TranscriptPlanning Board Meeting ~ August 3, 2022

that i hold to make tyler and anne voting members this evening pull them up from i should not use the term the minor leagues but uh make them voting members this evening and so unless there's any objection from other board members seeing none thank you uh amendment oh we have the quorum with five folks uh amendments to the agenda any

of the minutes of prior meetings july 13th being the prior meeting i would move that we accept him as presented and would like to compliment george on the detail of these minutes can i make a note yes awesome awesome job on the on the notes but i did have one quick um edit potential so the last bullet on um the last page talking about new business

it lists out the potential peer reviews um we talked about engineered plans including traffic safety review wetlands delineation and potential forestry violations just we had discussed wetlands delineation or wetland delineation slash permitting wetland resource permitting as well so right

things um so i've got a motion if i've got if i we had a second sure after that yes as amended as amended and then all in favor raise your right hand left whichever the minutes are approved so informational exchange anything from town officials not beyond what's in the agenda packet okay uh i guess the one thing is the budget committee met the other day and it sort of impacts this group is they're recommending approval for sixteen thousand dollars for a gis system to do tax mapping which will have a lot of good tax map information not that's separate from what george has done for us in the past so making sure that everybody is aware that that is an article that is being presented at the time on the 16th

well since we're on television there's the other three articles are also improve the phone and internet system in here and buy some new computers and then heating and hvac for that so if you're available on the 16th or your friends are please come out and vote so town officials residents any com any comments from residents seeing none any comments from non-residents

business which is the substantive review of the preliminary plan application for the proposed 13 lot cluster subdivision hello hello road map also known as deer creek crossing and before we start that um i need to ask tyler we may vote on something this afternoon so i asked tyler and ann uh since you're now members are would you be have you had a chance to look at the notes the minutes the the film from the last meeting and are you comfortable if we ask you to vote on it this evening i did read the notes um so i did not watch the video but okay i think i'm feeling comfortable it doesn't sound sounds like there's a lot of public comment but um nothing that seemed surprising okay i would abstain from the vote because i missed both the sidewalk i i have kept up on the minutes but i missed the sidewalk as well so i would abstain from this boat then i would ask the uh other board members are you comfortable

with letting tyler vote given yes the information he has yes okay then tyler you will have an opportunity to vote on uh on this particular one so we covered on that who can vote and with that i think we will turn it over to are the apple applicants here and ready to go okay and then i will turn it over to mr our town planner to kind of go over george went through a lot of stuff and you probably have seen it he put notes together did a good job on uh the public comments well that's part of the minutes but he put information together on concerns that were raised in the public hearing or his review of the plans going through the preliminary plan checklist and other input and so mr the barge i will ask you to go ahead and provide your start the discussion john um the agenda notes that i prepared kind of summarize where we are in the review process so uh at the last meeting on july 13th you determined that the application was

complete and under the ordinance you are now have from that point have 60 days to make a decision which would be then by the next meeting i did include a summary of the public input that was taken during the public hearing the issues that were raised included survey accuracy the drainage concerns timber harvesting violations were noted disclosure of all potential encumbrances was an issue that the board had discussed discussed and that all also came up during the public comment the accuracy of the wetland delineation again was raised the location of the stormwater basin that was raised by the conservation commission in addition to the wetland issue in the existing and proposed stream crossing uh the conservation commission in its written comments requested a high-intensity soil survey and during the public hearing they did support the creation of the open space network and connectivity with the timber

oaks open space subsequent to the public hearing i received an email that was also forwarded to the board address concerns about impacts on the schools impacts on aquif on the aquifer district that extends uh partly onto this property and also concern for continuing zoning violations on the property you started your substantive review last time and you'll continue that tonight with the completion determination i sent notice as required to the school superintendent the road commissioner and the fire chief got written comments back from the road commissioner which i included in your packet and written comments from the school superintendent which i forwarded to you so at this point uh the board under maine law and the town's subdivision regulations uh must within the 60 days make a decision either to approve the application for preliminary approval without any conditions if you think it meets all of the

standards secondly your second option is to approve it with conditions and part of those conditions are intended to say you think that the application can meet a standard or an impact can be mitigated with a an approval condition so that's and that would apply to any and all issues where you feel that it could could pass through the standards if it it has certain things done then the third option if you think going down through uh the standards that any one of those standards this applicant has just failed to meet their burden of proof then you can make the third option of deciding to deny the application in all cases the burden of proof is on the applicant to demonstrate compliance i've drafted some preliminary approval conditions that are intended to give the board an efficient way of going through the standards and considering possible mitigation of any that you think need to be mitigated

through conditions of approval but these also address all of the public comment areas that were submitted and then in the event that you determined to go forward with the project these will also provide a basis for drafting findings of fact so what i try to do is give you a document that will help you efficiently process it and cover several different aspects of the review process and documentation in one mechanism um

as we go through those i've ordered them in the order of the the standards within the ordinance john in reviewing it noted that some of them directly respond to what has been discussed by the planning board it came from public input others weren't really brought up but they addressed certain standards and criteria so i did prepare another draft of those conditions of approval that segregate out the ones that address issues that came up in the substantive review and ones that haven't been discussed yet if that would be helpful if you'd rather see it in that format so i won't until you get to that point i won't distribute those but i do have those and they're the the items are the same it's just in a different order if i'm not mistaken so as you walk down through the draft agendas if you agree to that process then what you do is take each one each one references standards that are a standard that is in the ordinance and

you can decide whether you think that the application as submitted meets this reference standard whether and then you wouldn't need a condition of approval or you think that the condition of approval is necessary and would like to see it applied or you think even with a condition of approval it can't meet the standard then you would say that is the basis on which we would deny the project so as we go down through the part for the substantive issues or that were raised during the review process then we can kind of each one of those uh indicate whether you think it passes without a condition whether the condition is necessary and satisfies the burden to to give an approval or whether you just think there's no way that it meets that and you would not approve it on that basis in each case i recommend and have been advised by attorneys that it's a good thing to uh if you're going to apply a condition

of approval check with the applicant to see whether they accept that condition of approval uh just because if they agree to it then that won't be contested uh in the future as likely the uh the board majority should vote on whether to apply uh approve to apply a condition of approval uh or to deny so each individual item should get a majority vote as opposed to going through them all and then giving a majority vote some members may like you know want some some not others so that gives you a consistent result if you decide to go forward tonight with the condition or preliminary approval with a set of conditions then basically the applicant can move forward with the final plan application process they need to go to some state agencies they need to get cost estimates bank financing performance guarantees and so you could give a preliminary approval tonight if you're satisfied that they meet the burden uh if you

decide on one or more standards that they don't meet it and you're leaning toward denying what you would i would do is propose that i would draft prepare findings fact for the next meeting in preparation for a vote to deny the application if you move in that direction so if you prove it tonight i think we can use the existing we don't need to do formal findings of fact because it'll be coming back to you if you decide to deny it then we would want to do that but we should have time to prepare it for the next meeting so we can do that efficiently

clarification if with a big if we are not sad if there are too many things or a couple of big things that are still not there a fourth option is in lieu of denying and i'm not saying we're going to do that is to ask because we're under the time crunch to ask the applicant if they could if they want to try to fix it or correct those yes you have to make a decision within 60 days unless the applicant agrees to an extension and if the app you you're at the point of deciding to deny the application because it fails to meet certain standards you can ask the applicant uh if they're given more time do they think they can come up with a burden of proof that will satisfy the board and if so how much time do they want to go through that exercise and then finally i would uh point out that i had con contacted the town attorney back in may to get clarification on the issue of public hearing versus public comment the town

attorney has advised that if you take public comment on an application either for conditional use or for a subdivision it should only be done in a notified properly notified public hearing so it's really important to because and following the bylaws that give parties the opportunity for rebutting evidence that's submitted he feels that that's very important in terms of defending any decision that you make so you should not take public comment on a subdivision application unless you have have a scheduled public hearing so i think that's just important to keep in mind and uh i did uh receive also clarification from the town attorney um i did seek his guidance on the issue of the summary judgment which uh had been raised you do have in the record now a lien discharge uh the the out the property owner paid a fine the town select board accepted that fine and determined that the violations had been

abated to the point that the select board was satisfied and was ceasing enforcement action according to jack conway the town attorney no formal summary judgment of the court has been done however i don't it's not summary judgment it's the satisfaction satisfaction of judgment whatever the proper term is that has not been done but he's prepared to do it if the town requests it so uh that's where that legal issue stands and with that i think i've before we go off discovered everything that's we've done this like three or four months in a row they um are we the ones who ask the town then to do that i mean go through the town manager [Music] again the burden of proof is on the applicant so they're the ones they have to prove that they have uh there are no encumbrances that would affect their ability to sell lots in this subdivision so you can ask them if they want to do something about this otherwise

it's really the board's judgment whether to move forward or not you don't have the responsibility to get that documentation i'm good and maybe next month we won't talk about it [Laughter] okay um just a question did we get a comment back from the fire department there have been some emails during the discussions and uh but there's never been a categorical statement of what and the applicant has offered different options but has not really settled on any at this point so the fire chief hasn't really been asked to review a formal proposal for fire protection at this point okay until the applicant has a gives their proposal okay

start the it's up if the board wants to procedurally go through and uh review the if you're ready if there are other issues that you need to discuss and we can discuss those issues as we go through the draft preliminary approval conditions so if you're prepared to do that and then the question is do you want to use what was in your packet which you may have prepared by or do you want an alternative organizing of those draft conditions of approval where 14 respond to issues that came up during the review process or the public comments and the other 11 excuse me yes the other 11 are just other issues that are addressed in the ordinance so whatever you prefer i'll i'm happy to do is that not in the packet it's not in the packet but i have copies that i can give to yeah not in that no they're in there just not in the order not enough yeah they're all in there just not in the same order so i'll pass

those around you guys think about just having a quick discussion between prelim and final yep procedurally yeah procedurally sure what we're doing here is that okay yes absolutely thank you have no just like the difference here like okay so preliminary approval again is set up and this follows a state model um and it works quite well in terms of giving the applicant a clear green light to go forward in continuing investing in the project because as they go forward the costs of doing the plans the soft costs of this development keep rising and so this is an interim step to say to the applicant we have reviewed your application on a preliminary basis and we've determined that it can meet all of the standards or if it can't in your opinion there's no point in spending more money uh in going through more time and expense to prepare a final plan that isn't going to get approved so the interim preliminary

approval gets the board to commit to say this we think this application can meet it if all of these legal and technical issues are addressed including peer reviews of some of the information that's been submitted again if you're not convinced that this even with a peer review for some reason there's some in your mind there's some standard they just cannot meet so let's just take what's in one in this example the fire pond okay or fire protect water supply for fire protection the current application has indicated what they're willing to do to address the standard for water source on-site is a water is a fire pond with 36 000 gallons the standard in the ordinance is a hundred and twenty thousand gallons unless the fire chief approves that with a combination of sprinklers the applicant has said they are willing to do thirty six six thousand gallons if the fire chief will not require so in my mind that doesn't meet the

ordnance standard so that would be an example of if that issue is not resolved to your satisfaction that it meets the standard of the ordinance there's no point in applying to mdot and d in dep and main historic preservation commission no point in going to the bank no point in uh hiring the or paying the engineer to do detail cost estimates of all the improvements all of that work if this project is going to be denied because they do not meet the fire protection standard or any other standard then there's no point in giving a preliminary approval and you should deny the application does that help clarify yes okay yes it does thank you

tom planter's done a lot of good work with that we can start with that we can go through the the checklist quickly and see if there's something on the checklist that i mean some of many of the things he's just put on his paperwork covers it or we can go through his work first and then get to the checklist just to make sure we don't miss something on the checklist that he didn't cover my recommendation would be to start with the conditions of approval because they addressed the substantive issues that have been discussed and the public and the public commenting the ones that you drafted yeah yeah and then like you say then we can just take a quick look at the checklist to see if we've missed anything yeah what checklist are you referring to the application included a preliminary checklist that goes down through every standard so for example one of the standards is they have to have mapped all the farmland soils

