TranscriptPlanning Board Meeting ~ August 5, 2026

Yeah. What is that? I don't know. Better like stay tuned to playing, you know, music. Please hold Thank you. Okay. Um, welcome to the uh August 5th um 2026 regularly scheduled um Durham Plano board meeting. Um with us tonight. So Mr. Le, you'll be a boarding member tonight. Okay,

perfect. And if you would all please stand for the pledge. United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. add to the end of the agenda is um uh discussion on um preparing for the uh 2027 town meeting and what um items we have to review and what kind of homework we need to do in preparation for that. Um I haven't seen a list. I know George you have one that's started I believe. Um, but I'd like to keep that as part of a rolling agenda item um, in our meetings going forward so that we can keep track of that and make sure that we're prepared for the 2027 town meeting.

Yeah. Yes. Um, also we have a full agenda tonight. So, I just want to um mention that we do have a um meeting continuation policy. Um we have a cuto off time at 900 p.m. Um uh no new agenda items are uh um accepted after 9. Um but what happens is at 8:30 we'll have a check-in to see how the progress is going. At that time, we'll see if um anything can be taken up after 900 p.m. Um and um if if an application cannot be reached before 9:00 p.m., it gets rolled over to the next month's meeting. Um and you'll be at the top of the agenda. Um

if we determine that um additional time is needed, we can extend that time or change the time of the next meeting as well. Um and an applicant has time has the option to request to table their application. um given these time constraints that we have.

acceptance of the July 20 uh July 1st, 2026 meeting minutes. No. I'll make a motion to accept the minutes from our July 1st, 2026 meeting. Second. All in favor? Thank you. on non-aggenda items. Mr. Tavarge, would you mind giving us your report from July 2026? Yes, I did include in the planning board packet the report which included the planning board uh activities that occurred on July 1st uh informing the select board and manager of the sitewalk you did on July 20th and then uh also talking about the formation of the interim economic development committee and the uh for the study that's going to be done of that area that we've designated and then finally I did give uh the select board a a report an overview of a process for examining gravel pits which seems to be on their radar screen front and center.

I have a question. The gravel pit um thing is there anything for the planning board to do or is it all in the select board? I think the first step is for the staff and town attorney to kind of look at the information that I put uh in that outline

and determine the best play uh approach to compiling all of that needed information to deal effectively with the issue. So um at such point as the staff does a report I think it'll probably first go to the select board to see how they want to proceed and then

it may or may not be referred to you folks. Okay. And again this is for the [cough] and just to clarify this is for the overall issue right not for any specific project the ordinance itself it's not it's not it's a combination of the ordinance but it's also a combination of the status of about a dozen gravel pits in town.

Yeah. would like to discuss tonight? non-residents would like to discuss tonight? Continuing business number six, uh, public hearing on Pinkham Brook GLC solar energy system conditional use application map 4, lot 85. Um, and I have a script here. We're opening it up for public comment um, for the Durham [clears throat] Planning Board on the application for Pinkinbrook GLC Solar LLC. Flycatcher LLC is the owner's rep. project is located at 360 Pinkham Brook Road. Uh the purpose of this public hearing is to receive oral and written testimony relevant to the board's review of this application under the town's adopted ordinances and standards. This hearing is not a form to debate broader town policies or growth management issues which are established by town meeting and must be applied by the planning board. The board's authority is limited to determining whether the application meets or fails to meet the adopted

subdivision standards. The board may receive oral or documentary evidence but must include exclude testimony that is irrelevant or unduly repetitious. Uh the chair will determine the relevance of testimony or evidence presented. Any board member may change that determination by motion subject by a majority vote of the board.

All testimony will be taken in an orderly fashion. Speakers are asked not to interrupt others. The chair may impose reasonable time limits as necessary to ensure that everyone who wishes to speak has an adequate opportunity to be heard. Um, gauging the size of the crowd, I don't think we're going to need to establish time limits here. Um, all questions and comments shall be directed to the chair. Um uh I will then direct questions to the appropriate party [clears throat] whether that is the applicant, the applicant's consultant, staff or another party for their response. Direct questioning of parties by members of the public is not permitted. All parties will be given the opportunity to present information, submit rebuttal evidence, and conduct cross examination of other parties through the chair within reasonable limits to prevent an abuse of the process. For the record, an agrieved party is

defined in the land use ordinance as a person who can demonstrate a particularized ind injury resulting from the approval or denial of the application. An injury shared by e shared equally by all residents of the town does not constitute a particular injury. The application materials and staff comments have been made available in advance. The purpose of tonight's meeting is to receive public input on the application itself, not to provide a general explanation of the review process or ordinance requirements.

These procedures are necessary to ensure fairness, protect due process rights for all parties, and allow the board to meet its legal deadlines for decision-m. Uh, if you do decide to um provide um input, you need to please provide your name and address for the meeting record.

Thank you. Uh, okay. So, now open it up for public comment. the chair of the conservation commission and we provided a letter um to the planning board um with our comments on those proposed solar project and um the conservation commission is um excited about solar coming to Durham and support um proposed projects that are consistent with our land um ordinance for solar. Um

there's a couple items that we wanted to address uh related to wildlife. Uh the first one being uh hopefully incorporating time of year tree clearing restrictions uh to protect threaten endangered bat species. And these um time of year tree clearing restrictions would also be protective of um breeding birds uh if

the tree clearing could be conducted in the winter. So um in our letter we specified if there were no tree clearing between April 1st to September 1 um that would be beneficial to breeding birds and bats in the forested project area.

Um then the the second concern and we realize that the wildlife fencing that's proposed is consistent with the the town's um ordinance standards. Um, but since those were written, it's um come to my attention that that type of fencing uh that's a wire fencing that's 8 ft tall that has it's like 6x6 in wire

squares um can pose threats to wildlife, especially deer in terms of entanglement. So, uh, deer can maybe not detect it and they're running through the forest and they run into the fence and get their head stuck in the fence, can't get out, or they try to jump it and their foot gets stuck. Um, so, uh, in our letter, we had some some

options for consideration and discussion if if the planning were open to that. Um, and the first was if there would be if if if it's for wildlife fencing and not for security purposes, if there could be no fencing at all. Um, or a

different type of fencing that could that would be less of a risk to wildlife. Um, like entirely wooden fencing. Um or if uh the project moves forward with wire fencing. If it could be all smooth wire, no barbed wire um and then be marked with flags uh

pretty uh set intervals so that deer have a better chance of detecting it when they're running through the forest. So yeah, that that's it for comments from the conservation commission. Thank you. public comment period and we will move on.

Brian, can I ask a logistics question? Sure. Um, in regards to comments that we hear, um, during public comment, um, what's our process? Does it make sense to wait until the substantive discussion to discuss those comments? Or does it make more sense to hit those at time.

Yeah, I think as we roll through this and George correct me about the process, but I think we hit these comments up as we go through the substantive review. Yeah, I think it's [clears throat] better to address it dur and keep a clear separation between substant because problem is if you discuss it uh during or immediately after the public hearing you're rolling into the substantive review and elevating those public comments above all other considerations. Got it.

It's probably better to wait until the you address those criteria uh and give the applicant an opportunity to respond to the public comments. So, I'm sure it'll flow into the process. Okay. What if we have questions? You can ask follow-up questions during that time.

Okay. So, I did have a question relating to the conservation commission thing. So, should I should we email those or something? I think they can come up as we go through this next process. Yeah, you can invite you can invite them back to the table who has given public comment to clarify issues, but this ought not to be a

iterative process where the conservation and commission or any other party and the board uh discusses and arrives at a certain conclusion. Okay. The public comment is public comment. Yep. Um, and then so we're getting into the substantive of the conditional [clears throat] use. If the topic has to do with substantive site plan and that might not come up for a while, we'll just table it

potentially. Okay. But again, the uh these are specific design issues that probably should be considered as part of the site plan review discussion, the fencing design, right? As opposed to the conditional use, which is more general. Okay. Okay.

