TranscriptPlanning Board Meeting ~ June 28, 2017

Okay. Alden, you're good. meeting of the Durham Plating Board. And I see that we have a quorum. And first, we'll start with the pledge of allegiance. States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

agenda? No, we have to do a public hearing. Oh, so I can't keep going. No, you have to call the public hearing to order now. Okay. How do I do that? I I mean, can't we just do the minutes and then the public hearing on the

open right when we open up Barry's case? Right. Well, I guess if that's the way you want to do it, that's fine. to um move the minutes to the end. Whatever you want to do. No, cuz you need the minutes for bries. Well, then should we to do that first?

All right. We'll take a minute to review the minutes from last meeting. of the things that were deemed incomplete should also include number 51. Okay. minutes adding that 50 with the amendment that Mindy indicated. Uh, we'll second that. All those in favor

Okay. Thank you. hearing on the application for mineral spring states. You just ask if there's any public comment. Given that there's no public, I doubt there will be. Is there any public comment? Like comment on your application?

see if Mr. Baldwin wants to say anything before we start considering it. Do you have anything you would like to say as part of this public hearing? Uh, I'm taking the Fed. Smart man. Okay. All right. So then we can move forward with this application and going through the approval criteria.

You're going to have to close the public hearing. Gosh, I will close the public hearing now. Do I have to do this? There it's closed. All right. Now we can move forward with considering this application and going through the approval criteria. And it appears that we have some new materials that were distributed. Did everyone get a chance to look at those?

Maybe the applicant and first engineer can walk us through what he's added. Expedite it for us. Thanksgiving birthday. I know. board. Uh you'll recall from our last meeting um we had uh a number of items uh left over that there were just sort of some clerical issues uh uh and mostly

me getting all my ducks in a row and into and to you. Uh I believe that we have tidied up all of those issues. Um if you go the memo dated uh June 24th to you if you want to go down through um it's basically just uh quick little narrative in the checklist items. So uh checklist item number 33 uh the wildlife habitat

um you'll find a letter in attachment A that is response from the main department of inland fisheries and wildlife which uh they conducted their review and found uh no endangered or other significant areas in the habitat. Can

I make ask a question on that? Sure. What um what map did you provide them with? Oh, sure. So, they get the USGS uh parcel map. Yep. With a with the uh what we do is we digitize the property line on that. Okay. And then send them the it's a it's a it's called a locust.

Yeah. And uh the USGS map is there so that they can actually that's typically how we always send in those locus maps. So they saw like the area of Durham. Yeah. It's just interesting that they say that project details are lacking due to general nature and scale of the map that was provided. Our comments are non-specific.

So I just Yeah. Because why you know if you provided them a locust map I mean that's pretty specific. Yeah. And I almost think that that's a generic thing that it's always says that because right that that covers everyone cuz we said we don't send them even sending them a tax map doesn't do them a whole lot of good because it's not so so they get they get the locust with it and and it could be because we put on the locust it's a property line um digitized from ser you know you know what I'm saying so we don't actually this is not a boundary survey and that might also be the reason why they they put that disclaimer in in case you ever had something on the property that that was drawn incorrectly on their map. And

that's I mean to be honest with you, I just always skipped right over that line because I always see it in my that's how I do all my letters to them and yeah, that's how it always comes back. Okay. They have a they have a GIS database. Um so you can actually go So that's all they check. So you can actually go on to the main uh main.gov. They have a GIS database and you can look if you know where the area is and you can look and that's we basically pay them $150 to do that for us and then they send us a letter.

Mhm. checklist item number 34 for the natural areas program. And they they basically get the exact same letter just addressed to a different person. Um, and with that comes the locust as well. And you'll see their response. Um, and they actually what they typically always do is they say, you know, nothing is known on your project site, but then they give you a whole list of things to look for. And and uh I don't know that any anyone that any project I've ever done that we've ever found anything or um typically the applicant probably doesn't even know what they're looking. They look like the deex.

Oh, you got one. Fast moving mother. They move. well. Um item number 48, we talked about this last time. uh because it is in the runaround pond watershed uh we do need a storm water management permits um from the per chapter 500 from the main D and that application is in process with them and what you have is the abbreviated storm water management report that they get along with um some pretty complicated phosphorous calculations um

uh and that is attachment C this is what you provided to them y so tip right so Uh part of that process is you have a pre-application process and that's what we're in now. And as soon as as soon as that process is over, we actually file the permit. I think they take 30 days to review it and then and then send it back to you. So once so when we file the full permit after the pre-lication process, a copy is dropped off here at the town because it's notified that the the public can stop in and look at it. Um, and then the town when the town issues the permit, I believe we they issue it by email and then we'll send a copy to whoever comes in. Um, and checklist items uh 50 and 51 are the same as 33 and 34.

this project falls well under any sort of uh state permit requirements or or traffic engineering requirements. Um the IT manual has uh single family homes as uh 10 daily total trips and uh one daily AM and peak hour trip for the latest IT manual. Um so if you consider the whole project and and I actually looked at it from the roadway that sort of starting from the original parcel so that eventually if all goes well for Barry there'll be eight single family homes using the the road that that we drove on and went back. So it's you know the maximum uh average daily traffic uh would be 80 trips through there. Um and then it would be uh eight Oops, I have that number wrong. be 8 a.m. peak hour trips, which is 92 below the threshold for having the state look at traffic impacts. So, um I'm pretty confident that I could say that there will be negligible impacts to traffic as a result of this project.

Uh checklist item number 53 is the cost estimate that you require. Um and I that's an attachment D. And I will point out that unless another contractor gets a hold of this and laughs at me that Barry had most of the materials on site. Um so when you look at that cost estimate that say someone coming in who wasn't a road roadway contractor he was just a general developer. Um they would this engineer's opinion of probable cost would probably be a little bit higher much higher actually. Um, so the the prices I give are based on the fact that if you own the material and the equipment, that's just what it costs your overhead to to install them.

I would say the way we we balanced it out for the gravels and everything that he's he's pretty much there. Yep. He's got all that crushed rock that you saw up there. He'll mix that with some more finer materials. So, he'll bring a crusher in and then he'll mix it with some finer materials and that'll actually be his roadway gravel base um which he'll put down. And there are some cuts and fills in there that, you know, he'll he'll rob from a hill in the rightway to take to fill in a valley to get it so this the grades are nicer and then he puts his gravel on and stuff. So the methods for the storm water treatment sounds like it's basically using the wooded areas and you're just defining and preserving those from development to allow them to

and what I would suggest uh typically how it's done is where we don't know where those areas will be exactly although I'm pretty sure I know where they're going to be exactly um they're roadside buffers. So actually it's it's a nice part of your ordinance that you have a 50ft set back from the roadway which 50 ft is actually the width of the D's requirement for a forested buffer um

uh off a road. So you in essence what happens is on those sections of the road where we're using those buffers that area will just be a deed no cut buffer um and that that will be part of everyone's property deeds. There's standard language that D gives you to put in the property deeds when you issue them. So yeah, there are no structural methods at all. We're just using ditches in two areas and then when they turn out, we build like a level lip spreader that diffuses the flow and then there's a deed um forested buffer there that's identified on a plan that we produce which is part of the approval. And uh and then the uh the ditch the the non-ditched roadside buffers actually happen during our sidewalk near the end of that long sort of straight stretch. Excuse me.

So those no cut buffers aren't shown on our plan though, right? Nope. Because And so that's two ways to do it. They can be added to I like to do it both ways. So they're part of the it's actually an issued plan um that we issue. It's called the buffer plan, but also we put those on the recording plat as well. So people know, a lot of people sometimes don't get that far and when they're researching a lot, but if they're on the the recorded plat plan, which would be your your survey plan that you have. Um,

typically what we do is we put that as a condition of approval. You don't sign the myar until you do you do myars here? Yeah. Yep. Until you see those those things pop on the plan in the in the proper locations, which would match up with our permit.

Okay. So we'll have to make that a condition. so that you actually kind of brought me through uh number 54 as well, that last checklist item. application, so you're in the time clock. Yeah. Waiting. You haven't been notified that they're writing or anything yet. No, no, I don't think that they're that that far along. They're actually pretty

I don't know if you you found what you're fine with. They're pretty backed up. I have a number of projects in there kind of languishing. shutdown. two geointering areas on the uh map on the This must be the map you provided to them for the uh

No, that's one that they issued themselves. They issued it. So, where are those in relation to this project? two the I should have printed this color. Um the zer wintering they actually so what that is is most of that wintering air occurs down in that 100redyear flood plane right typ I've always seen it's usually the wet areas that deer typically hang out in from the water access and I think that there's like it's like a bullseye target and then the ones on the exterior I think are just kind of like the setbacks from that but I'll I should have printed this color because I think what we're seeing is a couple of different colors that aren't

Do you have it in color? No, I don't. Okay. showed the project parcel. Okay. And this is what they sent back. Yes. Yep. And so both of these big areas are both deer wintering areas or is it these little circles within the

I think the deer wintering area is actually this this guy. It's actually funny cuz they actually sent a letter appears to be a page missing. Did I got inserted in the wrong spot. Yeah, I think it's this one right here. So there is deer wintering area on the in the project.