and it's just a technical requirement but if they didn't have it that would fail to meet the standard okay then i will i have seen nobody shaking their head horizontally so i think we'll call it so start with it's okay and this is all new for all of us so uh it's hope everybody can work our way through it so the first draft condition of approval addresses is for and this is right under section 6.6 l1 if the board gives a preliminary approval it should specify what changes they are going to require as a result of the preliminary approval process and two that have been discussed one is the the standard in the ordinance that calls for extending a right-of-way for future road connections we've discussed that the applicant has indicated that they're willing to put one in off the end of the hammerhead to the budding property it doesn't show on any plan so that would be an example of a condition of approval

that would mitigate that address the standard and the board could tell the applicant when you come back with the final plane you want to see it on there secondly during the public testimony the conservation commission representatives suggested that the storm water basin just above the stream on the road should be moved out of the resource protection district which i think extends 100 feet from the stream if you agree uh with that assessment then um and there's kind of two counter arguments one is that and it was made by the applicant's engineer if you move the storm water basin further away from the stream it collects less of the road runoff and then some of the road runoff goes into the stream without treatment so it's you know there's a pros and cons to each location and it's not clear how far this stormwater basin would have to move to get out of that if it's a matter of a few feet that's one thing if the entire

thing has to be moved that's a different issue but that would be an example of a change that you would require and i don't know we had also talked about lots six and seven and i have a condition of approval for requiring a site plan for each of those two lots to ensure that there won't be impacts on the wetlands on those lots you could say we don't think those lots are suitable and we want those removed from the plant that would be an example of a change that you would require for the final plan so i've identified two if any of you have other changes that you would like to see in the plan this would be the place and now would be the time to suggest that and so this is very general this is like culverts this is roads this is no it should be specific at this point no i mean um what we're talking about changes to the plan yes that is can encompass a lot yes it could okay so if there are specific changes that

you want to see made now is the time to indicate those and those can be included as conditions of approval i think calvin i don't know if you guys saw his comment letter yeah he made some good comments too and i guess maybe julia not to not dinner but while you're looking for it a lot of the nitty-gritty will come up in the final plans if i'm not mistaken so and caller and he has some good things that we ought to consider tonight i think some of them that's what i don't know if you've had concrete on the plans but he says yeah john's making a distinction is this something that you think you couldn't approve this subdivision because it would fail to meet a standard or you would like to see the public works comment excuse me the road commissioner's comments requests for so for example he said instead of having a 20-foot driveway culvert length he would like to see a 30-foot driveway culvert length because people

backing their trailers they crush them that's not a standard of our ordinance that you could deny the project on but it's a request by the road commissioner to get a better result of the project so you could if you feel strongly that that is a is a make or break standard you could put it in all of the changes requested by the road commissioner you could make that a condition of approval if you vote by majority to do that or as john i think you're alluding to when it comes back for the final plan you could ask the applicant to incorporate those changes and again on all conditions of approval you should see what the applicant is willing to do yeah i think it'd be nice to have it at the preliminary stage versus so the final plan is in place and we're not making corrections between the preliminary and the final to that extent if we're increasing the the there's no specification for a culvert at this point

but that would be a condition it could actually that's a big condition we're not a big condition i'm sorry there needs to be a culvert there they'll well they do specify 15-inch culvert diameter i don't think that they specified the length of them i mean you're saying one which would one caller is 20 feet right yeah that's the length of the standard culvert and if we were to let's just say we were at some point in time as we're going through this we would say okay here's the road commissioner's comments we go through them and just say we would like to make his comments a uh condition you could make every one of those comments they come here i think we got to go through to see if you know they're they're worth making i mean i think i have to pick on calvin they're probably all very good but there are a couple in particular that you know lessons we learned at uh from another subdivision exactly i can run you down through those

yeah so there's another big one in here is the stream crossing which is addressed in the draft conditions of approval can before we do that can does this can we vote on these two yes a and b sure and then we can get at some point we'll get to uh uh road commissioner's comments and we'll just decide if if all of them or some of them but if i need to keep it simple george for me so we just got to vote on these two and uh simple is always good

there's two two uh comments from george here um any comments from the members on those two yeah resource protection um yeah yeah what do we think about that um because i can see it from both ways um and i don't feel like i have enough information to say whether that should be a condition or it should be changed yeah yeah agreed what do you guys think about that um i'm good with well i guess the first question was i th for the app my thought would be you know get alan's comments and see if they're willing to do it my understanding is one a they've you've agreed to do that that's the uh right of way extended to the end of the property correct okay so that that one were set on

studies right yes i was thinking the same thing real quick where is the right-of-way going up right straight off the end of the hammerhead to the property line up here no no the other way straight out straight toward the bottom yep there you go radar right off toward the property line okay and so this is a wetland right

uh right away right okay so you won't build they would not build anything there now it would just be if the neighbors the intent is to keep from having a whole bunch of dead ends and isolated that right away would cross a wetland yeah if you think that that's an issue that you shouldn't have a road then you could say we're not going to require it i mean the potential the idea of the right-of-way is a road in the future correct it's paper street so to avoid landlocking yeah pretty much so do we have to go that way can can you go south or north like i don't um

yeah i think there's open spaces to the south or east or whatever direction that is area yeah i'm good with doing it with the i you know what i hate to say assumption but um when if it goes to actually be built there would be a requirement to cross the stream correctly across you know wetlands correctly they're not going to be able to just do it so and i don't know who that would be on you know it's a future issue whether it's on the next property next developer next door if they ever come along or to or the town 50 years from now for the town 50 years from now if they decide to connect i personally am a big believer in interconnectibility of neighborhoods

ones and little small not having the ability to get around the town strip of land and there's some larger parcels beyond it milky way lane comes into that one that showed the future interconnectivity to go over to dire road or back out to hollowell road

davis davis road excuse me require the connectivity it says right now it's just green space whatever you want to call it and then when they come to build that road our successors or whomever will make sure it's built to the standard they can't just come in and build a road whoever the next developer is would have to build it to the same standards they're building their crossings in this subdivision or maybe even higher

right-of-way question and then i think we're still on the question of moving the uh the pond uh are we voting on each issue or are we voting on these things together i was just gonna do six one together but if they're too different if we think we're going to come with two different uh let's do this one we know so we'll vote on 61a all in favor of uh requiring the right-of-way extend to that uh property line please raise your hand uh four or one my math is correct it passes no i'm not voting for oh that's right i'm sorry 4 4 0 1 401

if i remember okay so then 4 6.1 b is the location of the pond and just for the record it's a storm water detention basin not a pond excuse me thank you stormwater detention basin on this item i think i remember someone bringing it up that it's our ordinance states that it's not allowed does it do we have that in the ordnance at all that stormwater features are not allowed in resources the representative of the conservation conservation commission who spoke indicated his opinion is that they should not be in the resource protection okay i don't believe that it's prohibited by the ordinance okay okay thank you

the indications that the final achievement say that you were talking about this one when you said studies yeah i mean i think the planning board has the ability to bring in their own expert yes and so i think this could fall under that um either the engineer or maybe the person looking at the permitting move that to a peer review peer review question okay pros and cons to both yep um so you would delete that then for now and put it down into peer review i i agree with that yeah i can see it both ways that's offering the road and um well they're going to review it with the detention pond uh where it is now and then the guidance would be is it better to move it what happens if we move it outside of the is that what we would ask for and i don't think it's going to be this big you know you're probably going to say really doesn't make much difference where you put it in terms of the storm water capture

okay having so are you good with that mr applicant that we would defer the decision to the peer review yeah okay all in favor of deferring the decision to the peer review whether it stays as designed or uh it moves and that we're not talking about a major redesign i mean we're not talking about you know getting getting rid of 10 lots to put a pond in okay all in favor four zero one there you go okay the next one is the survey and there were both board comments and public comments about concerns for the lack of accuracy of the survey and for the record is my understanding in the opposition is it the engineer estimate is the next one did we discuss it no we're going by um oh i'm sorry you switched we switched to the new list the other list i asked for thank you

the applicant can correct me if i'm wrong but they did not submit a new survey they submitted a survey by the property a prior property owner so that clearly would not pass muster for final plan approval and that survey itself has noted disc discrepancies in the notes about certain areas are not clear title uh around the periphery there's been testimony during the public hearing about concerns for survey accuracy so

the four issues that came up were marking the corners of the parcel per the ordinance those areas of questionable title and the potential impact of if they don't have clear title to certain areas including it in their open space may affect the calculations and then finally during the last meeting i checked my notes again and i saw that there was some question it must have been during the title search a cmp easement was identified it doesn't appear on the plan so that would be a fourth issue so section 6.7 c3 addresses all of those issues and the draft condition of approval says if they can get proper documentation on those issues you think it could pass the standards for surveying and for open space if you don't think that then this would be one where you would say we're not convinced the applicants failed to meet the burden of proof and we would vote to deny it on this and as well as other items so can do you accept

that what surveying they've submitted is adequate if you don't will this draft condition of approval mitigate it to the point where you're satisfied that it can or do you just think that the survey is so erroneous or questionable that you couldn't be convinced that they meet the standards

plan right number three under the prelim plan um and it can't be waived no we don't want it to be waved um i play a big part in the proposed project depending on what they find out there right like it could move stuff around or you might need to move stuff around right of ways boundary markers things like that so um i'm on the fence on this one it's a pretty big one i think it was majority of the you know controversy was at one point that the uh president of timber oaks was talking about that one corner point that was off by in his mind two three feet whatever it was um but keeping in mind that it will all have to get re-surveyed when you know for final approval because all the lots have to get staked out for the record have you identified yourself oh yeah thank you you haven't been here before right you're sitting there for charlie yeah could you please just for the record identify yourself so

that we have it in the minutes yeah uh max dougherty max doughty yeah okay and you might as well do it while you're sitting there yeah and i'm jack dowdy thank you george for reminding me um i think the issue is that it a standard boundary survey made by a certified professional land surveyor with everything that we require wasn't done and still hasn't been done specifically to include all of the things that george mentioned so i think that's even if it's off just a little bit i mean we're missing right of ways potential easements all of that so i think that is the thing for me so the question is are we okay with that going forward for the final plan or do we want it for this prelim plan right

well i think if it's done at this stage the billing plan that it's going to eliminate any questions when we get to the final we'll be done either have to deny the project at the next meeting or at or ask the applicant to an extension and how much time do they think it's going to take to provide the accurate survey we could do that

that would mitigate all the risk yeah do you have it on in the works yeah i mean we have we have it all lined up okay ready to go it's just pretty much to do whatever you guys need us to do yeah so you could then that begs the question could you if we made it can you have it by the next meeting is what i'm trying to say right yes you can have it at the next meeting so we could check that yeah we figured it was going to become a condition or something right yeah okay the survey preferred to do it after preload

because he had the survey done and then he'd go stay calm because usually we just put a bunch of pins on the ground and then for whatever reason it got denied now you have a bunch of pins in the ground guy i would prefer to still be driving my 75 corvette but so i mean if this is a requirement it's a requirement yeah if my wife has a requirement to sell it so

what the rest everybody else says i hear you we're not trying to unnecessarily jack up costs right so any other thoughts on who's the surveyor is it the jam yeah yeah saying you can have it done by the next meeting or uh september 7th right

after we get through and then we'll decide you can just okay we'll punt that one for a few minutes yeah so the next one is the uh request of the conservation commission that a high intensity soil survey be done and uh generally the ordinance indicates that that is a piece of study that the board can require doesn't automatically require it and the concern would be if you get into an area where the topography is such that you have extensive wetlands and they're weaving the lots in and out of the wetlands everywhere and you're not sure exactly where the hydric soils which often extend beyond the wetlands start and stop and that could affect house foundation drainage it could affect the road integrity then if it's an area where the soils are questionable over extensive parts of the project then you would want to see a high-intensity soil survey generally however you know this particular property based

on the general soil surveys don't seem to indicate real confusion about the soils in terms of wide discrepancies and so the conservation commission was looking at a national evaluation system that has been judged in maine to be just not practical and they've not provided did not provide any objective evidence saying that the soil mapping here is woefully inadequate so but you had a request from the conservation commission during the public input so i put it on as a potential condition of approval and the board again can you decide you feel they meet the soil mapping standard uh or that this they don't and they need this additional mitigation information or that this soils are so bad on this project that you would deny it and we we actually did ask for a response from the conservation commission uh granted they're not a voting member here but we asked for that because of their expertise more so than anybody else on this board

