TranscriptMay 19, 2021 ~ Planning Board Public Hearing

George some links. George, property. Yeah. The two properties. Yeah. both within 1500 ft. So basically they say so they're eligible for listing. Mr. Barge National Register listed properties in Durham include five that are not this one. Properties eligible 1355 Royalsboro Road. It is coded not determined but was considered eligible at one time based on exterior appearance only. We need more information to make a final determination. Until we can determine it not eligible, we would typically treat it as eligible during a review. And then 1394 Rosboro

is it is coded not determined but was considered eligible at one time based on exterior appearance only. We need more information to make final determination. Until we can determine it not eligible, we would typically treat it as eligible during a review.

Yes. So, and that's did you want to say about that? I just wanted to reiterate that like you saw today, most of these lots are in the woods and um not visible from Royalsboro Road. It's only lot one that is um visible from Royalsboro Road and that does have the 50-foot buffer of vegetation um along Royalsboro Road between where the house would be and the road. So, we don't believe that

any of these houses are going to be visible from the road and and if any, it would just be the one um on lot one based on the vegetation and how the road um curves away into the woods. 1394 is on the same side but down the road from this property. Am I right?

Right. That that's the red house right there. Really? Google says but okay. And then 135 1355 the cemetery. Okay. Oh, okay. That big farmhouse. Yes. Can I make a s a a suggestion? So there's no real way to know what the house is going to look like after it's built. So maybe a condition of the subdivision should be. If there is visual impact from the road,

then they they should apply a buffer because there's no way to know whether any buffer that you propose right now is going to work until after the house is built. Well, and that's all. That's all. So, I want to I want to look at the language of the ordinance because I want to make sure we're really clear on what's required and what's not. So, we're talking about section 15.4. This talks about granite post markers older than 100. Um, so that first part does not apply here. But then the second part says the design and remodel of any remodeled existing structure or of any new structure to be constructed in any district or any new use in any district which is to be located within 1500 ft of all lot lines of or which are

visible from any portion of a public way adjacent to and then we get um I think the relevant one which has been identified the ma by the main historic preservation commission as a structure site blah blah blah of historical significance or whose exterior appearance is worthy of protection. Arguably it meets that unclear what we have but and so that basically it says will um shall be compatible with such historic properties in terms of mass scale design building material and height which would be addressed at the building permit stage not the subdivision stage

but then it goes on to say appropriate buffer strips of 25 ft shall be maintained at all lot lines of property abuing such historic properties. So Adrien, which of your lots abut is it lot six that abuts the red house? Yeah, one and six.

One and six technically one one is across the road, the proposed road, right? And then six is directly behind it. and six has the 40 foot no clear buffer between that property and where they would be allowed to clear and build

along the entire lot line that it shares. Yeah. Okay. So, it has the 60 foot lot one does not on that road, right? I think I'm And did I hear you say 60 foot? I didn't 25 foot. No, no, we've got a 40 foot on lot six. Oh, so Adrienne said 60 foot. It's 40 foot.

Is that what you're saying, John? Yeah. I thought Adrienne said 40. It's I believe it's 40, right, Adrien? It is 40. Yeah. Oh, I might have misqued her. That's my fault. No, no. I just wanted to make sure we had the minutes right. That's all.

No, I appreciate that. Either way, it's bigger than 25. Yes. Yes. Got it. And then lot one, uh, it's across the road, but there's currently no buffer along the proposed road, Winggate Farms, but there is a 50-foot buffer along Royalsboro Road. So

from Royalsboro Road, anyone who's driving wouldn't see the lot one development. it's a 20 foot buffer. property abudding such historic properties. given that you're over a road. we'll address when we get to that criteria, but this is not ideal having this kind of documentation and I know you went through the town and I will address that. All right, planning board. Any other questions before we jump in? I stopped sharing my screen.