Yes. Uh maybe. Well, I don't know. I can't I can't extend that road up. It doesn't look like it is. Right. It looks like it would be on the right hand side. The circle I think the project. Okay. This is what it is. So the project search area is the circular bullseye.

Okay. And those two little circles in the middle. Yeah. And that's and and so Oh, I see. Sorry. Right. And so those two little circles in the middle I But Libby Brookke is right. Isn't that the where the flood plane is down?

Yeah, I don't believe that the I think the deer wintering area is the sort of south southwest of those bull drives. So, it just it says in here that you should contact if they give you the guy's name to minimize an impact to that. So, have you done that or are you planning to or

Yeah. I mean, the way the site's currently developed, that's not up on that ridge is not wintering area and its current condition. That's done in that swamp. Yeah. Yeah. back from um mainf which is the one we're looking at. Then you also got one back from

Yeah. in the natural areas. I'm not seeing it in here. I ap I apologize for that. That it comes as a separate letter. So, it almost looks like it didn't print. off? No, but you know what? I could probably dig it up on my email.

the response was the same where it goes the first paragraph. It says, you know, there were none found in the in the in the locust area, but and then they list all the different things that might be there to to look out for.

they sent Not that you care. So, they it comes in two attachments and they're almost named the exact same thing. And uh I slid the wrong one in attachment B. It should have been the natural the NAP one and I I hit the different a different one. So

and so those two circles are the vernal pools I think right? Is that what those are? The two circles in the search area. No, that's that was their that was their search beacon. So they drop based on the locust I give them. They have a program and then they put that's their search area. So when they put it in their program to bring up the map, right? So their map would just show this area and this area. If you went on the GIS, you'd get the same thing. And so what they do is it's almost like dropping a pin in Google. So they drop it there and then it issues this report out of their GIS server and properties. So, what they're saying is, well, when we dropped the pin based on what you gave us, this intersection, like if it was a ven diagram, this area where it intersects, they said may or may not be on your property because they're just looking at it fast.

That's actually not all of Barry's property is north of the what's that road? Granite Hill Road. there are several recommended folks to call from inland y fisheries and wildlife. Have you contacted them or planning on contacting them?

Oh, we can certainly do that. So So typically um there are no streams within that. So this is, you know, not to sound sort of uh what do you call it? Maybe a little unconcerned about the environment. So this is all standard boiler plate stuff they put in the back of every every letter. Um so there are no streams. Um we are we're not within 100. So So we recommend that 100 foot understory vegetated buffer be maintained along these streams. So there are there are no impacts to any buffers within 100 ft of streams as shown on um the survey plan. Um so it says like if you're doing any stream crossings, you know, you have to have the 1.2 bankful width. We're not doing any of that stuff. So if we were um if we did have to file a storm uh a NERPA PBR for a stream crossing, we would be in touch with those. They they typically take a look at that. So if we file that permit, that's who we contact. So the deer wintering area, if

we thought that we were going to impact it, you know, that's when we'd reach out and contact them and say, "Hey, you know, based on our property lines, it looks like, you know, we might be sharing some space." They'd look at it and see that all of that land was down in the flood plan and that there's no building envelope. And they'd say, "Oh, you know, typically you're fine." You know, as long as you're not building a house or a road through it, that would sort of impact the herd.

beat this to a pul but the they do say the significant vernal pools they say that two were found um in the area. So we know where one of them is right is are they so they're somewhere on this map and it's hard to tell where they are. Is it those two circles inside of the search area? I know you said it was the pinpoint, but do you see how those circles are? Is that what those are?

apologize. It's hard to do without the color, but that may uh those may be the because one of them isn't a perfect I'll bring color copies in tomorrow and and leave them here for your review. Yeah. Um, or I could even if I get an email list, I can email them out. Um,

so I'm curious because we have one identified on your map, your plan, but we don't have the other one on the plan and that, uh, I'd have to punt on that question because I'm not qualified to identify rental pools and um,

but there was only one identified by the state. That's how that one. So, and I will caution you. So, the state and and perhaps this is something that Barry and I can do. We can contact the state and find out what the source of those location of those vernal pools were. Um a lot of times they do that from the sort of you know the the medium intensity soil maps and and general contours. So they

I'm almost willing to bet $1,000 that they didn't actually have anyone out there and identify those that those were generated from soils information and in those types of things. um we can contact them to say, you know, what is the the source of these and then we could send the the stuff that Mark Centy did or whatever information you had a letter to them and sometimes they'll remove them from their their maps to come out. I've had that happen.

Yeah. If they say there is one here and then you guys did a delineation and show that there actually is only one instead of two, right? Yeah. Yeah. That cuz it looks like they're right next to each other. Then one other thing I'll say is that when they talk about significant pools they say that um

so 250 foot setback once surveys are completed our department will need to review and verify any vernal pool data prior to final determination of significance. So the finding of that one calling it an SVP I wonder you know if that yeah like if

you did contact them with this that that's probably one that they already have and then Right. And we don't even and typically what you find is they don't line up based on real topo and survey information. You know they kind of they're in the area but they don't know exactly where they are. Um, and so that's that's something that certainly I don't mind following up on.

talking about the bats. That's usually the biggest problem. sound. That's really eating a few. Mhm. Yeah. The bat regulations are kind of iffy right now. Like in Maine, we don't have Indiana bat, which is the one that is you can't do anything really with trees with Indiana bat, but northern longeared, which we do have you as long as there isn't a documented like hibernacula in the area, then you're pretty much okay. except that with uh so if you're doing an Army Corps of Engineers permit, you actually have to they have 30 days to respond. Um but if they do respond, you have to do a BAT study or clear within the approved building limits. Yeah, we I did you have to go through that free court? You guys are doing Yeah, we we deal with that all the time.

So when like a federal permit is triggered Yep. Want to see some new info? I think so. superimpose my map onto the map they sent because I have no, you know, it's they're using the same base map and we can actually see where that I can do up a little plan in CAD that uses both images and we can actually see uh where those lines fall.

like email around to the board? Is that or is that not the right way to do? have to consider it an open session, right? Okay. Mhm. We have to consider it an open session. would be helpful. But yeah, and I'll I'll drop them off tomorrow. You probably just drop them in the mail if you want them from there. So,

or email's fine. Do we have to do that or just the ones that were incomplete? No, we deemed it complete. Oh, so we wave we waved them but they submitted but we wanted them correct. So we waved them to but we so we can move ahead with a public hearing.

Yes. Yeah. Okay. And if you didn't provide them now then we would have probably put a condition on them or something made them pay. But he provided them. beat me over the head. Well, provided I'm minus the one I did in the packet, which is annoying, but

So, do you guys want to consider the application and get as far as we can? Do you want to table this? What do you want to do? Former. Okay. Right. I'll go with that. We're here. I think we should grind away. include these standards?

I did not bring in the subdivision standards from the state. Okay. There's a lot. It looks like there's a lot of overlap, but there is very much overlap. So one I mean I'll tell you one of the things I struggled with when I made it because we have our

approval criteria and then we have our standards performance standards for them but they don't necessarily jive and then we have the state which we're not completely aligned with. So I certainly I mean our book says approval criteria. What I did do was I flipped through the approval criteria and like one of the big gaps I see in our approval criteria that are in our performance standard are uh road geometry requirements. It's in the performance but not necessarily in the approval criteria and the requirements around a road maintenance agreement which the applicant has submitted. So I drafted up some things that I thought should be added as conditions as we go through and certainly I am not an expert at this but pass these around. It was just my thoughts of trying to capture some of the things that are in our performance standard that I think were gaps in our approval criteria.

This document here is just kind of what's on the approval criteria out as approval criteria. Exactly. when you go through the approval criteria, but there are a couple that are not And then we have all the states. Then we have the state.

Did you get one? Did you say good So, who wants to be the recorder? I've already scribbled my mind. your packet. I made it. She'll finished it. I appreciate that. Was that this? These these are what you pulled out of the performance standards.

Those So, those are some things covered in the performance standard that I didn't feel were thoroughly covered by our approval criteria list except for that wonderful catchall that it conforms in all other respects with our ordinance.

I know, but I wanted to Yeah. just for clarification and we don't have to carry them if we decide we don't sure we can make a motion on each of these when it comes the appropriate time. I was just trying to think ahead with some of the

Thank you. some of the things I felt were fuzzy the performance standards don't really line up with the approval criteria rate. Why would they? Just kidding. going through two these two lists kind of separately or do we want to try?

You honestly have to look at three. Well, you've got you approve a criteria, but then to when you're making a decision on you really got to look at the performance standard and also cross-check the state statute that we are given. So we can't deem an approval criteria complete etc until we cross reference with the performance standards and the state

statute that way or catch all his handset long time in this town and I don't think anyone on the work was maybe involved with the last one. Why didn't we rewrite this ordinance? We tried. We ran out of steam and the consultant disappeared and our code enforcement officers disappeared and

there's pretty much a repeat being above elevation and the nature of the soils and subs soils are adequate to support waste disposal. So the applicant we know the elevations out of the flood plane. We demonstrated that in the map. Right.

Correct. We have test pits in the soils report ability to support waste disposal some of these are silly like availability of streams for disposal of effluence. I don't know that you really want to be doing it. I think you want to be carrying it away.

