TranscriptPlanning Board Meeting ~ Wednesday, July 13, 2022

and so i i see alan pinkerton i see julia i see ron i see wes i see me that's five people and i believe we have a quorum so we've determined that amendments to the any amendments to the agenda next one acceptance of the minutes of prior meeting june 1st 2022 anybody have any changes to last month's minutes

west saying none we'll move on to uh we'll accept the agenda and move on to all right sorry that was the minutes informational exchange and town officials george did you want to say mr yeah just to give the board an update on some of the things that we have going on i did meet with the conservation commission on the resource protection district uh revisions on may 26th and uh the that has two parts the first part is to correct errors within the existing resource protection district that are based on outdated information in inaccurate mapping and phase two or part two will be to look at adding areas outside of existing resource protection that meet the same comprehensive plan resource protection criteria and that split has been approved by the select board for putting on to the next town meeting warrant and the we've asked the greater portland council of governments to possibly do a citizen survey on the

town's website that would be an opportunity to gain public input on that issue uh i have prepared i know those folks are planning to public meetings and i won't use the term hearing but public meetings and i've prepared a database of all the properties that are affected there are total of 480 out of the 2000 parcels in town that would be affected by those zoning changes last year or this earlier this year for part one which was on the last town meeting there were 360 property owners that we sent out mailings to and there are an additional 120 that would be affected by the second part of that could it stop you just so what we're talking about for clarification so we're talking about two parts both parts will be on the are either separate articles or voted on the same public or town meeting okay and so yes you're right we have discussed doing some informational meetings right after labor day to try to get

public input on that i'm also working with the historic district commission on similar overhaul of their program and they are looking at me preparing a report that explains it all and provides the background for how we got to this point of their proposed overhaul and they too will be looking at having public informational meetings on that so we may want to coordinate the the three different tracks of what the conservation commission is working on what the historic district commission is working on and what the planning board is working on you will recall we had a workshop on june 8th and at that meeting you decided that with all of these other pieces of land use changes going on uh you would focus on the new affordable housing law which requires zoning changes on density in durham and so we can maybe coordinate some of that with those other initiatives on the on the land use ordinance changes that are

coming and we also talked about on the roads yes you did also in uh decide that you wanted to give another crack at the back lot driveways to allow those to be not have to build a road for a single house uh putting putting that back on and one more interruption for you george when i went before the talent as flexman in may they asked that we consider a verbiage that said acceptance of a private road would be only at a town meeting to me to clarify that was i think that came up as a hot button on at the town meeting so acceptance of a price a private road so if somebody came in 10 years or something yeah somebody came in and said you know our our roads are all hecking back we want the town to take it over the approval of the if there is an approval would be through at a town meeting not make it clear it's not the selectmen or planning board who approved that wasn't that part of the roads issues so

and we tabled that for now right that's part of that whole road it was but we we were and again we don't have to but they asked us to to take a look at that uh just to provide some clarification because right now it's there's nothing that says how you get a road accepted that seems like a simple there's no road except there's no road acceptance policy taking that piece out and putting that in the warrant it would i think it would be an ad the way i think i just asked us to look at it yeah if and if we did it it would be a statement that said private subdivision roads or whatever we're not talking about changing the name of private to whatever it may be but those roads must be to be accepted by the town has to be voted on and approved a town meeting so it's kind of a simple which has been which is the case oh yeah yep so last thing i would say is that you at the june 8th workshop suggested that you need you

asked me to put on an agenda of the planning board a discussion of the public outreach and so that is item seven on this agenda which you may have thank you that's it for me okay uh residents and this is your opportunity as residents to speak about things other than the project before us so there will be a public hearing uh two agenda that is down to talk specifically about deer creek crossing but this is any other planning issues that you want to talk about outside of that project

non-residents who want to talk about it we'll move on to continuing business and this is the completeness review and as somebody said we started that last week there were two items or several items excuse me that we asked to be looked at at this meeting and um i will kind of turn over the initial presentation or review to mr thieberg or our planner so you did on june 1st issue a letter of incomplete application and you identified seven deficiencies in the application for deer creek crossing the first being the location map which did not meet the requirements of the ordinance the applicant has submitted an updated one which added some information uh you also pointed out that under section 6.7 c3 the parcel corners are

supposed to be monumented and that was not done there i did not receive any information relating to that other than uh requests by the applicant through their consultant to possibly consider that as uh to do this all the monumentation at one time which i'm assuming would be a preliminary approval condition is what they might be looking for another issue was the judgment of the prior property owner uh was went to court with the town and that violation was settled and and had brought up that that summary judgment is a potential encumbrance of the property that needs to be clarified and documented so that was another issue again did not receive any input from the applicant on that item the test pits for all of the lots have been submitted so they meet that submission requirement and they did provide a new aerial photo overlay of the plan showing the vegetative cover of the property to address that issue

they have identified on the location map the location of the 36 inch culvert under hollowell road on that feeder of dire brook and then finally they did submit a new plan with the flood plain along that portion of the brook that just enters the property so at this point the board will again need to make a decision of completeness and i did include in your packet a draft letter of incompletion on those two issues and i did suggest to the applicant consultant in an email three options for that dealing with those last two items one would be to provide the documentation secondly would be to make a case that those two outstanding items are not germane to the substantive review of the subdivision and could be waived or thirdly to present draft preliminary approval conditions that ensure that those outstanding issues will be addressed as part of the final plan review so i did provide them with those three options

and then if the board determines that you feel comfortable that the application is complete i did include a draft completeness letter as well so thank you so as a quick summary the ones that the uh that are not that are up for discussion tonight well first of all we're up for discussion on any of them uh but the two that are in question tonight are uh items b and c under the town planner's comments so does anybody have any comments on other than you know a and a and then d through the rest okay okay just a couple questions um the zoning districts so i see resource protection on here and then do we show the rest of the zones somewhere i see aquifer protection are the rest of the zones is this where they're located they're shown all on here okay all right and then the culvert so there was one sound just one because it asked for adjacent so no others even anywhere near the brooker no the brook kind of comes down it only

crosses the road once there is one under the temporary crossing that's that's a 15 inch culvert yeah it's noted in the application it's not shown on the plan so and it comes out when you and they're planning to they've said that that was quite remove it so i think it should be shown right if we're planning to remove it but i think it's shown as a note okay

wetlands and water on this property so i think knowing where the culverts are is pretty crucial um just based on review of any impacts and anything like that so we know of the one the 36 inch there's another one that i hear is mentioned but not like shown on the plan it is if you look at the i think there's a demo note that says this culvert will be removed so there's a no it's on the it's not on that it's not on the site layout it's on this on the either existing conditions or the demo and or the yeah it's on one of the plans okay

yep okay where the where the culvert is yeah the second one it's right right to see where the driveway crosses the stream uh go up up up your right up up to your right yeah right there right there right here yep right here okay

anywhere where the culvert is located i forget which drawing it's on but i remember i remember writing it up and talking about whether or not or when it was gonna be removed and okay i mean am i the only one that has this concern of showing where it doesn't bother me because it's coming out i mean so i guess what would be your concern about it so why are we taking it out is it doing it it was it was a bad it was a like when they logged it there was a logging crossing so this whole this whole side every wetland you see here is essentially a byproduct of the loggers that came in and they cut a swath down the middle which is that little drainage area that you see there they put a smaller culvert than they should have right there at the crossing that we're pulling out which is flooded everything up of that so that so the covert in question is the one that was put in um here yeah uh yeah so yeah so that whole crossing is coming

out yeah so i think what we are being that's where the wetlands split where the where are those wetlands here there's a split in the wetlands right there yeah so when you take the culvert out it's actually going to increase the wetlands sure yes there you go saving the world so i mean there is going to be a change right there's going to be an impact from removing it's not an impact any wetlands well like i think it's more of a restructuring or arrested if i understand it the crossing goes away the culvert goes away and there's a new crossing a new culvert and these are all questions and you've considered the new the impact of the new crossing the new culvert yep that was a question so yep

bigger one downstream to the 36 inch and we're going to pull the log crossing any other questions on a and then d through g i guess it is getting get into it start skipping b i'm going to have that as a separate question or discussion 36 inches one more question about that so it's an existing 36 inch and then you're keeping it as a 36 it doesn't need to be increased or anything the culvert that stain you're removing one yeah does the other one need to be the downstream one yeah no so that's that the whole that that's that's what the stormwater quantity report is is showing that we don't increase our storm we're not increasing our runoff leaving this thing

questions then we'll go back to we'll go to item b in your comments questions on um the corner marking of the corners my i would um and recommendation on what we do uh the fact that there is no money payment monumentation that george gave three options i think that can we waive that george well so i guess let me clarify if you look at the survey plan included not this just the existing conditions just just hold tight for a second let's let us do the discussion and we'll get to and you'll have your chances sure yeah i think that any any item is waverable in terms of submissions even though so we have a section that says waiverable is that surveying it's not in there yeah i think you're right that's so that is not waivable i would recommend not waiving it but just allowing it to happen as they suggest and have it be a precondition yeah okay that's kind of where i'm falling on it too yeah i don't know yeah and i guess i guess i

don't know which corner pins are missing from my reading of the survey all the pins are there there's one area where the fence and there's a fence and a stone wall and i've spoken with the surveyor and he used some fancy word but the way that he chose he chose the more conservative of the two lines and he ran with the fence line rather than the stone wall i think i think the question is not not that one that's a so where that pin is but otherwise i think all the all the surveys they call out a pin or a rod or an iron or something on all those on the new when you subdivide the parcel i think that's the question are the and mr the bars can correct me if i'm wrong but the have you pinned the corners of the the proposed no this is julia you you picked this up in your review i believe it's the corners of the existing parcel yeah okay being proposed for a subdivision and those become reference points yeah

for everything that happens within the subdivision right and is it is it not monumented because of those questionable title areas and and whether or not yeah yeah so again the surveyor was saying that these went back to like the early 1900s these property lines and so use some over this if you appeal this all the way to the main supreme whatever the main court those are the lines that they he's like i'm very confident these are the lines that they come back at and say yep is our best understanding of how you read the deeds and how he interpreted them so he has to put those flags in there saying you know nothing's 100 there he he brought the lot he made a lot as small in in the areas of of discrepancy he chose the inner lines that the only thing that if there was ever somebody to come and complain about it the only way that it would go would be towards more land for subdivision rather than

okay see what i'm saying so i do there'll be more open space if everybody ever ever challenged that property line they'd be challenging it to give us more land which and so at the end of the day what you're asking to be part of this project is already pinned and in per the dark line on the other hand and the issue and there's a corner there's one corner i think it's that bottom left one or the middle left that there's not a surveyed pin it's it's the two fence lines where they tie in and he's saying you know what i would suggest is that that pin be put in sure when this goes this is approved and you put all the pins in they'll repin everything they'll put that corner so so before he draws they draw a building permit at what point i guess do we want to do this to the board do we want to do it approve approved it preliminary final well what would you plan to put it i'd say he'd pin that he'd probably pin the center