the applicant would like to come up and, um, provide us with a presentation. Catcher and I'm the agent for Pinkham Brook GLC Solar LLC and Jeff Martin uh with Norwich Solar developer for the project. So um at our last meeting we kind of

talked about completeness of the application. Um we since we got some comments at that meeting um requests for additional information um and uh we also since then had a uh sitewalk on July 20th um to show show the board kind of um

some of the steps we we discussed as far as visibility and kind of just like the access area and the crossing of Pinkham Brook. Um and then we provided uh supplemental information um and updated site plans um for to kind of answer some

of those questions. So um just a little overview. I know we've kind of talked about what the project is, but it's a 600 kilowatt um uh AC solar project that's at 360 Pinkham Brick Road. Um it is set back off the road um to kind of

minimize visibility and um the solar array is cited in like a large upland um area. It does require crossing of Pinkham Brook with the access road. And so they're planning to um span span Pinkham Brook with a bridge. Um and it's

approximately 11 acres of the larger parcel um that's being uh disturbed by clearance. Um and it does cross the um shoreland protect shorland protection overlay and the flood zone overlay along Pinkham. Um so some of the additional information that we provided were proof of current property taxes. Um documentation that Norwich Technologies is the owner of Pink and Brookbrook JLC Solar. um revised plans that included the proposed um CMP easements, lease area, um a site plan that has an aerial photo overlay, kind of making more clear the FEMA flood zone, um symbology

and wetland impact summary. We also provided project cost estimates um details on transformer noise and how that will um be kind of more minuscule and is set back over 400 ft from any of properties. Um and also uh we had more discussion on the um flood plane, the bridge height um in our response and then provided a permit status matrix. Um I would note that since that we've pro since we provided the supplemental information we have had a pre-application meeting with main d um and with the army corps of engineers um and both um have pretty clear you know pathways ahead um for permitting um and one thing that kind of did come up is with the army corps is that because we are expanding the stream and we're proposing to clear in seasonal clearing windows. Um we there's not really any concerns with the native species um and that we won't have to go into like further consultation with the US fish um or anything for that. We'll

be in compliance with the nationwide permit um for that. So that's kind of just update where we're at, but there's further questions for Thank you. review. Starting with questions. Yep. Um, bring this up earlier, we had talked about um, you adhering to the time of year restrictions before, and you had said no problem, and you just, I think, said it again, right? And that's one of the reasons why you don't need to go further into um, fish and wildlife in the state um, wildlife reviews, whatever. Um, so I think I think that's great. And I do want to just flag that I think we had talked about May 15 to August 15 before. Um, I know

the conservation commission brought up um, April 1 to September 1 and maybe we can talk about that later on why those dates are different, but you did agree to May to August, right? Okay, great. Y that's a condition of our, you know, permit,

right? So, it's something that you're going to do. Yep. Which is great. Awesome. Um, and another question I have is, um, you said that the, uh, US Army Corps in the main D application process is pretty clear now. Can you explain a little bit further?

Yeah. So, for um, while we're off topic, for the Army Corps, um, we're applying for a nationwide permit number 51, which is for land-based um, energy generation projects. So, it's like a pre-construction notification. um that we would submit on their online RRS system.

Um and then I think it's like a 30 to 60 day review timeline there. Um and then with DP um originally we we will be applying for a NERPA permit application but originally due to the fact that um of the crossing we thought in clearing within wetlands of special significance according to D um we were anticipating it would be a tier three permit that they actually think that it should be uh we should request a waiver um and be a tier one and then a permit by roll for the crossing.

Approximately you think current by roll is about 20 days. Once you submit uh tier one is a little bit longer probably around like 30 to 60. Kind of depends a little bit on yeah the staff um capacity. Um but we'll also kind of additional permits beyond that is uh storm water permit by rule and the decommissioning um plan approval and sometimes um they they might like just kind of review those ones if everything's in. Okay.

Um so yeah. And are you close to being able to apply? Yeah, pretty soon. Yeah. Okay. Um speaking of that permit, I wrote this down because I hadn't heard of it before. Solar decommissioning law. What is that? Yeah. So, [laughter] I hand this one to Dave because he's pretty amaz that that requires that all projects have a decommissioning plan. Okay.

And financial assurance in prior to construction. Who do you who does it go through? D. Okay. So, you send the plan to them and they review it and approve it. Okay. A lot of states have that I guess. Okay. Great. Thank you.

Because the lease runs out in 20 years. So that's basically the life expectancy. Yeah. So monitors the the decommissioning plan, right? So that that's a that's D, the Department of Environmental Protection. so they have they have a requirement to um review the cost estimate. I think it's after 10 or 15 years it gets

reviewed and then every 5 years after that there's there's a review process. So that cost estimate is updated uh throughout the life of the project. Those are rolling target. It's not a this is the end date type of thing.

Yeah. There's um there's language in the decommissioning plan that uh specifies you know when decommissioning has to occur um which is typically you know the the end of the life of the project when products no longer generating

because that that is part of the lease agreement. It specifically talks about the removal of the solar facility. Okay. I think we also require it. Every town requires that. Yep. A copy of that. Yep. Now, as far as the crossing goes, our codes officer slash um road commissioner had expressed concern that it's one foot above 100year flood plane. Is that I'm not an architect, but is that a common way to design those? Is there any concern from your side? Um so it was designed by our engineer to um meet the minimum [clears throat] the requirement for the town in your flood plane ordinance is like that 1 ft above um the base flood for a 100redyear flood station. So that's like um kind of how that how that was designed um yeah

yeah know I'd say that is quite common um and it was designed to meet meet the town ordinance. I'm sure you're aware the 100redyear storms are becoming more frequent than 100 years. So yeah, are these figures updated regularly? I'm not that familiar with who creates these maps.

Uh the actual analysis was was done by our engineers. No, I mean like who creates the actual flip plane says this is the 100redyear storm level. How was you guys did that? So if FEMA kind of designates that area um in this area it's not like a they don't designate the specific um base flood elevation. It's in they do that in zone AE but this is a zone A. So it's B it's basically you have to kind of like model it based off of um like hydropad. Yeah.

planner about um possibly providing a spillway on that bridge design just in the event that it does go over the 100 year mark. Yeah. So we we we're trying to kind of balance the um you know meeting the ordinance with also like trying to minimize the impacts in the flood plane to wetlands and other kind of further impacts there. um we can, you know, bring that to the engineer to discuss more kind of that idea. Um if it's a concern of the town, but kind of as it is now, we've just been kind of designing it to meet um the requirements that are in the ordinance.

Yeah, I think I think we're we're open um to to other ideas. Like Jesse said, um we definitely have to consider impacts to to that wetland in particular. it's a well in a special significance. Um so um you know if the town has uh specific goals that they'd like to see accomplished, you know, we can we can take that back to our engineers and see uh what might be able to be done without um without creating additional impacts in that area.

So let's say this crossing did flood. What would the impact be really? I mean no one's going to the site on a regular basis. Is there any potential problems with that besides if there's a fire and you can get that picked up?

It's really your risk, right? It's really development risk. Private private road, private crossing. Yeah. There are issues however of downstream environmental impacts of a catastrophic flood um such as the one that happened in 2023 on dire cut down on route uh

route nine where washed out whole stream crossing u so it it really isn't a matter of increasing the impact it's a matter of designing as Brian mentioned reflected in my notes that basically the the road is going to create a partial daming effect in those over 100year storms. So the question is what happens to the water uh the excess and you can if they at a low point create spill of hardened spillway in it then that kind of carries that excess and prevent uh the type of wash out. uh if you don't plan for that then it can have start once it starts eroding the uh the u abutments then the whole thing starts to to go. So it's we're not talking about expanding impacts what we're talking about is using engineering solutions to accommodate those larger storms with the current design.

There was a recommendation to have the independent reviewer take a look at this. Um, and I I think that that makes sense. Um, I would almost see feel like that is absolutely part of their review, right? Like a project like this.

Well, you can ask them to take a look at this specifically during the technical review. I like that recommendation. That corner has flooded in very recent history. So on the road 1.5 appropriate treatment without you designing right thing is it I think it's it's doable has been done elsewhere. [clears throat]

Would you prefer us to come back with a proposal that's been reviewed or um what's your premise? So, um, my plan tonight is to get through this review and then send everything out for a technical peer review before we make any decisions on final. [clears throat] Um this way here we can get our peer reviewers to um provide their comment,

have you all address it before we move on to final so that we can see what kind of changes may or may not occur based on the peer reviewer's comments. And just to clarify, there are two two different actions here. there's a conditional use which may or may not require

the peer review of that issue or or defensing or other issues just it's more of the use questions under the zoning. Uh and then there's the specific site plan review. So theoretically you could go ahead with the conditional use decision tonight

and then table the site plan review to get that the peer review of the details. I'm sorry terminology and we've kind of jumped into site plan review getting into this detail and that way you're not spinning your wheels on the site plan stage until you hear back from third party reviewer.

Yeah. And who knows what they I mean I guess there's a chance they could come back and say great great design, you know. Absolutely. You know, so planners. [laughter] notes section here, I did want to just say publicly that the um sitewalk was on July 20th. I'm sure you probably saw that already, George, but we do say June 20th in here, but it was July 20th. Yep.

Missing an action. about the comment that you brought up or um your comment from the conservation commission? Um 6x6 grid. Did is that what's proposed for your fence? Does it say that? It's 8 by8 on their proposal. I didn't see anything. I didn't see Okay.

It's on It's on there. It's 8 by 8. It talks about a wildlife fence and it's 8 foot and the gaps are 8 in square. So that's so the grids are 8 by 8, right? Yeah. Okay. And that is pretty good size. Um and I didn't there there was no indication of any barbed wire.