But that is in the performance standard. I don't know where that came from. I saw that. Mhm. Interesting. I had a little mine here. Just be sure. I won't put my hands on that soils report. This one from Mr. Robins, right? With the outhouse on it. Appropriate.

about the sea level and out of the so out of flood planes sewage disposal slope of the land actually that's where the strategy so why don't I as we go through why don't I keep track of what we do and don't cover in the state statute

sounds good that makes sense number one is so everyone had a chance to look at the materials I think I move that we find that uh this subdivision will not result in undue water and air pollution. Making documentation for a soil study for

disposal of septics and the property is above the flood plane as demonstrated in the design of the of the subdivision. I'll second that. All those in favor. Did we Do we have that? Did we get groundwater? Yeah, I got a right there from a steak.

Yep. And we had a letter from the from Chief St. Michelle. Right. Michelle's. area? In this area? sitting. I don't think we don't have a soil study that is I don't I don't see a soil study where there was any w study of the depth of water at the site.

Well, one place you might find it is in the septic test pits. Yeah, I was trying to look through those. They typically will find uh they'll give you a seasonal high groundwater table. They'll say HWT the pit reports or at the bottom they'll say limiting factor.

Yeah. And it will be groundwater or ledge, right? That's one or the other. depth of pit. Yeah. 16. Well, at lot three. Yeah. Lot three. It was 16 in down. Everything else was hitting restrictive layer. That's surface water though. It's not necessarily a drilled or well like what we have a report from the state.

water supply anticipated demand of all persons residing or using the supply and it won't impact any wells within 1500 ft. So what page you uh 82. supply for fire protection. know. Well, random event for sure. One thing this also says um well flow test results must be presented to the code officer prior to the issuance of the first building permit.

usually you don't drill a well before you I know, right? Yeah, but I suppose if you want to make sure it's going to have water before you issue the building permit, but yeah, but if you're homeowner, you going to pay to drill a well or you don't have a building permit?

No, not really. I'm not making that investment. Unless you're going to put one in the middle of the subdivision and use it as your test guinea pig. I mean, if I may, I know you're trying to be very thorough, but all I have been on the planning board, I have been and seen these subdivisions and all that ever been required to my knowledge was that letter that we get from the state. It basically just shows the wells and depths in the area.

I've not seen any anything but that. So, unless there's further discussion, I'm going to move to find that this is complete. based on um the well depths in the area and the uh letter from the fire chief stating there is sufficient

water supply to for fire protection needs. Um and also it's a relatively small subdivision with only a maximum of eight homes going in. I'll second that. All those in favor the same conversation about water supply. And I would say with the five watts,

right, with the final count, how many watts? Seven lots, seven lots. I will also say that this is um basically a repeat of the state requirement and it seems to go to municipal water supply which we don't have. I know. So

like somebody inserted language aquifer in our criteria aquifer like we're going to look for aquifer discharge. So I will move that three the applicant meets the requirements for water supply unburden un okay so let me start this again the propos proposed subdivision will not cause an unreasonable burden on the existing water supply including the aquifer because there are only eight proposed building lots

I will second that all those in favor them, John? Yeah, I know. Skip. All right. So, in the performance standard before we get us into the approval criteria. Uh there are six there four letters. So, the first one is preserving landscape in the natural state. as practical as by minimizing tree removal, disturbance of soil, retaining existing ve vegetation. So I think we're seeing that in in the site plan. um filling and excavating an earthmoving activity carried out in a way that erosion that keeps erosion and sedimentation to a minimum including preserving natural vegetation. Again, uh minimizing duration of the soils, temporary vegetation, debris basin, sediment basins, storm water. Uh top soil shall not be removed the site except for surplus top soil from areas occupied by buildings and paving and adequate provisions for surface drainage removal of storm waters will not have an unreasonable effect on

neighboring properties Yes. Yeah. The um staging areas are on there, I'm sure. Do we have like stockpile locations? Typically, uh we don't show those. They probably what Barry will do is put them on. I don't know, Barry, what are you going to do? Like clear up building I mean, you kind of got a staging area already kind of set up in there. Well, we would we would follow the uh EMPs and one of the things suggests we do like if you have a loom pile it's going to set for more than 48 hours, you need to have erosion control around it

when I cut it and bring the loom to one pile it will have erosion control around it. And these all these things are covered by the best management practice rules and they're different rules that apply to whatever whatever situation you're dealing with.

details that you disturb the ground this is what you have to have done to sort of do it. Um where he's kind of got everything there. He'll have to encapsulate that whole area where as soon as he starts disturbing uh the roadway base and and starts doing that stuff, he'll have to have all his erosion controls in

button it up. Is there so when we go through this um can we have conditions like we do? Okay. I'm wondering if um just a thought for number was I just reading this. So, no storage of fill materials within 50 feet of banks of any water body. So, you know, maybe just showing like a the staging area locations like where the fill piles of fill will go.

Sure. Or maybe just saying that they won't go on lot three or something like that. You know, I know they're not going to go anywhere near the western large wetland. That wouldn't make any sense. But maybe just showing on the plan where you know

again excuse me again these these things are all uh controlled by the rules I have to live by to do this. All my erosion control procedures cover what you're talking about. I couldn't I can't do that anyway because it states that in

in the uh the rules of the best man management practice. Right. These things are already covered right in the plans that we provided all these rules or eggs that I have to Is that one in there? Oh yeah, you can that details in there. I didn't know the detail like stock piles.

Yeah. Over the winter they got hay on them. Yeah. So it's that's so that's actually that's in the narrative, right? So it'll say winter it'll say winter construction and stabilization is that you know you have to have hay on top of all stock piles and all that stuff or in some cases like gravel piles if you're going to be there all winter you got to loan seed them in certain areas um that's all part of the so our chap so in on the drawing C300 there's a whole list of notes and those are the exact notes that the main department of environmental protection have as their standards. So

when when that actually when when that permit gets reviewed, they check those and make sure that they match there, which is the state law that governs road and sedimentation control. Um I think that 50 foot thing might be part of I don't know where you're getting that. Is that part of the town of

town's ordinance? Yeah. So the you know the town has that other thing. So Barry has to live by those rules as well. That's almost like an enforcement issue, you know. whoever's out there doing roadway inspection or something say you can't be piling all your excess lom in the wet you know in that that wet I think you're talking about the wetland thing that kind of comes in that you know

going to my guess is that Barry's going to keep that down where he's already got it all disturbed anyway he's got area so I mean there's a there's a catch all about inspection in here as well by a competence person uh conducting inspection identified in inspection log. I mean, all of those things

have to be inspected by um in the process. My guess is the DP might even put in an inspection provision as well in the permit. Often they add a little typically they have the design engineer um provide certification. So, one of the

conditions that I was thinking about adding um from the town perspective um and I was thinking more came up with the technical capability would be um to also ask make it a requirement that the applicant retain professional engineer with knowledge and expertise to show compliance with erosion control, the construction standard and storm water requirements in our ordinance and and consistent with the main DB permit. just because we don't, you know, we're not we're not a town that's got a town engineer who's out there doing a lot of those things. We

Calvin's covering right now. We're hired three times. Yeah. Right. Exactly. And uh so we just don't have a lot of in-house backup to to keep an eye on those things. So since his license would be at risk, I'm assuming that he'll do a good job to steer his applicant to make good his you know. So that was one thought. I had as a condition.

So this the item that I brought up could kind of be part of that. Not we don't have to add it but it would be almost assumed that you know that person would check and that's one of the things they would check like going through our ordinance.

Going through our ordinance. Yeah. The question be what period? How? Yeah. How much do they say during during construction of the roadway? How much a week and storm water system which to me yeah the roadway and storm water system. So however long you have proposed for that take cover here. I just know in some sight planes I've seen other states though, but we have storage areas are temporary,

you know, staging areas are shown on plans. We that's where we do that for site construction a lot where it's a tight site. Yeah. You know, um for typical subdivisions that I do, a lot of times they'll clear a building envelope

and keep that stuff on, you know, just to move it out of the way. you know, we'll stack we'll have them stack a loan pile on a building envelope like the first lot they're going to build and that way they that's already cleared and um again that's just a you know that's a berry question you know what he

but I'm fine with what um what John was saying too if that language John no this about for while I stole there is some language about having a professional engineer in our performance standard in the technical capacity technical and capable was it technical and financial capacity. So I stole the language about a professional engineer and tweaked it a little bit to fit the case but there is language in our performance standard under technical capacity.

How long are we slated for the road construction? Do you know off the top of your head how long will it take to construct the road before when? So a couple months. Six months. Six months. Well, it's last five. Yeah. To construct the road. Five months.

Right. It won't take that long. No, not the way we have it planned. Okay. And you're right. uh the assumption that I'm planning to move all my box cut material to that site that's already cleared where you saw where my erosion control mix is being prepared that's already been a home pile for years. So that's the obvious spot for me to put it.

And sometimes you show those on the plane where your stock piles are going to be your stump burial sites and so I don't know if that's what you're looking for if Yeah, that's kind of what I was getting at location. But if we want it, we can do it that way. show it on the plan or we can just include it if we go with this number four just, you know, include a check on that. That's fine.

