan for a lot split on Winter's Way, where the existing access runs at 12 to 13 percent grade against the town's 8 percent standard, and discussed what would support a waiver. The meeting closed with a new standing item on the work needed before the 2027 town meeting.

No written minutes could be matched to this meeting. The transcript records that the speaker changed but never who was speaking, so any name attached to a statement below is inferred from context and is marked (?).

What was discussed

1. 0:53
   Opening, continuation policy and minutes

   The chair, Brian, opened the August 5, 2026 meeting and seated an alternate, addressed as Mr. Le (?), as a voting member. He added a standing item on preparing for the 2027 town meeting, and restated the meeting continuation policy: a 9:00 p.m. cut-off, no new agenda items after 9, a check-in at 8:30, applications not reached rolling to the top of the next month's agenda, and an applicant able to ask to table. The July 1, 2026 minutes were moved, seconded and voted on.

2. 0:53
   Town planner's July report

   George Thebarge (?) said his report covered the July 1 planning board activity, notifying the select board and manager of the July 20 site walk, the formation of the interim economic development committee and the study of the designated area, and an outline he gave the select board of a process for examining gravel pits.

3. 5:55
   Gravel pits and the board's role

   A member asked whether there was anything for the planning board to do on gravel pits. George Thebarge (?) said staff and the town attorney will first work through his outline, then report to the select board, which may or may not refer it on. He said the issue is a combination of the ordinance and the status of about a dozen gravel pits in town.

4. 5:55
   Public hearing opened on the Pinkham Brook solar application

   The chair opened the hearing on the Pinkham Brook GLC Solar LLC conditional use application, Map 4 Lot 85, at 360 Pinkham Brook Road, with Flycatcher LLC as owner's representative. He read the procedure: the board's authority is limited to whether the application meets the adopted standards, not broader town policy; all questions go through the chair; direct questioning of parties by the public is not permitted; and an aggrieved party must show a particularised injury rather than one shared by all residents.

5. 11:09
   Conservation commission comment, and how comment is handled

   The chair of the conservation commission, addressed as Jess (?), said the commission supports solar in Durham but asked for a tree clearing restriction from April 1 to September 1 to protect breeding birds and threatened and endangered bats, and raised the proposed 8-foot wire wildlife fence as an entanglement risk to deer. She offered options: no fence if it is not for security, a wooden fence, or smooth wire with flagging at set intervals. George Thebarge advised the board to hold its response until the substantive review rather than immediately after public comment, so that comments are not elevated above other considerations and the applicant can respond.

6. 16:24
   Applicant's presentation and supplemental information

   The agent for Pinkham Brook GLC Solar and Jeff Martin of Norwich Solar (?) described a 600 kilowatt AC array set back from the road on a large upland area, about 11 acres of clearing on a larger parcel, and an access road spanning Pinkham Brook with a bridge, crossing the shoreland protection and flood zone overlays. Supplemental material since the last meeting included proof of current property taxes, documentation that Norwich Technologies owns the LLC, revised plans showing the CMP easements and lease area, an aerial overlay clarifying the FEMA flood zone, a wetland impact summary, project cost estimates, transformer noise details and a permit status matrix.

7. 22:57
   Permitting route, clearing window and decommissioning

   The Army Corps route is a nationwide permit 51 pre-construction notification with a 30 to 60 day review; because the applicant will clear only in the seasonal window, no further US Fish and Wildlife consultation is expected. The DEP route is now expected to be a tier one with a waiver plus a permit by rule for the crossing rather than a tier three, with a storm water permit by rule and decommissioning plan approval as well. The applicant confirmed the May 15 to August 15 clearing window as a permit condition, and explained that state law requires a decommissioning plan and financial assurance approved by DEP before construction, with the cost estimate reviewed after 10 or 15 years and every five years after; the lease runs 20 years.

8. 27:59
   Bridge height and the 100-year flood plain

   The code enforcement officer and road commissioner raised that the crossing is designed one foot above the 100-year flood elevation, which is the town's flood plain ordinance minimum; the applicant said this is common and was designed to that standard. George Thebarge (?) said the road would create a partial damming effect in storms above the 100-year level and suggested a hardened spillway at a low point, citing a 2023 washout of a stream crossing on Route 9. The board decided to ask the third-party reviewer to look at the crossing specifically.

9. 33:05
   Splitting the conditional use from the site plan review

   George Thebarge (?) noted that there are separate actions here and that the board could take the conditional use decision at this meeting and table the site plan review until the peer review comes back, rather than spinning its wheels on detail. He also corrected the site walk date in the staff notes from June 20 to July 20.