line of the road and all the corner lots and he might as well do all those at the same time right off the start once all the approvals are grouped yeah once it's approved that'd be the first thing that'd be the first thing that'd be the first thing okay typically a final plan implementation condition um the documentation of all of the individual lots has to be done typically done as a condition of final approval okay i turned to others on your thoughts on that and i i'm quite sure that is a requirement because i know on other subdivisions some of the had to be pinned prior to issuing a permit so if if the building inspector is issuing a permit he has to confirm that that has been accomplished but we're talking about two different things here we're talking it sounds like it yes we're talking we're talking individual lots they're asking for the approval to do the corner monumentation which is different at the same time that

they do the other i understand that but obviously the the separate properties are going to be marked later that's definite and we're saying that any points that aren't very clearly marked will be done yeah what it is is that i hear it the points around the perimeter yeah have to be marked right now as a condition of approval you know that's in the zoning but we're i think we're suggesting that we can make that a condition of approval and get done when they pin everything else yeah i mean i don't it sounds like there's some there it's just in the ordinance we just have to remember what we're doing here we can't wave this it says we're not waiting we're not waiting waiting with me we're never gonna have to do it so this is talking about completeness review right this isn't talking about project review so this is like what needs to be done to call it complete so that's the waiver what we're saying is we are waving it

for completeness review we're not waving it for project review and i'm i don't well no i guess waving i would say you don't have to can you hold on i'm not saying like it's that big of a deal sounds like there's a lot of monuments out there but i'm just saying that's what we're saying here so we have to remember what we're doing and maybe we need to make a change to this at some point if it doesn't make sense to have it this early on so we need a waiver for the completeness of the application that's what these waivers are for precondition for the monuments to be set prior to final approval no no sound right no i i don't think we can wave this i think it's more like i don't even know what we're going to say that it's a precondition but don't mention waiver because it doesn't list that we can waive this correct so we have to use another word besides precondition of approval i mean uh based upon your

many years i think you can do it as a as a preliminary you can make a decision on the completeness that that will be a preliminary approval condition right i think you can do that b uh barring any other discussion yeah and on this the specific part in the zoning ordinance says that you know find it complete it needs to be a standard boundary survey of the parcel given complete description descriptive data by bearings and distance made by survey professional land surveyor which all that's been done and it does go on to say the corners of the parcel shall be located on the ground which has also been done and marked by monuments so to say that one area is not yet marked by a monument and we're going to so they have something like you're saying they have submitted a survey plan meeting the requirements of the ordinance but it is not it doesn't meet the standard so you can determine completeness

and then when you get to the substitutive review you could deny the subdivision on the basis that those monuments are not there and they're required by the ordinance so again this is just to say is there enough information for the board to make a substantive review of this project yeah it's true right okay so we're that is number b or letter b and then any other discussion i have one thing sorry on the clearing limits um so i think george you said that they were on here is that right that is the applicant's response on the issue of the vegetative cover of the property not being showed in the subdivision plan so i see the um in the legend for approximate edge of tree line is the squiggle line i think that was for the surveyor i think i replaced that with an actual picture oh you can now see the tree line okay so you're just saying that what's on the aerial mm-hmm like you're just saying see the trees the tubes are there

yeah i guess the complaint was that you couldn't see what was the existing tree line i guess that's part of the ordinance that you show existing vegetation yeah what does it say regarding that sorry um 6.7 point c 0.13 13 13 yep vegetative cover plate type

number of acres within the proposed subdivision location of property lines existing buildings veg cover type okay clearing no i did the clearing i mean that orange hatch up there shows you the clearing yeah okay okay then i guess that's i'm okay with that you might just want to next time just remove we're not showing the edge of tree line yeah in the legend yeah right yeah so on the the 67c4 is the issue that happened on the site is that a potential encumbrance that's what ian indicated at the first completeness was that being completely resolved it is not a potential i talked spoke of the town manager and he indicated that the select board has received a payment from the property owner of the fine ordered by the court the site has been substantially cleared to the point where the town's select board is satisfied with it so it's been resolved as far as the select board is concerned but typically what happens with these things

is it then goes back to the court and both parties come in and basically get a summary judgment that this is over that was what dan was saying needs to be part of their documentation and so mr applicant do you know last time that had not been or had not been recorded my understanding and you might be able to correct me is that can you about bring whoever is talking you want you want or max when you guys don't be shy dean had sat down with the manager and signed david signed a piece of paper payment that it was fulfilled okay now we agree with that part the question i think is have you gone back there is a legal document in the county courthouse it was supposed to get filed this is what the town manager told mr lane okay i don't know this no no one is well the question is is it the town manager that does this or the lawyers for the two for the people involved in the lawsuit yeah right generally goes if you

tom manager just signs something in my opinion that goes to the judge that says you know it's clean it's been done and the judge just says i don't know what the right summary judgment and that has to because somewhere on your title i think there's the issue here is there is an encumbrance that says you you you can't do anything before they could take payment there's a piece of paper that the manager signed the current land owner signed and not 100 sure if you got otherwise or not but then they were supposed to file it i couldn't find the original one two or three months to deposit the check so the okay what does the ordinance require the ordinance doesn't specify anything on this other than that they are required to to reveal any easements or other encumbrances which they've revealed and except if this is an encumbrance they have not revealed this encumbrance yeah what it specifically says a copy of the

most recently recorded d to the parcel which is done a copy of all deed restrictions easements right aways or other encumbrances currently affecting the property and chime in you may i i'm remembering back now that i did a deed search for the property in general i don't think any original uh filings were ever made so as far as like going back and changing the filing i don't think they ever recorded the original so there's no one i guess what you're saying is there's no numbers yeah the title search has been clean and i included the clean title search with my application so i'd beside the title it was kind of hard to get an encompass removed if there was never an income i'm asking it's never recorded so it'd have to be like a lien put against them yeah sure and in our we have the title search which came back clean so i i don't know what else to and does the title search as of whatever like

it was after the payment was received but does it take that it takes a little time right that's what i'm saying so if it's never been recorded there's still no charlie you did include in your supplement a title search i'm assuming that's what that is and does that anyway address this and and i think you're connecting that with what you're saying tonight is there's title attorneys looked at it and there is no encumbrance is that what your position is that's what i'm doing can i just clarify did you look at the title or did you have a lawyer a lawyer look at the title i did my own searches trying to find it using the entertainment deeds but actual lawyer did a title search can you give us that i think we have the title search it's in your package i think it's supplemental okay which uh but a lawyer looked at that the lawyer did that okay the lawyer made that not you no no i did a separate one just out of my own curiosity and i

couldn't find any okay so it's in this packet yep okay what's in this completeness back here no it's the title cover title company has that done by a lawyer lawyer reviews them well that would be the title on the page um first american title insurance company

we go john right here at the right thing here oh okay it's the only thing in the package it's page 22 of 31 in the company women date was june 14th 2022 so there never was an encumbrance on that particular not that i could find and the issue was was resolved to the satisfaction of the town because we were the ones who went after them so the the

outstanding mortgage which everybody may have then rights and easements granted by dewitt into central maine part one i'm sorry i'm just trying to find where you're at let me see if i can find that with page number to that page we'll unfortunately it's schedule b part two if you're looking for the top one so those let me go back a page make sure i didn't miss anything real estate taxes that's all kind of

against the property it would be on schedule b part two exceptions continued and i don't see anything there encumbrance in the legal term of put on the on the uh on the board that's my understanding as well yeah this would have been filed in was it like march that's what i would have thought but no i when was it it would have been filed the original i don't know it was before i was involved okay the board sucks stuff

there is no looks to be no official encumbrance and the issue was resolved to the satisfaction of the town there's any disagreement then why i'm falling on it as well it agreed so the last meeting an assumption was made that there wasn't in fact a encumbrance that something had had been recorded against the property

completed or not i think we are if somebody wants to make a motion that it is complete or not complete i will make a motion to find it complete okay oh sorry sorry sorry what did you think of this so i i thought i had seen that sorry guys look at 22 um c22 so it does say showing clearing of veg

sorry so in the ordinance under this plan c 22 c 6 7 c 22 yeah i think i don't have it right in front of me do we have the aerial that supposedly shows all this isn't if any opening she just has to be preserved or common areas to be created in the general description of proposed ownership

22. the area of each lot where existing force cover will be permitted sorry minus says 22. okay so that i think is shown on that plan up there in green correct those are the parts of the logs that are being cleared and developed okay so wes i think west had asked last time that just for like uh reference what is 20 000 square feet of clearing look like on each lot and i mentioned in the last meeting that none of those are i think over 18 000 and they all show very buildable lots and you're asking i think what you're trying to get at is you want to see the existing conditions tree lines underneath that

that's necessarily required but it i can see how you i mean before we get into a long discussion about it yeah do we have a cop i don't have it right in front of me george do we have a copy of the ariel that you reference in your comments it's right here but remember you just talked about it there is no tree line so it says it in the legend but there's no tree line he's saying that you can see the trees on the area that you can but what i'm what i'm saying number 23 asks for where are which of these trees are being cleared so we know from there the lots that are being cleared the green but what else is being cleared like the road obviously what else well the trick the 23 specifically says the area on each lot where existing forest cover will be permitted to be removed and converted to lawn structures that's prolonged another cover in any proposal that's it so i don't know that is what sorry that

means 23. yeah okay no you're right sorry i forgot i didn't see that part okay so all right we have a motion i believe yep and do we have a second tell a second okay we have a motion by ron that is complete second by west that it is complete with the requirement that they have to whatever we want to call it that we will note that the monumentation will be done as part of the conditions of approval for this the additional monumentation of the corners okay so that's right it's complete and that there is a can a note that says the additional monumentation will be done

what it must stick at what level would what before they get a building permit before will be decided we'll deal with okay forget that okay i have a motion a second on that with a note and all in favor please raise your right hand it looks at passes 5-0 so we have accepted completion all right and so the next thing on the agenda is um the public hearing and so i've asked mr uh the planner to go over the rules if you will on public hearings so yes john and you know obviously since i've been helping the planning board we're kind of implementing some new procedures and trying to systematize things for better organizations and efficiency so what i did was i went to the bylaws which were adopted uh most recently back in 2006 and look through there for the procedures for conducting a public hearing and in your notes i just simply reiterated what i consider to be the key points of that the first one being is that it is uh we

have posted and advertised for this public hearing tonight as required by the bylaws uh and that the chairman basically presides over the public hearing and uh he has the authority to make a determination whether any testimony is considered irrelevant to the application being reviewed by the planning board and that decision by the chairman can be challenged by any board member making a motion to have have certain testimony that the chairman deems irrelevant actually admitted into the record and the board would vote on that but otherwise the planning board chairman has the authority to determine that testimony being given is irrelevant to the consideration of the application he also has authority to set time limits reasonable time limits and under the bylaws there is uh language about opportunity of every party to rebut testimony that's given so i think the intent of that is to say that the