So, I just hate to show that stuff on the plan and for a subdivision road because Barry may go over and say, "Oh, this is a nice spot here." And he goes to bury his stumps or whatever and it's like, "Oh my god, that's ledge two feet down there." And he's like, then he goes and scrubs another, you know, finds another place to kind of scrub it out. So,

yeah, I can see that. But I can also see that is the case with any project. I mean, you know, or if I decide on one spot and somebody is held bad they want that site and they don't want my material on their house site to make sure I have to move it. I don't want to to change or somebody can plan right move a s pile,

right? So yeah, I mean I'm I'm happy to do whatever you want. I'm just in 16 years I've never shown that on a subdivision application, but certainly they do keep stockpiles, you know, they just kind of figure out as they're going along. And it's and it is more sort of the enforcement thing when we do D third party inspections for larger projects. We do sort of we note where the stock piles are and if they're being moved at all or if they're they're contained and they're they have all that stuff. So, um, as a third party inspection, that's we take pictures and that all gets logged in. Again, that's a more formal and expensive process usually for like, you know, when you're building like a 30 lot subdivision or or a Walmart or something.

but I mean we can just put a note in the plan that says stock piles to be maintained and existing open areas or just just yeah just away from 50 ft away from water body or whatever 20% 20% slopes or anything like that. So if I go out there and I see that there's an obvious violation, there would be a stop work order and there'd be some if if there's no erosion control, no silt fence and stuff is blowing over the silt fence or that would be a something that I would usually take care of and inspection. So,

and I would I just one other thing I'd suggest if you are going to require um uh sort of what would be more like a third party or or inspections, you might want to have I don't know if it's in your ordinance that you know is we generate a quick site report for any site visit we do and you know does that go to Calvin? Is that you know who who does that? Well, it says in your plan that you're keeping a log at the site so Calvin could show up and ask for the log.

Y not you, but yeah. So, I would expect the log would probably say, "Okay, just keep visit by I mean I'm trying to keep it simple." Yeah. So, um we we ready for Yeah. All right. So I make a motion that the the prop subdivision will not cause unreasonable soil erosion or reduction in the capacity of the land to hold water. So it's dangerous unhealthy conditions. The project is preserving landscape. The project has an appropriate storm water design being permitted by main D.

The project has the pro applicant has submitted an erosion control plan and has a licensed professional engineer providing services related to design of these measures. I'll second that. All those in favor I did. Yep. So my I guess one question I would have in that 50 foot buffer if you're going to use that for your storm water the the buffer is that what you're using the 50 foot buffer.

So right he wouldn't take down he wouldn't be stockpiling anything in the buffer those have to stay because if that if that during the construction to use that as that's a big that's a big no no. Yeah. So you can you put something on it that would show that.

Yeah. So so we actually we flag the buffers. That's a requirement of the DP that prior to disturbance, you actually flag and and I can easily go out there. We have survey equipment. I mean, we'll just we typically tie a flag and and you actually have to pin the buffers. So,

they become a no cut buffer and then you put a flag to trees. That's a color that says just so long as you know, Barry, if you destroy that during the process, it might nullify your storm water permit. And we'll we'll coordinate with Barry so we know. Yeah. That's when he's leaving.

Which one? Traffic. Make it an easy one. I don't know. It's a pretty busy road. It's really busy. Pretty busy. An hour ago. Yeah, it was most cars seen in a year. One person on the air go, "What the Honey, did you see that? Did you see all this?"

It was a funeral. I didn't get a call. I will move that the proposed subdivision will not cause unreasonable highway or public road congestion or unsafe conditions respect to the use of highways or public roads existing proposed if the proposed sub uh subdivision drives the entrance into a state highway located. It's not a state highway. It's not an urban compact area. It's nothing that DOT is concerned about. How's that? Uh, I move to find that this subdivision will not cause unreasonable highway and public road congestion because of the minimal traffic generated by eight housing lots.

Second. All those in favor. Can we do this one as an easy one, too? I think you're test. What about this road construction? Sure. That's not in there. Do we have it in ours? Jeremy, it goes right from traffic to road construction.

What? Where the performance standard? It's not in the approval criteria. We'll come back to that. Sorry. All right. So, any any discussion we need to have on sewage? No, that should be taken care of during the permitting process.

That's exactly what's going to be my motion. Go for it. The proposed subdivision will not cause unreasonable uh the subdivision will provide adequate sewage and waste disposal. The applicant has provided test pits and any sewage will be

licensed and permitted through the applicable codes. Can't get a building permit without HH 200. So, right. I second that. Juliet did. Oh, boy. I'm changing up the process. We're going to get going. I'm the one writing it down. So,

she's writing it down, too. I'm all about changing it up. you're fine. You can change. All those in favor. Um, are we going to get a trash truck up there? what was the question? Trash. We going to get a trash truck up there.

Don't go up private roads, do they? Yes, they do. How that works is if you have a subdivision, you have adequate turnaround, the trash, the people who pick up the trash in your town will come up that road and and pick it up. But you have to sign uh something, a release or something or an application to them. Otherwise, they bring it down to the end of the road. But yes, you a road like that, I would think that we would have to try curbside. And it is it's in the ordinance somewhere. I can't remember exactly where to find it, but I know we've researched it on the it's not the first subdivision that I've been involved with and they will come in and there's something that you have to you have to sign something with the trash company uh that they're not responsible for the road or whatever. I can't remember what

they tear up your road. It's your problem. But you have to make sure the road is adequate for them and that they have plenty of room to turn that truck around and they will pick up curbside on a private subse. But if not, we'll have to take it to the dump.

We don't have a dump at the end of the road. They'll have to get it down to the end of the road. I don't know what they do with I haven't seen any trash. They don't. But that is available to uh private roads in town. You do have to set it all. I think everybody on the road has to sign. That's what it is. Sign off that you know not that the traffic company isn't liable or whatever.

There's some language there, but it is available if everybody wants that. So, we have a contract with a private company. Yeah. Pine tree waste. The new one that we just signed, right? Yep. And I have no idea what that says about

I don't either. private roads. But I have seen it. What if you have to pay? No, no, it's included in the contract. It's included in your property taxes. They're taking everyone's trash anyway, no matter where you put it. But if you sign off, everyone on that road, they will come in and you have to have it states that you have to adequate place to turn the truck and and you do with the tanner that you have that

I guess either way our standard is really whether it'll create a burden on our trash service. So whether they have to put it at the end of the road, not our is I guess not our problem, right? So the performance standard which is a little bit different than the approval criteria is says determine whether the standards met the board must find that the contract exists with licensed solid waste facility with that is in compliance with state law and has sufficient capacity for 5 years of disposal by the proposed use. So

it's a house laws are not going to upset our municipal waste contract. Yeah. Agreed. So I will move that the proposed subdivision will not cause an unreasonable burden on the ability of the municipality to dispose of solid waste.

Second. All those in favor. natural beauty. performance standards. Yes, there is. All right. landscape in its natural state during construction. Oh, and then after in Well, yeah, that's in the performance standard. It's on page 91.

Yeah. that where you're looking, John? Mhm. I'm assuming that's going to be the right. road of any water body, right? He'll access 450 ft. Open field of over 100 acres. right? Those fields. We have to be able to see the field. It's

how we're maintaining our rural character. We all love cows. On my grill. My grill. Twisted. no stone walls or granite posts or markers older than 100 years of age be torn down unless relocated. I don't think there are any, right? No. Yeah.

No plants in the federal endangered species be affected. No public right to access any water body will be diminished. alive for at least one year. Good thing about it's not a public road, you know. I mean, this is a dead end. There's no houses near.

It's actually it's a public easement because it was a county road that was abandoned and basically we all have the right. We're all It's a public easement, public access easement. when the county abandoned that road and the town decided not to maintain it anymore.

So would we we wouldn't call that a public road though, would we? Not a public road. It's a really nasty deep subject. It looks like from my looking around. Probably made lawyers a lot of money. Okay. anywhere? I saw there were cemeteries marked on the map that the state provided you.

It was an extra road over Yeah, it they weren't on the property. All right. for the most part. So the the one piece we were missing from our application was that copy of that letter. Do we want to table this one item until we see that letter?

Um market is incomplete. Well um yeah I'd also like yeah I um I'm kind of interested on the response back regarding those vernal pools to the state. Um, but if I am, you know, if that's the only issue on this item, then So, I think we got a couple things. We don't, we didn't necessarily have the letter.

Yep. Nope. And we have the black and white version that we're trying to guess the deer for the deer. And so, and then also um the letter, but also talking to them about those two vernal pools. Right. So, that's kind of a separate

What can you remind me what you were looking for for information? vernal pools. Um just to it says to um talk to the agency specifically about the vernal pools like the delimination they did when they found that significant vernal pool. Um supposed to relate that information to the agency

um kind of to tell them so they can update their maps I guess and check and stuff. Right. Right. And the fact that they have two on there, where's the other one? So verify. I don't understand that. I don't know. Maybe it's from what they did in the in the whole area, but the state only has that one on their records. That's the only one. That's where they get that information from. And that was a state recognized rental pool, the one that's on that lot on the right. That's why we moved 250 ft from that.