Yeah. And I know that is it for security is really Oh yeah. No, no, we need a fence. I mean we need the need. They need their fence. It's the grid. the size of the grid, right? Um, you can go smaller if that would be better for wildlife. You're leaving the space at the bottom already.

Yeah. So, that is 6 in. Is it six? Well, is that the gap at the bottom or is that the So, it's a 6 in gap at the bottom, but in the grid it's a um 6 in fixed knot. Okay. So, 6x6. Yes. Okay. So it's 6x6, but there's also the six inch. Yeah. For for smaller wildlife passage and that's like

I don't know if the six is typical wire. Is that typical? It is. It is. Yeah. There's no plans to use barb wire wire. No. Good. Okay. Um can I just follow up on that? Absolutely. Um, lowering that to 7 foot tall? down to what's required and so there's, you know, there's National Electric Code. Um, there's the town requirements. Um, and then trying to think if there's any other

area that has recommendations. Um yeah, and so that's over to seven foot tall. Okay. Um I know we require it. Um just trying to um address the conservation commission's comments and um the Department of Fish and Wildlife's comments. They say if you go down to 7 foot that may help deer jump over the fence. Um

might be 12% cheaper, too. Yeah. I know it's a security issue as well. So, if you're okay with dropping it to something to consider and then getting back on the um tree clearing. Sorry to go back a few steps here. Um would you be amenable to going to September one se is it September one?

April 1st to September. April 1 to September. September one. And the reason um it's expanded beyond the that um it some birds start nesting early in the season before May. Um some of the local birds, you know, like chickies and woodpeckers. Um so, um if if that window could be

expanded, it'd be more protective of birds. And then I didn't quite catch um if you were going to agree to August one um or August 15th, but August 15th would be better because so the US Fish and Wildlife Service has their um summer bat survey guidelines and that survey period for roosting bass is um May 15th to

August 15th. So that's when they're breeding. That's the peak breeding period. So, um, but maybe you did say August 15. Yeah, they had agreed to earlier May 15 to August 15. Yeah. window. I I would prefer that's not a requirement. We could certainly try to accommodate that, but that is you know that's a fivemon window um that could really impact um the project potentially. Um I you know I don't think it would be an issue but I I just would prefer to have that not be a requirement.

Would the conservation be okay with you know May 15 to August 15 with with the applicant trying you know like you know to adhere to the more strict yeah I think that's you know that's what the federal guidance is. So that's great for that. And if if it can be expanded,

you know, wave one um doesn't have to be a requirement, but if the project is keeping in mind the best management practices for birds and mats, that that's totally acceptable to the and um the conservation commission would be happy about that.

Great. All right. Um but yeah, let's talk about the fence. Thank you for the accommodation on that the fence. So do we our uh thing ordinance says the height of it? Sorry, I'm trying to find it. Does it say 8t? Yes. Okay. So it says 8 ft. That does not mean we can't change it. But

actually I think you need to be cautious that we cannot change it. Okay. So we do say we catch you. There are four different parts to this. There's the initial use, there's the site plan review, there's the shoreline zoning, and there's the pledge plan. Okay. So the site plan review part, you have waiver authority over everything in article 8 with supportive evidence. uh

you do not have waiver authority for the solar standards at this point. So just based on past input from the town attorney uh she would caution you against g giving de facto waiverss of standards. Okay. And again part of it is to protect the legal integrity of the current that you issue.

So uh she would caution against where you don't have specific waiver filler. Don't think about it. Okay. So, in other words, we can't change that eight feet height. I don't think so. It's got to be eight feet. But I do think we don't get into detail on like the grid and other things like that. So, if I don't know, 6x6, Jess, I'm not sure like that's typical. I mean,

that is typical. And I shared those photos of um some of those poor deer that get stuck. And it's something that's happened that projects in Maine that use that type of fencing. Um deer getting stuck and um either not getting their antlers out or their their feet are in and their head in and they they're stuck and that's that's how they end up and it's not a good way to go. Um, so if there's a way if if if the

fencing has to be there, um, and it and that's those specifications, maybe something could be added. Um, like some not just flagging that's going to blow away, but like some placards that could be like zip tied to it that sort of flap in the breeze um, at set intervals

uh, that help the visibility for the air. Maybe that would be a good um compromise that wouldn't be expensive. Um like changing fencing type would be incorporate um I'm not sure the what you're referring to there, Jess, but um flagging or or or something along the the fencing to make it more visible.

We can do that. Okay. Yeah. And one thing I'll note too is like um there is like clearing proposed beyond just the fence line. So there will be like cleared area set back from the edge of the fence which will help like so there won't be you know like trees that are obscuring it and vegetation against the fence. So hopefully that'll also make it a little more visible to wildlife um because it'll be in like a more cleared area rather than like when they're coming directly out of the woods. And one last thing, um maybe you have something that's reflective to light because deer are pretty active at night and at low light periods. So maybe some kind of reflective material would help.

Okay, I think those are some good good talking points here. The reason I wanted to bring it up now and not during site plan is because Jess is here with the conservation commission comment. I thought it would be good to understand where that comment is coming from. So I think you've got good thoughts direction there.

Yeah. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Thanks, Jess. there. anybody look at these spaces? No, not not typically. It depends on ultimately the system owner if they're that's something that they would like to have, but it's not something that we typically propose.

that going to be? At this point, we don't know. It's too early on in the process. Um we we own about a third of the projects that we develop. Y um the remainder we will finance sell to a third party um independent power producers. Um our company um I said in

the the first meeting we do the development work. We also are the installers. Um and then we have a division uh that's responsible for operation and maintenance. Um, so we we're with the project whether or not we own it. Um, but at this point it's just too early on in the development process to know what the Okay. Ultimate owner would be.

Yeah. Just note the ownership change we have in our ordinance. Um, 30 days, 60 days, something a notice of that. Yeah. uh in our staff notes, um, CMP access, I thought it was a really good comment. Um, it would be I think it would be great to hear from CMP that they do agree and approve of your access in

and the poll layout in the line poll in line layout. I think that would be good to get something in writing like just a Yep. good to go. Um, I know it might not come until later. Right. Exactly. But I still think that us seeing that

that it matches with what you've got on your site plan, I think would Yeah, they they tend not to engage until a little bit later. Right. Right. Um so we did at request that they um sign off on the the the uh the hammerhead turnaround. Y

um but we didn't get a response. So once we get further along, then we'll get into the actual design work with with CMP that can provide that. Yeah. Okay. We could just keep it as a condition, too. If it comes later later, the building permit

construction start or building permit, whatever. I'd say construction start, but we need the permit first. Right. Right. You do need a permit, but even if it doesn't come in by then. Well, yeah, I think Yeah, I think by the time we pull the building permit, we should be able to get that sign on. Okay.

and this gets ti kind of ties into your emergency management plan. Um, the road, it's either going to be name need to be named or an address on a pole is going to be required out there. Um, I'm not sure the best way to handle that. you might want to talk to our road commissioner um who is also our code enforcement officer to determine so so if I call 911 and say there's a fire at the solar farm right like where am I going

you have an address right or a street name subdivisions but again this is the first time we see a solar um array out there and it is a you know decent quite a lengthy road typically we'll get a E9 911 address closer to construction.

Okay. Yeah. Something that needs to be worked out um with our internal folks as well. Okay. The lot itself isn't actually subdivided, right? It's leased from an owner. So, it doesn't have its own address. How do that even work?

It would probably give street address. Street. It's 8 8:30, right? Nobody Nobody physically lives at 8:30, right? I don't think or it's 360. Yeah, 360. 360. I'm sorry. Um, which there is a there is a house on the property where

it's 360. Yeah. Okay. Silo and Yeah. What they do is they typically build 50 foot equipments along the road, right? Wherever that number would come out. That's what they decide to the address. Okay. Even if it's the same lot. Mhm.

Yeah. Okay. our staff notes is a comment about the uh final construction plans. Um, I can just read this. Applicant proposes submitting the final plans with building permit application. Um, I just wanted to point out that in our ordinance, if there's any change to the project, you will have to come back.

So whether we decide that we need to see the final final ahead of our approval or not, you know, if things change, you'll have to come back and and we'll have to review things that change. So it's in your best interest to submit the final site plan, right?