10. 33:05
    Fence specification and waiver authority

    The proposal is an 8-foot fence with a 6-inch fixed knot grid and a 6-inch gap at the bottom for small wildlife, with no barbed wire. George Thebarge (?) said the board has waiver authority over everything in article 8 with supporting evidence but not over the solar standards, and that the town attorney has cautioned against de facto waivers, so the 8-foot height cannot be reduced. The applicant agreed to add flagging or placards at intervals to make the fence visible, and a member suggested reflective material because deer are active at night.

11. 38:41
    Clearing window and the conservation commission's wider request

    Jess (?) asked whether the window could be widened to April 1 to September 1 because some local birds nest before May, and explained that May 15 to August 15 matches the US Fish and Wildlife Service summer bat survey period. The applicant said he would prefer the wider window not be a requirement because five months could affect the project, but would try to accommodate it. The conservation commission accepted May 15 to August 15 as the requirement with the wider window as best practice.

12. 44:11
    Ownership, CMP sign-off, addressing and access

    The developer said the company owns about a third of the projects it develops and finances or sells the rest to independent power producers, and that the ultimate owner is not yet known; a member noted the ordinance requires notice of an ownership change. The board asked for written CMP agreement on the access and pole layout, possibly as a condition by building permit, and said the site will need a road name or E911 address, to be worked out with the road commissioner, who is also the code enforcement officer.

13. 49:25
    Final plans, transformer noise and containment

    Members said the ordinance requires the applicant to return to the board for changes, distinguishing minor from major, so submitting the final plan set is in the applicant's interest. On noise, the preliminary transformer specification is 58 dB against the town's 55 dB standard, but the unit sits more than 400 feet from any property line. A member said the concrete pad as designed does not provide containment if the transformer leaks.

14. 54:39
    Fire access and lighting

    George Thebarge (?) said he had spoken to the fire chief that day, that the chief has reviewed the emergency management plan, has discussed equipment and training with the applicant, and would give comments during peer review. A member recalled the chief wanting multiple points of access into the fencing; others thought that concern related to battery storage. The applicant said there would be no permanent lighting, only temporary lighting if a maintenance crew works at night.

15. 59:49
    Findings of fact on the conditional use criteria

    The board went through each conditional use criterion and the drafted findings. It added a finding that the transformer pad should include containment depending on the type of transformer selected, a note that the fire chief is expected to submit a written comment, the engineer peer review of the bridge under the erosion and water supply criterion, and a finding from the site walk that the array will not be visible from off site.

16. 1:05:08
    Conditional use approval granted

    The board moved to adopt the findings of fact, conclusions and conditions of approval as amended and grant conditional use approval to Pinkham Brook GLC Solar LLC. The chair noted for the record that the applicants affirmed acceptance of the draft conditions.

17. 1:10:10
    Scope of peer review, and the site plan tabled

    The board sent the site plan out for technical peer review focused on the solar energy standards and the stream crossing and flood plain bridge, and tabled the substantive site plan review until it comes back. Members noted no one on the board or in the town offices has expertise in this equipment, that commercial electrical work is inspected by the state rather than the local code officer, and that the peer review firm, Gorrill Palmer (?), has been bought by a firm the transcript renders as LJB (?). New submissions are due two weeks before the meeting.

18. 1:10:10
    335 New Brook Road final subdivision: conditions addressed

    Craig (?) of Acorn Engineering, with Hunter (?) of Acorn and Johnny (?) for the owner, said the preliminary conditions had been addressed: a sign-off from Maine Inland Fisheries and Wildlife that the vernal pool is non-significant, an ability-to-serve letter from Casella, corrections to the hydrocad model, an added drainage easement on lot one for the culvert crossing, labelled concrete monuments, the 50-foot buffer along New Brook Road, updated tree line and tree save areas, and an updated technical capacity section. The peer reviewer signed off on July 15 after two rounds of comments.

19. 1:20:54
    Performance guarantee and missing cost estimates

    The applicant proposes a conditional agreement under which no lots may be sold and no building permits issued until the infrastructure is complete, with $10,000 confirmed by the peer reviewer as enough to stabilise the site if the project were abandoned. A member said the condition of approval also required construction cost estimates for access road construction, electrical service and storm water management, and only the erosion and sediment control estimate was supplied. George Thebarge (?) said the conditional agreement is in the ordinance and does not itself require town attorney review, but that the financial capacity question is separate.

20. 1:26:06
    Financial capacity and street addressing

    A member said the letter from Bath Savings is vague, saying financing would be contingent on receipt and review of all financial information, and that with the cost estimates missing the financial capacity item could not be complete. Another (?) noted that a contractor's bid is not an engineer's cost estimate. On the road name, the applicant said he sent the request in June and never heard back; members noted a change in code enforcement personnel and that the street addressing officer is the road commissioner, so the delay may be on the town's side.

21. 1:36:21
    Application found incomplete

    The board voted to find the application incomplete, naming items 2 A, B and C, 7 and 10. Resubmission is due two weeks before the September 2 meeting, and the board said it would then review only those items rather than repeat the whole review.