So that wasn't one that you delineated. That was one that was brought in from the state. He found it was on the state map as the only one on the property. I don't know what they're talking about with the second one. I don't know if that information was saying the state

said there's at least two that they but who says that they said in the D in the IFW's letter said there was at least two found in the Yeah, it's a pretty simple thing to take care of. So that it says that we strongly recommend that surveys for vertal pools be conducted within the project boundary by qualified wetland scientists prior to the project design to determine whether there were there are other sigma vertal pools present in the area. These services are extend up to 200 ft beyond anticipated project footprint because of potential performance standard requirements of the sigma pools. So

and then also even if we find them if we're 200 foot right our department will need to review and verify. Yeah. But that has been done by the surveyor, right? So we just we just send that to them and say, "Look, this is what we found."

Yeah. And then they say, "Okay, thank you." Yeah. Because I don't know how they would have established that. I mean, unless they physically went on the property, which they don't permission to do that anyway. So they must be using some type of variable in this wet.

So I'm unclear what more information you need about the vernal pools. So, um, per this letter back from the state, it says that, you know, a delineation needs to be done. So, we've had the delineation done, right? They found one SVP, one significant vernal pool.

Um, so they're supposed to once you survey and you find a significant vernal pool, you're supposed to go back to the state and say, "This is what we found. This is where we found it." Kind of you're confirming with them that that's

my guess is that that happened. They just haven't updated their database. So, the person who does these letters is not a certified wetland biologist or so soil scientist or anything. They're they're they're um you know, the people that work in the office and then they do these things every day, you know, I mean, all so my guess is there just a there's like a the layer of vernal pools is is not matching up with on that what what's out there. So, we'll I'll look into it. Yeah.

Yeah. It's just to to confirm what we know from our survey with what they have in their results and then for them to update and say, "Okay, there is only one. There's not two." Or for them to come back and say, "You know what? You guys missed this one." And then we can be like, "Well, we already delineated. It's not there." So they can update theirs. And so, you know,

that's what I was looking for for that piece. Okay. It's going to be a gray area, but none of it certainly couldn't affect anything that we're doing on that hill. If there is something else is down in that wet area that we're not going within miles of it.

I will point so so typically a vertal pool study by a qualified scientist trumps their map, you know. So, typically these things are done. So Barry kind of had a lot of this stuff done before and then you know he hired me and said oh you know as part of the checklist that so

most projects we'd start with this and then they'd have a vernal pool scientist go out there and and do this. So, path of do you need do you want like a written response from from my FNW on our end saying, you know, I don't know how feasible it's going to be for them to say to them to delete those two vernal pools off their general GIS map. I don't know if that happens real fast.

Yeah. Oh, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. Just something back from them or, you know. Yeah. No. I know they move slow. No, no, no. But, um, I mean, you guys delineated recently. You went back out and looked at it. Right. So, I mean, you've got new data.

Cincy did it and then Mr. Kavage went back and reverified the reverified it. So, yeah, you've got the data you need. We did it during this. I think we I mean I personally wouldn't hold anything up waiting for a letter from another letter from

I'm just saying I don't know what they're going to do to that. They're going to say, "Okay, you're you know, you know, I may get someone to say, "Oh, yeah, you're fine. You know, these things are just generally done as a as a cursory review that we do and and you you've already got this." So

I guess maybe um if we had sent the delineation report to them first and then they could have done this reviewed and verified the vertical I will say that's not part yeah that's not part of any town's really process. Um this is so this is a tool. So the why most towns have the uh IFNW notification the main natural areas notification is that's like step one right so towns rely on that to say if anything comes back then the applicant the burden's on the applicant to hire the specialists that are qualified to do these studies to go out and do it and then that trumps you know that's the follow-up study to this. So where we just where I just sent them the form letter and got the response back.

Yeah. The next step would have been the step would have been the step that Barry had already done and paid for. So I I see you know. So this last statement then is that something that you don't normally do then like send the verification information in? So when when they when the when a vertal pool is found as significant, there were forms that were submitted to the main D and Army Corps of Engineers and then that information somehow gets translated back to the main IFNW into the GIS database and they're not departments that that are right next to each other.

I see. So but the information you guys did was sent to the department. I'm assuming that that that had been done. Mark Censey certainly would have done that. Well, then if if that was already done, if this was already done,

but I'm not what I'm saying is I don't know that they ever really do anything with it. No, no, I get that. I get that completely. But if it was already sent, this part was already done. whether it was done, you know, recently or a year ago, right, than it was.

So, the what's what's sticking up, what's problematic for you, I think, is that this is a form that they they put into all their letters when they respond and say, "Oh, there's one popping up over here." I I guess I guess I'm a little confused as to what you need to see. you know, you have all the pieces,

you know, and if if if you can confirm that it was sent to the department and they received your SVP data forms, then then I'm I'm okay with that. If you guys can confirm, so like what a letter from the whoever did it. Yeah, I guess I'll leave that. I didn't I wasn't part of that part of the project. I'd like to say that, you know, you you certainly have the uh ability to

wave anything you want on this. And it does seem that I have done due diligence more than one time and and this has all been delineated by professional people and and rechecked and there it just seems like it almost something that could it doesn't I don't want to have that one thing held up. I I don't it's not my choice. what I was trying to say that I've done my my homework on this and

provided all the information I maybe we can skip this one and come back if this is the only one that sticks out you know then well I guess in my opinion I think that this the vernal pool all the vernal pool information that we have is sufficient so for me I don't think we need anything else and I guess it will be the rest

so why don't I make a motion or John can make a motion and it can get voted up or down and then we'll figure out where we need to go from there. Does that make sense? Sure, go for it. All right. Um, I move to find that the proposed subdivision will not have an undue adverse effect on the scenic or natural beauty beauty and the rest of the standards in approval criteria 8 because we have the wetland delineation. We have the vernal pools identified. we have letters from the relevant um state bodies and uh the reality is a very small portion of the subdivision is actually going to be developed and most of it will be left natural because of the wetlands and the buffer is required. So that's my motion.

I will second. Hang on. map part in that second letter? The which map part? The colored map. Just getting the the rest of the attachments, the two attachments that he was going to update. Yeah. Right. You can just maybe do that as a condition,

right? Okay. Submit. Totally. All those in favor? That'll be submitted to the court officer. We adding that to the motion or we voting on the motion as it stands. Well, I will add it to the motion at the end when we impose conditions. So, all those in favor the motion.

fine. No, I do. I get it. I get it. I really do. I I know you have done some due diligence for sure. I just I've actually paid two different people to do the wetlands on that property. Yeah. Yeah. No, I get it. I appreciate that. I just Okay.

Yeah, thank you. We should Oh, we have a lot of performance criteria that are not included in this. Dur I don't think Durham's comprehensive plan at this point is even in line with what the state is doing. So there really isn't one.

I'm not hung up on the on comp plan. I understand if it's legally challenged. It doesn't doesn't stand up at all. Not hung up on the comp plan as well. So it's a real mess. So yep. You can skip it. We'll come back to it later or are we just going to

No, at the end of the at the end of our conversation at the end of the rest of the criteria. Okay. All right. So, financial technical capacity. Yes. Uh not a line of credit letter, but uh statement. That's right. So I think he's this engineer's estimate is consistent with his estimate and his bank statement. Um

Is there anything on performance standards on this one? I'm right. It's 92. 92. Sorry. Oh, there it is. So, we have a letter commitment. We have bank statements. thinking that we would include was basically 12D and it determine that whether applicant has technical capac capability of the ordinance must find the applicant possesses thorough training experience or by retention of a professionals with such training experience and knowledge and expertises necessary to assure compliance. So my my thought was Mr. Baldwin certainly has tons of construction experience and road building and things like that. Um, and his engineer that he has had developed the plans, has the professional training um, and expertise. What I just wanted to be sure was that after this he doesn't fire us engineer

duo. If I can address that, I actually have built two subdivision roads in town that have improved and up and running, right? One being my own bridge road and I redid or got heel drive to a to a point where it could be approved by the road committee and engineered. Heel Heel

Drive. Who's that? It wasn't my subdivision, but I took over fixing the road to bring it to make everybody happy to standards. Yeah, it was a big mess. So, Oakidge is an approved town. It is. No, it's not a town. It's a private road. It wasn't my first and I didn't um quite a few years ago, but I built that road and it's still looks good.

It was approved by the planning board though, right? Oh, yeah. Yeah. and and the road the road road is approved by the road committee both those roads we don't necessarily have a road committee we do reference referenced

really who's on that the chairman of the planning board it's a mess and you know that when they're doing their ordinances doing all this work that needs to be addressed you know this it doesn't make sense for someone with no road experience to be inspecting a saying yes or no. You know, the road commission was on that. He'd be chairman of the only

select board, chairman of the select one, right? But that doesn't necessarily mean they have any road experience either. It's nice that they do. So they it needs to be this is this doesn't matter now. That needs to be readressed and it needs to be an engineer that have been saying it for years involved in that process.

So number 10, I move that the subdivider has adequate financial and technical capacity to meet the standards as required by this ordinance. He has submitted budgets for his project, financial statements, and has the technical capacity for the construction and has a licensed engineer under contract. Second.

Yes, I believe this is the one that flood pretty much shorland zoning. Mhm. More or less shoring. It's not right. which I don't think applies here but you do have a waterhed surface waters outstanding river segments the only body of water is the brook surface water

and it isn't really it isn't even a brook itself swing in the summer it's dry runs in the spring. Yep. Although is it considered wetlands right in those fields? Yeah. Right. The brook is actually shown on the plan. There's no building anywhere in here.