Is there a a definition of change? Like what? Great, great question. So it's it's in our thing twice. It's in our ordinance twice, I believe. one. It's under our solar specific ordinance that says um I think I wrote it down with pace

oh 108 letter C no letter L sorry of our ordinance um and I don't think it gets into the detail of the change but then it's in our site plan standards and it talks more about minor versus major change. So that was actually something

they use publicness. So if it doesn't affect anything then typically the code officer road commissioner right if it doesn't affect anything that we have reviewed and approved which is wasn't part of the basis of the project key question. Yeah. So anyways, I'm just saying it would be in your best interest to to submit the final plan set or else

you might need to come back if there's any changes. So but we can talk further about whether we want to require final plan set or not. Yeah. Okay. I think one of the staff notes we haven't touched on yet was the transformer

noise. I know one hasn't been selected yet, [clears throat] but I think you provided us with some preliminary specs that um said it was at 58 dB, which exceeds our um noise ordinance. Ours is 55 dB, but you're 400 ft from property line. So, I think we're going to be all set with that. Um, one thing I did want to mention is, um, uh, your pad, the concrete pad that's currently designed for the transformer doesn't, um, address containment. So, the transformer right now you're saying is going to be u liquid. I don't know what kind of liquid, what kind of oil will be there, how much oil will be in it, but um, the pad should be designed to have containment in in the event that the transformer does leak.

here. at the property line, right? If not, cuz I could go outside and play a speaker, 60 dB, but as long as my neighbors are Yeah. Right. Exactly. Yeah. So I imagine 58 at the site it's probably quite quiet. Yeah. Yeah. Somewhere like a

refrigerator. Yeah. Yeah. Dishwasher or this whatever it is. [laughter] Um are the panels fixed? Yes. And are they do they have the uh ability to be remotely changed in tilt? No. So that's it. Once they're in, they're set won't exceed 15 ft.

Correct. Okay. here. Yeah. road will be gated? project obviously has a fence around it that's gated. Um but the access road we don't anticipate which will be on the opposite side of the of the brook. Correct. Okay. is a fire?

So there's a NOX box uh lock mechanism on there. Um so that the fire department could has access to that. the gate is proposed to be there's taking forever on the on the other side of the brook. On the other side of the brook, right,

don't want a fence all the way. That'd be a big fence. Yeah. [laughter] Okay. Okay. Yeah, good point. One of the issues the fire chief had raised was needing multiple points of access into the fencing. So if a fire at the part where the gate is, if you only have one gate, they want to be able to access it from multiple places.

our discussion. Access it as an individual or like a vehicle because I imaging anyway. Yeah. Thing. So you might want to get clarification from the fire chief, but I do recall he was saying they need access from board into the fencing.

You should get a comment from him, right? I talked to him today and he has reviewed the emergency management plan. He's talked to the applicants on multiple occasions and they have agreed apparently to provide some uh equipment to be able to get in there regardless whether block or not

and training too. I think he said yeah and training is required. So they've had discussions about all of that but we need to see the what is actually proposed with the fire chief saying yes I agreed to those proposed things. So I did talk to him today and he's prepared to do that. He ended up getting a peer review. Uh he could provide his comments at that point in time. So, if you could follow up with fire chief and just make sure he's comfortable, maybe the gate is so far away from the panels that if there were a fire,

uh, but could be grassfire, too. So, I think I'm talking about being able to get in there [clears throat] from multiple points as opposed to just one single gate. Yeah. Our last meeting, George, he the chief was here. Yeah.

Um, and he seemed pretty good with everything. Yeah. I thought he had signed off on it, but um yeah, I just call you brought that up. Thank might have been on battery storage. Mhm. That would make more sense. But I don't know. I mean, yeah, definitely confirm with them with him. Um another gate on this project. I don't know where they'd come in.

So, you haven't seen that on other solar? No. No. Okay. No. No. In the event the fire chief is you know yay or nay on something like this following ordinance or is it more now that I recall it was on battery storage intensity of those situations

that those fires can get pretty yeah I think the issue here is that whether or not they can get around through the panels to the and they've got a the five foot buffer outside of the fence on the outside so they can get around the outside on the inside. [clears throat]

and lighting is not determined yet whether or not there will be lighting there. Is that what I understand? There may be some maintenance lighting there or just like if a maintenance crew was there and had to like be working on something at night. They would have like a temporary light going, but no permanent.

Okay. So, something they flip a switch to turn on, not something that's on constantly. Yeah. Not definitely not. Okay. Good. All right. fact here. findings of fact um and there are seven was that I believe. Okay. Um [clears throat]

yes. Okay. process that we discussed finally. Yeah. Yeah. Um so um another somewhat new process, but um George outlined um the criteria and some comments um for each um conditional use criteria. Um and um we'll just go through each one and add uh edit comments as as we need to. Um then once we get through in this case the eight of them we'll we'll um move to a motion on the conditional use permit. Um so uh I'll just run [clears throat] through these real quick. I'm not going to go through every findings. You all have had a chance to see these and review these as well as the applicant. Um uh so number one, [clears throat] public health impacts. Um, the proposed use will not create unsanitary or unhelpful conditions by reason of sewage disposal, emissions to air or water or other aspects of its design or operation. And there are seven findings

and facts. Um, does anybody have any additional edits or comments to those seven? I think you brought up a good point about containment on the transformer that need appropriate. Okay. So in addition, we'll add number eight.

George, are you catching this? Yeah. Okay. So [clears throat] finding number eight. Um that um depending on the type of transformer that's selected, the concrete pad should um include containment for any leakage. Um, the proposed [clears throat] use will not create unsafe vehicular or pedestrian traffic conditions when added to existing and foreseeable traffic in its vicinity. And again, we have seven findings of facts. Um, are there any additions or edits to these?

safety impacts. [clears throat] The proposed 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 mun municipal services than existing uses in the neighborhood. And we have eight findings. Any additions or edits to that? Yeah, maybe add something about um fire chief expected to submit a comment or right

that's five five says it's the applicant states that the fire right we talked about getting something in writing from the fire chief which is typical but you know okay any others proposed use will not result in sedimentation or erosion or have an adverse effect on water supplies.

Do you want to put the engineer peer review here? Is that Yes. Yes. I think that's great. for the bridge. For the bridge. Okay. Was need to turn on. Yeah. Yep. We can add that. The proposed 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 we have 10 findings here.

or edits? I would like if it's not in here, I don't think it is, is that um during the sitewalk, it's apparent that you are not going to be able to see this site at all. So, um can I have it? Yeah, it was quite like [clears throat]

Yeah, it's fully forested surrounding it. operation. The proposed use will be compatible with existing uses in the neighborhood with respect to the generation of noise and hours of operation. Any comments? Number seven. Um, right, title or interest. The applicant has a sufficient right, title or interest in the site of the proposed use to be able to carry out the proposed use.

thoughts? No, we talked about if you know the owner does change the process there. We talked about that. I don't think we need to list it here. financial capacity, financial and technical ability. Sorry. The applicant has the financial and techn technical ability to meet the standards of the section and to comply with any conditions imposed by the planning board sub to subsection 7.5

you do you all know who's going to build this yet? almost certainly would be us. We've Norwich. Yeah, Norwich. We've built I can't think of a project that we've developed that we haven't done. Okay. Okay. Um I don't want to guarantee that. There's always the chance that that there wouldn't be, but um like I said,

cool. Thank you. approval. briefly, so please um, chime in here, but um, this is for our vote. We've been through all of the conditions here. Um so based upon the foregoing findings of facts and conclusions, the planning board has identified the following proposed conditions of approval prior to final action on the application. The applicant shall be afforded an opportunity to state on record whether these proposed conditions are acceptable or whether any conditions should be modified or clarified. The planning board may amend the proposed conditions of approval prior to taking final action once adopted by the planning board. The conditions of approval shall become part of the final approval decision. So, we've been through our findings of fact. We've made some edits and comments. Do you all understand and agree to what we've um discussed?

findings of facts, conclusions, and conditions of approval as amended and grant conditional use approval to Pinkham GLC Solar LLC for proposed Pinkhamber solar project subject to the conditions of approval contained here.

I'll second. All in favor? Okay, thank you. And just for the record, the applicants did affirm acceptance of the draft conditions. They nodded, but [laughter] Oh, thank you. Yeah, we have it on video. so, um, site plan review. Um, as I stated, um, we're going to send this out to our peer review team. Um, so I think

we're going to hold off on any site plan review or any, um, decision on the site plan until that's been complete. Um can I ask what the uh peerreview team exactly would be reviewing like um the entire site plan application or are there specific aspects of the application that um you have questions about and want want to be reviewed just want to understand the scope.

Yeah. Um and you brought this up recently. I did. Yeah. And actually we um George provided we are more usually more formal. We do usually have a list of specific things that they do look at. Um I don't have that in front of me right now, but like definitely the bridge

whatever the issues are for the site plan review, a subdivision. Typically we have a preliminary approval and that lists what you want. Here we'll just have a one-step site plan review decision. Yes. So whatever the issues are, like obviously this is the first solar energy system and we've got all these standards. Yeah.