applicant should be given an opportunity after public comment has been submitted to to respond to that public comment uh with information that addresses it either rebutting that it's not accurate or asking the board making an argument that it is so they have an opportunity to rebut it and then theoretically a a member of the public would have an opportunity to rebut that information and obviously you could get going back and forth back and forth and the idea i think and what i discussed with john was just to keep it organized and streamlined and get through this in a reasonable time frame to simply give the applicant an opportunity to respond to the public testimony and then give any member of the public who wants to respond to that one opportunity to rebut and then that would be the the end of it so i've suggested procedurally that the

public be given opportunity to give testimony and submit evidence and then the applicant be permitted to respond to that information that's provided to the board and then give members of the public that spoke in opportunity one opportunity to rebut whatever the response of the applicant is then close the public hearing and move to the substantive deliberations by the planning board and during those substantive deliberations after the public hearing is closed the planning board can ask questions of members of the public who did speak or the and or the applicant so it doesn't stop the board from getting more information once you close the public hearing the intent is to focus on whether the application complies with the standards of the ordinance and the requirements and it's not to debate town growth management policies which are set at the town meeting the planning board is required by law to follow the

ordinance whether it agrees with them or not that everyone has their due process rights protected and to be able to support any decisions that are made by the board and also to meet the statutory deadlines for review and decision because as of your determination of completeness tonight you have 60 calendar days to render a decision on the preliminary plan application so part of the reasons for limiting the public hearing public input comment in the way that's prescribed in the bylaws is to ensure that the board is able to meet those statutory deadlines

when people the public speaks is it does people have to introduce themselves or just say that for the record uh their name and address and i did neglect to meet uh there is in the ordinance a definition of what an aggrieved party is and any member of the public can speak but the ordinance makes a distinction between a general member of the public and an aggrieved party and under the the land use ordinance a degree party is someone who suffered suffers a particularized injury by either approval or denial of the subdivision so theoretically the butters could be directly affected by this or someone could make a case that they are in a greek party because they would suffer a particular the fact that it affects everybody in town the same uh is not a uh indicator of an end of a grieved party any other comments on that no i will just summarize my thoughts on what george said so we'll start with questions

comments by the public the applicant to the we'll get a chance to reply to those and then the public will get a chance to reply to the applicant's reply we will then shut off the public hearing that'll be it from the public and it will turn over to the board at the same time during the public hearing it is for [Music] the public's input so i'd ask the board to let's hold our thoughts and comments until we get into the board discussion and for everybody any questions or comments are directed to me and not the applicant not to a particular member of the board or or otherwise and then i will uh ask the applicant or a particular board member or mr thibars to do it so direct your questions to me and i will direct them to the appropriate responder another matter and determine relevance or and determine relevance well i won't direct it if i think it's irrelevant and again it's about this project so

in in this project in particular not town policies or whatever it may be so is your guy re returning yes okay well he shouldn't be here i was gonna let them have the yeah yeah he's gonna respond so it's it's the public's opportunity i understand that but we don't want him to hear the question uh he's the hair okay so who if i guess we're at the public and please i said nate name address and and um

please that table would be great way i want to follow the protocol i'm kind of shy so i might i know and it's mr iverson no irish irish i can scroll down yeah okay two l's and an e i'm a resident of the timber oak association i'm and i will be talking representing the association i hope i'm the president of the association okay don't ask me why but i am so i've got basically three questions um

you can communicate this to to the developers one is i've spent twenty three years out there and i have walked those woods more than anybody alive probably ten thousand hours those 22 years i know what's back there okay um the two monuments in question that affect timber oak are at the corner of the northeast corner of our property along route 9 the monument marking the common land the 50-foot common land inn is missing every other monument and these were done by a surveyor in bowdoinham brian smith in 1987 not some buddy 200 years ago okay

um the monuments have been capped by brian smith's for the most part you can check them yourself i know where everyone is and they're all present along that line all the way to the back of our common land except for the one on the road the other one in question um is on the southwest corner it's um and i worked for surveyor when i was in high school but my wife and i went out there and did a uh and i will admit that the line follows a set of granite posts that we use to separate fields that are straight as a laser all the way from john peeler's house right out back and the back southwest pin is in a tree

i swear to god it's in a tree and you can go back and look at the the history of the development timber oak and brian smith names this tree and it's still there so white pine or hemlock it's probably this big it's not as big it's in there it's red and it is in disagreement with

the monument that's there presently by about two feet this way and about this first surveyor that's a lot i would expect it to be within an inch you know i mean back when i was using tapes and level rods and everything else and you know i i surveyed all the land down in phippsburg around the basin we were a mile away if we were more than an inch away from a pen buried in tar we had to redo it so there's something back there and i know you were talking about monuments and i know this is probably not going to be a contestable issue with us but if it's going to be surveyed again let's do it right okay the other thing i want to know which how the numbering goes on those on those homes i could find if it was in the small print i couldn't read it even with a magnifying glass so which is number one which is number two which is number three because there are a couple of lots in question with respect to wetland

and the third if the developers are running into trouble with the d.o.t in terms of lining up exactly with patriot way to provide egress across the common land those 50 feet not beyond that because it belongs to peggy kelly what she's

with the developers and negotiate so that they can line up patriot drive straight across and not diagonally as is um charlie and i talked about this before um as a possible as a possibility and i want i want the developers to know that as an association we are willing to negotiate with that in good faith

there we just want it done right okay and some other members of the i don't know everybody gets a chance yes yeah okay that's all i have to say okay thank you the association that wants to speak please step to the mic all right thank you alan uh derek simkowitz 23 timber oak

jerry how drive you spell your last name s-i-m-k-o-w i-t-z so i have concerns um regarding the road and the drainage we bought the property two years ago and since then we've done a lot of work to push the standing water back off of the property uh we've done a new leechfield uh significant work to the property and my understanding talking to charlie is that he's given me

in his work my concern is directly across that road is a new house being built by i believe one of the applicants and i think there's a conflict there of should this work be peer reviewed if it comes down to hey whose yard is going to be flooded there's a conflict you know they're directly across that road from us and my concern is you know we're gonna be dealing with draining drainage issues that we've spent you know twenty thousand dollars to address and so i take you you know i take everyone at their word i don't think that conflict is meant to be negative but i'd like to see some level of peer review with some of this work to give me a level of comfort that a year from now we're not gonna have an issue on our property i wanted to get that uh in the record okay good night thank you we'll we'll we will answer them as we as we get there so okay

chairman okay really quickly are we if we have a question about their comment like what they will do we'll do that when we get to our our part well we have the opportunity to to clarify uh any questions i have tim rock drive and i just have one question section 6.31 requires the planning board to verify the timber harvesting was there anything done on cars verifying the timber harvesting that occurred during the within the past five years i know there was timber harvesting done i spoke to our zoning enforcement officer when it was done he said there's nothing we can do about it that was his comment they had grinders in there and skitters in there and i just want to know if anything would ever count any comment was ever checked on that okay you okay

anybody else not with the association that would like to speak hollowell road and i have a comment and i have some process questions also where we have the opportunity to speak right now about public comment and so part of like the completeness review we don't get the chance to speak before that but if if we have an issue with the completeness we don't get that opportunity to say that before you vote on whether or not something is complete so the reason why i'm asking the process question is that next you're going to move into reviewing the criteria and so if we have issues with some of the criteria are we going to get the opportunity to speak on some of those issues before you vote because perhaps we're going to bring up something that you didn't think of no

um i don't feel prepared i'm sorry i should have waited to answer no but no okay thank you okay so um first my comment is that i would love for the board to consider in every decision that they're making that you're the first and last line of defense for the town and the rural character of the town i'm not against this subdivision um like mr irish was saying i think it's just really important that it's done well and correctly um you know you guys are the ones who make the decisions about what happens in the town and what the what the landscape of the town is going to look like and so i'm asking that you just keep that in mind as you're making the decisions that you're making especially um in terms of buffering so that was one of the things that i was going to bring up if now was the opportunity to speak about the criteria when you get to the buffering portion of the subdivision if you look at

subdivisions that are already done um you know they're set back off the road i think the current ordinance says 50 feet even though the comp plan ahead of that says a hundred feet set back 100 foot set back right so are you going to make your decision based on the comp plan are you going to make your decision based on the land use ordinance if we're talking about 100 foot setback they don't have that so because they don't have that and it's a straight shot in for the people that are living along the side of that road i think it's really important to consider buffering i know that over on ruby lane they put up a complete privacy fence going in to protect the property along the side and the gravel pit that they've done they've planted abravade the whole way and so in order to maintain the royal character and i know they don't have they don't have the buffer off route 9 but i do think to protect those

properties around it you really need to what the town voted on in the comp plan and consider buffering in those decisions um judgment while we were sitting here um i very quickly went into the registry of deeds and found that a discharge has been recorded in fact in the registry of deeds it was um written on the 6th of may and it was recorded on the 9th of may and so with that being said i think it's really important that this board does its due diligence and not taking an applicant at face value and require the way the ordinance says that they provide proof it wasn't hard for me to get that information and charlie said that he looked it up i was able to find it while we're sitting here so i'm asking the board to please make sure that you have evidence of the things that you're requesting and not just take the applicant at their word um in terms of the survey the tax map says that this law is 41 acres i think and

the survey and i don't know if this was addressed at the meeting that's why i was asking if i missed a meeting in between um and if it was addressed i apologize the survey i believe is about 53 acres which happens to be the tax map plus the amount of acreage that the current landowner wishes to keep i would like to reiterate the third party review um we're missing landmarks and that's a substantial amount of acreage found and so when you're addressing that part which was part of the completeness part of it that you know i was thinking while i was sitting here i think it's important that the board again does its due diligence and requires third party information

figures and whatnot are all accurate because the tax map has been charging the land owners of this property for however long on 41 acres and now they're coming to you and telling you that it's 53. property and this line right here i have a survey of this property that includes seth's land and the coordinates and i'm not a professional about this whatsoever i did try to find out um but and what i understand is that when you're on a line one part of the coordinate is the same and then the other part changes i know i'm not articulating this well at all but what i'm trying to say is that mr irish is right this is a laser line and there are granite stones to market the numbers on this survey do not match the numbers on the survey for the property that exists right here and so again that's where i'm asking for that third-party review um because those numbers don't match

does that make sense what i'm saying i think it does okay thank you um i know i have more i was hoping your answer was going to be no to the substantial substantiative part of it oh this is one more thing so when the board's making the decisions that you're making um i would like for you to also please consider that it may not just be the applicant that's interested in appealing an application that when you're making your decisions that you're not only worried that the applicant might be the one appealing but that aggrieved parties or other residents of the town may be the one appealing an application and so while you're making your decisions just keep that in mind that if i were to find something legally not binding as we saw at town meeting i don't have an issue bringing that up and i think that's all i have for now thank you okay thank you anyone else