Yeah. I mean, you're you're a good there's a scale on there. Yeah. There's a 100 scale. Yep. 100 scale. So, I mean, you're 600 feet. You're 6 in from Yeah. You know, maybe the the building corner lot four's building envelope is within 500 ft. But

I don't anticipate anyone was ever going to build 30 18 ft down the road. But river front. Yep. I think defined in title 38 shorland zoning and I don't think that stream meet that criteria. No combined lot shore frontage and setback from the normal hot one. I don't even know what that means. That's lakefront lakefront lingo is for

don't think we have any any concerns here. So, are we considering this an NA or are we can It's all I want in this whole process for just one month. All I want I I would say or we or since there's in involved, are we considering

I think we at least need to find that it doesn't unreasonably affect the shoreline of the wetland. don't know. Where is it in here? Do we have it in here in our ordinance? Do we have anything talking about it in the performance criteria?

Yeah. No, no, that's pulled right out of state law. Right out of the state. All right. So, it's just in here. Yep. And that it's exactly what's in the state law. Okay. So, how do we prove that it will not affect the shore line of the wetland is the question, right? That's

Yeah. Of the body of water. I mean the building envelope is the building envelopes are all outside of the wetland. The road will be impacting the wetland. on our standard because which isn't exactly shor land because it says whenever situated entirely partially within a wershed of a pond lake within 250 ft of any wetland

great pond or river. Well definition of wetland is is the forest every every forest wetland would be a 10 acre wetland. Yeah. 10 acres with trees less than six meters. So it has to be like a heath or a marsh that can't sustain tree growth of over 18 feet or Yeah.

otherwise known as a wetland of special significance. Right. Right. Right. That's what they're talking about and that's defined that's that's in the sh that's the state shenan zone requirement title 30. But doesn't also have to do with size but also significant criteria. doesn't

like it like you can like a vernal pool right or something that makes it significant can also aside from size but the only wetland up here where the construction's taking place is just forested wetland which every property you couldn't find a I you'd be hardressed to find a piece of property that didn't have

a depression that had some wetland that's a forested wetland yes and in that case you can impact a tenth of an acre 43 fe without a permit it's exempt which you would be well under that with that little piece at the end so that's the trigger right There's the tenth of the acre thing I in my in my

and on that and at the end of that road that little piece that will cross would be wouldn't even be a tenth of that tenth of an acre I think. So yeah I mean my guess thinking I mean you might get 200 feet of impact impact you know when you you put your shoulders you know your shoulder and your side slopes out. So I think that is

that's what I think he's that'd be but this talking about title 38 is talking about uh fresh freshwater wetland significant right which I don't I don't think this is falling into those criteria. So we want to say general consensus not applicable before I make a motion.

Sure. Yep. So a scientist. Yes. Yes. Okay. All right. I will move that uh this project is not located within 250 ft of any wetland, great pond or river defined in title 38, chapter 3, subchapter 1, article 2. Therefore, this is not applicable.

Second. All those in favor? It was painful, but you got it. Hey, we only have two pages left. This be a quick one. Yes. Everyone agree? Make a motion. Hearing signing over there. Any determined whether standards been met. The board must find the systems design. It will be installed in performance with the main subsurface wastewater disposal rules. So basically it says you have to have a licensed permitted safety field

as our performance standard. So I will move that the proposed subdivision alone or in conjunction with existing activities will not adversely impact the quality of groundwater as the septic systems will be appropriately permitted.

Second. All those in favor? was? Did it even show on the Did we get a FEMA map of the flood plane? Mark show on your flat plan. Yeah. And this says here you got to be 3 ft above that with your lowest uh foundation floor elevation which we're way above

you'll be 30t above that probably which I don't know where that 3 ft comes from. Usually it's one foot above. So apparently Durham's 3T above flood plane elevation. the FEMA flood agency boundary maps and the elevation of this site, the project is not within the 100redyear flood plane and this standard has been met.

Second. All those in favor freshwater wetlands freshwater wetland there again being 10 acres or more Basically, this is saying soil basically this is I mean what it's saying is you're providing a map of them which we have

we have regardless of the size oh this one's from the state that's right out of the state command state I will move that all freshwater lands within the proposed subdivision have been identified on the maps and submitted as part of the application Second. All those in favor?

subdivision has been identified and submitted as part of the application. I move that is not applicable if there is not farmland within this application. Second. All those in favor. the wetlands to show on a map any river streams or brooks in the abuing abudding the proposed subdivision

statute. I move that uh the rivers, streams, and brooks within or abuing the subdivision have been identified on the map submitted as part of this application. Second. All those in favor? No. I know that your favorite subject.

Yeah. Yeah. I don't know how you're going to handle that one where application is still out. So I think that has to be a condition is that um this won't be condition application will be providing a copy of the main D site location permit.

So what do you call not site not site location it is a storm storm water. Sorry, I almost put the wrong words in the thing. Before beginning construction. Uh before is it before building construction or before this? Before we sign it.

Well, before we before we give him the mileer to record, right before final approval. Oh, yeah. It's usually the language I hear, but Okay. I don't know what you've done in the past here with conditions. How do we usually say it? Sometimes they take months to get that done. That's what's going on with that deal, Jason.

Uh yeah, depending on the shutdown, you know, I they can take up to 90 days, you know. So, and they haven't even they just started the clock. So, and then if there's a shutdown, that all gets put on hold. So, so I mean from as soon as you have it from the state, it's a matter of going to the code enforcement officer to close it. We won't have to come back before this board, I think, is the situation we want to set.

Complete with a condition. Yep. Condition of approval. Okay. Sound fair enough with that? Yeah. I'm sure you can get a hold of Calvin. you have a copy of the application that was submitted to the state? you have an a bridge copy in in that packet and the the actual application until I get verification that my pre-application had been accepted.

Then I then I can put the full application in. So it's like a two-step process. You don't get a copy of the pre-application. You get a copy of the printed application once that they've accepted my preapp request. So it's almost like you you meet it and you you go over it and they look at your calcs. It's like a It's like a vetting process for the site and then they say, "Okay, put the application in." And then it's it's to save them. They put that in there because it's to save them time on the back end. So, theoretically, it should go quicker that way.

subdivision will provide for adequate storm water management because it will have a main D storm water permit. Second. All those in favor. shore frontage. This is shoreline zoning which we This is the spaghetti lot provision. They don't want lots on the lake being five times longer than

wide. So, right. I will move that there are no lots in the subdivision that have shore frontage in river and stream on a shore frontage on river stream or brook great pond or coastal waterland that are spaghetti lots. So this is not applicable.

Second uh oh it's not applicable or it meets the criteria. We don't have we're not on a river stream brook great pond close to wetland. Okay. So it doesn't matter whether they're spaghetti lots, right? Okay. Then I'll second that.

All those in favor. subdivision crosses municipal boundaries will not cause unreasonable traffic congestion in respect to the existing public ways and adjoining municipality. Did we not have a phosphorus thing? It's on the next page.

Okay. Crossing any municipal boundaries. So I would say I will move that the subdivision does not cross any municipal boundaries and therefore this provision is not applicable. Second in favor. You're wrapping up those nonlicables.

out of the state. So, this is the one we're waiting This is the one we're waiting for the storm water report. Yep. the run pond? water at most at risk. Water most at risk, right? we can say that this is acceptable with the main with the conditions for the main D permit,

the stolen permit, right? And it's also the life of the proposed subdivision, which should include like pesticides and stuff on the lawns. But I think you've got enough of a buffer before you get to Libby Brook, right? any standards around phosphorus in here, do we? That's right out of the state statute.

I know it's just phosphorus usually requires a vegetative buffer. The state statute doesn't have a lot of info. Usually it's that 50 foot buffer is what they're looking for. They used to do structures and then nobody ever maintained them,

right? They've gone to the vegetative buffers. So you've got a lot of vegetative buffer there. Mhm. Unless people are going to put lawn all the way down to the down to the stringy wetland. which I can't see that's gonna So, um I'll move that the long-term effect of this proposed subdivision will not unreasonably increase the Great Pond's phosphorus concentration during construction phase and life of the subdivision. It'll be appropriately permitted and has substantial wooded buffer.

Second. All those in favor. the state standard, All the cutting I've seen is just relatively irre looks like it was cut off about 30 years ago, but that's long before this rule ever applied. Mhm. when this is kind of a weird standard the way it's written because it's like we're we're trying to make a determination about timber harvesting and violation of rules that aren't necessarily under our jurisdiction. their main force service

rules. Right. This because we don't have our own timber harvesting provision currently. Right. Right. But and it's not referencing our timber harvesting provision. How long have you had this property? Oh, Wow. violation and he's owned it for five years

You ever had a violation from the main forest service? No. Okay. No, I actually last time I did cut wood if they filed an intent to cut permit and got a notification certificate to cut wood. How how long ago was that? Yeah. So, he's well beyond this.

And that fiveyear rule is so that people can't go in and buy a chunk of land, strip it, and put, right? Which it's done anyway, but it shouldn't be. I don't have any reason to believe that Mr. Baldwin is being untruthful about having violations with the main forest service.