All right. So, from last time. my notes. site distances have that? Do we have the actual I think we asked for the actual site distances. Yes, I have that documentation. Do we have that documentation? I believe it was in the first package,

We have a DOT permit. So, these folks have $1,500 in escrow. And if you need to have a traffic study, then you could use some of that money for a traffic study. Well, we're not talking about a traffic study right now. We're talking about site distances.

yeah, we provided the DOT permit because it's the the all-encompassing permit that allows us to have the entrance where it is and allows for um the site distance because the DOT took measurements um in order to grant that permit. We do

not have the DOT's measurements. Um I did take some measurements. I can share those with you. But again, we we felt that the DOT permit was more of a an appropriate thing to submit because it's official and documentation from the state.

Yeah. No, I'm I'm glad we have it, but we had specifically asked for those site distances. So, if you want to share those with us, that would be great. Um, let me let me make you a co-host, so you can share whatever you need to share. Was that on the original DOT permit? The 26655.

just have numbers. Oh, okay. That's great. Um, but it is DOT permit 26655 and the site distance to the right out of the road which is to the north is approximately 150 ft and the site distance to the left which is to the south is approximately 427 ft.

Can you say that first distance again? What was it to the north? 850. 850. Thank you. And they did have GPS coordinates on that entrance and they do check out if that helps. It is right on the property line of the southern property, but

deed restrictions which I think you gave us. our letter. Okay. Okay. And I think those were the items that were outstanding from last time. So for us to go into our review criteria All the first is that where is it? uh in determining the proposed subdivision will not result in undue water or air pollution. We are supposed to consider elevation of the land in relation to flood planes, nature of soils and subs soils for wastewater disposal, slope of the land and effect on effluence and state and local health rules. So planning board, I just want to get your thoughts on so again right now we're reviewing at a prelim preliminary stage. If we think everything looks okay now, we'll do a completeness review for final stage and then a final review which will largely build off of our preliminary review. So, what do we think about this standard?

of those items? I think a good flood planes storm water management and stuff like that. Is that what we're talking about? Yep. So, it's um elevation elevation of the land in relation to flood planes. This review criteria is met in damn it.

Performance standards shall be deemed to be met by compliance section 2.5 for flood plane. Um I guess we're we'll be getting into all of these more specifically I guess. Um, and Ann, I just want to point out that our submission on in March before the

last meeting, I went through all of these in my letter um and and wrote to all of them. So, if that's helpful and you have my letter dated 318 um just wanted to direct you to that if it's helpful. Yep. Nope. I think that's very helpful and I'm sorry for fumbling around, but frankly, I hate this process. Um,

you what do you think? Do you have any significant concerns? those issues. I think that we don't really have flood plane issues or a lot of those don't apply. And the only one I think would would be managing water on the site and not affecting wetlands. And I think they've done a good job with that.

about any of that those pieces? that we saw today and all the drawings that were seen, I think they meet the all the requirements. I don't have any concerns about it either. Hey Adrian, do you happen to have that letter in a word format that you could send me?

but I could email that to you. That's that'll be it'll just be helpful when I'm doing the findings. That would be great when I'm doing the the sooner you can send it to me, the more useful it will be. Um, I don't desperately need it until we get to the final review when we'll be voting on motions and it will be much easier if we agree with your findings that I can cut and paste them.

Okay, I will get it over to you and less painful for everyone involved. Um, all right. So, the next one is sufficient water standards. So, individual wells shall be cited and constructed to prevent infiltration of surface water and contamination. lots to accommodate wells and septic system. Um fire protection, water supplies. We've talked a little bit about

information on this? Do you have any concerns about this standard? Do you do you think preliminarily the application meets these standards? What do you think? under 13D. Right. So, we did get that letter from the fire chief.