no relation to heather um pinkham brook road just one quick you mentioned that every time you bring up your name yeah well i always try to just so no one thinks that we're really same thing at the town meeting i didn't know if there was something personal yeah no i just don't want to be associated with them um so i'm also on the conservation commission um so the vast majority of my comments are going to be about the resource concerns that the conservation commission has um if i have a differing opinion than what the conservation commission says i'll caveat that before i say it uh just a little background on myself not that anyone asked but i'm a wildlife biologist and i used to work as environmental consultants so i've delineated several thousand miles of stream and thousands of wetlands so it is uh comments from someone who has a lot of experience with this stuff um so first off someone uh i think david

brought up the david brought up the timber harvest and uh you know being able to request that some information is given either by the force the master logger certified professional logger forester who was responsible for the plan prior is something that the planning board can request it sounds like from today's discussion that that wasn't requested i would encourage the planning board to request that um just based off of the site walk that we all had the other a couple months ago i saw activities that are in violation of what forest operations are allowed to do for example if you put a culvert in a stream that and you put dirt on top of it or scrabble that's considered a permanent prop crossing and you can't do that without filing for a permit all permits are publicly available and i went online and did a search to see if there was a permit filed and there never was so whatever was done there that primary access

there's no record of a permit being issued for that road so that's just an example why i think it's important to get that sort of information because you do have the authority to request it um the other thing is there's a couple of skid trail crossings that align a little bit with the road that's going across that are near areas that um have water percolating out of the ground indicating that it's at minimum intermittent drainage which would be a stream that's protected under the forest practice act and seeing us in the town of durham we've adopted the statewide standards for the forest practice act uh there is certain regulatory implications for impacting the bank or the bed of that so i just think it's one of those things where since you have the opportunity to request that information and knowing from the sidewalk that there were things that on the face value look to not be done properly you should request that

information the planning board and this is the feeling of the conservation commission the planning board has the opportunity to uh request a third party review for all wetland delineations for subdivisions we would encourage the planning board to do that um based on the fact that the subdiv that the wetland delineation was conducted outside of the growing season without boring you with the details in order to classify something as a wetland you have to show proof of hydrology proof of hydric soils and proof of a hydrophilic vegetation community it's hard to do that when the ground's frozen and everything's dead so generally speaking from my professional experience when we would do delineations during january february march november december anything october through the winter we would consider it a recon delineation which where we'd say we think that there's a wetland in this general vicinity let's come back and ground

proof it later or a lot of times it would just say we know that this area is very wet we recommend against utilizing it so we would not recommend someone build in a footprint where the delineation was done outside of the growing season because it's just not really sound science in terms of uh accurately measuring the existing resources that are there uh you know especially because our winters are pretty harsh sometimes it's not sometimes you can shake out a dead fern and figure out whether it's obligate wetland species other times it's just mush so that was one of the major concerns of the conservation commission additionally resource protection so we know the site has existing resource protection where the improper stream crossing is right now obviously this is going to go in this is proposing a crossing in a different area but we just want to encourage the planning board to really make sure due

diligence is done um when crossing resource protection you know resource protection does not allow for many of the things that would have to happen here without special permits so for example um backlot access road access lots and stuff like that have regulatory issues with the town if there's resource protection and seeing as this is a heavily impacted thing this isn't you know putting in a woods road and doing a cut and then leaving this is something that's going to get daily traffic for in perpetuity it is going to be a pretty significant impact on resource protection which we feel is a little bit outside of what the design of resource protection is trying to accomplish so we just would encourage the board to really get a lot of information before deciding that it's worth impacting in the resource protection area and then the other thing too is i don't know if it's on this plan but one of the

plans was showing um storm water drainage and collection feature near uh within the resource protection area you know the we as a conservation commission just think that that's not necessarily a very good practice um you know the storm water is that being collected off of the site it's going to have any sort of chemicals and things like that that people are applying to their lawns is going to have the salt and to deposit that uh in a area where we have resource protection we think kind of uh is counter to resource protection and what is intended to do for our town you know those resource protected areas are designed to be that last vegetative buffer to protect water quality as things are moving down towards the streams and protect all of our other resources so impacting that in a way where you're just deliberately you know moving effluent off of the site we don't think is a good uh good practice and you

know i think that it's important to look at like precedent and if we say yeah you know we can resource impact resource protection this time you know future developments um might say well it's been done before in durham why not do it again it doesn't seem to be an issue uh to end on a positive note the conservation commission thinks it's really great that the um open space is associated with the open space of the parcel next to it that's a really good way to build habitat connectivity and we just think that that's a good step that developers can take when they want to um uh you know try to maintain the rural characteristic of the town and there's a lot of ecological benefits to that um my only other question was when we were on the site and this is a personal question now not conservation commission there was a bunch of equipment looked like a gravel process and stuff like that and having that removed was a condition of

the lien on the property the select board had said it was removed and then we went out and saw that it wasn't has that been removed that's just something that i would say that the planning board should inquire upon so those are all my comments okay happy to respond if anyone has any questions okay well you'll get a chance to reply to the either are answering it or the uh application replying to it so let's go back and i appreciate this and then so mr applicant if you would like to reply to their comments and i'll kind of steer you to those that apply to you versus uh might be the staff or a planned commission question so the first question for mr allen was monuments there were two locations one and i think it's a discrepancy one the monument was missing i guess it boils down to the accuracy and a couple of questions on the accuracy of your survey and there was a monument along route 9 that was not there

and a pin on it on a tree that was a different monument than what your surveyor put in so your comments on that he said about the pin i don't know if he said it was different he just said that's what's there so i don't know if that's what we assumed or if that's i don't know that the way i understood his comment was that i don't know if he was confirming that that pin is there or he was saying okay i think he's explaining that hold on just a second mr allen i got a question about your question so there are two you have two comments about the monument uh the monuments here first i guess combined question was there's a monument missing along route nine and you said that there was a monument stuck in a tree that you may please

i will reprimand him a second one two three four that i don't know that that was failures so we're looking at um wait a minute stupid either let's see timber oak has and these are all brian smith 1986 bowden hams and halibut surveyor has been for years he's still there um i don't know when it disappeared but somewhere in the last five years that pen disappeared along with nine um and it wasn't in the last year before that um so this is so this this pin

is this is a kelly's probably right here so we have 50 feet follows no stone wall falls lines of telephone poles almost like a laser beam there's an old stone wall you can you can find pieces over here and there that pin is missing so this 50 feet from here to that pin is what i was saying that the association would agree to allow egress over that so they can align that with patriots so you could get that exact perpendicular alignment that the d.o.t wants and we're willing to work with you on that we want this to work um the other one though that uh being a kind of uh

oh no where's our land this is seth and this is john so where's the granite wall right here okay so this is a laser you know whoever did it i mean it's barbed wire in it that can be dated back one day it's the 1930s you told me you looked at the barbed wire you could tell me how old it was but they have laser straight and most of them are still there and so when you extend them out beyond and you look in a straight line i was looking for that back monument i couldn't find it so i came down here one day a few years ago and she's amazing the time you have when you're retired

in place it was you know it was uh five years ago the reason this round in interest of we've got a lot to cover tonight so your question your concern was well i think that the tree which is still there has got a nail buried in it with a bread it means something okay now if i'm the tree and i look down i can see those granite lines and i can see the going back on your back on where it's going and i can see three and a half feet away from me a little bit to the

and a little bit to the the hell would it be with you know with uh the previous or i don't know who owns it now but boom right there and it's not in the right place so if you take a 915 foot back line you cut out a triangle is could be what's the discrepancy i don't know what the difference is 50 acres 60 acres okay i'm sorry no that's not we're not going to do it that way so with your question and i don't i don't mean to be but i just want to make sure we understand your question okay i understand and so the question is is that one pin is missing in an area that you're willing to work with the applicant the other question is is that what you think should be a corner pin and what they have recently pinned are different i don't think the association would ever contest that but i'd like to get it right okay what was the survey or i ask who is this brian smith how to vote yeah but yeah let's let's

let me call time now one yeah addressing to me and i think the question is that we need to resolve is uh admit and ask the applicant if he can answer that tonight what's the question i think the question is which is the more accurate or are you do you need to go back and determine the accuracy of the pin in the tree versus the pin you put into the ground right and i guess i'd fall back on what my my only context or reference is having spoken to our surveyor his process and the way he determined what he felt like that was the the law binding and if they people wanted to appeal it and that's then he's fine with that but that's that is his best assumption where that line is now from what i'm understanding i think it's it's it's consistent with what i said that that's we've assumed less land than he's saying there might be so if you use your line the association the timber ben gets more land yes oh it's actually the butter

over there to the left okay well that answers of compassion okay i'm not sure we're gonna be able to answer that tonight sir that's is the question so yeah if you would just mid perhaps maybe give feedback on that particular question okay the the second question mr allen that you had was on you wanted to see something with big lot numbers on

in uh together there were some questions about what land invasion or whatnot i just want to know which two lots of work and i didn't know how they were numbered so i i just okay yeah i think i think i could probably tell now because there's only two lots that really have a lot of wellness in the right in the corner of that that turn here and i tweaked these lots since the last one to give them more space there's some wetlands in here that i pulled this lot line further that way and would you would you ask charlie which which one is number one this is lot 11 this is lot 12. and then i moved i moved lot one all the way i got that that is another change lot one was down here and i pulled it all the way up and left that would would change that numbered one essentially counterclockwise it's all the overall site plan yeah okay thanks okay and then the third i guess was more of a comment than a question

that you are willing to the association's willing to work with uh the applicant can negotiate uh something that they might need is that fair to say 50 feet we want it to work and i hope i don't get shot by other people and associated with saying this but i'm pretty sure that we'd be willing to talk about in exchange for perhaps some noise and light buffering along that border that that heather mentioned that would be duly appreciated you know since the line the actual ditch of the road is the property line right it's just 10 feet wide the roads 25's another 10 feet so if we could negotiate with them on that in good faith in exchange for that that would be kind of quick okay all right when i leave that when we're finished with all the public hearing and questions we'll have our own requirements for that for them to do that and you mentioned is it going to be a requirement to align better with

patriot way we'll know that better as we go through the process and should the board say you've got to align it better he has someone that he can talk to about doing that and and negotiate the the okay i've actually spoken with peggy okay we're good we're good i can't respond no i mean you're willing to negotiate right i just wanted to further respond to the comment about the easement okay that the other abutter directly up the road has also agreed to give us an easement further allowing us to to drain that area which is i guess in in okay now we're getting in into a discussion you're bringing well i think would it inform your developer that the association has bylaws that are very strict about what homeowners do in terms of changing their property okay and so that's that's fair and we'll get the opportunity to to clarify questions as we're going there but let's just kind of stick to the the question at hand not