So, is that a motion? Sure. Put that in the form of a motion, please. I move to find that there's no evidence to suggest that the parcel has been harvested in violation of the main forestry rules. I'll second that. All those

in favor? criteria. We're back to ours. motion? the deer wintering? mean, for my sidewalk, I'm not really concerned about deer wintering areas up there on the ridgetop. Yeah, you get most of them in the fall anyway. the black and white map,

right? Well, if you actually look the locust map on the on the plat plan and extrapolate that information to that black and white map that I I they provided, you can see that that it doesn't overlap that the whole wintering area is south of the Granite Hill Road and all of Barry's bald run is north.

Yeah, I'm fine with that. I will move that this project will not have an adverse impact on spawning grounds of fish, aquatic life, birds, and other wildlife habitat. Shaka. All those in favor? want me to make this motion?

Go for it. All right. I move to find that this will not cause noise, odor, glare, or vibration to disturb the peaceful enjoyment of adjacent property because we're only adding eight residences, maximum of eight residences.

Second. All those in favor. place an excessive burden on the ability of town to provide municipal government or educational services. Again, we're only talking about eight houses. It's a private road. How many kids could they pop in that way?

Not near a school. There's actually formula someplace in the standard. I saw All those in favor Yeah. Well, number nine and I think that encompasses some of our performance criteria that we didn't hit. Mhm. road construction.

Yep. So minimum 50 ft public and private streets paved to town standards prior additions to the first building permit. Pavement should be a minimum of 22 feet 20 ft for private roads. add in that condition was that Mr. Baldwin would submit copies of his gradations in compactions, which is all of this age 84 stuff about what the active base would be. Um about the compaction piece, uh would just submit those documents to the code enforcement officer.

That excuse me, that is already in the ordinance and that has to be provided to the rule committee prior to their inspection of the road. submitted with the application. So here's the problem I have with that. before a road is accepted by the town, your road will never be accepted by the town. So that whole road committee piece is mostly talking about before we accept a road for as a town road. When you read a lot of those pieces, at least that's the way I read it is those pieces are only the road committee only goes out and does that before we recommend to put it on the warrant to go to the town. But they had the last two roads that I mentioned that I built Oakidge and Heel Drive needed to be inspected and all these this criteria you're asking about had to be provided.

I know. And then this ordinance has been revised and chopped up by various people. Oh. And I and I think there's a little bit of a gap and that's why I I just want to close that gap. And it sounds like you're on board with doing it.

Oh, yeah. Right. You know, and because you said you did it before, so you're expecting to do it. So the process, right? I'm just trying to tie it into the process because I the way I read our standard, it talks about those things in the same provision where it talks about it being accepted for is a town road.

So where did we wind up on paving? So that's a problem area in my mind because it does require require over three. But I can understand Mr. Baldwin's desire not to pave a road to connect to a gravel road. You drive a mile of a gravel road to get to a paved road,

right? To me, it seems to look I think if you if a if a purchaser really wanted to live on a paved road, they wouldn't be driving up there anyway. So to me it seems like it would be but do we do we feel like we that's a provision of the ordinance that we can

override at this board. It is a provision of the backlog ordinance. I don't know it it doesn't address anywhere else in the in the submendments or anything strictly audience is a very small article. It I mean it does say

three lots or more that all public and private streets and roads in the sub subdivision shall be paved and then private streets serving no more than three dwelling units may be left unpaved and we have eight here. So it wouldn't have to be paved right away but it would have to be paved.

But if you look at the sub that's what we're on. Yeah I am. It does. It actually says it in two different places in that paragraph with the exception of paving. Well, you're on heat, you're under the back lot, which is not under subdivision. That's back under that's back under land use page uh back lots

page back subdivision stands by itself, right? Back lots not part of the subdivision. That's it. And basic I I've dealt with it for years. I could pretty much quote what that says, but it basically says that you the back lots everything has to be done the same as if it were in a subdivision.

Yeah. Minus the paving. Yeah. Minus the paving. And that is uh page 27. 20 27. Wow. Pretty good. that's what I use on a regular basis when people come in to get a driveway to a lot. That's not a subdivision. Not under subdivision. No.

same criteria of of a normal subdivision with the exception of payment. It says more than one backlot may be established on the 50 foot rightway. Uh two, page 28, you start at number two, it says a legally enforceable right ofway may be used for more than one single family backlot if the following conditions are met. And then these are the conditions below it. So if you're just doing one back lot, it's everything above two. Once you go to more than one back lot on a 50 foot rightway, it goes to these conditions must be met. And it tells you you got to build a road minus the paving. You got to build a road to uh figure three, which is on page.

Yeah, but this is in the backlog, right? Right. Superision. Well, that's the decision you guys have to that's the land use ordinance. Right. So, I think either we've got either that county road is not a private or public road in which case you don't have access or and it's a back lot or

it's a subdivision and not a back lot. And I don't think we can have both ways. Well, the road the Granite Hill Farm Road, it's already been established that it is a road fronted road according to the DUR and it said that in those I don't know I gave you those clips where I sent it to the road commissioner that's been dealt with and approved. I actually um have been approved to get building permits on the lot before the subdivision before the power line uh by the planner board. my son owns that lot and that I can pull one billing permit now on the other before the subdivision on the Granite Hill Farm Road because it is deemed a road frontage road and it says it says so very clear and there's even a conversation in that clip if you watch where they say well uh how do we

uh how do we respond to whether it's a road frontage road or not and it says and the code enforcement told him he said it's in the ordinances is the town attorney says it so and if we don't follow what the town attorney says why are we paying it

right so I think what Ann is saying is if in fact it's a road frontage lot then it doesn't qualify as a back lot so that it it isn't a road frontage lot anymore that that road is a road frontage road I don't have if you read the road frontage uh the back lot ordinance if you don't have sufficient road frontage on that road then you if you have a rightaway you can create back lots. That's how that reads.

So you lost me somewhere. So why do you think it's a back lot? Because I don't have if you read the back lot ordinance if you don't have 300 ft of road frontage on a town approved road. No, a backlot is defined as a lot that does not have frontage on a private or a public road. That's the definition of a back lot.

Right. So, but you're telling me you have frontage on basically a private or discontinued public road. I have 50 ft of frontage. I have 50 foot rightway, but there's no minimum on this. No frontage. Not enough or basically not I think it says somehow not a if you don't have sufficient.

So, where's the right what's the rightway that you're talking about? The 50 foot rightway. the 50 foot rightway. So that's all I own on Granite Hill Farm Road right now is the rightway. So either you have a rightaway or you have frontage on a road. It's not both.

And that's what I'm trying to figure out. The right I have a rightway and the rightway comes from a road. He's trying to say currently right now all he owns is between my two fingers on Granite Hill Farm Road and that these two parcels which encompass

all of the frontage on that discontinued right away are owned by another entity. So that this is the only land that he owns. Right. Correct. Yas any road really subdivisions that way. Yeah. any rightway if it were off right off the main road here the same thing

as long as that road that we're talking about Granite Hill Farm Road has been established as a road fronted road all you need is a 50ft rightway to go in there and create back lots right but you have well but if it's back lots

but it's not a back we're doing back lots then we just did the wrong criteria checklist so I think it's a subdivision this is a subdivision application so I think that trumps the back lot because is a little bit more restrictive than the back lot. Well, and the back lot just says you have zero road frontage. Not 50, not

it's I think it's not sufficient or something. I don't know. No, it just says does not have frontage period on a private or public road, right? So, either we require asphalt or we ask for a waiver. We can't wave it. No, we ask DBA has to wave it.

Okay. That's a variance. Who wants to wave it? the zoning board of appeals appeals board. I mean and the other and if precedence means anything he'll drive the same thing. Those are all five acre lots in there. It was done in the same manner. They had no road frontage on on panel road except the 50 foot right.

Right. But did that go to subdivision planning board? Yeah. What's that? Was that part of a subdivision? Did it go to planning board? Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah. Went through subdivision planning board. Oh, yeah. I mean, even and I don't want to tell you how to how but there are people who dealt with that. As a matter of fact, if someone wanted to call uh the previous chairman of the plan board, Rush Jabbo, he dealt with that over and over and been dealing with it for years. He can explain that.

because if it wasn't I mean that's the idea of the paving. If I were going to pave it, they'd all be 90,000 square foot lots to be able to afford to pave it. The idea of not paving, you give up more land. you do a 5 acre lot and there are other rules in there. It has to be 300 by 200 uh rectangle on that row as part of that 5 acre.

there has to be 300 ft of rightway. If you, you know, if you want to, I don't blame you. If you want to run it by the town attorney or Russ was a chairman of the planning board for years, he dealt with all this stuff. I mean, he knows it by heart.

Yeah. Well, Jill, you've seen it. You were on the planning board. You've Yeah. So, I guess the issue is if you look at the the lot we're looking at. I don't know where my lot we're looking at has. So, this is the lot you're developing.

That's your subdivision, right? No. As the application came in, he doesn't own He doesn't own this and and the one piece down below that. Well, this is to be deed, not is deed. It is needed. That's a done deal. Okay. Well, that's not where your

plan is the on the And either way, it's still part of the subdivision five years. just playing uh finding a solution. would the zoning board of appeals typically wave something like this? Has that been done before? Variance, right? The variance. I mean, a variance is really hard to get.