Yeah. Um and there is a note on the plan that everything will have to be sprinkled. Yep. last time. So what is does anyone have any outstanding concerns about this one? Say that I do. Okay. Hearing none. Uh erosion and sedimentation and impact on water bodies. So it'll prevent soil erosion and sedimentation. Um cutting or removal of vegetation along water bodies which we don't have. Top top soil should be considered part of the subdivision shall not be removed from the site except for surplus top soil from roads, parking areas, and building excavations.

okay with this one? Any major concerns? No. during uh construction, but it seems like they had silk fencing. Um that wet land is it's not 10 acres, but it's eight and a half. It's a pretty good size wetland at the bottom of the hill. So, um just uh you know

really I think mostly during the construction process just uh you know putting up silt fencing and and making sure that nothing unwanted is getting downhill into the uh moderately significant wetland. That'll be part of the permits.

you mean for the individual buildings, Bob, or for the road? Yeah. Well, both on the downhill side, on the northern side. So, erosion control while they're building the road will be addressed through the permitting process.

be in the subdivision plan or all shown on our plans. We have silt fence uh construction entrance and those are on sheet C3.0. And then we also have um C4.0 erosion control notes and details goes through all of the standard erosion and sedimentation control plan um meeting D requirements and has details for uh silt fence erosion control mix BM typical erosion controls for house construction just to help in the future. Um, so that's all in our plan set

and they have they have done a very good job of that on previous subdivisions. So, okay, West, does that address your concerns? Does. Okay, thank you. All right, the next one that I expect will not be quite so easy, traffic conditions and street standards. So, I want to break this down and talk about one section at a time. So, the proposed subdivision shall meet the following general transportation performance standards. One, the subdivision roads and pedestrian system shall provide safe and convenient circulation for vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians on interior subdivision streets and access connections to external streets.

what do we think about this one? So, this seems to be talking about the internal circulation on the road and then the access connections to 136. Do we have any concerns about that piece? aside, right? Um, you know, I I do I do have concerns. Those trees that we saw as you're heading out of the site 136 is is right in front of you. You're taking a right. Those trees along the edge of the road, if those were cut, trimmed, that would help. Um, not sure if we want to consider making that a condition. Um,

Um, do you know if you have the authority to cut those limbs in the rightway? I I don't know that we do. As as the I'm thinking about the house I own here and I I and right to cut on that property and that, you know, kind of that no man's land, if you will, between the road and the I don't I don't disagree with the comment either. I think we talked about it on site. If they were trimmed up, a there's power lines running through them and b it would obviously help with the view in line of sight, but I don't know that that's our call. I'd support it, but I I just don't know if if we can do it. And Bob, if you I don't know what your thoughts are there. I think that's either a state, especially with the power lines there cuz I don't know that they'd allow us to do that cuz if we drop a branch on a power line and take out the, you know, I I just don't want that responsibility.

lot split, for a driveway entrance permit before. Um, and you'd only have to go up 13 or 14 ft. It's not like you got to go way up to the power line as far as height. And that was one of the conditions for a lot split that happened recently. So,

you know, that has something to do with the entrance, and I don't see why maintenance agreement or with the town. That's up in the air. So, where the current entrance is, right? That that those trees that are overhanging the road. Is that what you're talking about? Not where the new entrance will be.

Yeah. It's just a little ways down to the right. You know, we all saw it, you know, where you have to duck if you're on a bike. Y Yeah. So, almost where we all pulled in today. Yeah. Right. Right. Yeah. I don't know, Bob, that to your comment, I don't know that that's a condition of the site entrance based on the line of sight, but it certainly makes it easier and and again, I think to the general public, walking, walking a dog, kids riding a bike to the park, whatever, those tree branches are hanging very low in the road, especially in the um what do you call the white line to the side, like the median or the bike path area is what I I think we all observe today. And then what I'm thinking about was actually a DOP recommend a DOT recommendation that they keep the branches trimmed on a corner.