so i would certainly agree that we would move forward with that the peer reviewer for wetlands might be able to cover this as well potentially sometimes they're they do multiple well the peer reviewer would not do a high intensity soil survey because a high intensity soil serve is going to be required them to get tobacco out there or borings and do test pits over much larger they've done test pits just for the septic systems to do a high intensity soil survey they would do a lot more test pits to verify where the soil boundaries at a much higher accurate level so the town's peer reviewer would not do that they would review it if you request them to i think there's different levels of a soil survey high intensity soil survey is what is specified in the ordinance okay it is an option yes the board can require it in areas where you think there's real questionable soils or if you had a higher density

subdivision it would be another example allow that here but many places they do we just paid for our wetlands delineater to go back out there because i know there was some question you know when when it was done when the studies were done um and we actually have a letter from him he just went out there on august 1st as well um so i can pass out this copy from him let's hold that until we get to the there is a wetlands question coming up but if you don't mind holding it so i feel like i don't know enough about this this whole why would we need it why wouldn't we need it it sounds like it's surrounded by wetlands we've had issues with subdivisions near wetlands before in the very recent past but we i don't know you know you're right it needs a backhoe on the whole thing is that really something that we're requiring so like maybe something why did we request the conservation commission to give us feedback oh

generally like i think didn't we say generally we wanted their feedback not specifically on or did we i'm sorry yeah well i mean to what extent i i mean you ask for somebody's feedback then when they get into detail it's it's to the point where do you not want to accept it no i hear them and i sure do we want to just say go ahead i just well i i think it's our call whether we accept it or not i mean our car being all stuff um my thought is you know i'm hardly an expert but when i look at the soil logs on the 13 lots it's all sand now and i don't have we had a question i would have is we had a problem with houses in wetlands with foundation sinking or was it we just they went into the wetlands by mistake you know it's just i mean i don't know the history on that um but my thought is is with there's probably enough information out there and at the end of the day the builder slash developer takes the

risk of if we get in there and and we can't pass a proof role on the road or the foundation doesn't sit or whatever i'm looking at alan to see if he disagrees shaking his head no over there but uh that's my thought anyway here's another option you could ask the gorill palmer who's the company that we're going to be having whether they would recommend a high intensity yeah that's what i was leaning towards what do you think about that alan i know we heard from the conscom which they're very smart people but this would be a third party peer reviewer that could talk to us more about it yeah you know i certainly don't want to post something on somebody that there is no benefit from doing it right that's the sake of doing it right exactly

on somebody that like i say there's no benefit five years down the road i don't want us to be sitting here why didn't we do that right because you can't imagine what we ran into but if you have the third party review every viewer should be should answer that question for us yeah so specifically we would ask the peer reviewer to to give the board input on whether they think that a high intensity sold survey should be required

how does that on well availability what we would do what we would do is uh basically whatever the again have already contacted goro palmer and have already listed the possible areas that they may be asked to do a peer review they're ready to do it so what we would do is have the applicant get their final plan to the peer reviewer we would already submit whatever documentation we have including this question and then they would be able to do the peer review and then give that information to the applicant so if the peer reviewer says uh yes soils are very questionable based on their review of the plans then they could get that high intensity soil survey done submitted to the peer reviewer and have it when they come in for the final approval so the peer reviews peer review is ongoing during their final yes that's part of the reason for having a preliminary and a final is that you can get all the technical

reviews done by an outside peer reviewer for whatever ones you're going to require then that all comes in for the final approval and you have all the information that you need yes i think i saw six months or so has to be filed within six months or they have to apply for preliminary over again

i like that idea see if coral palmer could could do it so how did or could good i'm sorry sorry i could die so you would modify number three to have the peer reviewer consider whether a high intensity sold soil survey is recommended correct are the applicant okay with that

yeah i mean yeah okay uh anybody any other comments from the board if not then on number three all those in favor of approval with the modification that the peer review by the engineer i guess would that be who does it the engineer peer review would take a look at the need for a high intensity soil survey

four zero one i'm not even looking at an anymore i think i'm not even here so the next one is four which is the uh issue of the offset of the intersection from patriot way across the road and they've it was off diagonally and they've moved within the right-of-way closer to a direct opposite the question is it's still offset a little and is that an issue or not if the board is concerned with that that is a traffic safety issue then the peer reviewer could require the applicant to have a letter from a traffic engineer saying that if they consider it to be safe then the peer reviewer would review that and make their independent determination and if it is safe from an engineering traffic engineering standpoint they're good to go if not then then they might have to do some negotiation with timber oaks to try to realign the whole intersection doesn't the main d.o.t have to approve that and the and mdot would have to

approve it as well but you have independent jurisdiction as we saw on wingate farm you don't necessarily have to accept mdot's position i would think that if if this is going through the main d.o.t that and we've already we're recommending moving it that once they say yay or nay then we would go to what main d.o.t says you could take that position at a 35 through there still

which way you drive you just stopped that little hill right before the school so it's still in the 50. um my input i asked calvin because he had that concern after windward or i'm sort of the pharmacist uh whether he and he didn't did not see this particular one as an issue right from the road commissioner's viewpoint uh cause i don't think he addressed that in his um his email um he did i'm sorry he does i did mention that okay he does he says plans are not clear to that the site distance is 700 feet to the south police have planned clearly depicts sight distance in both directions yeah i think that's the side the sight distance which is a different coin this is this yeah the alignment of left turns i would think um since we're kicking everything else to the peer review would uh those folks well then you either do the peer review or you don't review this is not asking them whether they think a peer review is

needed okay why would we need to do that if the dot is i mean i'm i'm good with just the deal main dot we've and we address that as a specific issue that they look at closely so that nobody can miss it you know if you will yeah that's that's another option is to have the applicant have the mdot address that issue when they're permitting yeah yeah i like his words better which is they specifically address in their perm comments that your alignment is okay oh we're talking alignment we're not talking well i'm going to have alignment is safety too okay yeah there was some discussion with possibly linking in with that other landowner right with the road that would get it to line up like timber oaks has indicated a willingness to work with the applicant to realign it but that would require an amendment to their subdivision to do that

so we'll have the applicant make sure that the mdot addresses the offset in their permitting permit comments yeah then if it's not there then it's insufficient involved right okay that's fine that's four number five is uh going down through the sorry oh we need a vote on it i'm sorry uh all those in favor of the words that we just described

distance part though like the ot will address that at the same time well what it is is is the applicant's uh engineer indicated it's 700 feet in both directions but on the plan instead of using the arrow going in both directions both arrows either though it's on the other side of pointing in the same direction okay so it's just like a typo on there on their plan so there's no concerns with side distance on this no agency in here right okay and i think we need one of my when we get there is i think we need to take a look at what the road commissioner said and make that uh the appropriate ones part of the the condition it's just a simple note on the plan i think that it's like 350 is required

four zero yep all right five is the uh response to the public comments uh the first was the survey accuracy which is covered by two above now that changed because i took one out and we're going to come back to that one the drainage concerns engineering peer review should address the neighbor ask for an independent peer review of the storm water in erosion control the timber harvesting violations there's a later condition of approval that says they either have to get dacf to come down and verify that there are no violations or get a license surveyor the only thing they've submitted is force excuse me uh the only testimony so far is the testimony of the applicant that the their foresters said it was okay that's not adequate documentation uh d we're not ready to vote on number five yeah i'm just gonna run you down through d is the disclosure of the encumbrances we talked about that and uh do you want

to did i use the right language there and is that what was the word the term you use summary satisfaction of judgment satisfaction of judgment summary which hasn't been done and the question is do you want that to be a condition of approval the accuracy of the wetland delineations would get a peer review done the location of the stormwater basin now we're also going to address that through the peer review

uh the sensitivity of the stream crossings dep and ace army corps of engineer permits will be required and we wanted to address both the stream restoration and the new stream crossing you have now documentation from the school superintendent on schools so you could delete that one the aquifers i've recommended that you would pause consider having the code officer review the standards applicable in the district boundary and see if it affects any of them and then finally on public input the concerns for zoning violations again if that's a concern that you have you did the sidewalk you've heard the testimony you could ask code officer to do an inspection to see if there are any current zoning violations

yeah what would you like us how do we go about we've covered we keep punting on survey accuracy and drainage concerns so what do we i think honestly drainage concerns we might be able to cover quickly here yeah i'm good with that

review 5b 5b excuse me 6b the drainage concerns who's in favor of the language as written please raise your hand 401. it passed rest of drawing the survey accuracy is this the time to talk about you know make a take a vote on what we want maybe we keep kind of the third or fourth bullet that we looked at

for the preliminary plan we need to have a up-to-date survey um said they would be able to get it by the next meeting so i think we should enforce that we have it by the next meeting before we can vote we couldn't vote today to do it so we can wait until yeah if you go in that direction of of saying if you have that in by the next time we'll go with it and what i would do is take whatever you get out of this and make all the changes and have that final draft ready for you if they've got it you can then make the decision to go forward and without that final draft of the conditions yeah okay uh any discussion on that any further discussion i guess all in faith do we vote on putting it down to the next month i won't use it well that's just that survey one right yes six a okay three or

two we're gonna actually drop we're gonna drop two five eight address that for the next meeting thank you all right now we're on 5c mr chairman thank you ma'am on the newspaper okay so if i'm wrong correct me we've all said that we want to see either a certified forester or a department of agricultural agriculture look at that so are you waving papers because you've done that yeah the the tree cutter who actually went out and did all the work um we have the letter from him saying that you know he when he cut it and they cut it all you know in compliance and everything the two documents that you just referenced why don't you give me the copies and then for the next time i'll incorporate those in to the packet and the okay and you'll make sure that it's what we need to certify whatever it may be okay so so can um can we figure it out right now if that is what we need is that from it's from jeff cody is a registered main

harvester certification number he harvested lot 327 slot map seven lot 32a in night 2019 he harvested in compliance with liquidation harvesting standards set forth in chapter 23 timber harvesting standards he's signed and dated and so that is the certified server that's the certification that we're looking for okay yeah and we can delete that as a requirement or you have copies okay five c is no longer applicable

could be a requirement of us but since the selectmen have already voted on this is it something that we feel is needed i i don't i mean yeah i mean i think we've got know the select where the town manager said they voted on it and you know they've accepted the project that the they've released the money and the judgment is taken care of so is there a problem going down the road if there's not some piece of paper recorded or whatever it may be i think that's the question can i just ask for clarification on what the selectmen voted on

to accept the court ordered fifty thousand dollars in fine and they accepted twenty five thousand so that's different then the on-the-ground work has been done yes well is it i thought they did that after yeah they hey somebody they cleaned up they cleaned up the site to the satisfaction of the select board was there a vote specifically on that yeah my knowledge it was i mean grant it's it's interesting that they did because with our sight walk there was still a lot of equipment that was left there that needed to be disposed of right i don't know whether they're still there or not it was after that it was after but i think we can cover that maybe in jay that piece possibly right any existing yes yep yeah that's true that's true but it still goes back to the issue of there's been a lean discharge because of the payment of the fine but the court hasn't officially sanctioned the resolution so

that's the question does it need to happen i mean the court won't do a review of it the satisfaction of judgment you just both parties sign it and say judge please file this and the judge does the judge doesn't so there's nothing look at the property or yeah yeah so i i think the question revolves around what the board of selectmen voted on and i there should be minutes of that and that should be something that you should make sure covers both the money and the on-the-ground work that needed to be done mistaken you yet the code enforcement guy you went out and looked and even after the site walk it was cleaned up some more correct i checked it after everything was done um i didn't make a one recommendation for um uh expansion but everything else was was done and it's clean so i think the work we're comfortable or i'm comfortable the work is done then the next question is i guess the paperwork piece of it

um and we should we can either decide we're set tonight or we can check with the town manager slash minutes to see if they voted to see to me if they release they released some money before it was all done so we we do have a letter from signed by the town manager um saying that it was all paid and everything like that um