a property that wasn't was it can that be realigned or something can do you know i think charlie was trying to say it kind of has bearing on that and we'll yeah we'll get into that uh uh in a bit well i mean when we have this whether we need to realign it and all that stuff so okay so that's uh the hoa in general uh mr simplest did i get your name correct i'm sorry darren derrick did i get did i get that part of it your question was uh you were you were concerned about drainage coming from the new subdivision onto your property and flooding that and you asked us to do a peer review so i will take this opportunity to address peer reviews we will discuss the is part of the getting to the preliminary plan approval we will discuss the need to do peer reviews and so we take your comments concern about about drainage alignment with the state highway and excuse me patriots away and all that stuff so

we will we'll get to that before we get to preliminary approval and there's several view wetlands and there are other issues that brought that up so that's for discussion as we go through this so were there any questions because when i was speaking there we'll get when we get to that point we'll get to the opportunity for you the board to ask you questions about whether it be that or other things can i reiterate my question so everything is covered you i think you got the spirit of it but i think there is a conflict because one of the developers is on the other side of that road and you know when the when the work is done push comes to shove you know i would like to have someone kind of representing our side of it and that's the purpose of the peer review i mean i understand what you're saying thank you mr chairman i'm sorry just process here so we're asking all these questions and the applicant is answering but the board

we're going to come back again and ask if you have further questions on a particular thing just clarification we want to do it that way versus ok okay so next person next drainage peer review mr griswold you had a question about timber harvesting and whether it has been done and in general there were a couple of questions about things that had been done by the what is now the land owner but the not owner so if somebody violated the the gentleman who and mr three bar can correct me if i'm wrong but somebody owns that land now who is different than the developer so the damage that was done whether the culvert was put in improperly water is not of a bearing on this particular project and you'll get a chance to reply to my reply does that make sense so when if they harvest it illegally we'll get to the we'll get to that in a forester review is also something that we're going to discuss here on the road but i think we're fair

to say that we would like some indication or formal sign-off from a licensed forester state forest or whatever it is that says i believe i included that okay no uh we'll talk about that whether it's acceptable or not okay so we are going to bring that up in our discussions because i guess what i'm saying here and everybody'll get a chance to weigh in on it okay so that covers mr griswold

um general discussion about completeness for those of you who may not have been here last month remember what the first vote we took today was whether something had been submitted so whether the site plan had been submitted they paid their applications they had all the things that are sales reports and all that stuff during the substantive discussion which follows the public hearing we will get the opportunity to uh decide whether what they submitted was was wrong or not acceptable so that is still to come completeness is simply that they they gave us it required a site plan and they gave us a site plan required a survey they gave us that's what we're doing uh last meeting of this meeting

i'm sorry but i'm going to really follow the rules you get a chance to reply you get a point she has to reply to my reply you get a chance you'll have a chance to ask that question after it is right now we're going through the questions you'll get a chance to close but public hearing hasn't been closed but i'll go one more time it was the public we're going to talk to the we're going to try to answer your questions as best we can if you don't like the answer from anybody you get a chance to reply to that reply and make a clarification and make a clarification the public input at this point we're not taking it all right

you'll get a chance to ask for a clarification okay you get a chance to come back up and and ask that but it's not a comment i understand that okay it's not your turn to talk i don't know any other way to say it i'm trying not to be grumpy about it but it's not your turn to talk and you'll get a chance to get another turn to talk okay so i want to do this as friendly as possible but we kind of set the rules out at the beginning so it right now we're we're not taking that second phase so that just the completeness thing the vote was that it is in fact completeness i note your comments and and i think that everybody on the board shares your desire to make sure that what is approved is is good and that it our standard is what's in the ordinance so do you question about whether we follow the comp plan or the ordinance our requirement is to follow the ordinance so what applies on the ordinance

okay a buffer along route 9 the question is 50 versus 100 do it you know we're starting now that's not to say that we won't ask for something but the question about whether or not we follow ordinance uh or or whatever so we certainly can negotiate or say there's a particular interest but the the minimum standard if you will that we are required to enforce is the ordinance um i don't think whether on the title issue i don't think we took the applicant at face value it we looked at a title which is a legal review of what was in there and that the information that came up was not there so we didn't trust him he provided a title search that it wasn't there so if it was submitted after that title search or whatever it may be so we didn't take him at face value is what i'm trying to say on that um we discussed whether we're 53 versus 41 we will take a look at that in our our peer review uh and charlie maybe you can address

that now yeah i don't ever put any weight into tax maps my property new gloss was off by half and it just okay i can best i can do is go with what the server is the certified the survey okay peer review we talked about completeness the survey we discussed and as to who can appeal i'm going to turn to mr debarge to say who can appeal a decision in the grief party and agree party so you have to again there's a definition on what the degree party is i mean you can always appeal whether it's accepted by the board of appeals or not if i is whether or not they they determine that you didn't like the planning board's decision and whether they consider you know an aggrieved party fair response okay mr roy let me see if i've got these um to your question that you've provided the information i think did we get another discussion you gave a for a force his name and his license number we'd probably like him to tell us you

know an official letter or something forces are tough to get anything out of it yeah work harder there were a lot of uh comments mr roy that you had on what damage may or may not have been done by the previous owner and that whether they violated with culverts and other things doesn't impact what the we're going to require these folks to do so now if they did some damage that's got to be done you know legally fixing wetlands or whatever it may be that's that's a whole different issue does that make sense well it's not correct but i understand you get a chance to reply to my reply okay uh we'll take a look at the resource protection and the retention pond next to it as part of our substantive discussion and do you have anything to say about that mr burnham i've been doing this for 12 years and i mean the reason it's near resource protection zones because protection zones are located in the low spot low spots where water

drains too so in order to catch and treat the most amount of water and keep run off from the road entering the stream untreated you want to get that pond as close to that low point as possible could you describe briefly what treatment is that's just one thing drain soil filter that collects and filters out phosphorus and salt and all these things that sit there and okay so you're treating the water before it's really yeah okay i just not to say that it's approved but yeah the part that won't be treated is the existing part that's that's existing now coming in um that we're just that we'll be paving

and we'll talk about that in details of the plans and then clean up so i think i covered the question today that planning board members think i missed a question before we let the public come back and reply to many of my replies or others so what about our when do you want us to after the after the afternoon after the public gets their second shot so we'll we can go with i'll go back through the list and those who have already spoken mr irish you are the first did you have any follow-up replies to the replies

we think that we hope that they'll do a a good honest job recognizing that it's a neighborhood that we live in and that we want to provide them egress if the d.o.t requires it i understand it they may not to enable that road to come out directly across but the essence of what i'm saying is we want to work with the developers and i'm speaking for the association but i just wanted to remind the developers that individual land owners are you you need to they might want to talk with uh with me about the bylaws of the association to see what's legal in terms of changing property lines of the i didn't i didn't write these by a lot okay it is an association chartered association with the state and um we're gonna maintain that okay and if i could ask you to talk you know give that same message to the homeowners say hey you know our rules say that you you you can't give up you know here's our rules reference giving up property

and stuff yeah and that and so i think that okay awesome yeah thank you anything else no not for me i have one question on the survey i have a certified map filed in amazon county doesn't that carry president over somebody coming in and re-surveying

map that's on file banana that mr burner that you get take a look at his have your surveyor i mean the same as with the pin on the tree versus the pin on the ground so well that's available from the uh that's how i use what i used as a basis okay well just if you would ask your surveyor to look ins and before we get to the next meeting respond to any discrepancies so okay so

uh yeah i'm good i'll have a chance to respond to questions from other board members no this is your last we're closing the board meeting or the public hearing after this room oh if they ask questions i'm sorry yes i've missed ready i think somebody's ready to ask you a question

a question about timber harvesting and whether it has been done or not right you know whether it was ever certified this comment said last month that we had to get a forester in did they ever get a forester in to certify it i'm pretty comfortable that's a question we're going to ask in our our discussion he he did he provided the number but we're going to ask that forester to provide in writing that what he told and told us or told mr burnham that mr burnham told us we'd want to read it from the forester directly does that make sense i remember correctly it was to be outside yeah it was to certify it not by his friend's body or a cohort yeah we'll take a look at the ordinance on what what it does so yeah we'll take we will take a look at that

miss roy i think did i started going through your stuff did you want to reply to my replies um please step up i'm sorry we should have done this long ago please step on the microphone because we need to try to capture this so that we've we make sure we get all the answers covered later so so one of the um i'm gonna reiterate another point about the face value thing i disagree about you not taking it at face value and the reason why i brought up the registry of deeds that i just did a search for the date may be in discrepancy um but it does exist as of may 9th you've had a meeting since that time and um so for that specific reason because charlie stated tonight that it didn't exist that there wasn't anything in the registry of deeds when he did his search but the attorney also did theirs when was the title search done june 14th so if this was recorded on may 9th it should have been found so that's why i'm

saying it was recorded in the registry of deeds on may 9th that it was discharged and so that should have been found associated with this property that's why i'm saying i think it's really important that the board does its due diligence and asks for the specific information and evidence of it and not just go off you know the word of what's being said okay the other thing about back to that question was we looked at a title which is an official document but we probably need to disagree on whether we did our due diligence or not okay i'm not i'm not trying to i'm not trying to insult you no i don't take it that way but what i'm just saying this isn't the only the only part where this has come up and so i think have like the ordinance says that if the um burden of proof is on the applicant and if you don't have that in front of you you don't have the answer in front of you in a document then the burden of proof hasn't been met

and i'm saying that for the example of not only that that's what your responsibility is but also that brings up the opportunity for an aggrieved party to be able to appeal a decision okay does that make sense it does i'm also trying to help you i'm not trying to insult you i appreciate the help um so the other thing was that on the preliminary plan i think at the first meeting there were multiple places on the plan where the surveyor said that quick claim deeds would be the easiest way to um alleviate the boundary line discrepancies and i don't remember exactly what charlie's words were about that he i think he was saying that all the way back to the supreme court whatever whatever that his surveyor is standing on that as the truth but yet the surveyor on the plan said the easiest way to resolve the situation is with a quick claim deed so i do think that that is a situation that needs to be looked at carefully i i also like mr

griswold saying has you know i have a survey that shows that those coordinates don't match these coordinates and there is a 12 acre yeah we got your we have your input in there you know that'll be part of the discussion okay and then again i'm not trying to insult you i'm i'm bringing these things up to try to help you in terms of the land use versus the comp plan and what the what the legally binding document is to go by this was one of the things that i addressed with the attorney um when we were talking about you know town meeting stuff and so i would suggest to the board that they review that with town council um i'm just going to leave it at that i think that's a question that in your best interest making these decisions you should review that answer with the town's legal counsel okay what what specifically the whether you're making your decisions off the land use ordinance or if you're