And was it a DOT rightway? It was um town New Brook Road. You know, it was when they gave the entrance permit, they said on the permit that they need to trim the they keep need to keep those branches trimmed right at the corner.

other planning board members, what do you think about this one? now? Who do we think can do this? Well, we don't know. So, I mean, one option um because again, we we really are at the preliminary stage. I know the applicant wants to move this forward as quickly as possible. I completely understand that. But one option is between now and the final review stage is we ask them to reach out to DOT and ask permission to trim those branches. and then we at least know the answer. Yes. Whether it can be done or it can't be done.

least your questions for now? Yeah, you said reach out to DOT, the applicant, reach out to DOT and talk to them about it. Yeah. Or I assume DOT is the right person because I think that's that's a state road. That certainly is a state road. I don't think I know that. Um,

yeah, but it's probably CMP's power lines. So, yep, that would be I would be uh, you know, and I'm just one person here, right guys? What What does anyone else think about this? I I agree that uh the sight lines if though if that was trimmed sight lines that way wouldn't be that bad, but that really blocked the sight lines in that direction.

it it definitely needs to be asked and answered. Okay. road shall be designed to avoid traffic congestion on any street. Do we have any concerns with this one? because I live right next to a subdivision that has 13 houses on it and any traffic study uh certainly did not stop the subdivision. And in this particular case, we're looking at six. And this is going on to a state highway versus an internal road uh owned and

operated by the town of Durham. Hey, question guys. For those that pulled into the site today when you were pulling out, did you or pulling in? Did you have any what was your experience just tonight? I mean, hey, I took a I paid special attention to that when I pulled out and the ironically, it's kind of counterintuitive as you're driving by there, but it is sight line is less looking to your left down at the entrance that's there today, then it appears to be where the new roads proposed.

Yeah. So, it's not a good comparison, is it? We're just curious. Comparison to what? to where it's going to be, right? I thought it was a real good comparison. Like it when you pull out there and look to your left, the sighteline was not that good at all, but when we stood at that bank, um you're high enough up on that null, so you can see up there quite a ways.

I think I think the entrance is winged out, so you're not likely to to have cars backing up or anything like that. So, I didn't see any concerns with this particular standard um for the entrance, but does anybody else have any concerns about this piece?

subdivision road shall be designed for the estimated average annual daily traffic of the street and land uses accommodated by the street and the lot density of the street. So, I think now we're talking about the internal subdivision road. It's going to be built to our standards. It's going to be 20 feet wide. I didn't see in your conditions a limitation on any type of commercial activity, John. Is that basically anything that's allowed will be allowed in the subdivision?

other subdivisions if it's not specifically stated, somebody can have a homebased business. homebased business. I think they could just That's right. Most of them say no modulars or no mobile homes. And when you say that, Bob, though, that's I mean, we're we're going to be selling the six lots and the house package that goes with it. So, they would have to subdivide their lot with a town to put a modular. Is that what you're saying?

No. No. All I'm saying is when you put um restrictions or covenants on, I never see anything about no commercial businesses. Maybe you can have a homebased business in your office, but I have had to allow people to per say have a car dealing place, a car dealing detailing in the subdivision because they said it was in the garage. So, that kind of um

and they got approval from the neighbors, too. But I'm just saying that covenants are great because that's what the code people have to go by when somebody wants to add something to their house. So I guess my only question and I don't know enough about roads so I'm looking at you Ron. Um it says they have to be designed for the estimated average annual traffic of the street. The land uses accommodated by the street which could be commercial. So you could have with a conditional use a very high intensity commercial use there. Um and the lot density of the street I think it it definitely meets it if it's residential. I just don't know enough about whether we think that road would be big enough if somebody put in a commercial use. I mean, those are big lots that could accommodate a pretty big commercial use.