000 payment plus 1245 for legal fees uh mr smith submitted a check number letter acts as receipt time payment declares it full and in complete accordance with the adjustment as approved by the select board at their march 22nd 20 2022 meeting in accordance with that adjustment this town select board declares that the payment above resolves the actions that led to application of penalties related to the violations is that adequate that's the town manager's characterization of it right right so i think the question is what did the select board vote on if they just voted on the money then you have the outstanding question if they voted on the money and the performance piece then i think you're fine i just think you need to get clarity on what the select board voted on i don't think it matters at least in my opinion and i'm not giving legal advice i don't think it matters whether that's filed with court right i mean if the

select board wanted to vote next week that both pieces have been satisfied i think that's fine i don't i don't think there are extra hoops i understand my understanding the original fifty thousand dollars was a number that's a selectmen threw out there and they really didn't know what the costs were going to be and that's why they decided on the twenty five thousand dollars they wanted to make sure they were covering all of the cleanup costs and yeah and which doesn't help they did because but if i maybe i didn't hear it correctly did does not the town manager say that that money was accepted because the work was done or if that's the wrong terms but there seems like there was words in there that they accepted it

so is the town manager stating what the select board did right right this is the town manager's characterization of what happened this isn't the actual vote is my point and my understanding is that there were still violations as of this time well then that's based on someone's opinion i don't think that was based on the opinion of the selection and i do have a draft condition of approval jay which says have the code officer go out and review it yes i mean the select board is probably the only one that can determine on the advice of the court officer whether the terms of that judgment have been satisfied i don't think it needs to be filed with the court for our purpose but i think you need to be really clear whether the select board has voted that the terms of that judgment have been satisfied i think why this really came up is there was no there was a resident we went on a site walk there was a

resident that said are you kidding me that basically that we accepted this 25 000 and we still have equipment out there that should have been disposed of in their opinion and when you look at you say yeah i kind of agree with you yeah i mean and ultimately it's the opinion of the select board that matters i have no idea what their opinion is or was in march

report to the select board findings would that cover it i mean i think the select board just needs to you know i move that all conditions of the judgment against dean smith have been satisfied i second it vote everybody right i don't think it needs to be harder than that i and maybe they did yeah i think right that's my question is what was the motion what was the vote was the motion just to accept this number and satisfaction and release the lien was this motion and vote to find that the entire judgment was satisfied i have no idea i don't think this tells you i think this tells you what the town manager thinks the motion involved was right does that make sense yes i don't think this needs to be hard to resolve one way or the other so what i think i hear ann saying is that we need to find out the next day or two what what they have what to do do they say that it's been done and part of the reason has been the

chaos the chaos of the whole process of clerk and town manager and records are just i'm not blaming no no i'm just saying it sounds easy to do but it may not be town's court not the applicants because it's been cleaned up we've accepted it's been cleaned up we're putting at the code enforcement guy right yeah and they've paid and so now we just need to find out is there enough if it wasn't involved if the majority of you think that's an issue that affects your decision on improving the sub project or not i mean i don't mean to make this harder but it also doesn't impact great title and interest does not or does does not there's no lien okay i mean i'm okay with what we've got before us and what's been done that the issue has gone away but uh i'd still like to talk about j but drop drop d well i mean that's i guess we need to vote on that right on which one are we back on five d i would move that we do

drop d yeah i would too sounds like a movement and a second mr chair okay anybody we have we had a motion yep i moved that we dropped d second all in favor of dropping 5d on the new paper 401. condition as a draft conditioner correct yep and then we're going to read come back to it on jay

wetland delineations recommendation is peer review on that addressing the public comments to verify that you've addressed all the public comments so any of the rest of these that are on here that we have not addressed really did we vote on that one i have it written down okay for wetland delineation we talked about

talked about oh that's already been placed okay so on that note um that's the same person that did your delineation i think the idea is to have a peer review so like a third-party reviewer um i would like to know though was there any differences any changes nope uh there's pictures all included as well on all the actual stated wetlands of recent pictures that are all printed out in that packet as well and he states that nothing has changed and it shows all the dates that he went out there from the winter in may and then again in august okay i mean i think that that's definitely going to help the peer reviewer the second go around so you know maybe it will just be a check in the box for the peer reviewer looks great good to go but i still think that it should be a peer reviewer that looks at this which is e right right is that because i guess why um because well the first thing was it was conducted in the winter

in which delineation should not be conducted um and then second because there are a lot of wetlands around this site and we've had issues in the past with it so i think it's a good idea to get someone else to look at it okay i mean one first reason is i think sounds like it's gone yeah we went out but still the question is do we are we comfortable with what their wetlands guy or gal did yeah you have to come up and talk on the mic there so he switched place with one of your friends in front oh bring out the chair up yeah man down thank you and who are you johnny snow

and yeah um what are we talking about yeah just that i think he's saying that just to be clear that was proposing a second opinion paid for oh through the peer review okay yeah but the wetlands certified wetlands delineator who did that was on the conservation committee of durham who did i just i'm questioning why a peer review when a professional who has done it in the concern was the timing of doing it and then he just went back out and recertified his findings okay so the question is like one of the questions we need to ask is do you you know i don't know if it's a vote of two to one or how you do that but you agree with if if we decide to do that or would you are you supportive of the peer review or should we decide if we're gonna i mean yeah whatever you guys want to do i'm just asking the question i'm just trying to see why the peer review is needed on that when he just went back out to recertify his findings

right and i don't think we've decided it is yeah we started yeah just making the comment on that yeah so i think my opinion is even if um i can't remember his name but i know who he is that looks fun alex right even if he had done it the first go round in the summer i still would want a peer review this isn't against alex or anything like that um this is a really large site we've got a couple of lots that are in potential issue because of the amount of wetlands in those lots so um we've got the goro palmer is probably going to be the ones that do it they're already looking at a bunch of other stuff you know they could look at the stuff and be like it's good to go you know i i don't think it can't hurt this project no that was what my question was can't hurt it any other comments for i mean i i think we've got someone has done a done the survey delineation excuse me um if we think there's no reason to think they haven't

done a good job and i agree with winter versus august 1st so that's my feeling but it isn't any other thoughts before we call the question um do including this in the peer review raise your right hand i think it may have failed oh my god um so i think it has failed now we got to redo all the numbers uh three one one three is one

review f uh on the detention basis so then the does the dep and army corps of engineers permits for the stream restoration and new stream crossing satisfy the board will say they do officer i would still think that uh that's how i've seen it done in the past and they do a very thorough review of those things and i'm sure d no no no so the question is is the permit good enough for is that whatever the question with the eight this addresses the concerns that were expressed by the public and the board's position under this would be that the review by the army corps of engineers and the dep on the restoration of the stream the current crossing and the new stream crossing uh would meet appropriate environmental standards and that's all that's required of the applicant so i'd like to add a little bit more to this the permitting in general of resources resource protection corps of engineers all of that should

fall under this right so whatever app whatever they go to the corps of engineers four the core will work with them on right but if they don't go to the core on certain things there could be something that's missed that we miss well it includes in uh department of environmental protection too yes but so there's some comments by the conservation commission last time um

regarding permits what's required i think that was what i was looking for is direction from somebody that knows what type of permits are going to be required here and the impacts and all of that and taking it beyond state and army support but taking it local to the resource protection as well you are the planning board reviewer of the stream crossing from the stand from the town standpoint there is no other review

grant a re a resource excuse me a shoreland zoning permit for the stream crossing other than that it's going to be dep and army corps of engineer and army corps of engineers and calvin's comment was that the plans didn't show the footings of the culvert they're going to be crossing the stream so he was just looking he was looking for more detail which those agencies will certainly require right so do we as a board feel comfortable

crossing that stream resource protection without any guidance from anyone beyond the ep and army corps we're not going to get guidance from dep and army corps for our own you said our own town right on board we have to look at that from right where we sit

retired from there but i you know having seen this um in previous life in a different state they were never easy to get approvals from and they do a very thorough job of reviewing that so i'm comfortable with those two but specifically what does that dep and common core permit say so you are going for a new perm new crossing right but you're also taking out a culvert right so it's a stream crossing permit i think it was in remove

one out yeah it was all under that db stream crossing permit enough to to look at it very hard and and in a neutral sound so i'm comfortable if they say it's okay but anyone else i am too for a vote then those in favor of the this verbiage rely upon environmental protection and the army corps of engineers

covered yes yep so you can drop that in the letter from whoever it was the superintendent um she does mention that there could be an impact she doesn't say there will be no impact right she said that there could be an impact um i think she said somebody correct me if i'm wrong she goes through that a lack of a i won't call it wishy-washy but she at the very last sentence she said something effect potentially could potentially impact the durham community school within her last segment high school yeah but then she says more likely than not that we would be able to accommodate a number of school-aged children living at homes right yeah so really that's i mean we're not that's more than we typically get i think that kind of response right yes and they submitted something superintendent too right i noticed that him and then the advocate long ago sent something for someone named becky that said they could handle it that was with

the schools thank you foley who's now retired yet okay i just wanted to point that out that it wasn't a no impact whatsoever it was a could be probably okay uh so we're passing on voting on that i think is we're satisfied with the answer yep concern for impacts on aquifer

i propose that you just have the code officer review the standards for any part that's within the i guess my question is there any that are in the aquifer this project it's pretty small i think it's yeah it's the road from the area where juliet is out to hollow roads the only part that's in the aquifer okay gotcha

comfortable with leaving it up to the code officer is what you're saying no i like allen maybe i don't like alan we'll give him extra work those in favor of having the code and force of durham code enforcement officer handle that right hand 401 and same thing on the zoning violations

violations right anybody that would seem to be his job anybody other comments uh vote please yes four zero one okay so now i am confused because i'm not keep beating this this horse but have we resolved the issue of the um whatever judgment that is satisfaction adjustment is that's yes we're good with that okay that did cross that off so number six yes that is the issue of fire protection again the applicant has proposed a 36 000 gallon fire pond which does not meet the standard for 120 000 gallons and so the question is so this condition says they have to either put in 36 000 gallons in in underground tanks or and twenty thousand gallon fire pond unless the fire chief agrees to a lower amount for either of those with sprinklers and we're fine with doing 120 000 gallon pond we were just waiting on a response from the fire chief this got brought up last meeting too okay so let's just um let's

make it 120 000. yeah that's fine yeah what do you guys think sorry i'm not ordering you to do that so they are proposing 120 000 gallons does that satisfy the board that you mean that they meet the standard basic standards

here i believe so have the 120 000 gallon pond you would not need to put the sprinkler system in the homes correct right okay built fast the road there's going to be access to that pond yeah it has to be done it's in the h2a

requirement to vote or just specifying that it'll have a hundred uh hundred and twenty thousand gallons on right which again i'll clean up the wording okay let's vote to say that the what about if there's a right-of-way at the end of the hammerhead the pond can't go there or something's gonna have to adjust the pawn will have to be located where it can go yeah they'll have to design that one or expand the pond at some point in time or all right so what do we want to say to re address the code enforcements they must build and maintain 120 no i think that the code officer was pointing out you can't have it off the end of the turnaround if you're going to have the future paper street they'll just have to they won't be able to have it there okay so it has to be located outside of that yep you guys agree with that yeah all right so then the vote on uh verbies that says that they will build a 120 000 gallon capacity water

storage pond and it will be built outside the right of way for the proposed the right of way extending to the property line you understood that yeah that's fine okay four zero one and now we can have the fire chief review too right yep

the seven is the one of the issues has come up with the amount that's been cleared that's a concern the standard condition of approval says that they've got to show that on their plans all areas intended for for clearing that's what seven is about

yep and you guys are good with that okay i guess we vote on that all those favors saying the final plans have to show the uh the clearing plan four zero one mdot permits for the intersection automatic it would a vote is there any comments on well um calvin had a good point that you guys already have a permit but that there's another one required that you might have already known about can't use the one for the house yes or something okay you agree to that yeah all those in favor of that language then 401 and the next one is the road extension showing on the plan we voted on that already right that was yeah a change but this is the addressing the specific standard for that all those in favor of number nine raise your hand southwest or south boundary let's see north it would be south i guess all right what did i put changes to south so all those in favor of as written except uh changing southwest to south yep raise