making your decisions off the comp plan because those two situations are not aligned in terms of what the buffering requirement is as a step back from the road mr thurbark i will go to your comment on the comprehensive plan recommends that the town consider a policy that with cluster development that a hundred foot buffer be placed along existing roads that does not go into effect until the land use ordinance is amended and what the land what you have to make your decisions based on is the language in the land use ordinance in my opinion okay and we made an amendment to the land use ordinance which required the buffer to be 50 feet that wasn't in alignment with the comp plan and so those two things aren't in alignment with each other which is why i'm just suggesting that i think you should speak to an attorney no dude thank you okay um and then the other thing is that when we're talking about all of these driveway entrances

and whatnot there has been a new driveway access to route 9 that has been installed in the last week and i don't see that on this plan and i don't know if that affects sight lines or not but i think that that should be something that you follow up on okay thank you and mr roy who is not related to miss roy yeah um so my clarification question was you had made a statement saying that this was for judging the um completeness not this not the discussion wherever now complete list is is a decision made okay so that's my clear my clarification question was we are talking about the substance of the application at this point yes okay so i just want to make sure i wasn't saying things you're going off on the handle or anything like that so um so my disagreement with whether previous activities affect what you can do currently is because there are laws that regulate the transfer of property after certain

types of timber harvest and also if a timber harvest doesn't pull out temporary bridges and stuff like that the new landowner can't utilize them because there are different standards for you know development versus for forestry so there does need to be some clarification there that it it does have an impact on the future use um so that was what i was saying earlier is important and that's the only thing you responded to was the forestry side of things no one asked about wetlands or anything like that as for the stormwater drainage responding to what the applicant is saying fully understand how the stormwater drainage works um i just still think that it should be something that the board considers is that yes it is in a low spot not all low spots in the town of durham are resource protection though this one is so i think that if we're going to allow developments to go through it's important that we really take a very

hard line on how we want to allow resource protection to be impacted because if you look at allowable actions with inside the resource protection based off our town ordinance there's nothing that allows um stormwater drainage features so that would be outside of what our town ordinance allows okay that's a clarifying question of what he's not yet your turn will come not yet

asked responded by a bunch of people replied so i am going to close the public hearing so what that means is that the public doesn't get to initiate discussions but i think it's fair to say that there are several board members who may ask questions of the public the staff or the applicant so you've had your chance okay so i will now say on the board and i juliette i'll start with you thank you so much okay couple questions here clarifying um

around so that was actually a good summer process we went through um ask where how you found the [Music] encumbrance or discharge i went to the registry of deeds and i searched by the current landowner's name and it came up under the current landowner and town of durham and then you view the abstract view of it dean smith yeah i took a picture of it i showed it to george i can send you an email yeah johnny found it i mean it has been discharged so but i'm happy to forward that and email to all of you if you'd like to see that okay yeah johnny sent me it too and it's worth your while to go back to your title company and make sure that that that's resolved

discharge then it wouldn't come up anyway okay that's true um uh let's see what's next heather again um so i think you were asking [Music] for a third-party review of this survey or i don't know what we can we've heard multiple times that the survey doesn't align with reported surveys that already exist i just wanted to confirm this yeah and i do i think that when you go from 41 acres to 53 which is the exact number of acres that the current landowner is looking to retain to me that just signals a red flag and so right now what we have on record that you're using to make these decisions by is a survey that's given to you by the people who want this to happen not saying that i don't want to happen i'm just saying i think it's the board's responsibility to verify these documents with a third party okay and one question for applicants is the number of acres that the surveyor surveyed listed in

here somewhere i'd have to look at the survey plan itself but otherwise my like you said he gave you 50. so and then they give me yeah and then when he gives me the autocad file all the line work is to scale and i can just pick that polyline it tells me how many square feet it is

i'm going to get the spelling after this so i make sure i get it right i actually spell it i think um so i think you were asking for a peer review of the storm water plan is that okay all right um and possibly wetland delineation you mentioned as well okay um you asked i'm just trying to get all these third-party reviews um written down correctly here um third-party review of wetland delineation i think you mentioned forestry as well as timber harvesting you did as well um was there yeah stormwater as well concom thinks that since it was done outside the growing season it's pretty standard practice um to redo it during the growing season to figure out if the existing line is accurate or not yeah okay and then my comment on the forestry was just pertaining to you know making sure that the board uses its ability to request the proper information knowing that from the site walk there's a pretty visible

violation um with the crossing that wasn't permitted and it's all public access you can just look up the current by rural permits on the main department agriculture and forestry site and there's no permits for the site for that crossing so it's only good back to like 76 isn't it that crossing uh five years so second what mr burnham no um either way that's just one thing i would recommend so if there's there was a permit that's not publicly available it's a great opportunity for the forester to show that because they get copies of it okay i'm sure they would love to provide one okay um yeah and you mentioned the permitting for the forestry but also wetlands crossing um rp so i think possibly what you're saying is a third-party reviewer for wetlands that can also look at permits as well i was just going to say that with the wetland crossing there's an area that um referred to that it seems as if some of

the wetlands were expanded by forest activity um which happens and they're still wetlands that's why sometimes it ends up burning people if they're forced horseshoes in person as wetlands but there's a couple spots that were crossed that could potentially actually be streams because they have a defined bank with water percolating on the ground indicating at least an intermittent hydroperion so if those are impacted by the forestry that's something to consider because if forester or an operator that just disturbs that impacts the footprint of the stream it might impact the crossing that you want to use if you're going across the road or anything like that so just a due diligence thing there okay all right i rest thank you okay so my clarifying question is uh i'm not fully understanding

where you think the uh stormwater treatment area is and what the issue is yeah i guess do you want the microphone for this one yes yeah well yeah i guess i'm sorry we should always try to do that to make sure we capture it and if you need to point on the drawing that yes that may help the latest plan moved it okay so the sketch of the few free previous plans we're showing it but it within the um resource protection area so that's why caveat of my discussion was saying that sketch that i had last seen had in the resource protection area and that we just have concerns about that as a conservation commission so if it's not in the resource protection area it's not a concern mr burnham would show us where the latest plan is for the resource protection area excuse me the stormwater thing i have it on my computer so the resource protection limit is here it's 100 feet off of that stream yeah and so my undergrad is right on the top

edge of it yeah so it's an existing disturbed area it was kind of yeah so all our recommendation as a conservation commission is that if it is in the resource protection area to consider moving it out of the report so if it's not in it it's a move

submitted is that what's one solution for me yeah that's it well oh okay i'm sorry and for charlie related to this that on the current plan submitted where is the resource which plan shows a resource and protection this year there's that one there's that little dash line see this line right here it's got two labels yeah and this is the hundred foot setback from the stream but this is the archie you're not sure i'm not showing the uh that storm system i put in the arrow showing its general location i didn't i didn't want to keep things it looks like a pond it's not a great soil filter right yeah it says yeah to press it's a foot happy compression soil filter oh there's a there's a trench or something going into it there's some retail generals that come into it it's got a little yeah it's got a berm around the top of it so that's not being shown is that what you're saying all right well that that satisfies me we'll

probably ask for clarification and we'll we'll get into more of the design of it and that's good yeah okay thank you for you i'm sorry yep i don't have any question maybe a comment i think it's great that individuals are bringing up information that we may not have been aware of when there was a discrepancy it certainly is our responsibility to do the due diligence to make sure that that discrepancy has been resolved just an example of certainly my concerns it's on a different subdivision that was approved and i think it's well it's pertinent to any discussion that we have

six house subdivision that was improved on royals borough road one of the things that we do when any subdivision comes off a state highway it's a matter it's the responsibility the main department of transportation to approve the site both ways and there is huge concern with royals borough road up here when you're coming out of there and you're turning left and that has been brought to the road is attention and he is following up with the ndot those are the things that when we look at third party until many times until we find that there is a discrepancy we may not be aware of it and that's why what i'm suggesting and until somebody brings that to our attention

already ruled on it in this case we had already ruled on it but it is a problem so alan you're saying support of third-party reviews and certain things yes definitely definitely i mean that that is our due diligence and that is our responsibility okay we knew there was issues on that driveway well we certainly i i know we'll say well we could say that just that's a long discussion but i mean not to not to cut you short but that that's a very good point i don't have anything specific but that's second one allen said okay there's enough in here that probably be good to get get a third party yeah and i think to to a lot of your points when you ask us to do stuff we'll we will take a look at that as part of the preliminary plan approval and third party peer reviews are absolutely something that we we need to consider as we go forward

i think we've we've done it and if there's no more questions what i'd like to do next and i know what's getting late is uh to kind of keep this process moving is to at least start on the town planner comments many of which address some of the issues that were raised tonight and so if we're okay with that going to maybe nine o'clock and uh see where we are at that point if yeah and i'll i'll be really brief because i did provide written comments to the board uh so they're in the i was just going to ask you they're in this packet yeah yeah part two part two way down at the bottom yep uh under new business substantive review preliminary plan application is the heading on the top of the page of my notes it's right after the public hearing town planner comments the next page oh so at the top yeah it looks like the fourth page third or fourth page new business substantive review yeah yeah so a lot of questions have

come up about the surveys and i did indicate in my comments that the board is not a court of law to judge between competing surveys but the applicant has a responsibility to provide you with a certified survey plan uh i would point out that the survey plan that's been submitted is not certified and that will be a requirement for the preliminary plan approval

itself says there are questionable areas and they seem to be along the perimeter where you have uh two different sets of indicators of lines and the question becomes is are those discrepancies of questionable title affecting the applicant's submission in terms of meeting the open space requirements because they're required to set aside 50 as open space so you may want to require the applicant to show documentation you have his testimony but we've talked a lot about due diligence tonight i don't think you have any plan that shows you clearly the disputed areas and the calculations of how much open space so just simply getting a clear documentation might be adequate to resolve that but the board does not have authority to judge between competing survey claims that's for the courts and any person who's aggrieved of that can appeal the decision based on that so that was one issue that i uh advised

second one was the issue of the buildable laws and i had pointed out on the last iteration of this plan that lots six and seven i hadn't really addressed this law but my concern was this lot here you can see there's this large wetland area that comes right down through the middle of it so this was actually constrained and in by just rough rough eyeballing it this seemed to be uh less than 50 between the open areas so i suggested that that needs to be carefully reviewed documented charlie as a response has expanded the law these two lots they were questionable into the open space to meet the technical 50 standard however that doesn't really change the issue of this is where they're going to have to build they're not going to build back here so if if they're going to continue with this configuration they do need to meet the 50 but the board may want to require because what happens is if this is

constrained by that wetland and you've seen it i think on some recent subdivisions that they the homeowner and developing whoever is developing this law is going to be urged to push into that with their filling operations so what i've done on other subdivisions in other towns that i've worked with is to basically say for any law like that that is questionable the board could require a site plan for the development of that one law and a conceptual grading plan can be put as detail like stormwater and everything else and whoever develops that lot has to follow that grading plan and if they want to change it because they're doing a different design or whatever all they have to do is come back and submit a new site plan for the planning board to review to verify that there's not going to be any impact on these wetlands from the development of this constrained area and it may well be that you know charlotte charlie can