You have to meet all four criteria, which is almost Yeah, it's very difficult. The other option is you wouldn't have to build, you wouldn't have to pave it until you've got three residences in there. Get the board of selectmen to change it at town meeting. I mean, we've been talking about changing it for exactly this reason,

right? Is people don't want to come to subdivision because it's expensive to pave. And right I mean the problem is is it's we've sort of there are a few others that we've it sounds to me they were using that backlog ordinance exactly to get around this.

Oh yeah absolutely everybody. Yeah but it doesn't make sense. But that's the way that's why we created it that way and that's why that five acre lot you give on one end you you you are forgiven on the paving but you give up more land. You have to you can't do 90,000 square foot lots. You I could put, you know, a lot more lots in there if I wanted to go that route, but I just this is the simplest way to get it done.

uh confused about the ordinance or how they conflict that a simple u call to the town attorney for for an opinion. the Granite Hill Farm Road anyway. So, if we want to ask an attorney. Yeah. Or perhaps not the current town attorney, but they're

I we had I've had that conversation going on, too. They're um Why would then we can do that. Wouldn't you ask confus on that one? Did he have the same town attorney or No, Kurt retired. Right. But the uh Jack Conway that was Yeah.

Jack Conway doesn't do a lot of municipal law. that's up to you guys. No. What do you want to do with that? I I would I certainly would I would feel better with the backup of the review of the town attorney confirming and then we'll use that going forward.

Either it's either it's a backlot or a subdivision and what the status of Granite Hill Farm Road is. Right. And he would have Curt Weber's um opinion. Yeah. Um but Curts wasn't Yeah. Curts wasn't as definitive as it's been characterized.

our backot ordinance has changed too. Our backot ordinance has changed. How does uh can I ask how does the drill had said one time that the minutes the recording of the minutes of the planning board meeting become law and the previous planning board had dealt with that and through much I mean it wasn't a simple thing believe me I fought it for years just to to deal with it paid my attorney they you know it was very involved and they finally come to the conclusion as if you reviewed that tape it was decided that that it is and it is

a road frontage road for according to the Durham ordinances and that I am at this present time allowed to pull a permit the lot that I sold or gave to my son and one on that existing. So let me ask you this. In what context did the planning board decide that?

What do you mean context? What context? Did they have an application? Did they have a conditional use permit? Did they have something in front of them? Yeah, we actually there was confusion on it. If you look at that whole tape, it was uh I came in for uh back lot ordinance, a a permit for a back lot and

two back lots actually. And through all the conversation, it was deemed that they are not back lots. They actually gave me back my application money for the back lot and said it is a road trusted road and you can pull a permit. I look at Joe because she was there. She she was a vice chair at the time on the planning board and I'm sure she remembers this stuff is didn't just happen in 20 minutes. I fought it for I say fought it. It was a struggle for for years to

come to terms with and I didn't push it for a long time but finally it all came together and there been conversations about it before but they determined at a meeting and that conversation ensued that well do we someone on the pl said well do we have the right to determine that as a roaded road or what I said it isn't up to us the town attorney has agreed the code enforcement officer agreed If we don't take to heart what the town attorney says, why do we pay them? That's just what it says on the date,

right? Well, and again, the town attorney's opinion doesn't say this is a road frontage road. It was a lot more squishy than that. I mean, you provided us the opinion. And also, at the end of the day, if the planning board didn't have an application that they decided on, their decision doesn't mean anything. So, if they had decided on this subdivision, that would be binding on the town. If they had decided on another permit, then that would be binding on the town. But at that point, it's really just an advisory opinion.

But they know they did decide that it was a road frontage road. They made that very clear. That was very clear. And Nope. I I understand they made the decision, but they made it it was basically an advisory opinion because they weren't issuing a permit. They weren't making that decision.

Pull permits. I could pull two permits, right, in that meeting. But that's the that is they didn't issue. So we have control over conditional uses and subdivisions and back lots and things like that. We don't have control over building permits. So that took it out of the planning board's purview. And so all I'm saying is if we're asking for a town if we're asking for an attorney opinion on whether this is a back lot and has to be paved, I'm going to throw in Granite Hill Farm Road as well.

work anyway and they'll take into account what the planning board said and what your lawyer said and what Kurt Weber said um in the past. So, who are we asking this question? Well, there's a particular lawyer who's an expert on roads. I would recommend we ask him and I can't remember his name right now, but I can find it. But that would have to get approved by the selectman.

has been the piece about this plan that has always had me nervous. I just don't want to create something that's going to be a legal challenge back on us. Well, and a maintenance challenge. A maintenance challenge. I mean, my fear is everybody plays nice now,

but as things get built out, problems develop, and that's just the way life happens. So, you know, the folks put in homes here and for whatever reason, they can't even get up Gran Granite Hill Farm Road because they don't have an enforcable easement or right or whatever. And private parties wind up fighting this out down the road because not everybody's playing nice. And that's that's my concern. But the way that road was discontinued by the county commissioners way back when allows that right to all abutters. That road is discontinued but to the use of the abutus.

Yeah. But there's been like looking at the history there's been like three state law revisions. So apparently it's not clear because the state law has been like revised like three times recently like around this issue. And I'm certainly far from being a lawyer to be able to say for sure that we have all of that. Only know what I read from the internet.

request an attorney of the select board's choosing um perhaps with recommendations uh to give us an opinion on one the status of Granite Hill Farm Road and two whether this needs under our ordinances whether the road needs to be analyzed under either the backlot road provisions or the subdivision provisions. That's my motion.

Second vote. All those in favor. Can I just ask if they decide that it's a backlot then is this application void? I have no idea. Okay. Well, no, because in the back lot ordinance that all other conditions, it's to be dealt with as a subdivision. All the other rules is a subdivision. The same thing with that one exception, the paper. It says if you read that back lot on, it's by itself. It basically says you have to follow all.

We still have a backlot. Do we have a backlog ordinance application? Do we have a specific application for back drive? Yeah, those are all vehicle lots. Not that I've ever seen. Hey, does it fall under conditional use? No,

it's just under the um I mean the other thing is either way this falls under the state subdivision. We'd have to review it under those criteria. Do they have rules about paving? No. Well, do we want to finish going through the other performance criteria?

We can. I'm trying to figure out where everyone's head now. Right. My head's I hate this. And if I hadn't promised Mindy, I'd stay. Promise is a promise. if this it's going to be a major. What do we want to make sure there aren't anything else? Any other issues or questions we might have so that next time we know what we're looking at. I don't know. That's my only

Let's see. What else do we have? So, we've got the road that we just talked about. Maintenance agreement. Road maintenance agreement. Groundwater protection. No, we did that. harvesting flood plane. Not doing a pud. maintenance right now? Wait until we know what the stat road. Yeah,

that's kind of right status of the division. So, go after the road. Jill, do you have a copy of the letter from Barry's attorney and the letter from Kurt back those years ago? Cuz that'll make it easier for whoever's reviewing this to know where they're starting.

I wasn't the secretary. Um, Did you have copies? them. Yeah, I mean Barry showed them to us, but I was just wondering if we took copies at that point or have them to provide to whoever is going to give us the legal opinion.

Um, that would have been something Debbie might have done. Enforcement had them, but I don't want We can look I can look in the folder. Look in the Okay. Yeah. or Barry, do you mind providing them so we can give them even sure which there were number of letters, but um

application? We just saw them. We didn't get them. Yeah, I'm sure I do. But that's Yeah, you uh actually when you decide what lawyer you're using, I'll provide him I'll have I'm actually going to contact my lawyer and have him providing whatever information he has because he's the one that dealt with it.

Yeah, that makes sense. I made to do this already. Y that makes sense. Happy to put him in touch with a lawyer. I need to know who you That makes The other thing is Russ Jabbo I believe was chairman during that period and he kept a humongous file

um of all the work that was done at his house. So he may still have those letters Mindy. Okay. that was done because he handled most of the phone calls. I'm sure my lawyer has all that more than what I have. As soon as you provide me with

Yeah. the name of the attorney of your choice, my lawyer will contact me and provide him with whatever he needs. Let me see if I can find the guy's name. Jim Cat's Fus does a lot of road work. Who's the other guy? Well, either way,

Jill and Mindy with some suggestions and whoever they decide to use, that's ultimately up to them. There's also a guy in Auburn who was pretty famous for dealing with discontinued roads and that kind of thing. I can't remember his first name but underuffler is his last name. He actually when I was selecting another planning board went to the ad service

days he uh provided talks on discontinued rules and that kind of thing. First time I ever saw a lawyer get a standing ovation from a room. It was very very informal. table this till when's our next meeting? August 2nd. August.

Okay. Move table. Wait a second. All those on paper. my mind very soon or very slow? Yeah, I'll look through my email tomorrow and figure out what the guy's name is. Um, and I'll email the board of selectment tomorrow. I'll copy you on it, too, actually. Uh, do we have I don't know that I Jill must have your email.

Next planning board meeting, Wednesday, August 2nd. Applications, nine separate packets due no later than close of business, 4:30 p.m. on Monday, July 24th. I will very likely not be here on August 2nd. That one's yours.

Good luck. Oh, good. End of We have put notices out there for alternate planning board members. So, okay. Uh 7 7 o'clock. Motion to 7:00. So the second all those in favor couldn't figure out what I was doing. Meeting adjourned.