Nobody in this room or in the town offices has any expertise on the equipment. Yeah. The connections. Uh we do have an electrical inspector, but typically I'm assuming these are done by state inspectors. The local CEO is not qualified to review this type of an installation. they they typically don't do any commercial. It's all all done by the state. Uh so obviously the solar

energy standards being met would be one issue and I think the other one was the uh the stream crossing flood plane ridge. Yeah. Just that issue of the flood only being one foot above the elevation. They may say, "Hey, that's standard and you can't really go beyond that. You shouldn't go beyond that again." or they say, "Yeah, putting in some hardening and a spillway makes eminent sense for everybody."

And I don't know if there are any other issues. Yeah. I think the company that it will go to is um very knowledgeable, I believe, about these types of things. So, it's not new to them. But yeah, this is our first project, right? So, um,

and you can work through George with obtaining contact information for the reviewers. is going to go to the peer reviewer now, what about any changes? There any changes that you want to make ahead of that? Well, or from what I understand, they receive our they receive the meeting minutes from from tonight's meeting. Y

um they review it the technical issues and they cross check into the land use ordinance. Yep. It's pretty thorough. Make any edits you want, then it goes to peer reviewer. Right. So, if there's anything you want to change ahead of that, you can do that. I guess

that's right. Right. Yep. Yep. Right. And how long does that process take, George? They're really, they've been very good. You know, I don't know if they have the in-house expertise on solar or not. They do. Okay, good. Uh, so typically, and you know, getting back to the issue of uh any any new submissions have to be done and it's two weeks before the meeting. So hopefully they could do their peer review. Obviously, if they get that their application to Coral Palmer or ASAP, they can typically turn it around fairly quickly. So, and hopefully that'll be ready by that 14-day deadline for you for the information to be posted

for the next meeting. Yep. Yep. So, you'll connect us with the I'll give you their contact information. They've already they are expecting any applications to come. So just give send them a cover letter or an email to uh it's now shame

I think it is. Yeah. LJB. Yeah. They got bought out. Yeah. You know they know them. Yeah. Yeah. They got and so the review will be on the solar energy standards and the stream crossing. motion table motion I'll make that motion to table B the substantive review of Pink and Brook GLC solar energy system site plane application map 4 lot 85

second all in favor thank you thank you thank you yeah next next on the agenda, new business subdivision application 335 New Brook Road tax map 5, lot 61. Good evening. Am I Am I good to start? Yeah, I think we're good to start.

Okay, great. My name is uh Craig with Acorn Engineering and with me is Hunter, also with Acorn and um Johnny from L from Riby LLC is in the audience. if there are any specific questions for him. Um, so since the preliminary approval, we did get a chance to go through all the different preliminary conditions of approval and we addressed those and some of those um involved obtaining the vernal pool sign off for the from main department inland fisheries and wildlife to to demonstrate that the vernal pool that was found on site is in fact non-significant. We obtained an ability to serve letter from Cassella for the uh solid waste removal. We uh some of the peerreview comments that we received were minor in nature um addressing some of the um detention based in some of the hydrocad model and there were some differences between the plan and what was depicted in the hydrocad. So we cleaned that up. They

recommended an additional drainage easement on lot one for the culvert crossing. So we went ahead and added that. We labeled the uh concrete monuments on the plan and we identified the 50- foot buffer strip along the front along New Brook Road. We updated the tree line and we identified tree save areas throughout the project. We updated the technical capacity section of the application. So those were the those are the the main changes to the plans in the application material. Uh there were some other minor small preliminary approval items, but all seem to have been addressed through the application material in the plan set.

Would you mind um Craig going through each one just so that we can make sure that just go through one through 15 and point out to us where in your application all of these have been addressed. pretty short. So, oh actually sorry before you do that can I also ask another question did we get

you got the review back from the engineering now where is the comments impacted yeah so that they signed off we had two we had two rounds of back and forth with them okay generally minor um minor comments and they signed off on July 15th

finally signed off so good to go there okay great thank you so much so that's number that's number one perfect of the conditions of approval good Um number two is about the performance guarantee. So So let's just Yeah. So 1 a they reviewed the engineering design road construction utilities review of engineers construction cost estimates for the project. Uh you could just point where in your application these we can find these and just just address them each please. So 1 A um

1 A is through the plan set. Okay. OneB we provided as part of the performance guarantee. Um well I guess is that comment related to the performance guarantee or cost estim cost estimate? I I can clarify that. Yeah. Thank you. Okay. So they are proposing a conditional agreement.

Yeah. whereby they they are not allowed to sell any lots or get any building permits for any of the lots until they've completed the infrastructure unless they come in with a performance guarantee for whatever improvements are remaining. So like on Gear Creek Crossing they took the restrictions off with an amended plan and maintain 75,000 for pay final paving uh and some other minor changes. So until they come back to get the release of the restrictions, there is no performance guarantee for the infrastructure. However, the ordinance does require that they they provide the town with an estimate and the peer reviewer has confirmed that $10,000 is adequate. If the if the project is abandoned and you got a built road out there with no erosion control measures, that's enough for the town to go out and stabilize that site. So that's all that's required under a conditional use agreement and Goro Palmer did confirm

that they are okay with that number. Okay, I'm going to hold your comment until let's continue on to um D or C, I'm sorry. Um, yeah, we had a comment about um um the individual lot building envelopes. Um, and I think you guys have done a pretty good job of um um adhering to the cluster subdivision

and we have a pretty detailed table on lot sheet C10. It's called the lot usable area table and that's where those calculations are provided. Okay. review of the individual lot site plan. So that was something we were seeking like a uh uh a condition of approval for that the peerreview engineer agreed with and that was one of their comments in the July 15th that they agreed with that lot uh individual lot site plans really weren't needed. They didn't think it was needed for this project. So they agreed to a condition of approval that that would be I think before the building permits that

yes the builder will have to identify with the house locations and the peer reviewer agreed to that. Okay. Um number number two we I think we kind of discussed how we're handling the cost estimate performance guarantee for this project.

Yeah. So um the 10 grand was only for erosion and sediment control right? Yeah. So we asked for access road construction electrical service storm water man and storm water management system. So it looks like you've only provided cost estimates for one of the four that we had asked for as a condition of approval. I didn't see any other cost estimates other than the erosion and sediment control. And yes, they agreed that 10 grand was sufficient for erosion and sediment control, but none other no other cost estimates were provided.

is beyond the performance guarantee, there's the question of the financial capacity to do the project. Yeah. I'm just getting back to the fact that these were conditions of approval that I haven't seen. They're not part of this package right now. I'm looking through the application now that we

specifically list an amount. condition of final approval? Oh, right now. Let's just say that it's incomplete. And let's move on to the next one. Yeah, we submitted the final app within the 6 months. Yep. Okay. Um, number four,

we don't need any appro we need a main construction general permit prior to construction once a contractor is chosen for this this site. So, this is looking for uh approval from the main D for a NERPA storm water and wetland alteration permit. Yeah, we don't we don't

there's no weapon and we don't require a D approval. So, it's kind of a a condition that's not really applicable and [snorts] the peer reviewer did agree that a main construction general permit would apply here. Do you agree, Juliet?

Yeah, I do I do know that there's no impacts. Okay. Yeah, we did a great job avoiding impacts. I do I do know that. Um is included within the final plans. So we do have we do have erosion control measures labeled. We have uh notes and details for that.

So that addresses number five. Um on the site plan we were a we identified the tree save areas lot clearing limits. feedback from the addressing officer on the road name. I did reach out but never heard back. Okay. So that is a pending condition of approval just because I haven't heard back and I did send the [snorts] request in in June.

George? Probably about that time. About that time. I just wonder whether it because there was a change over the program. the whole package." Can Sorry. Can you give us just a minute? I'm trying to find a document. Okay. Tell me.

Yeah. viewing. Uh there we go. Panipedia. Oh, okay. Okay. Okay. Thank you. No, thank you. Sorry. Sorry about that. Please continue. Yeah. No, number nine. Um Okay. Seven. All right. Yep. Nine. So, we we do show the um the driveway, the home locations, the septic, the well, the tree clearing needed, but I want to note that those locations that are shown are for illustrative purposes only. Um, prior to construction, there will be a building permit pulled on a lot by lot basis and that at that time the house location, the house type, all the all those details will be worked out as part of that building permit application.

Okay. [snorts] Um, the the technical ability section was was updated. That was a comment of the planning board at the last meeting. And we do have a financial capacity letter within the application. And I believe that was section section L of

the application document F. Anyway, thank you. Switching between PDF. So, okay. Um, Is that the Blessie? Yeah. financial capacity letter 2006 2006 I'm sorry yes 26 yeah 26 26 okay okay um for this is now we're on to number

11 11. Thank you. stormwater permit storm water law doesn't apply here. You're getting a general permit. Yes. Right. Yes. Okay. The the general permit and that doesn't come until until prior to construction of the roadway when there's a contractor on board that will do that. Then that general permit is filed.