Adrian, could you speak to that? Like the kind of DOT standard the road's designed to and that kind of thing. Sure. Yeah, I was just looking up the the street standards which we meet the street standards for um a subdivision road in the town whether it is to be um

I guess it's for private a private road subdivision road 20t wide and we have the like the section of the road the gravels and the pavement all meets uh pretty standard public or private uh subdivision roads and that is based on

DOT specs. All of the materials are DOT specs. Um I'm just getting to the and it's the width I mean it's a standard width and it's not like narrower than any of the public roads in Durham, right? So 20 foot paved with two foot gravel shoulders on each side which meets the ordinance. Um, and it's pretty typical. Pretty good width of a road actually. I'm I bet you have

private roads that are a lot narrower that are older in town. Um, one and a half inch thick pavement. Well, I guess it's three and a half inches of pavement. And that's very typical for roads and parking lots. And then you've got a total of 18 in of gravel below that. Two different types of gravel, which is the standard spec layered on top of each other. Um, so looking at your ordinance, which is what we're meeting, I see a very standard DOT spec road. Um, and it's no different

whe depth and pavement depth. So, I think it could accommodate any types of vehicles in terms of, you know, traffic if you're talking potential commercial. Yeah, I agree with that as far as like weight goes and uh and then the

like uh volume of traffic the the kind of the width would concern me if it was like really narrow or something which is not the case. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. So then the next one is the maximum extent practable. The subdivision road should be designed to conform to the natural topography of post subdivision site to avoid large and dramatic changes in contours to the land. I think they showed us on site that this is this road is largely going to conform to what's there. They will be changing the slope the first 100 feet in, but it it looks like it's going to be a gradual slope. So, I don't I don't think we have a dramatic change in contours to land, but does anyone else have concerns about this one?

Okay. So, the next one is general access standards. or state aid highway which we have shall meet the minimum access permitting requirements of the DOT. We have the permit um accesses that are expected to carry more than 100 passenger vehicle equivalent trips. Uh which this one is right. Oh, in the

hour. This one is um Oh, in the peak hour. Oh, we definitely don't do that. This is uh I think it's 57. Okay. In a day. Okay. So, that one doesn't apply. The street giving access to the subdivision and neighboring streets and intersections.

accommodate traffic and avoid unreasonable congestion. I mean, that's the biggest road in town. I don't have a concern with that. Are you guys all okay with that? Yes. All right. Um, general internal subdivision street standards designed to coordinate with existing proposed and planned streets. I think that internal street seems fine to me. Um, you guys speak up if you have any concerns. I'm running through what I think are the least controversial ones pretty quickly, but please jump in. Street name, signs, and lighting. streets um which join and are in alignment have to have the same name. That's not applicable. New streets we confirmed with Bob this time around that we don't have that issue. Um no street name should be the common name of a given person.

traffic safety and control signs. So you're going to install what? a stop sign at the end of that road, street sign. Will there be any other signs? Will there be like a subdivision name sign or anything like that out there?

I I don't think we were planning on it. Just the street sign and a stop sign as Okay. And those are shown on the plan. Um during street construction, the entire rightway shall not be cleared unless necessary for utilities.

standards. So I think we're good with that one. All right. moving on to sewage disposal. Um so sewage disposal is compliance with main subsurface wastewater. They've shown the separation between wells and septic systems and any new septic system will have to meet subsurface wastewater rules. Any concerns with that one?

Nope. Okay. Solid waste standards. If the additional solid waste from the proposed subdivision causes the municipality to exceed its contract blah blah blah, the applicant should make alternative arrangements. Um, this is six homes. Do we have major concerns about the waste from six homes impacting the town's agreement for private for um public trash disposal?

I don't think so. The uh location though of trash, is that where we would address this? Whether it's going to be at the end of the road or it's going to be at each individual house. It's a good question. That'll be at the end of the road.

Okay. The only one of the concerns that I see there if there is uh drainage coming into Royalsboro Road and depending on where people accumulate six houses accumulate their trash based on experiences because I'm right across from one right now that that depending on windy days that can actually go into those drainage ditches. So, I'm just I would be certainly recommending that a

that would contain that trash pickup should be established. Well, I think it also begs the question if folks are going to have to put it in the road that's going to be taking up area of the road. That determination is that based on our contract with the waste removal company like they won't go down private roads or won't go down roads with less houses than 10 or something. They won't go down They won't go down a private road. They'll go down a town road.