your right hand left whichever all right that one passes 10 is a peer review of the road and storm water and all that which you talked about last time all those in favor of that i mean if you want to you can stop me if you want to have a discussion about it these are the more straightforward ones this is the peer review on all the engineer plans uh this one specifically we already voted on the stormwater yeah this is just the the road okay all favor right hand left hand four zero one and the next one is the within the lots limiting the clearing so that the lot owners know what they're supposed to cut and not

please vote four zero one and the next one is the deeds also have to put the property owners on note that notice that they can't cut in certain areas okay any problems with that from the applicants from the board any comments vote please 401 and uh you probably can drop 13 because you now have a letter from the forester

and then 14 is the issue of those two lots six and seven where they have wetlands over considerable portions of them and so one solution is to have a site plan for each of those showing the grading of the home uh in lot to show that it's not going to extend out into the wetlands and again that would be an engineered plan for those two lots which they come in and if a different builder wanted to do something different they'd get an engineering plan bring it into the planning board does the applicant have any issue with that no we can have you know charlie have a great plan to that yeah that's fine okay so no problems all those in favor of this verbiage please vote 401

standard approval construction approval conditions that set forth this is what all of the technical things are going to have to be done those are the substantive issues based on the review so if you're comfortable i'll just summarize each one of them down through and you could vote on them as a block the part b is conditions to address other review criteria and standards so 15 is the engineering cost estimates for the infrastructure which is going to include the road construction the electrical service the storm water management the erosion and sedimentation control and the fire protection system 16 is just putting the applicant on notice that they've got six months to file for final approval and if they don't do it within that time frame they've got to come back for a renewed preliminary uh 17 is the erosion and sedimentation control plan and the engineering peer review along with the rest of it they've

got to go to this code officer who's the street addressing officer to get a name for the street that should go on the plan they got to check with the natural areas program to see if there are any rare plant they've already done that yep again that just goes into the final application uh same thing with the main historic preservation commission and the ordinance is required and in the fisheries and wildlife for anywhere animal plant habitat they've got to get a bank letter based on the engineering cost estimate to indicate that they have financial capacity to to do the project 23 is a dep storm water permit uh which is required because of the size of the road and then uh 24 is a is a

submittal they've already also submitted covenants we will check to make sure those line up with the town attorney's template if not they've got to get it changed or reviewed by the town attorney at their expense and finally 25 is they've got to show what kind of a performance guarantee for the engineered estimates of cost improvements that they're going to submit to the town

sometimes it drags out a little bit okay all right are there any comments from the members on any of those can i ask a different question sure i mean get through this first and then i just have to you may ask questions um so vote to accept these as written i believe four zero one man so this chunk here maybe you guys talked about this already this drink here that's being received

is that coming with a right-of-way yeah over this okay it's right next to that first one on the right right before it's on a different set of plans different page came up just to make you less scared no i have full faith and not to not to drag this out because i know we have at least we have one other applicant and another thing to do i do have some things that i think are missing they're they're relative with someone we've covered they're relatively minor issues um they're things like um

dressing on the plans wells and the wells and septic will be done in accordance with main rules you cover the septic and the covenants but not in the well not the wells there's a statement required on the plans that both will be done in accordance with and i didn't see it so i don't know that that's not something that i would hold this up for fire protection we've covered

is on uh and open this up for other comments is the use of the common areas so you've heard a lot of the last three or four meetings a lot of concerns about the wetlands my concern is and i'm not pro or anti-atv but how do you control people going into the wetlands and messing them up with whether it be atvs or walking or however it is that you do do not cover that well in your covenants they don't cover it at all in the covenants so i i would really like to see something in there since it's all sent to you crossing streams you're close to a waterline i would just ask that when we review the covenants did you take a look at that and we can make that a condition if we want but that's probably the biggest thing that we haven't discussed is how do we keep from tearing the hell out of the wetlands and the streams and all that other stuff so by that do you mean so say let's say there's like a trail system and there's

a marked trail with something saying that you know please stay on mark trail yeah is that kind of what you're talking about i'm thinking yeah that's something like that but also in the covenants you can't it would say specifically you cannot first off this trails cross the stream so how are you going to protect those but then the other one is something that is there in writing recorded i never read my covenants and restrictions but the police is there to be punished with which my hoa did that says you cannot go into the wetlands with atv or at all but yeah i'm just trying to some language that keeps people from tearing up the sensitive areas

no i don't think you need to okay that was my big concern anybody else have anything that we didn't cover in all of this stuff what do we want to do are we comfortable approving approving with conditions or denying this even the survey for next year yeah you kind of yeah tabling

survey in and it'll be ready for a vote next time okay sorry sorry hold on one thing though buffers we didn't really talk about buffers i don't know if we need to we just talked about that we said we'd leave a buffer between each lot because we're going to show the actual cutting envelope no i mean like in general like from the road there's not really going to be a visual impact right because you've got so much space oh and you take that right turn and each slot has that wooded buffer around it too yeah yeah that's what that is and you've got all of the um 100 foot on the stream buffers and i just remember seeing that but yep uh condition of approval 7 says that areas intended for vegetative clearing shall be shown the final plans to support the stormwater management plan assumptions and required buffers along water bodies shown on the recording plan and referenced in the plant notes and actually can we go back to that open

space sorry i heard you talked about earlier um so the proposal is a trail kind of like what what was proposed at bowie same same example okay um it was marked on the perimeter yeah so like stream crossings wetland crossings things like that yeah we talked about putting like you know all those walking trails they have like the logs down and you walk across stuff like that

if not we'll bring this to a vote uh next meeting if you get us the stuff that we asked for okay i think we're good and i we missed anything if not we can release these gentlemen and ask the next participant next applicant

anybody on the board thank you guys thank you [Music] applicants conditional use application of celebration tree farm for camping public workshops and events at 125 bowie hill road map 10 lot 43. george would like to do an introduction then we'll ask the applicants to

applicants are applying for a conditional use permit to expand activities at the celebration tree farm on bowie hill road some of the proposed uses do not clearly fit within the table of uses the applicants did go to the board of appeals for clarification on the interpretation of the resource protection boundary the board denied that application on the basis of the town meeting vote on the zoning map and also because they felt that the proposed activities do fit within existing allowed uses in both the resource protection and the rural residential and agricultural district and i did include a copy of their decision in your packet

conditional use criteria uh and in 2021 the board i just wanted to clarify for the record the applicant had submitted a different conditional use application for about 20 campsites on the land to the rear of this property and part of that discussion was a camping bus on this property and the kodop prior court officer had issued a

use of that bus because it didn't meet code and the current code officer has verified that that bus is not being used at this time for camping purposes so as i said this is a different application now and i've drafted potential findings of fact following the applicants submitted application which you can add to or modify

based on your discussion with the applicant tonight 7.3 the board must again either approve it without any conditions approve with conditions that you feel are necessary to meet the conditional use criteria or deny the application if you feel that it fails to meet any of the conditional use criteria you can put conditions of approval by majority vote and four specific areas would be increasing the setbacks in requiring buffers limiting hours of operation and or location of parking and signs and you can apply other conditions of approval that you think are necessary

you'll be reviewing under the conditional use include the uh public health impacts traffic safety public safety environmental impacts scale and intensity of use noise and hours of operation right title or interest financial and technical ability and specific performance standards uh the applicant has said there are no other specific performance standards and david to their activities and they've addressed all of those um criteria in their application

we get into the applicant's presentation i think couple things to discuss with the with the board a public hearing correct me if i'm wrong is not required for a conditional use approval have one uh we obviously can't do it tonight so we would do it at the at the next meeting and then uh number two is do we want to do a site visit um to the celebration farms and and i think when does it fit in your calendars so the discussion about doing a public hearing and we would if if yes do it next month yes

headshakes it's not required it's but i think in we've talked a lot about transparency and including the community and not that you've got a bad project or anything like that but we'd like you know because we've already got a letter from somebody supporting you so i would assume that you would have folks that you know we would probably see people on both sides of the fence on this one we're under the impression that the public was invited tonight to comment yeah different no it has to be a formal public hearing where we open it we have to give a bunch of notice and um so we can't do that this evening yeah okay i guess yes just mistaken i thought that was part of the butters notice and talking to neighbors but no no not not this evening so we would do it next if we agree next meeting

take a vote all in favor of doing a public hearing next meeting and the site walker oh sidewalk would be a different uh different day 500 to do the public hearing and then is there a time that works with everybody's calendar site visit is is we come to your property you give us a tour showing specifically what you want to do and where and that would be open to the public and we also have to give them notice that the date when time were going to hold it so

on the 29th those weeks if you would we have a town meeting and i'm out of town september i mean august august i need any time what if could we do it right before the meeting no 6 30 we the uh site visit would start about 5. 5 30 5 5 30. uh i want to make sure we have enough five five through 5 30 can we get it done in 45 minutes and travel time that would be my only concern

tyler would five work um yes sorry i was just checking sunset time oh yeah okay that's good so that's the seventh right the seventh at 5 00 p.m does that work for you guys okay that's a good question just show up with you there yeah

that other kind of stuff so i think we've done we've killed both birds this is my opportunity since you're new here tonight to kind of lay out one other rule which is there's some fancy latin name for it but you're no one is allowed there's no contact with planning board members by the applicant by the public or whatever please send and if you're going to ask people to write emails and we got one please have them send them to the town planner and he is very good if you have any questions about how the project's going or specific detail questions mr the barge is the guy to uh to go and he is very good at getting us the information and that will apply to anyone sitting in the audience as well so with that it is now your turn great well hello and i want to thank you all for being here today and taking time to hear our proposal one last thing introduce yourself please i was just about to do that

i was thanking you first takes a lot of time and you know there's probably better things you could do on a summer night but i want to appreciate everyone for being here i also appreciate the public for coming even though there's not public comments so thank you um my name is jonathan bird and i'm joined tonight with my wife elizabeth vertigbird tom proll and jeanette huff and together we are the four worker owners of celebration tree farm and wellness center and elizabeth and i have lived in durham for seven years we moved here because we were looking for a community where we could put down our roots raise our children and where we could farm and bring people together to connect with nature and one another i grew up in yarmouth 15 minutes from here i've worked in food systems for over 20 years working with a wide range of different non-profit organizations and local businesses helping farms and

restaurants to start up including local sprouts cooperative in portland a restaurant that focused on local and organic food and supporting local farmers i've also worked in education teaching kids cooking and gardening and teaching adults how to create cooperative businesses that support the local community additionally it helped develop community spaces for people to connect with each other hold workshops and cultural events like variety shows art shows and small performances in addition my role at celebration tree department wellness center i work for a foundation that provides funding for organizations that work to support people animal and environment i'm just going to have everyone else share a little bit about themselves as well so you all know who we are i'm elizabeth fertig-bird good evening and i've been working in the wellness industry for about 20 years now and i was really happy when we found this

house because it's been a long time dream of mine to have a wellness center and to provide opportunity for people to really learn about themselves and how to become more healthy if that's what they are looking to do i've been an educator of k through 12

university students and adults for 25 years i'm also the wreath maker and manager over at the farm i also manage non-profits and run my own dance company called apparatus dance theater hello everyone my name is tom prole i am the in addition to working and being work around here at celebration tree farm i'm the farm operations manager at wolf's neck center for agriculture and the environment in freeport i've been there for about eight years so my background is in organic farming whether that specialty in fruit and vegetable forestry as well as dairy and poultry i have a long history of education i start and have and i'm currently running uh farmer training program so i have an emphasis in education and chemical free organic farming and a background in ecological forestry which i brought with me to celebration tree farm and continue to grow there nice to meet you all yeah so i wanted to just give you a little background first

and then share more of our proposal so elizabeth and i co-founded celebration tree farm and wellness center in 2015 after we purchased the farm from diane ackerman after the passing of her husband john ackerman diane wanted to sell the farm to us because we wanted to carry on john's ecological and community vision for land john started the farm in the 1980s in practice ecological forestry and organic agriculture he welcomed the community to come to the farm to cut trees for the holidays share his art and was active in the community helping to start the conservation committee into chicago land trust and helping to preserve land in town including a runaround pond and also durham river park we've sought to carry on john's work on this land and continuous ecological forestry practices have grown the farm over the past seven years and over that time we've become one of the only certified organic christmas tree farms