[snorts] Um, I just want to back up to number 10. I I don't consider this to be complete. Um again it was [clears throat] um a construction cost estimate for the full cost of required improvements including roads, utilities, fire, ponds, storm water management and erosion and sediment controls along with a letter of commitment from a lending institution referencing said letter engineers cost estimates and a letter from bath savings and is very vague to me. It says we believe

um Mr. personnel has the financial capacity for the subdivision and approved financing will be contingent upon receipt and review of all financial information. So I don't I don't find this one to be complete since since item number two wasn't complete. That one couldn't be complete.

Exactly. Well, yeah. Item two and the LA financial capacity letter and not conclude. include copies of covenants bylaws. So that was included as one of the last sections in the application. attorney and reviewed and approved by our town attorney? Can

I clarify that? Uh so the template that the town provides to applicants was reviewed and approved by the town attorney and they pretty much followed that template. So okay, I think they have met that standard. Okay, great.

Thank you. development with reduced lot size. So that was generally depicted within the plans. number 14 again getting back to the cost of the improvements that is that comment getting to what George covered for talked about for the erosion and sedimentation control valued at $10,000?

Yes. Thank you. Uh well um than just sedimentation and erosion. not proposed the conditional agreement. So this was not this this would have been different if they had been proposing that at preliminary level. So basically they're substituting the conditional agreement and then the part of this for the erosion sedimentation control but again that's a separate issue from the financial capacity. Mhm.

But as far as the performance guarantee is concerned being tied to the engineering estimate, I think that is met with their proposal. Mhm. Just for the performance guarantee issue. And has that been reviewed by the town attorney?

conditional says here number 14. Um any other proposed performance guarantee must be reviewed by town attorney at the applicant's expense. So I'm assuming that's what we're talking about. Well, this is in lie of Yes. Right. answer. Has the town attorney reviewed this proposal?

The answer is I can answer that no. The town attorney has not reviewed it and the premise is that under the ordinance, a conditional agreement which is right in the ordinance is approved by the town attorney. If they wanted to bring in a uh a performance bond by a contractor, that

would be the type of arrangement that would raise the need for a talent attorney with you. So, either they do an irrevocable letter of credit using a template that's been approved by the town, or they do a conditional agreement, which is right in the ordinance, and I'm assuming they're proposing to put up a cash deposit for the $10,000 as opposed to suns or something. So I think the conditional agreement doesn't raise the need for and again this condition was drafted without knowing that they were going to provide

right exactly propose the conditional agreement. addressing the board, there are a few things that were part of the, um, uh, conditions of approval that have not been met as part of this final application. Um, and they are, um, number two,

right? um construction cost estimates for access road construction, electrical service, storm water management. Um the other um outstanding item is street addressing. Um and that's number seven. Then number 10 um construction cost us same same as number two basically

and then and and then the letter from uh confirming financial capacity. So I guess my question is are we comfortable with moving forward without these items complete? clock um to to have these ironed out. Yeah, I'm not comfortable with moving forward. I we've asked for that information and it has not been submitted.

So, we could we could table this until actually what you do is give a determination that the application is incomplete until writing a letter. As soon as they get the information, they can read resubmit. Okay, we do have estimates from we have two estimates from contractors so we know how much it's going to cost. But it looks like what you're looking for is a financial capacity letter that ties it

to that amount, right? But but your your your estimates are just for um erosion and sedimentation control. Yeah, but what we intentionally didn't provide it, but we do have several estimates for the entire roadway being constructed.

Okay, that's not part of the package tonight in in the letter. And just to clarify, a a proposed bid on the project by a contractor is not an engineer's cost estimate. And there's a fundamental difference between the two.

There's a very big difference between the two. Yeah. Um Okay. Um, so is there a motion or would anybody like to make a motion? find this application um incomplete. Ivy Ridge subdivision and um should we base it specifically on the items that are incomplete?

Yes. Okay. Yes. Um sorry I didn't down number two letter two and 10 and seven but which letter two two A B and C A B and C are incomplete and 10 and 10 10 seven and seven but we have to on the note on seven and the applicant's defense it appears that they submitted that but we had a change in CEO personnel and that may have been missed.

on the town's part. Is is that person the street addressing officer? Yes. Okay. Rogue commission. Ah, okay. All right. Okay. So, that's on us for sure, but it's still missing, I guess. Right. Yeah. If there wasn't anything else,

I'll read that. 2 ABC 7 and 10. Is there all in favor? Great. Okay. Quick question for George. To be on the next planning board, does that submission date in like one week? Right. Two weeks. Two weeks before the meeting. Get that information in.

Two weeks before that. Okay. Yeah. And our meeting will be September 2nd. Then when we come back, we just review those items, right? Don't have to go through the whole thing again. Correct. Right. Yeah. Yep. As long as those three are met, then we can vote on closing this move

on. Thank you. Thank you very much. business number E. Sketch plan review of a subdivision plan amendment for a lot split on Winter's Way map 11, lot 41-B. Public comment will not be taken. My name is Adam Jones with Jones Associates.

This is the technical applicant. Steve Basset. Um, so what this is is a sketch plan application for it actually is a subdivision amendment. Uh, the previous land here was part of a subdivision in 1974. Yeah, there was another subdivision that was done in 2005 on this parcel, which was a lot in the 74 subdivision. That subdivision plan called this parcel remaining land even though it was technically part of lot two of the 1974

subdivision. So even though we're it was labeled a lot split, it would be under the legal requirement it would have to be a subdivision amendment to at this point two subdivision plans. So the 1974 plan and then the 2005 plan, which is the

area that this lot was was split out of. Um so what the applicant's proposing is to split that one parcel into two parcels. Uh one of those parcels is uh his existing home site. Um and he's planning to build a home on the back of the parcel. Um so but in order to do that obviously it has to has to be two separate lots. Um the access uh to the

site is over Winter's Way. Uh there's currently one other house accessing on Winter's Way about 200 ft up that road in addition to his existing dwelling. So this lot um amendment would put that number of lots at three lots accessing off in Windsor's Way. Um so therefore at least the first 200 ft of that road would be classified as a road and not a driveway. Um so one of the main points that we wanted to discuss with you folks is uh your town road standards have a

maximum grade of 8% to those road standards. um this entire road, existing road because we're utilizing the existing road um and putting a a turnaround at the end of it uh is between 12 and 13% grade. So it exceeds what your um current mode

grade standards are. Um, so obviously one that's one of the main points u we wanted to discuss with you folks tonight and I think that um that was run by the road commissioner and they didn't see an issue with the increased grade on the road particularly because it was a shorter grade distance. um ASHTO standards, which is the highway

safety transportation standards for like a 25 mph road. Usually, um that maximum grade allowance is between 12 and 17% for distances that are less than 500 ft. So, we're around 400 ft for that grade distance. um your specific town road standards don't have that short distance allowance to increase grade slopes. So we would be um

seeking a waiver for your maximum grade slope um because this is an existing road on site and there's not really an opportunity to put the road in a different location. Um it's a you know obviously a main um requirement for us to use that road uh for two more lot or an additional lot up there. Um so with this obviously being a sketch plan application the plan that we've provided for to you is very basic. Um we haven't done a wetland delineation on the property yet. We didn't we obviously wanted to get through some of the road grade questions with you first. Um the rear of the property is in uh resource protection zone. Um and then the rest of the property is uh in both the rural residential/aggricultural zone which have a minimum lot size of 90,000 square ft. The lot where the existing house is on would be at 90,000

square feet and the rest of the property would be with the raw land lot where the new house would be constructed. Um, we would, uh, we're proposing to add a 60 by, um, 120 hammerhead turnaround at the end of the road. Um, because it's it's what fits best for a emergency vehicle apparatus turnaround um, within the the area. Um so yeah, I guess with that that's the gist of what we've submitted and um obviously looking to get a read from you folks as to um you know whether or not a

waiver for road grade standards is something um that provided the correct amount of information you folks would grant uh and what you would be looking for. Uh beyond um obviously the next step for us would be running that grade by the fire chief.

Um sort of from a safety standpoint making sure that the turnaround in road grade are okay for an emergency access in apparatus turnaround. Sorry you said you ran this by the road commissioner already. Yeah. So, road commissioner did not

um based on staff road commissioner did not um did not see an issue with granting [clears throat] him a waiver um but has not been run by the fire chief has Uh, is it lot two is the larger parcel and does that own all the way out to Snow Road? Correct.

On the side of that, who owns the feed to that? The lot two would own the fee to the rightway. Okay. Currently, it's all of part one and two. Currently, it's all part one and two. It was It was [clears throat] divided a little weird. Instead of leaving like a traditional 50 or 60 foot road right away width for that [snorts] bath plot,

they left 100 ft of road frontage I think probably. Yeah, maybe. So it would count as a lot and get up the grade. Yeah. So that um the lighter dashed line is the um the 60 foot easement which would be owned in fee by lot two.