make the case no you know there's plenty of land and we don't need to do that and that would be part of preliminary before you got preliminary plan approval or it could be a condition of preliminary approval if they accept it but they'll do a grading plan for this one law and that'll be part of the the final plan approval the other option is to reconfigure the lots as they've done to basically put this wetland into the open space and not have those be part of lots which is another way to eliminate the issue and i for the boards it's not that we're not going to discuss this what i'd like to go through is all these comments so the applicant and those that know that we're going to better position next time too or we can continue on this evening uh if we'd like so yep so the next issue was the uh the intersection offset and i think you've seen some uh discuss here some discussion of that basically you

don't want diagonally across intersections because then you get people making turns they don't know who's got the right of way and it's a fairly busy road obviously with the school and with the commuter traffic so those should be directly across from each other they've moved it over as far as they can within that 50-foot and it's better and that may be enough so that would be an issue that and again given the wingate farm subdivision on royals borough road i think that you may want to have that reviewed by a traffic engineer as a peer review just to say is this realignment adequate or do they need to talk to him to baroques about getting that fully realigned that was that issue

i've given my interpretation of the ordinance that there must be an on-site water supply for this celebration and the standard is ten thousand gallons base and then two thousand gallons per house and that can either be in underground tanks cisterns or it can be a fire pond if it is a fire pond it has to be 120 000 gallons the ordinance subsection c of that section says that volume can be reduced with the fire chief approval of residential sprinklers in all of the all of the homes past decisions on subdivisions have said it can be entirely eliminated i think that is not consistent with the ordinance and but it can be reduced so the applicant in his latest submission has said they are now proposing and trying to get fire chief approval of a fire pond with 36 000 gallons and but no sprinklers and if that is not acceptable they're saying they're going to put a dry hydrant by the stream if they put a dry

hydrant on the stream that needs to be verified that it has adequate water supply and it's not going to be dry in the summer with no water so those are all the dynamics of that discussion of fire protection but i believe the ordinance does require an on-site water supply system unless the board grants a waiver you do have the authority to grant a waiver on that if they apply for it and we'll follow up with the chief to get an answer on that before yep sooner rather than later and then uh the uh issue of interconnections that hammerhead there's undeveloped land to the west of this that goes up over to dire road and back out to hollowell road the ordinance says the planning board whenever it approves a subdivision with a dead end road should consider interconnections and that's something you could require the applicant has indicated he's they're willing to give a right-of-way from that hammerhead over

to the property line that road would never get built until someone else develops it or 50 years from now uh the town comes in and because the traffic is so bad that easement is there and the town or state or somebody decides to develop it the rights are there to do it

too and i did point out from the get-go that the ordinance requires a like either the department of conservation agriculture and forestry to come and verify that no violations have occurred because timber harvesting has been done within the last five years or a licensed harvester has to provide certification that has not been done so that's something that you need to consider

conservation commission comments tonight so i don't think i need to address those i think you have a pretty good handle on what their issues are one is there needs to be i agree with the conservation commission the applicant has proposed taking out the existing stream crossing and that needs to be reviewed i'm pretty sure they would need a dep permit to do that and so it'll be a dep permit for the street for the new stream crossing and a dep permit for the stream alteration of removing that impediment and restoring it so that should be part of the dep army corps review process

i just want to make sure you noted that word that require you understood that requirement okay okay and we have two more george if you go around quickly maybe there's more than two but uh high-intensity sales survey that was oh we didn't address that i'm sorry joe didn't address that they had suggested a need for a high-intensity soil survey and i explained that this this you know i'm familiar with the national resource conservation service years ago back in the 1990s they did a new system for soil evaluation that went beyond agriculture to development of properties and it's a very generalized nationwide recommendation for communities to consider this in developing regulations but generally if you apply those most of southern maine wouldn't pass so it's not i don't know of any community in maine that applies that as a standard for reviewing development now if there are particular locations on

this property or based on the soil test pit logs indicators of extensive hydric soils or shallow to ledge that's going to affect the construction of the subdivision you may want to put that area of the subdivision into the peer review discussion that you're going to be having on the engineering to see if like say if it's crossing those wetlands that they talked about does there need to be some sort of a geo fabric to support that road beyond just the standard construction so i think that issue can and should be handled as part of a general peer review as opposed to requiring a high intensity soil survey that's just my opinion and if i may what are high clarify for me what hydric soils are those are wet soils they have a ground hydraulic table within a certain issue and they're wet i got you there's not a particular type of soil clay they were at various soils that are what okay thank you okay so we had

i guess i will leave it up to the board at this point it's 8 30 and being retired i get to sleep late tomorrow but would we like to start uh going through a couple of these uh comments from george and then to see if we had any questions on it first i guess about what he's asking other than my question about hydric soils and your thoughts on the board about um whatever it may be here what he talked about are there any go through them that meant that at this point one thing that would be helpful is if you give me an indicator of what you think should be peer reviewed i was just gonna what i would do is i will for the next meeting whether you get through it or not i will draft up a set of preliminary approval conditions addressing what we've discussed up through this point in the process so that like with the completeness letter drafts you'll be in a position and you can add to it delete from it whatever you want to do

so if i had some indication of what you're thinking about for peer reviews based on what you've heard from the public input i think that's it and your own deliberations yeah so i'm not sure we can't make decisions on that today in terms of what we want for for use the last 30 minutes or so to and again you'll actually vote on it at your next meeting but this would at least say what do you want me to put into a draft set of conditions and you don't even necessarily have to say i wouldn't support that just say i think we should have that up for discussion and a decision we're talking third party yep okay peer review and just one comment on this i think that it is really important to talk about this early on because i think depending what we decide some of them need to be done first like we decide wetlands we need to know those are correct before he does storm water or something like that right there's

like a order like they can't all be done at once you might need i'm just saying out loud here's my my read on it and suggestion is that look it can't be we do a peer review and then then we go to the next stage what should happen is you identify the areas wetlands storm water traffic whatever it is you list them we submit you vote on it because some people may think it's important other people may not whether the majority decides for a peer review we will then based on a preliminary approval condition get those peer reviews done start them immediately after preliminary approval while they're going to the dep for their permits at the state and army corps the peer reviewer will do the peer reviews of the application the technical review qualified professionals and then the applicant will have an opportunity to review those before it comes back to you and a lot of times they can work it's just question of you know did you

provide this they can provide it so when it comes back to you you'll have the professional peer review evaluations of whatever issues it is and we won't have to keep going with the process you'll have the information that you need and it'll be a couple of months here to get that done give them an opportunity to review it when it comes back to you you've got the information that you need to make your final decision quickly i think clarification my question on clarification is um we have 60 days from today to get to get that done so if the 60 days to make a preliminary approval decision including what peer reviews you yeah that did for the final just okay yep the question is do we need to if we know what we want and i'll go ahead and rephrase that are there any peer reviews that are essential to a to a preliminary plan approval no you know sort of return to here is there anything that we think needs to be done

with the recognition you know the recommendation that you know because you get if you get preliminary plan approval and and you've got a lot sitting in a uh wetlands where we can still tell you to move the lot or move the house or whatever it may be a couple of my concerns are the road alignment with patriot way and if you know like it's still they've done as much as they can within the land they have but it still doesn't lie so i'd like to you know have take that a little further you know will d.o.t recommend that it absolutely has to whine or is what they've done okay i'd like to get some more yeah i haven't heard back from got yet but hopefully well no but the lesson i think that that allen was talking to is that we don't want to rely upon nothing against d.o.t but i think that general consensus is that that particular royals were whatever that road is wasn't should not have been approved in in

probably my unprofessional opinion but also the the ra road commissioner and stuff like that so what we'd like to do is if you know if dot approves it but our peer review says that's still not unsafe i guess i'm saying d.o.t may not be enough yep yeah right having a traffic engineer peer review of that situation to provide a good recommendation to us you know is that an okay situation or is that something that really should be corrected but i think i would think that if you can work with the butters and there's easement available there to move that you don't even need to have d.o.t involved no because you've come we've we've logically come up and said this is the best solution to this sure would you yeah right why even take place in the peer review well d.o.t has to bless it well d.o.t has to but i'm saying we can get there before that oh you're saying they might they might come to the table and say okay we're going to

do what we need to do just to align it yeah that's an idea yeah yeah then the d.o.t says wow you guys have you're on top of this and then peer review won't matter really either because well another big one for me would be um the stream crossing yeah i want yeah i don't want just some words on what that looks like and how it's done i want a design i want to want a picture of what it's actually going to look like in real life is it like a grading plan you want i mean there's a cross section there's a grading plan and there's well as far as you talk about the existing crossing no the new the new one well my my understanding is with the existing crossing which was in violation you cannot continue to use that yeah and i guess i guess to that point is and i would argue with the the legality of that existing crossing is is yes it was logged in the last five years but that crossing that land has been logged

throughout the last 50 years and there was no there was no requirement 50 years ago there wasn't like 1996 is probably when you had to have a actually had a permit crossings it was but in 96 but my issue is once we have discovered something that is in violation i cannot ignore it but what i'm getting as it's not in violation that might be something for the legal folks right right if that if that existed prior to that this is why you get the certification from the licensed forester and certify it or get dacf to come down and look at so can i go back to you had a good question sort of thank you or no not sort of but you did generally um do we need these at this stage i think it's what you're getting at right i i think at what point do we need them to to go for it and it may not be this i'm just asking yeah is there some part of it that that's not important and then i have a suggestion that on how

to go about the who controls the peer review can i answer can i talk about that first part so um i think that it's actually in the developers best interest to get these done asap because these are all going to depending on what we choose here are all going to possibly change things or maybe not but we we want to know what that's going to affect downstream no pun intended you know yes you did you know what i mean so my my thought is get these going yeah that so i think that was can we start the peer reviews but if you do a preliminary approval at your next meeting remember you have 60 days to make a decision so we don't have time to do peer reviews go back and forth if you make that a condition of preliminary approval it goes to peer review and the peer review says this stormwater detention basin needs to be moved you can make changes at the final approval stage too so whatever changes they make as they get their peer review

inputs that'll come back as the final plan and those changes can be incorporated into the final plan i mean how do we make decisions on things in the prelim plan stage if we don't know pretty much what you're doing at the preliminary plan i know this is an adjustment from the way that you've always done things i understand that but to try to get an efficient system for the developer the applicant for the board for the public you really need to make sequential decisions like you do the sketch plan review which says yes cluster is okay you do the preliminary plan review that says basically overall this plan can meet the standards of the ordinance and so you give a preliminary approval based on that that then gives them the confidence to go forward and invest the rest of the money for peer reviews for state permits and then it comes back and there's always some adjustments but it doesn't change the