Okay. Yeah. that within our We could Yeah, certainly. I don't know why we couldn't. We could make that a condition. I agree. I don't think they there should be six homes, trash cans, and recycling bins out on 196. Alan, was there some kind of containment over on Day Road?

There is none. There's none. There is none. They just they they basically bring it down to the end of the road. Like I say, there's a catch basin. at least 4 ft deep. And and if we have the ability to control that and make it look nice, I think we should certainly be recommending that.

end road, but I think on Royalsboro, maybe they should go into the subdivision. So that might be a question for the town to ask the the trash haulers if they could pull into that road. Yeah. You wouldn't you wouldn't want to be putting something right on the edge of 136.

No. Especially stopping right there e either. Yeah. On the on the null of the hill, right? Yeah. Well, I mean, they already do that for the other houses on 136, but what's your what's your proposal for trash collection in the subdivision?

to be? Is there an area off the I I think again we were thinking it was just going to be at the end of the road. Um, John, if you want. Yeah, please, Adrian. Yeah. So, at the end of the road on the the northern side, so the slightly downhill side, we could widen the gravel shoulder.

Wow. Just to have a a flat area that's, you know, three feet wide instead of two feet wide so those toers can fit. I don't know what you think about that, John. It it would be pretty But it's that's that's still in the that's in on they would have to turn in to hit that area, right? We could do it either right at the corner um or you know

20 feet, 30 feet, 40 feet in depending on if the truck's going to turn in or if the truck's just going to start stop right on um Royalsboro. Either could work. Yeah. I mean I I guess I'm open to that either way. I guess I I think Bob's got the right approach, which is find out if the the town contract if they'll turn into the road or not.

If they turn into the road, we could put it pretty much anywhere on the road. If they won't turn in the road and we have to put it on Royalsboro somewhere, then we really got to talk about, to your point, Adrian, widening that gravel shoulder or doing something down there for it. I don't

a trash truck to pull into so he's not in the road. Exactly. Yeah. Right. I mean that that I mean if they were if they're willing to pull into the road I think what Adrian said we we could put a spot I don't I don't know if you call it necessarily a t you know a little bump out where we could have the you know gravel extended or whatever a little

wider than that two foot buffer that we're already putting in there. Then the question is, so if they pull into the road, they're probably going to go all the way down to the end to turn around at the hammerhead. So why would they just stop in every house?

Right. Exactly. If that's the case, can they just stop at every house so that we don't have to put a collection in one location that could cause, you know, some of these issues Allan was bringing up or an eyesore. Yeah. I don't think we're going to be able to get them to

Yeah. I don't think we're going to be able to get them to go down that road or even into the road. They're just up on 136 and that's that. So, if there's anything we could do to widen the shoulder right there on 136 or something like that,

I agree. Yeah, maybe a little pulloff right there where you put your trash can so the the trash truck is not in the middle of the road. Yeah, I I got ironically I got behind the trash truck today on my way back from Freeport High School and it uh it was painful. We had

to stay behind it um because there's no sight lines around it, but then they got up to I think like the Durham Leisure Center and they pulled right out of the road and it it was beautiful because they had the ability to.

Yeah. And then we were able to go right by. So then, so then what I I think then if we're saying widen the shoulder, would you want it on the north or the south side? North, right? Have to be on the north. I think so, too. Further past the driveway.

Yeah, exactly. Cars coming down the hill have a better sight to the trash truck if it stopped there. I agree. I just But I I wanted obviously you to tell us where to do that so Adrian can adjust the plans. But I'd say yeah, we widen the shoulder and put a pad down, you know, widen it for the collection area.