22. 1:36:21
    Winter's Way sketch plan: a subdivision amendment

    Adam Jones of Jones Associates (?) presented a sketch plan for Steve Basset (?) to split a parcel on Winter's Way, Map 11 Lot 41-B, into two lots, one with the existing house and one for a new house at the back. Because the land was part of a 1974 subdivision and was labelled remaining land on a 2005 plan, it has to be handled as an amendment to two subdivision plans rather than a simple lot split. The split would bring the lots using Winter's Way to three, so the first 200 feet is classified as a road rather than a driveway.

23. 1:41:22
    Road grade waiver request

    The existing road runs at 12 to 13 percent grade over roughly 400 feet against the town's 8 percent maximum, and there is no alternative location. Adam Jones (?) said AASHTO allows 12 to 17 percent for grade distances under 500 feet on a 25 mph road, an allowance the town standards do not contain, and that the road commissioner did not see an issue; the fire chief has not yet been consulted. He asked whether the board would entertain a waiver, and no wetland delineation has been done yet.

24. 1:46:31
    Easement, frontage and flood plain

    Members and the applicant discussed whether the access easement was formally granted or is prescriptive, and agreed the subdivision amendment could formalise it and clear title. Lot one's 300 feet of frontage would run along the road to the hammerhead, counted under the new frontage standards. The applicant said both house sites sit well above the flood plain and that Winter's Way did not flood in the last large flood, though Snow Road did.

25. 1:57:02
    Whether to require peer review of the road

    Members questioned the value of engineering review for a private road the town will not maintain. George Thebarge (?) said the grade limits exist to push developers to follow topography rather than cut through it, to limit erosion and washouts, and for vehicle safety, and that the board may want to revisit the 8 percent standard against the more typical 10 percent. He advised including the AASHTO material as supporting documentation for a waiver; the board took no decision, and the applicant was asked to meet the fire chief before returning.

26. 2:07:42
    Preparing for the 2027 town meeting

    George Thebarge listed the items deferred from the last round: the noise regulations, an agriculture committee request to redefine camping, and a wider set of agricultural amendments seeking recognition of mixed agricultural uses and fewer conditional use reviews for things like farm fairs. He named gravel pits, where the ordinance is confused between small borrow pits of 5 acres or less and large pits, and the economic development district as the other large items, with affordable housing tweaks to be handled by the town attorney under a grant. Cell towers remain without standards but were judged not pressing; the chair said he would circulate a running list before the next meeting.

27. 2:12:59
    Adjournment

    A motion to adjourn was made, seconded and voted on.

What was decided

• 0:53
  Accept the minutes of the July 1, 2026 meeting.passed
• 1:05:08
  Adopt the findings of fact, conclusions and conditions of approval as amended and grant conditional use approval to Pinkham Brook GLC Solar LLC for the Pinkham Brook solar project.passed
• 1:10:10
  Table the substantive site plan review of the Pinkham Brook GLC solar energy system site plan application, Map 4 Lot 85, pending third-party peer review of the solar energy standards and the stream crossing.tabled
• 1:36:21
  Find the final subdivision application at 335 New Brook Road, Map 5 Lot 61, incomplete on conditions 2 A, B and C, 7 and 10.passed
• 2:12:59
  Motion to adjourn.passed

An outcome reads "unclear" where the recording does not state it plainly. The recogniser drops short words, and "the motion does not carry" is one missing word from its opposite.

Worth knowing

• 27:59
  The solar access bridge over Pinkham Brook is designed one foot above the 100-year flood elevation, the town's minimum. George Thebarge (?) said the road would partly dam larger storms and suggested a hardened spillway, citing a 2023 washout of a stream crossing on Route 9; the board asked the peer reviewer to look at it specifically.
• 33:05
  The board was told it cannot lower the required 8-foot wildlife fence, despite the conservation commission's evidence that deer become entangled in that fencing. George Thebarge (?) said the board has waiver authority over article 8 but not over the solar standards, and the town attorney has cautioned against de facto waivers.
• 49:25
  The transformer's preliminary specification is 58 dB against the town's 55 dB noise standard, but it sits more than 400 feet from any property line. A member said the concrete pad as designed provides no containment if the transformer leaks, and a finding was added to that effect.
• 1:36:21
  The final subdivision application at 335 New Brook Road was found incomplete because required construction cost estimates and a firm financial capacity letter were not supplied; a member said a contractor's bid is not an engineer's cost estimate. Resubmission is due two weeks before the September 2 meeting.

Motion language found in the transcript

Located by pattern matching, with no model involved: "I move that", "I'll second", "all those in favour". This is an independent check on the summary above: 3 passages of motion language, against 5 decisions summarised.

Elsewhere

← 2026-07-01 Planning BoardAll meetings