Does that exist right now as an easement? The road exists. The easement only exists in the form that that it's shown on the prior subdivision plan as driveway access to lots remaining land and lot two, which would be the southerntherly rectangle. Um,

so the other lot that uses it has an easement. Um, to be honest with you, I haven't read their deed, but based on the prior subdivision, I don't know. I do. It looks like there's a yeah, potential easement off of snow, right? Is that the one you're talking about?

From snow to the northern one to the upper right. It actually be the southern. It' be the southern one. So, this log that lot comes off right there, but it looks like they don't there's no direct goes across this. So that's about where they're driving.

Check to make sure. And if it's not there, then part of this should be granted the easement. Yeah. And obviously this is sketch plan. Oh yeah. [laughter] The reason why we're here, you know. Yeah. Um there's a lot of notes that would have to go onto this to make it a subdivision plan. Um but yeah. Yeah, you're correct. um that what we would have to research that easement and the way it's shown on the resulting subdivision plan would depend on how it was granted. So we may not

we may have to just show the area because in looking at the previous subdivision plan it was fairly vague when it came to granting that right this subdivision approval amendment can clarify that right and establish it for title purposes for everybody

right because it may be a prescriptive easement. Yeah. And that's sort of my understanding of what it is right now. Yeah. It just be good to formalize that and that clears everybody's title. Yeah. And and another thing with this that we're trying to clear is the um the fact that this is part of a subdivision because in initial research of this, you pull this plan from the registry.

It has a different plan name than the 1974 plan. that's not labeled as amended plan of lot two of a certain subdivision and it's also labeled as remaining land. Um the final subdivision plan name right now it's obviously listed as sketch plan. Um I'm going to have to talk to my surveyor about how he's going to label that. He may end up labeling it amended plan of

and then have to list both subdivision plans. Um so yeah, a few obviously things that the sub the subdivision plan itself would clarify over previous um divisions. comments from your board? So even though only there's there's one existing, right? There's one existing

house. House. Yeah. And one proposed or two proposed. There's one proposed. One proposed right now. So even though only two potential houses right now, there's room two and four for additional houses, right? They be further divided.

Oh, in in the future. Yeah, that would have to be an amendment to this amendment, right? But yes, but exact like what we're doing now, right? Like exactly. Yeah. So I'm saying that it's not just two right? I'd say that the fact that lot one is set at 90,000 exactly

and not half of it that possibility open. Where will lot one get its 300 ft of footage? So along the um road coming up the hammerhead. So would it be from what's the lot down the lower corner that's not part of this? Yeah, that was the the

previous from that corner over to the hammerhead or is that all the way from Yeah, I think so. Snowhead. No, that's from that corner to where the lot line comes off at a diagonal. So that would be 300. I'd like to see this.

Yeah. Right. Where that lot line comes off at a diagonal from the hammerhead. Yeah, that's not one. So, it's all under the new ordinance, you can count the size. So, stack hole. Yeah. And that's something obviously we Yeah.

around there. Exactly. 300 ft. Yeah. Yeah. The proposal the new standards obviously that wouldn't have been we would have had to adjust that under the old standards. Yeah. You're pretty close though. appears that there's wetlands. How would you access that proposed?

Um, so the the proposed access would come off from the sort of right hand or upper side of that hammerhead turnaround. Again, uh we haven't done a wetland delineation. So any wetlands on this would be shown on final subdivision so that driveways could avoid them.

existing tree line if you're looking at that. There's no Sorry, keep going. No, I was Yeah, the around the building envelopes and things like that is existing tree line. Okay. Uh that area is obviously because the grades are pretty high and dry. Um, if I had to guess, obviously next to the stream is going to come up wetland and then there's a little seat that comes up through that

may end up wetland for some of that, but that would obviously be shown on it's only preliminary and file. Where's the flood plane here? Yeah. So flood plane is um roughly at the toe of that slope next to like which slope.

Yeah. Right there. So Okay. So and so the last flood last big flood we had this whole area. I don't know how long you've been at the house. I was there. Okay. Yeah. So did you flood in there? No, we were high on dry. with everything where the existing building is that's not quite the high point but that's very high and then where the proposed building is

is I don't know it's about 20 ft hight flood plane itself it drops down it's very steeply down you were dry there both of those houses locations both those locations yeah okay yeah they the existing houses oh god that's going to be 70 ft above the flood thing. It's It's

Were you like in the island? Like surrounded by We talked to Kyle, took the boat. [laughter] It was a nice little vacation. Yeah. Maybe a little bit higher. So, is there any problem with the the hammerhead leading right into the driveway? like an emergency or fire safety concern. I think I heard that come up previously that wasn't desirable.

It's not desirable, but I know historically there are some like that and nothing against it. Our plan obviously with this with a preliminary the next step for review would be this has all been done off from state LAR data. So those slopes are estimated off from what we can pull from public data sources. Um we would create

a more detailed plan of showing the hammerhead and grade sheets on it. Um so that the fire department would be able to do their review based on that and not this. I can say that that is the really the only location for a hammerhead on that property

because it slopes off on both both sides. We can't go any further um with the hammerhead location obviously because it without creating a lot of fill there. Um would the hammerhead itself be fairly flat though? Oh yeah, the hammerhead itself is very flat. Okay. Um and obviously it's there because it is that is the flat spot.

So um just trying to avoid u an extensive cut slope there that would result in a lot of trees being cleared and and [clears throat] filling. So that that existing once you get up on that plateau it's a flat plateau. So So at this point hopefully you want to know if the board was entertained a weaver on the

slope. Yeah. If your fire department and road commissioners are okay with what's presented given the um you know how few houses are accessing and the how short that slope distance is whether or not the board would uh entertain a waiver being used today anyway.

So can you explain a little bit more on the turnaround? How how how are you going to get from the driveway to the house? The proposed the proposed house uh there would be a new driveway down through there. Okay. So, you're just talking we're just talking about the turnaround. I mean the um the hammerhead

that. Yeah. That would be a driveway. Yeah. So, we're just talking about to to the hammerhead. Yeah. The road portion of or what's considered a road. What's what is used by both lots. Mhm. And that's going up. Obviously,

it's going up. So, when it flooded, did that road flood? It did, right? No, but the road in snow road snow road did flood. Winter's did not. Okay. Yeah. I think on the other side if you're looking at that um plan the flood plane is there's a those contours get little

Yeah, I see them. There's a little islands there. If you come in two contour intervals up from there, I think that's roughly where the flood plane is. So, Yeah. The only spot on this piece of property that I own is that back corner. Back corner. on the plan.

So George, maybe a newbie question, but does the board have the authority to grant a waiver like this? Yes, it does. This is subdivision and what you should do is include that asht information that you mentioned because that is the type of uh support documentation that helps justify it. So between the road commissioner and ASHTO if there's a specific engineering guideline that talks about

and that was one of the issues is it's one thing to have a couple hundred feet of steep grade it's another thing to have a quarter of a mile steep grade how long is this 400 ft to the is the sort of well to pretty much the total length of the the road to the turnaround

okay like 500 ft 400 ft Well, there's a road's already here right now. Road's already not a road. It's not a road. It's not being called a road because it uh does not serve more than three three or more dwellings. So, yeah.

But it is is it not a road? It's a named driveway. Driveway. Yeah. For 911 purposes, it is it has a name. Um, but for road design purposes, it's it's a driveway. From the staff notes, there's some discrepancy as whether or not it's

Yeah, I think that was a typo. We have 12 Winters Way on our location information and then 11 Winters Way on its billing address, but they're both 12. I think we were getting paid. You still get paid if you send it to the

only one two three portal was there. This is tax. This is tax map 11. And I think that's where the 11 came from that. No. Sounds like what George suggested would meet what you're asking. We can do it. I think the one thing that maybe

we haven't really talked about is if we if we do consider the waiver, do we want to engineer to review right the steepness I It's interesting because I mean it's already there today in place. It's publicly it's not a public way. So

why would we want to engineer to they're going to maintain it? Yeah. Not the town, right? But it's in our ordinance, right? The grade you can require peer review or not. Right. Right. That's what that's what they said. Yeah.

even if it's private? There's a safety reasons and at some point you may want to reexamine the 8% versus 10% which is more typical. I'm not sure how that got stuck at 8%. But in any case, um the uh the reasons for limits on road grades are to require developers and think about if this was a major subdivision with right 15 20 lots,

lots of rather than altering the topography um force the developer to snake the road with the topography. So that's one issue. maintaining the topography rather than cutting through cutting through it. Y uh and then the second issue is the steeper the grade the more potential there is for erosion

and washing out the road. So and then obviously safety of vehicles going up. Um that's that's an issue and the yeah like the from the erosion standpoint um you know that's something that we would look at addressing maybe include some or something.