in the state and have developed a strong base of customers who've come to get their christmas trees every year in just this past year we became solar powered as well we started the wellness center to offer more educational programs to the community and support people with healing and wellness we've offered small yoga classes private yoga personal training and reiki sessions in a studio in our house and sometimes outside amongst our garden and during cobit elizabeth started offering these workshops and private sessions online then in 2020 we converted the farm to a cooperative cooperatively owned llc with addition of tom and jeanette and then also in 2020 the joining 110 acres of forest land was bought and preserved by land and common community land trust with whom the cooperative has a 99 year lease last year we launched the community and forest program where members get a tree wreath discounts on our wellness

programs and year-round trail access they're now over 90 community supported forest members they're excited for the growth and vision of celebration tree farm and wellness center when we moved here we had the dream of sharing our land and bringing people together so they could learn connect with nature in the forest share their creativity and grow community a proposal that we're bringing to you towards you today is a big step towards realizing that larger vision just to give you kind of the overview of the proposal we're seeking to create a non-residential educational nature interpretation facility a single campsite we use our historic early 1800s barn as a cultural facility and community building this will allow us to continue our farm and diversify our offerings by expanding into agritourism and educational and nature programs for the community all these new and expanded proposed uses are in the 8.3 acres that elizabeth and

i own and live on not in 110 acres of celebration tree farm and wellness center leases from that in common throughout our proposal we've sought to limit any negative impacts and increase the positive impact on the land and the surrounding community so the education nature interpretation facility falls under the small non-residential facility for educational scientific or nature interpretation purposes number 44 in the durham land use ordinance we're proposing to build a temporary structure 30 foot diameter yurt which will sit on above ground concrete puddings we'll use this facility for year round educational workshops on wellness farming nature environmental issues and and art accompanies this facility will be a single campsite in which sets the celebration bus plus i was converted into an rv since there is only one a single campsite is not a campground which is as defined as two or more

parties in the durham land use ordinance the campsite will be used under six months a year and allows guests from near and far to stay on the farm and learn about organic farming and support their wellness through our educational programs there's no running water on the celebration bus the body top has designed an expansion of a leech field system that accommodates gray water from the outdoor shower in a sink we allow the composting toilet it will probably compost the waste according to the requirements of town and best practices of composting and the bus will be off-grid and use solar electric and battery-powered lights and i'm equipping the grill outside the bus for cooking there's a small campfire ring used for our guests and use of this condition of fire hazards in the area strict fire safety guidelines the second part of the proposal is to use our 1800s barn as a space for cultural and community events including

monthly community variety shows and other occasional performing and visual art shows educational programs in our annual celebration market which provides a holiday market for over 25 craft and food vendors in november for the past five years this event is held on shop local saturday and promotes the support of local artists and craftspeople it will make the barn and yurt available for rental tour community support as forest members for family events including weddings no more than two to three a year birthday parties baby showers and memorial services most events will be small under 30 people with our weddings having no more than 100 people the barn has been in this location for over 200 years and has provided space for agricultural and communities over that time so this use aligns with two land uses in durham land use ordinance clubs lodges and other community buildings while there's no stated definition of this

uh usage like the ambits hall and masonic hall will hold events that are only for our members and our members can rent the facility and we'll hold also community events as well and also there's number 21 the institutional cultural facilities not the definition there is not for profit facilities dedicated to a public or philanthropic purpose an intellectual endeavor such as a library museum auditorium or performing or visual arts center we fit the latter part of this definition because we'll provide space for performing or visual arts and we'll be partnering with nonprofits to hold these cultural programs so in our proposal we've addressed all the performance standards in 7.1 7.4 of the land use ordinance and now these proposed uses that we've detailed here have additional performance standards we've addressed in more detail but just to mention um the different standards and how we're addressing them so fire

safety strict fire safety policies include all campfires need to be attended at all times fully extinguished we'll work with the code enforcement officer and fire chief to ensure that all of our spaces have proper smoke alarms fire extinguishers and egresses and all the proposed areas are within close proximity of bowie hill road and accessible live fire emergency vehicles noise while we recognize there there could be some noise generated from events most of these events will end before 9 00 pm with the occasional event and the intent no more than three year acquire hours are between nine pm and nine am we've talked to our immediate neighbors and none of them have been concerned about the noise generated so far by our variety show celebration market or other activities we'll continue the to you know to make sure that that's not an issue um parking and traffic we all expect to have limited traffic for

what we're doing there with average daily traffic to be under 10 cars a day and most likely to be under five um and then we'll have special events such as educational workshops or retreats will result in increases in day traffic uh on our property and for these events vehicle traffic will be limited to 20 vehicles and for weddings the shuttle will be required for additional guests our christmas tree sales and cut your own operations we do have increased traffic for which we use a temporary overflow space to accommodate this increase and then parking staff has been used to facilitate that parking and make sure that people are not parking on bowie hill road and then water addressed that previously with the leech field to accommodate grey water and composting toilets we also commit to composting food scraps and using compostable materials as well

just give the background over the past seven years we've been in communication about our different uses of what we're doing with bob forest how we came before the planning board in 2018 um and at that point the planning board determined that we didn't need additional permits for our tree sales as they were under agricultural use we talked to bob for us about the wellness center tree farm and campsite and he verbally approved those under the agriculture and home-based businesses uses and since the single campsite is not a campground we didn't need a conditional use permit so we rented that out um from 2019 to 2021 on airbnb the celebration bus had five star reviews and no complaints from our neighbors until the uh letter that we got from bob this past fall

stated we um stopped renting that out um and um we have you know basically been working since november of 2021 to try to get to you all here today um you know as you know bob left then we worked with calvin uh and then worked with george and as we stated we went to the appeal board because we thought we needed to do that first we did that we put we submitted that in may we had the appeal two months later um and so we are now here today to bring this proposal forward um and um yeah so it's been a you know a journey to be get here but we're happy to have this proposal before you today um and you know just again i want to thank you for your time for hearing the presentation reviewing your application and we look forward to hearing your questions concerns support willing and willing to evolve our proposal and be flexible so that it's the best fit for durham our neighbors and our farm we're open to your feedback and want to

work with you to help bring this exciting vision into reality so we are going to have a public hearing last time do we have any general comments we'll get into further discussion after the public hearing we have any comments from the board prior to that i'm wondering what use this should be under or multiple uses um

i don't know if we can decide that tonight or not but you know what i mean two that they think apply right i'm actually seeing three three that they've so there's two different uses right the proposed use number two potentially under 11 and or 21.

with the first one a campground has two or more parties and the bus will only have one yeah yeah and and the second one which either 11 or 21 wasn't talked about at the appeal board meeting because the barn is outside of the resource protection zone so that's it wasn't part of the conversation there yeah so they had shared their opinion on the bus and the yurt within the number 44 but not the second one because we didn't present it to them for that reason

just get back to no let me step back just a second so what is it um that if if these there are uses that they're now doing uh the educational stuff the yoga uh the christmas trees are a separate entity what is it we're giving them a conv they're asking excuse me we haven't yet decided to give it to you but either asking to do that is not currently allowed under resident ra

it's the camp the bus and the year right and the resource protection there's i mean we're including the campsite with number 44 although there's no i mean again campground there's a definition does not say you know a placement of a single campsite where that you know where that falls under the code that but we're including that because it is part of our educational purposes

get to is camping one campsite allowed under the current use is that we're asking for an exception to that and then is obviously you want to build your a structure as are the addition of that structure does that require a conforming use obviously it would require a building permit i would assume okay so you've got in the code 11 21 and

44 are all conditional uses either in the rra or the resource protection so they have an existing operation using existing facilities they're proposing an expansion of the conditional use to add additional facilities so i think that's what they're looking for is an expansion of the additional facilities additional use but the education the wellness yoga i don't think they have a conditional use right they don't have an existing condition

i'm not sure that's true but that's not before us so i think this is a new two new conditional conditional use application okay great whether the existing uses are appropriate or not okay i don't want to touch them can you have two separate uses on one lot and just like split by like where the area is is that how it work like for this one it would be by the rp resource protection right that's kind of the because you're going to move the yard around potentially right i mean the yards it's movable um it's a temporary you know especially temporary structure the the is on the um the bus sitemap yeah i mean both to be moved on the site map the um repo proposed yurt location is just on on the outside of the resource protection zone the campsite is in the resource protection and then the barn is outside of the resource protection zone

can you tell me that the first use that we're talking about in the rp the yeah thank you the you know non-residential facilities for educational scientific or nature interpretation purposes is that that's the yurt and the campsite okay and then the barn is your club club whatever community building institutional cultural facility okay well i don't know if the yurt is falling under this right the year is falling under the other two uses 44 is just for the bus no i might do i have that right now i mean 40 um the yurt is included with 44 because it is i mean that's an educational facility so that's where we'll be providing workshops okay yeah okay i mean we may do some workshops in the barn as well but primarily the purpose of that will be for educational purposes like to do yoga workshops do workshops on organic farming workshops on other topics as well

because it's part of us you know providing a space because we'll have folks that will be coming to these workshops having a space that they can um you know stay on the farm and also learn i mean farm stays is really like something that a lot of people are doing you know to be able to learn about organic farming also they're learning about wellness we've in the past we've had our guests you know who have done personal training done wellness programs with with our wellness center so it really allows us to be able to have that ability for folks to engage more deeply in their learning and yeah and agritourism on the farm

i don't think you have agritourism on the farm because the agriculture is on a different parcel it's owned separately i don't think we need to go there i'm just gonna put that there but will it be a requirement of folks who stay in the bus that they engage with this educational piece or will it

that they're attending a workshop or that they're participating well next activities or something like that or is this just somebody who wants right there as well so it's i mean our farming happens there and on the 110 acres so it's not uh yeah i mean if you walk from where the campsite is there's a hoop house right there and there is also a happier organic artist as well

it's just me but there's two parts to this one is you want to add structures or you want to add a structure now you use the bus for part of this and use the barn for part of that so that's that's a build something remodel something use but conditional use is you're already doing things that are required to conditionally use correct me if i'm wrong no they never got they never well they never got conditional yeah they require but the my question is does the yoga the educational require a conditional use and you don't whether your previous code officer told them they didn't need it yeah okay right

and you know really i mean it was at all of that has happened at a very small scale um and so that's where you know it was it was deemed as being a small usage and then with the tree farm being you know our primary business and what we did at a larger level um and you know over time our street farm has grown and what this is again really trying to move forward in a larger vision so that we're able to do more for the community ultimately provide more space for the community more educational programs and you know coming to you all so that we can do that in a way that's you know meeting approval of the town and addressing concerns um and you know it's clear you know clearly this obviously is a different proposal than what probably you're used to seeing it's not a subdivision it's not you know so it's i understand it's you know kind of how do we make this work that's what we're you know we want to we want to

work with you to figure out how do we make this work so we can realize this vision together um and have something that can work for us and for this now yeah i think what i'm trying to wrap my hands around is that if if and maybe it is because we said it was long ago but i'm i'm not sure we have to stick with that anymore um but if yoga just those educational stuff wellness stuff educational wellness if that's requires a conditional use that's one thing and then there's the so if we grant a conditional use for this land with the big you know the if then putting up a uret is then part of a site plan approval of that conditional use but first is are we okay with the uses

i'm looking in a little bit differently so the existing uses have been going on for a while okay whether they've been going on appropriately under the land use code or not current code officer's problem if he disagrees with the interpretation of the previous one i think they are asking for new conditional uses and that is what's before us so i don't think the yoga that's currently happening and the christmas tree sales that are occurring i don't think any of that's before us tonight but the educational potentially is right or have you been doing i mean i guess what i'm asking are the uses educational wellness christmas trees are different because it's not on this particular parcel well they're selling them on this parcel okay and then and the market is on this parcel then we need to yes then that should probably be part of the discussion as well we're trying to sort this out so that would be the next thing

yes that agriculture is allowed under um rra so that's why we're not coming forward for an agricultural i got you because it's allowed i mean a number three agriculture so yeah yeah grown on a different parcel right they're i mean being grown by us on a joining part so that we lease and so that you don't know right yeah it's a different part such a different part many many farmers i mean lease additional farmland um and so i mean that's you know again we like tom that woolsey they had the farm where they were based they also lease additional farmland as well very few farmers on their land these days right but a lot of them have situations where they're selling from the same parcel that they're producing on and that's not what you're doing here right you're producing on a different parcel and they're also not in durham right so or in a restaurant yeah i mean i'm just saying in general it's not uncommon