whole subdivision to say oh it's not going to meet the standards of the ordinance so that's the way the process works in most communities that i've worked with okay just process question is there not an extension that we can give for the prelim plan if there's some reason that you're saying look i can't i couldn't even give a preliminary approval because i'm so convinced this doesn't meet the standards you know if i've got questions that's different than saying look that doesn't meet the standards and i would not give a privilege and you're going to vote majority vote on a preliminary approval or not with conditions is it fair to say that right now we're trying to raise things that we think could be deal breakers that got to be addressed because it's no point moving forward if these yeah i mean if they put in some form of fire protection that meets the standards clearly it's going to pass on that on

that note if you're convinced that there's no water on this site it's bone dry and it never had never will have water then you say no there's no way they can put fire protection on that yeah what's the condition of it right now i have no idea well no matter what you put a cistern out there and fill it with water that's what most big developments do we'd prefer to do a pond yeah yeah my my to my to uh the road alignment he had the show should so on the stream crossing the fact that this is going to go through dep and army corps review on that new crossing is that adequate or do you think you need to have your own peer review i want i review right now i i want to i want a picture in my head what it looks like and i can replant so yep but it

you know my my vision is that the existing stream you know with the banks is not going to be disturbed you know it's going to be almost bridge going across there so my thought on that is i do want a peer review of wetlands which that impacts wetlands i'll draft one and then you guys can vote on it that's your next move wrong and thinking that the guy who did my wetlands is on the conservation commission he was he fired him because of his wealth no you didn't fire him he's a great guy i know him he's a great guy that doesn't have any bearing thank you ma'am um so i think we discussed three exterior reviews if you will one is engineering and i would say uh based on the questions we got one is definitely the the root state route nine um intersection chain interchange whatever it may be there that that i'm trying to think of things that we'd want on the engineering view which is that intersection drainage

came up so i think these could be different different topics yes so i will always recommend on every subdivision that you hire a trap a peer review of the engineering analysis because i am not qualified to review engineering plans okay you'll get a technical engine an engineer objective uh paid through the developers escrow that will just review the plans and provide you the kind of input that i provide you on planning issues on the engineering including the drainage yeah it's all encompassing then separate from that that intersection requires a specialized engineering is typically a traffic engineer transportation engineer and they will give you an opinion their professional opinion on whether that is safe or unsafe and whether it needs to be adjusted or not and i guess i'm sorry no it's okay can i just make a point of clarification when you say engineering can we say stormwater engineering

it's all encompassing it it includes everything it's not just limited to storm water it's the road design it's the road okay so we're gonna you're gonna get a big firm then that can cut i'm just thinking that there's niches right but yeah we're talking about bomber they do this for a lot of towns oh yep okay so engineering is one wetlands traffic engineering another one traffic intersection could let me i guess the the question i had earlier is there a way to kind of tie all this together with the a general contractor for lack of a better term on engineering than somebody they would hire or have a traffic light they may not be able to do all these things and i'll check with laurel palmer and i was just asking if that not then they would be the easiest thing obviously yeah palmer's good they can do a lot of it yeah and maybe he just says i'll hire talbot and son or whatever we have everybody that they may or may not have

i guess tom gorill was like one of the best in the state on traffic impact peer review so traffic engineering i think they do yeah and i get my point is that that way it's all tied together because if the interchange changes the drainage changes so if we've got somebody who comes in and says look i've looked at it all including wetlands locations and it's all good or here are the issues does that make sense so there's a general contractor and he subs to to wetlands and forestry maybe a standalone forestry i think is separate you need to require a forested letter or dacf and they can contact yeah that was my third one is engineering all-encompassing what you said forestry that's separate right that's not a peer review in my opinion so what i'm thinking and what we've heard today is it could be a peer review or it could be bringing in the state like you mentioned or a forester but also permits

with that so someone looking at the permits that need to be done or should have been done it's kind of like to get same with wetlands yep so i can put that on if you want me to put on a peer review of the forestry practices including required permits again i'll draft it in and you guys can vote on it yeah we can talk about the difference with that and what you were the state right i think those are the three big topics is engineering uh in my mind including traffic but the traffic piece the wetlands piece and then then forestry so wetlands is also the permitting as well with that yep

about boundary you guys do not need to judge surveys against each other or or not so so again so maybe have a legal person look at it or someone look at it with all the discrepancies butter has issue with their survey then that's

the title for encumbrances and things like that if the board wants to have the town attorney review any legal issues you can do that okay is that on your list or is that something separate uh it is not on my list yet if you want me to put it on it will yeah to look at at least i wasn't sure if it was on that list or not it is not and again you'll vote on it she signed that discharge paper so that review should be quick it's somebody just has to do another title as heather did another title search post the encumbrance being removed i'm assuming the applicant has an attorney that can address some of these issues for you well i'm my question would be can we just go back to the title a cut title company he should and do a new title search so that that cost is on the applicant yeah i mean at this point does the discharge recorded discharge if there's nothing there then it's not you know it's done

on well no she found it and johnny you wouldn't include something that was yeah i don't think he was discharged before the title was well i think here's the question it'll be done on 15 july or whatever and whatever is there and we might just make a note to your title company to say show us the paperwork make a copy of the there should be a discharge recorded or whatever that would be part of all the additions or attachments to a title so if we could make that as a special request just because it's been discharged just to answer the questions show us the discharge paperwork if they can well i've seen it twice now i've gotten it from both okay so i've seen it and if they can't you know it'll be a post it'll be the 15th july or 20th july or whatever it is but then the cost is on you guys

would think it'd be minimal because he probably already knows it yeah it should be in it yeah it should be whatever they call uh update or whatever it is sure okay one thing that you mentioned earlier is that um with the violation they aren't allowed to do something they aren't allowed to do the crossing or inside the area if if something has been brought to our attention that there was a violation we cannot ignore that right do we know that do we all feel comfortable that we know what that violation and is it all well i i'm trusting what joe said [Music] so how do we figure that i guess how do we get our hands on that is that something again you can request the acf or the apple you can request the applicant to get a licensed forester to give a certified opinion as to whether the harvesting that occurred on that property was in full compliance with all main forestry laws and if you want to you can get a period

of that really well we're going to hire i thought well i think they should that's what the ordinance says oh regional language i think it does say require in there remember yeah there's four options that you can have that validate the way you cleared the live you clear out 50 of the dpdp diameter how long how long ago was that clearing done within the last five years yeah exactly which is what brings us into effect if it was that if it was outside of five years it wouldn't matter whether it was done in compliance or not so it does this whole rule was intended that somebody can't go in and clear-cut that property to oblivion and then sell it to somebody right and get out of it so here's the language of the ordinance the board shall ascertain that any timber harvested on the parcel being subdivided has been harvested in compliance with rules adopted to pursue and it gives the title the statute reference

a five-year rule if a violation of rules adopted by the main forest service to substantially eliminate liquidation harvesting has occurred the planning board must determine prior to granting approval for the subdivision that five years have elapsed from the date the landowner and who's under whose ownership the harvest occurred acquired the parcel determination by dacf or forester the planning board may request technical assistance from dacf to determine whether a rule violation has occurred or the board may accept a determination certified by a forested forester licensed pursuant to the title that's we we must do it then right so yeah and i think the question about that yeah that's what you were talking about though was the clearing yes part okay yes so we're clear on or there's no other issues regarding that violation aside from the tree clearing piece other what in general what about the axis across

the stream right that's what i mean like do we know like so that might be something to legally well if i i'm saying if if a permit was never granted then it's in violation unless it happened before the law went into effect requiring a permit true yes can the forester not do that or the ac at dc a what whatever the acronym was the acf they are forced for diesel they write these rules they'll come and look at it yeah i mean we would just when we asked them we would just say and specifically look at that preliminary plan approval could and could could include directing the town planner to contact dacf to seek a determination of whether a violation has occurred yes do that really quickly because they imagine they aren't quick well it'll be within that same time period of peer reviews unless i can get the force or to find his certification but he claims to have no computers or know how to use email or

anything about james also or get another four certificates or get another i mean that's a state agency they uh yeah but they right there they write the forestry rules and it'd be good to kind of get a request into them yeah i mean if it's just no the town's no send an email saying we'll do that sorry you do that or i do that no we do that i'm willing to put it on as a preliminary condition of approval if you want to pursue it you can do that independently i think um so my sorry this was very quick off the cuff here but it's almost like a third-party thing right so it shouldn't come from the application but the acf will be doing the determination not them right they're just they're just initiating so it's almost like doing the historic preservation commission or calling but it does say the planning board the planning board may request that yeah so yeah i will i will do it okay that's how about it and some of

these quite mr application is you now know that we're going what we want to do so if you have a responsibility to like d.o.t and historical and whoever else is out there uh time your time is on you know you need to get started i guess that's what i'm saying so we may give it the formal requirement in august but there's nothing to stop you from requesting it now if you want to keep this thing in idea close with there's no guarantee of approval on anything you've discussed tonight we still have a long way to go sure okay is there anything else other than the one thing i forgot to do i actually have one comment generally are the easements shown on here the cmp there's a cmp easement right it wasn't cmp who was it uh it's a utility yeah it was cmp wasn't cmp yeah well the title said so-and-so d-wood industries gave it to central maine is that on here and then there's also one other easement that's shown on the existing conditions

that might be that i yeah i i didn't see them in the survey i don't know what he was talking about whether it was well sometimes they're not on there so it was shown in the title report as well yeah so it was on the title report is where i saw it there was a cmp easement on there sometimes those are off the property and there was one other one and i think it was an access yeah it might have been i don't know okay if you can put those in there but the remaining her point is that rather yeah if i may if there's an easement on the title make sure it's yeah right or tell us that it's off the property or whatever it may be is there anything else on this subject

say that i forgot we need to approve the minutes don't we i forgot to get them you accepted them except okay that's good then we're done i didn't screw up oh wait we need to vote to close uh i'll make that motion to the next meeting okay it's a good motion who's voting before we adjourn when's our next meeting oh um what's the first it's august tuesday that sounds right i don't have my thing what anybody had accounts it's wednesday third august 3rd six on saturday i will not be here for that no meaning yeah yeah august 3rd august 6th i i've got a wedding in france that weekend so i'm gone poor thing please have somebody else cover for august 3rd is good like for you no no he said his time oh i'm sorry okay but we have a scheduled meeting that day and as they will tell you i don't like to change scheduled meetings

so it's not just you know the public or engineers but um yes and then i guess the last question is please try to make we're now kind of locked in to the folks who sat here tonight need to at least three of us need to be there throughout the rest of the process because we've got i think our requirement is that it should be the same people that go through each vote and or we waive that requirement so if you can um 6 30 yeah 6 30 is fine

finally covered at all now i'll make that motion for the journal maybe in a second raise your right hand we are done thank you to the petitioners thank you heather and joe