Yeah. This is an existing road. Yeah. And I don't think there's we've had any issues with your ditches washing because they're all vegetated. Um, but from a construction standpoint of the hammerhead and the changes to the road that will have to take place in the upper end to get everything to conform, we would obviously be submitting an erosion and sediment control plan

to for that those construction activities. And does this also change like say some of it is wet? Do we think any of it's wet or no? It's like a wetland the of the lot. Yeah. Yeah. So, like I was saying, that back left corner.

Yeah. That's wet. That's wet. That's wet. Uh maybe if you see there's a there's a like a valley that comes up from there. Yep. To the left of the Watt two words. Yep. If I was a betting man, I would say that that wetland creeps up into there a little bit. But I won't know until we get a wet wetland scientist out there to do it.

But you don't think there's any wetland at all where you are. I know you're higher, but still. Yeah. Even the the area that he's talking about is um in heavy rain is a drainage, but there's never standing water. I don't know the how they determine what a wetland is. Yeah.

But just looking at it, it's not been a wetland. Okay. Because I do wonder if it was a wetland and your storm water like if that would change anything. Um [clears throat] interesting. Much more water now down that right.

Not particularly. I mean I think the thing that would change um what we're looking at here is if you were in the um wershed of a a great a great one or an urban impaired stream. Yeah. um then we would be looking at uh whether or not we need to meet phosphorous standards.

Yeah. For that. But um I'm fairly certain this is not and I think this is in the address. Did you say that this was part of the remaining land of the 2005? It is the remaining land. So what [snorts] it was labeled as the remaining land. It shouldn't have been labeled as in my opinion shouldn't have been labeled as in raining land in that plan.

Yeah. Um that plan probably should have been an amended plan of lot two of 1974 plan. Um but yeah it was it was late but for all intents and purposes it was the third lot in that um okay it just wasn't labeled lot three.

And this would be an amended. This would be an amended. Yeah. Yeah. From a le from a legal standpoint, this classifies it as a subdivision because it was in a subdivision. So, This is an interesting one. Yep. Mhm. Well, when he sent me the plan initially, I said, "No, you don't have to do subdivision review. That's

I thought that's that's labeled as remaining land. So, it's not in a lot in a subdivision." And then we did our deed research and found a 1974 plan that was a subdivision. And that's when yeah, we realized that this is sins of your elders.

This is from a legal standpoint part of a subdivision. And so because that night September 20 that subdivision happened after September 23rd 1971 there they missed it by three years but there is a cut off date. So Well if you if you're going to essentially it's going to be a second home in there eventually you're going to want a road maintenance agreement too. there. We will have to submit a remote maintenance agreement as part of the preliminary.

Yep. talked about peer review of the road, but that's [snorts] what has gained from that other than making sure the road is constructed properly and you don't have issues in the in the future. like I don't know they probably review the storm water.

next submission looks like. I was that's exactly what I was going to say. Check out the details. Um obviously the full you can get it to eight would be great. Um but um yeah, we have some homework to do and I think you have the staff notes. Um these are all spot-on um comments from uh Mr. Tabarge. I think if you address these before you come back to the ne next application or with your application um that would be very helpful and obviously meeting with the um fire chief um to see what he has to say about it all.

review of the sketch plan. One question I had on um submission. I heard you say to them that so it's 14 days before meeting. A new submission is 3 weeks. A new application. Okay. If you come before the board like they did, they're going to resubmit new information. That deadline is two weeks before the meeting.

So if you're already in the queue, Okay. So if we're adding information Yeah. Okay. So, it's still 21 days. Okay. All right. We got excited. [laughter] It's new to us, too. We're still No, I know. Well, we recently passed.

We submitted thinking it was a twoe window and he emailed us and said, "Actually, we just shifted it to 21 days." So, which we didn't know was coming. Okay. agenda items. And the one item I added earlier on in the meeting was just to try to start keeping track of what we need to do homework on

for um the 2027 town meeting. Um, I don't have a list. I know we've talked about a few things. I could probably dig up some information, but George, do you have a running list of the stuff that we were planning to target?

Noise ordinance was one. Yeah, we you deferred some issues during the uh uh last round of amendments. Couple of those were the noise regulations. Uh and another one was the agriculture was asking for redefinition of camping.

Mhm. Uh we know that they are bringing in a set of amendments on agriculture to try to get things recognized as agriculture that are not in the ordinance. The whole set of definitions and standards to apply to those. You know what they're looking for is more of a mixed agricultural use bag.

uh kind of like you know some more more diversity of agricultural activities including some commercial parts and trying to define where those limits should be and what review should apply is obviously like any development interests they would like to see less is better.

Uh so working through those issue is going to take quite a bit of time. Uh obviously you folks would want to weigh in on those especially when you start talking about not having conditional use reviews of certain types of activities like farm fairs and those sorts of things.

Um so that's a big issue. Um and the other big ones are gravel pits. That's like high on the list for select board but not quite our our list, right? No, no, no. Just understand gravel pits like gravel pits they could come to us.

You'll be involved in we'll be involved but we're not really our right. So one question is how much bandwidth is there within the system? Y and we've got some big issues coming down in terms of the agriculture in terms of the gravel pits

and then the big one the the the economic development district. Yeah. That and the um affordable housing. Affordable housing. Actually that's not that big of or not big but It's big that you got the grant. We got a grant and that's going to cover the town attorney looking through all the legal requirements and doing the tweaks and say, so for example, the state legislature to do these three units of housing on every lot minimum,

uh, technically, if you were to create three separate units on a lot, that requires site plan review or or subdivision. Uh so the legislature said you cannot require either site plan review or subdivision to do three units of housing on on a single lot. So that's the type of tweaking that needs to be done. Uh

and again hopefully the town attorney will take the load of that. Okay. And and shouldn't be much. But the big ones are the agriculture, the gravel pits, and the economic development district. That's going to be about as much bandwidth. We had talked about cell towers in the past. Right now, you're still in that same place of not having any standards for cell towers, and that's like solar, not having any standards.

Yeah. However, you know, how what are we pro folks probably know what are the gaps in coverage? Is it likely that somebody's going to invest a couple million dollars to put up a new tower? Not likely. Uh so that that's not a pressing issue. Uh that's probably the other big gap that I've seen in your regulations.

2027 tam? anything or what any agriculture economic development district right now are top issues but are those land use ordinance changes that would need to be so so for all of them all of them could could precipitate land use ordinance changes. So for example, gravel gravel pits. Right now the ordinance has this confusion

of small borrow pits 5 acres or less and large gravel pits and the conditional use provisions say all gravel pits. The gravel pit regulations can be interpreted to say planning wood only reviews the small bits. It's confusing. Yeah, that makes sense.

That that and probably the recommendation is going to be to just all radicals and eliminate that that confusion. Um, all right. Step back to economic development. Um, so that committee hasn't been formalized yet. You think that there's going to be enough information generated whenever that group starts through

June to have enough information to put into a language ordinance change. It's a short period of time. It is. Yeah. goals. Yeah. Yeah. It doesn't have to be. I mean hopefully the idea would be to get something moving on that.

Yeah. I think uh the first meeting might be this month. It's probably going to be September. You think so? Yeah. They just approved one member at large and there's two out there's two more that they need to approve and they haven't received applications yet.

They received one. They approved them Tuesday, Monday. Yeah, we're waiting on the agriculture committee and conservation commission to tell them who who wants. Okay, so September maybe we asked this question and they've got they've got their own strategic planning schedule for this month.

the finger on the pulse of that one. Um but I don't know that there's going to be enough information generated for a 2027 meeting. Um, yeah, I Delta is Yeah. Yeah. So, a committee camping. Um, so should we reach out to them to see where they're at or wait for them to approach us?

Yeah, you could. I just don't want to lose sight of stuff. They've already been in touch with you uh than the group in terms of what they'd like to see happen. So, uh, right now the the ball is in their court to give those specific amendments that they're proposing. That's right.

Okay. All right. I'm going to um generate this list. I'll pass it around to everybody before next meeting just so we can keep track of what's out there and keep tabs on it. Don't want to fall behind if there's something that's, you know, in the past, haven't we had the we've presented to the select board and said, "This is what we're thinking of. Give us a thumbs up and then we move forward, right? All right. I just want to make sure we're on the same track.

Yeah. Yep. Yep. All right. Cool. Yeah. Great. Can I make a motion to Second. All in favor? Thank you. Thank you for meeting. Yeah. Yeah. Was a very nice good job. Agenda pack meeting go through. Yeah, George. Good job. I thought we were going to be here until midnight. I knew that one at first. Then things starting falling apart from the applicant.

[clears throat] Yeah. Thank you. Till next time. I'll rise. [laughter]