in agriculture to have your farmland and have your front of house on a totally different people and often times in my alpha level in this case we have a 99 year lease which i mean is very similar to actually being owned except we use the community land trust that is permanently preserved well i think what we're pointing out to the goal today is point out issues that we need to resolve before we vote yay may down the road and that's that's one of them in my mind i i'm still uh i hear what we're saying is that that it's okay that somebody said it was okay and it's up to the new code guy to to decide that um and if it anyway we'll just that's an issue i have to resolve before we come to the vote at least in my mind i think the question is what are we approving right i think that's what you're doing that's what i'm much more eloquent than i am man what are we approving what is in front of us and

they've framed it as we're approving a new educational use that includes a year and a campsite for the new educational use that is not happening right now in theory and a second new use of the barn for external gatherings okay because and just

the planning board previously were we weren't concerned about the market the selling of christmas trees because it was agricultural i think those properties were combined at the time we had that conversation or we just didn't ask the right questions whatever and then the second question came up well agricultural is selling your own products right and so the question came up about the market that they have and those the planning board said so there's a provision and the ordinance for like um occasional events or one-time events that can be permitted by the select board and that was our guidance is that it wasn't an ongoing issue it could be permitted as these one-time events by the selectmen if we didn't need to touch it it wasn't an ongoing use that's where we were i don't know however many years ago we talked about this yeah so um i think ownership has shifted since then uses have shifted since then

the previous code officer was fine with it i don't think those are in front of us so i think it it's being framed as two new uses that are not currently happening at the property to that point let me ask you when i looked at your website what was the retreat you held on july 30th of this year actually okay so we're not we're not doing things now that that you haven't been approved for okay well those those are my concerns that we've got to wrap our heads around and george with your help and and yours defining what it is exactly that they're asking it it may be that i'm the only one that doesn't get it but i'm struggling with it right now i think it's messy yeah great i think it's messy because it has not been

i had clearly handled through the land use ordinance so i think that's messy and maybe we need to lay it out and say okay the the things that they want to do are doing are selling christmas trees and wreaths and other things they want to do they've done wellness they want to do educational am i missing something there those are the three big topics the whole community community and the community the wedding uh the venue to hold meetings that kind of shows changes so those are four different things and what what do we you know what do we think has been i'm looking at the code for the new code enforcement guys well to say and just because it was doesn't mean it's in my mind still is okay to do um because i think that you're in camping thing are if we approve the use then becomes a building code thing to prove the yurt if i'm not mistaken i mean we need a site plan from you all and you know proof that europe can go here

the toilets can go all the all that safety stuff water leech fields all that stuff you've talked to but i am really confused on on um the uses and i'm glad i'm not the only one i feel like there's two uses right i really feel like we should be separating the bus from the rest of it well the bus and the year go together but the yurt isn't i'm looking at the bus as a campsite as airbnb right that's what that's going to be used for the yurt isn't that's for your educational still right which is what the barn is for so what use is the best i i don't know i mean there's a campground but that's for two to owner whatever people are up um what way it wouldn't be a campground right it wouldn't but what um like what category would this fall under under mubeck is this it's an accommodation living quarter it would be it would be a campsite which you could allow that there's a structure that people will be sleeping in um yep

so be uh it would be a dwelling that they wouldn't live in currently um but i believe the i believe about additional dwellings on partials so the the prior code officer noted that the reason that the stock order cease and desist order went in was the bottom line is you're not allowed to have a second dwelling on one parcel that's the letter that the code officer gave but that's currently in direct opposition our ordinance is in direct opposition to a state law that passed in march so we've yeah but we've not changed the order the ordinance that's that we're working on that now so that would i think that would be allowed as a dwelling is what i'm saying so but if it's a dwelling it has to meet the irc right it has to meet the billing code which i've i've been to this site and i've talked to them about discrepancies um but other other aspects that were noted in the letter um could be addressed and i talked to

jonah about those days uh electricity fire and it sounds like you're working that but i think i agree with julia i think that said this somebody asked anne or somebody that whether you call it aaron b airbnb or whatever you call it you know and i'm not sure the new law we need to take we're going to talk about that actually after this we have time uh allows temporary whatever airbnb it doesn't automatically say it's okay that i don't think that was the purpose of it so that is i think something we need to resolve is the use of the bus and then uh the other one because the year to me is if we approve the use if then we approve the use and we approve the urine if it meets all the requirements with it so i guess what my question about the irc is trying to figure out what use is this bus and if you're telling me it's a dwelling then that's a residential use if it's not a dwelling it's not a campground i agree with that

but it could be a camp site the problem with the purpose is there's no water there's gonna be no hardwired electrical or otherwise it's really just i mean it's really like a lean-to i mean for the i'm using your words so what is it like i'm trying to figure out what it is a bunch of crossovers yeah and we may not what is this we may not solve this tonight but i think there's definitely something you know before we get to a decision that we need to resolve what is the bus um and because i'm not sure just because the state's going to change the law about permanent residence that it applies in this case i'm not saying it doesn't not saying that you can't use it but i think we really dan's point we really need a clear depth what you're going to do with it and what that then is i mean i think that i mean under number 156 recreational vehicle i mean the bus is essentially a recreational vehicle at

this point it does it's not as advanced as many of recreational vehicles but essentially it is that then the question is is it allowed to rent out a recreational vehicle on somebody's property and does it meet the definition of recreational vehicle under state law i mean looking at this definition it is currently does not have a current registration sticker but it could be registered um and but it's also yeah not used for human habitation more than six months in a 12-month period so we it's not used more than six months i got you but that that's that's different than something that's parked and you're renting it in my mind that's we just i guess what i'm saying what i'm thinking is as the time goes and we've kind of got another meeting anyway these are some of the key questions that you need to be able to answer when next we see you and then is it yeah i mean i'd love to i guess love to answer them and

i also want i'm i'm looking for guidance from you all because yeah i think we need to yeah yeah yeah trying i mean i came to you with you know these uses of talking i think so also can i say one more other thing the other part of it the yurt and the barn um i think number 44 does fit but i also think 16 also fits um you mentioned in the proposal cultural facility and community building 16 is sorry am i looking at the wrong one hold on i've got the

uh do we not have it anymore what institutional or cultural facilities 21 now 21. thank you oh did you already yeah yeah okay yeah so that one 21 i apologize yeah so i forgot to circle back when we went down a rabbit hole but i think when you are trying to separate the earth from the bus i'm not saying it's not right but the argument they're making is it's all one use so you don't need to know what the boss bus is by itself because when coupled with the year it's all one use

i'm just the bus sleeping airbnb that's not happening elsewhere like i feel like that is a big well that could be a decision we make which is it's not maybe it's not i would say their fault that the bus is not because do you plan the question you have to answer is do you plan to use it for non-educational purposes if somebody wants to come to maine in the summer and they want to walk bradbury or go shopping at ll beans are they allowed to rent it well they are and we also always provide education to them as well i mean so we're always sharing about organic practices we're sharing about what we do you know and like we'll be sharing about our solar panels and renewable energy so i mean you know are they all taking a workshop no not necessarily and yet at the same time what a lot of farms are doing now including us you know using these types of programs to really you know add to and help you know ultimately

people coming in understanding what organic agriculture maine looks like that's it that's an education it builds you know them to have a greater appreciation for what it takes to have a working farm and you know they're often gonna then go down to old crow ranch and buy some meat from them they're gonna you know yeah go to bradbury enjoy you know bradbury or or the durham river park so i mean it's i think it it is educational for them to stay at the farm we're not going to require everyone to participate in a workshop though but there's also like weddings and other parties too as well right with that so it's an accessory use i mean we just i think we need to sort it out amongst us amongst ourselves and and uh and do that and how is that bus defined as an appropriate use if it's an accessory used to the educational or even honestly to the barn it couldn't be to the barn because that's not permitted in that zone so if

it's success it's the bus is an accessory use to the educational yurt approval as the year got it i'll be honest if it's a standalone building i think it's a bed and breakfast under our definition so you're hearing our comments and i'm you know you you've we're talking about educational uses until you said we're not going to make them and then it so that those are our comments now that doesn't mean we've decided okay so we're telling you you know what we're thinking about on this so you'll get a chance to respond to our comments down below ellen did you have any i don't okay can i just offer a couple of observations that might help clarify the confusion it seems to me there's two points of confusion first is what is the relationship of the proposal to the existing operations and i agree with ann that you don't need to consider the existing operations because they're either in violation or

they're not you're just they're just asking for a conditional use approval for what they are proposing so you don't need to worry about what's going on right now then secondly in terms of these uses i don't think there's anything that they are proposing that couldn't fit within something here because 31 says other commercial services not otherwise listed if the bus you're not sure exactly what it is is it a campsite is it a rental is it what is it it can be approved as a conditional use as long as it meets all the conditional use criteria so i understand that you want clarity because what are the impacts of having it be air b and vietnam so as they come back and they process you make a decision you can put conditions of approval on this if you're not comfortable with the impacts of an airbnb available to the general public you could approve it so use for accessory to their operations so again i'm not trying to

solve it i'm just trying to suggest ways that it could be processed to come to a conclusion so i think anything that they're proposing could be approved as a conditional use and you can put restrictions on whatever parts of it you think need to be what do you feel it's appropriate in order to meet the conditional use criteria yeah except 31 doesn't help the bus and resource protection right a couple of them are and we could only have one use right no you could have multiple uses on a property yep and it would take the more strict one

use criteria standards apply if the parcel is in two different zones yeah no two different uses some uses you can't be in rp some uses you can you look at them separately so like the barn is not in the rp right so it would be based on the definition between the rp yeah so i mean like what's weird about this is right if if the barn is being used for a club are we saying nothing outside of the barn is ever going to be used for that club right so like a wedding in the barn is never going to spill over into the gardens in the rp zone i i don't know

structure we're proving it's the use exactly or they put up a tank yeah just throwing things out that we need to look at if it's a 10 versus or whatever it may be the barn yeah right they couldn't put up a tent for the wedding in the rp zone

to think about and then the public may add to that at the next meeting so so i i i'm leaving a little bit confused and i i'm you know i'm not a developer i'm you know i'm a farmer an educator so i i just don't know what's i guess i'm not clear i know there's me a site visit never having a public hearing but do we change things in this proposal to give back to you i mean because right now i mean i'm not clear on like a lot of speculation or ideas but i'm just not clear kind of well and we may probably still use some information but you've heard some comments for instance on the bus in in defining what the bus seems to be one of the big topics what the bus is going to be about but the use does cover the whole thing so you know if you are going to hold your meeting strictly in the barn not in the resource protection area those kinds of things i think are in your court to say you know we will limit it to

the non-resource protection area or whatever it may be and then i think as we go into the next month or prior kind of look towards the planner to give us some got to kind of what you discuss there and say these are possible okay uses here these are the confusion with it because i think you've kind of heard our i concerns also it would be more straightforward for instance if the bus was always coupled with like a retreat like you're always part of a workshop and then it would be very strictly oh it falls under 44 which falls under conditional use but since it could just be someone who's like learning through osmosis but also is traveling to freeport for shopping then that seems a little more wishy-washy if it falls under 44 for an educational service and that just seems like more like a rental dwelling than an actual educational facility okay could the bus be moved out of rp yeah it could be moved yeah it could be moved as

well that would also probably make everything a lot simpler i mean if we if we require they're going to do like a 10-minute educational workshop with us that stays on the bus with that i mean i'm just saying though i mean because you know one in my mind it's the the primary use of why they're renting that space the primary use is to go to l.l bean and i recognize that's part of the great outdoors but you know the primary use is because they're but i don't know if you haven't started attending one but their primary uses is for a wellness retreat or wellness classes and you're going to give a multi-day thing um then that's the primary use for the people who are staying there i guess what i think tyler said better than i did which is define the primary use and and let us know okay i mean yeah just one yeah i want to ask that question because i mean number 44 does not have a definition so i i don't you

know it's kind of up to interpretation germans it says you know major interpretation as well that's one of the challenges the good things and bad things about conforming uses so yeah and i would any questions you got after this to get with mr the barge and he will help try to help explain what i was saying here tonight throw him under the bus yeah i mean besides i think the confusion of all the uses like what it is what it's not um i'm really concerned about parking so that was another thing i want to know more about parking and what the plan for parking is um maybe that field i've been to your place behind where the sidewalk might help with that yeah we have plenty of parking in the field where you guys usually have the um sails whatever we call it the setup of all the tents yeah right back there it's not shown on your site well yes right you have a very small parking yeah area on your site and i think to her

point is what we usually get is a rectangle square whatever 20 you know lines for 20 parking spaces that yeah you know meet the code for was it nine by ten or ten by whatever it is number so that we know that you can get twenty if what you if your limit is gonna be twenty if you're gonna bust them from somewhere you know and you can't fit 20 then then we'll do that because i would think the neighbors would be concerned about an overflow you know out onto bowie hill road yeah yeah i mean we and so i mean during our tree farm season yeah we've we've had what is shown on the map there and so that's kind of a standard parking and then we do have an overflow for just those weekends just kind of draw it out that we know you can get 20 effective 20 is what you're saying or 30 or 5 or whatever it is just draw it out is that it so if i take the map that exists and add lines to it to show if it's scaled sure

i think that'd be fine and you're walking around that's a good question after you've sketched it up to run it past mister the bars and sidewalk might help too and the site visit would also help i do have another concern though other than the uses which is the hours of operation uh that is i mean i know you've been successful with the daytime stuff but now you're talking about stuff that could go to ten o'clock and that seems late in that neighborhood i think it was nine no no i said nine occasionally ten yeah two times a year for weddings or something like that and we would tell the neighbors we would let them know hey there's a wedding this coming weekend yeah but we need we need to draw a line under it that from here from whatever it is it is because if it goes to 11 then you know the code enforcement officer shows up on monday and said you know you were i got a complaint about 11 o'clock and

so you know to to shut it down at whatever time you know we agreed but that isn't my concern it seems to me ten is late now because it seems to me the other four votes may disagree yeah no i definitely understand that and um you know and that's a condition of approval you know we'd be fine to you know make it earlier um you know yeah i like to be in bed by 10. yeah yeah i mean we live there so you know it's yeah i mean definitely it's not something we're we're not looking to have late night parties all the time you know definitely that's not what we're interested in sometimes having just married off my daughter a couple weeks ago and pointing to my watch at nine o'clock my wife would still not let me leave so

you've got neighbors right across the street from all these uses and the noise limits and the ordinance are really low really low um so i want to know how you're going to address that where is what page is the noise or section 5.19

conversations with it with our neighbors who have been supportive of our mission and also about existing noise and things from i mean also running a christmas tree farm you're running a chainsaw you know you're you're making noise i think that's different though than nine or ten o'clock and i think that would be one of the big concerns dan's playing in a show and all of it yeah yeah although dan's got an excellent point there and then we'll comment about that i've had some complaints about noise already and that is an extremely difficult item to enforce it virtually possible even from our county attorney says no don't go there i hear what you're saying but there is a there is a rule and we need to you need to follow it and we need to at least take it into consideration and at least right it needs to at least pass a straight face test that you can pass it yeah i'm not saying that if it goes over on occasion you're getting

slapped with the violation but yeah we need to in good conscience at least be able to say there's a there's a good chance that they can comply with it yeah and as i said i mean so i have a background i ran two different spaces in portland with you know and we had noise complaints we dealt with them we like worked through them in you know work to resolve and have no noise complaints yeah and we're just gonna i think it's possible i know it's an issue and it's definitely something where you know being good neighbors is really important yeah no i appreciate that but we we need to draw a line that says this is it yeah and if you see there's something involved it wasn't noise complaints about these people it was other um

[Laughter] okay any other good we want to make sure you cover those those so we're going to come back and ask you what hours are you proposing and we'll vote on whether those you know are acceptable or not given because it is the character of the neighborhood that matters and so one of the things that i at least have to be convinced with is what you want to do fits the character of the neighborhood okay so the dress just so i can summarize here uh add some lines to a parking map you look at it when we have the this is you can fit whatever number you think you're gonna need yeah and then um i mean we do in the in our proposals right now we do talk about 9 p.m with occasional events going to 10. i'm i so i don't know what it's if you can ask what i think is a good time i i don't know at this point that's it okay see if there's any additional pieces like that would be helpful like getting a noise decibel meter or

something like that that would be helpful to address any noise issues yeah i just want to make sure as we come back we use everyone's time effectively and be able to address any issues noise is sometimes covered in great i don't know what they are but there's graphs that'll say you know a polka band you know inside a building from this distance is gonna these are gonna be the decibels and where's the pokemon

i'm sorry of taking up time with jokes is there anything else we need to highlight to these folks yeah going forward [Music] i think we're good we'll see you next month okay so we'll uh we'll welcome you all with this decision visit 5pm on the 7th yeah yep

5pm on the 7th and and um just to clear so there will be a public hearing next time yes and so we can invite folks to come and share their you yes we notify them do we make sure we notify them we'll be posting yeah yes there will be a posting and you know i'm sure you'll see it on all things durham and durham newsletter and other things so yes the more the more you can do now with your neighbors uh the easier the process will be for you right it sounds like you've already started with your kids [Music] i apologize for uh just running so late so but thank you thank you make a request in the same room here if we are yes it'll be the same place if we're doing agenda items that will not have public comment versus those that will can we put that on the agenda right this item will not have public comment tonight this item will have public comments tonight i think that would help yeah oh that's a good point

george please thank you that is an excellent point thank you for your pictures i'll still make my 10 o'clock bedtime so yeah you you all but there's one more thing on here will hopefully not take long but it is you know we're working on these changes to the the codes and um george put together some information on affordable housing so just a brief recap the historical commission is working on any changes they want to do the conservation commission is working on changes they want to do it is their responsibility to go through the the public discussion period and it is ours to hold the public we can the ones have to hold the public hearing so the goal would be to hold public hearings in late january february of next year to be ready for the april uh meeting so but also doing some workshops or informational meetings this fall starting probably september with informational organizing informational

meetings and those two commissions will do their their pieces yes and you probably want to do the affordable housing on a separate track because each one of these items could detract quite a gathering there's and i guess briefly george and if everybody's had achieved we don't need a lot because i think people have either had a chance to read it or it's pretty self-explanatory the two things that are in the planning boards bailiwick are the state as alan referred to the state changed the law making mandatory uh houses going on properties so he has taken a cut at changing our ordinance to match that law to meet the meet the standards of that and so it's in your pocket oh for tonight yep so basically the new law that goes into effect next july says that all single-family zones have to allow multiple dwellings on the lot up to three

impact possible and so what i thought was you right now you allow duplexes but you have to have a two and a half acres instead of two acres you can't do that anymore if you allow a single family on two acres you have to allow duplex on two acres secondly currently you allow a single family to have an accessory dwelling that's limited in size they say you have to allow up to three units not just those two so i to try to keep it as simple as possible with the least change possible the draft language that i put together as a starting place says instead of only allowing one accessory dwelling unit you would be allowed to have two

two acres or you could put in a duplex with one accessory dwelling in it total of three no matter which what you do that would be the least amount of changes right now you could do a duplex because you can't have an accessory apartment all this would do is just say you can have an accessory apartment with a duplex secondly currently the ordnance allows you to have one accessory apartment you would now be able to have two that may or may not fly with the language of the state which is very confusing and not clear mma is even struggling with how to figure out you know what did the legislature actually approve so i think that would have the least change but might have a chance of flying and passing what the new legal requirements well i don't again i don't think they can always say no but i mean it had the law is going to change so either the state's going to impose something and my question or concern is that we use the

term accessory apartment but it could be a house no we're i'm proposing to to try to keep it from flying out according to the state according to the state they say can be you know this combination that combination every combination and i'm suggesting that the town just as a starting place c to have the least impact the least change just allow one extra two accessory dwelling units on a single family and allow one accessory unit with a duplex for a total of three that's the magic number you're using you're drawing units or the dwelling units yeah that's for lots that already have yeah but we don't even know why it doesn't make any sense the way they wrote it other than i think what they were striking at was the issue of it says it has to be it doesn't nullify the need to get subdivision approvals so if you have one existing and you add two that would trigger subdivision so i think that's what they were

striking at but why would we allow more dwelling units than we have to i think we are don't think we are right so the law and this is the first time i'm reading the final piece and it would be really interesting to see if mma has draft language a lot of times hoping that they would they said they don't um because it's so new right but just reading the summary i haven't gone and looked at the statute right it says you have to allow them to add one dwelling unit to a lot that has an existing dwelling unit so that's a max of two you have to allow them not three if you're starting from scratch yeah with a blank slate you have to add three you have to allow them to have three so i'm not sure why would be and again i've looked it for this for 30 seconds i'm not sure why we would say everybody gets three so my house has a dwelling it has one question would be let's just say what happens the next year after they do

it are they now prohibited from adding one no you you grandfather those developed lots i mean it's like a negative grand gathering i guess but you basically say any lot that has a dwelling as of whenever 2023 um can add up to one additional dwelling unit any lot that does not have a dwelling unit as of whatever date 2023 can add three new ones but they'll need to go through subdivision that's vacant lots right yeah so second law you can do three if you've got an existing house you can only do two yeah so let's take a look at that's what i'm that's what it looks like if that's that's why it is that's i hate it you know it's better for the town being happier i guess but uh and it i mean i need to go look at the underlying statute but it looks like we may be able to limit the new one on an existing

okay i would like this to be as narrow as i can while still complying with state law yeah i think that's that is our intent so what the plan would then the other one that we haven't i don't think was in the thing is um say the back lots but the they don't explain it george you better you'll do better than i did is that what you're talking about yes the the road issue yeah we just need to add some clarifying language that you have to go to tell me and get a road accepted that's it well i thought the last one got tanked by a certain individual who wanted to make sure it didn't apply to existing roads the chairman whatever his title chairman of the slack board asked for that specific that language george just during the during the town meeting somebody raised the question of concern for the the ordinance doesn't say whether how whether the town accepts roads or not yeah but it died the last time because a

particular developer in town was not convinced that his existing road would not have to be brought up to the new road standards so i think if we can add a line along those lines that would be i think to our um benefits yeah so part of why you wanted on the agenda was not to necessarily talk about these details but to talk about a public process so i did talk to devin tonight about there was a plan to get eureka fully up internet accessible to be able to do all our meetings over there where there's more room for people that has been on hold because it's so confusing how to do it but i did talk to devon about an interim plan either at the fire station which has wireless or over at eureka to have it basically video it with a webcam on a computer and if it's over at the fire station then they can stream it on youtube uh if it's over at eureka which you don't have wireless you could record it and then broadcast it later i think

that's what we've done except uh heather did the record but we know no but i mean but i think i like the eureka getting i.t to set up something that will be effective so the goal would be to look at the language at the september us look at the language for uh house count and roads and then i think we're pretty close to being able to to go to the town and have an informational meeting in october november and get it out there we're not as maybe controversial nobody's going gonna want the idea of adding houses but there's not much they can do about it uh and then so late october november we hold a public comment meeting and then we're ready to go on the two topics we've got and for a public hearing and then we can even do it earlier i guess and then but start playing on january february we're going to have a couple of public hearings that we got to run that was it i know it's late i appreciate the extra hour of everybody's

time and george if you could help us with the or help me at least with understanding what they're asking for i get i guess what i'd maybe maybe i can break it out but say okay what who's asking for the i'm sorry back to the celebration we need to figure out the use i feel like that's yeah you know that's in our we have to do that but i mean that's what i'm talking about i i felt like their issue the big issue last time was the road yeah remember that was the stream one day yeah i'll work with alan to see if we can try to sort it out a little bit yeah i think that would be helpful out of resource protection too yeah i think a little bit i think so yeah i think i struggle with the boss i mean i really do because i i don't know

all right good so um the seventh right september 7th september 7th at 5 pm at celebration farm okay we have a motion to adjourn can i make that motion second favor five-o thank you