Which shoulder? Royalsboro Road or our new road right at Royalsboro. Royalsboro. Royalsboro. Okay, so that's a DOT road. Yeah, you may have to get permission to do that, but I think it would be a safer thing. Yeah. So, why don't why don't we leave this that the applicant is going to touch base with the town regarding what the waist hauler will do and if the waist hauler is not willing to stop at each individual house, they're going to propose a solution.

Yeah. will allow for trash collection in one consolidated area that will keep it off of the new road and give the trash truck a place to pull off of 136. Does that sound just like a good suggestion? It does. Do we want to see some kind of containment area too,

just for wind and the fact that that's that lot or that that entrance um would really maybe only be barely visible from lot one. So, I just, you know, I don't know who's going to clean up if there's a windstorm or crows rip it all apart. I I don't know. Might make sense.

Well, unfortunately, we have that all around town. Yeah, I mean, so we we have to be we have to be careful about the constraints that we put on a subdivision and then we find out that individual homeowners are creating the same problem.

it more unsightly in my opinion. Well, unless you unless you built a nice rock wall containment area. That would look pretty darn good. All right. Is going to come back to he's going to do some homework and come back to us with a proposal.

Yeah. I think we'll try we'll try Royalsboro first is the approach. Is that is that right, team? Yeah. Okay, perfect. And I I just wanted to clarify that we can widen an area for these to place the towers and to have like a little bit of a pull off the road, but there's a ditch there and DOT needs that ditch and we can't widen the road and fill the ditch. So, it's not going to be the truck will not be able to pull

very far out of the road. Just wanted to make that clear. So, it's not an expectation. Yeah, I think if the gravel shoulders widened a little bit, as much as they could be, you know, a good enough portion of the truck could get off the road so that people could get around it and it traffic wouldn't back up tremendously.

And the drivers are good about sticking their hand out the window and saying, "Nope." And then saying, "Yep, you're all set." So they can see better than you can. All right. Can we move on from talking about trash? Yeah.

All right. Impact on natural beauty, aesthetics, historic sites, wildlife habitat, rare natural areas, or public access to the shoreline. So again, we're going to talk about these one by one. Um the plan shall by notes on the final plan and deed restrictions limit clearing of trees to those areas designated on the plan. I think we have that the buffers are required to be kept. That's both on the plan and at least on that is it lot six. That'll be a deed restriction, right?

Yep. Okay. A subdivision in which the land cover type at the time of application is forested shall maintain a wooded buffer strip no less than 50 ft in width along all existing roads may be broken only for driveways and streets. And so I think we have that 50 foot buffer along Royalsboro Road. Right. We're good with that. Okay. Retention of open spaces and natural or historic features. If any of the portion if any portion of the subdivision is located within area designated as unique natural area by the comp plan or the main natural areas program. I think we have a letter that it's not. Am I right on that one,

saying it's not part of the Yeah, we do. natural areas program. Okay. Yes. Yep. So, we're all set with that. If it's designated, if it has the site or pre site of historic or prehistoric importance by the comp plan, national register of historic places or main historic preservation commission, the subdivision, we have the letter from Maine that it's not the subdivision itself doesn't have any historic sites. So, I think we're all set on that one. Um, land reserve for open space purposes, we don't have any. Um, and reserved open space land may be, but it's not required to be dedicated to the municipality. Again, we don't have any. So, are we good with with that one? Yeah. Okay. Protection of significant wildlife habitat. I think we have a letter um from FNW, right?

Yeah. Okay. So, we're good with that. Um, protection of important shoreland areas. We don't have a water body, so we're all set on that. to 6.22? No. And yeah. Yeah. Um, uh, sorry, I lost my spot here. Um, number two, we were talking about historical um, potential issues earlier. Isn't that under that one?

No, that's under a separate section of 5.14. Yep. Okay. All right. Okay. Mhm. All right. Conformity with local ordinances and plan standards. All lots blah blah blah shall meet the minimum dimensional requirements for the zoning district in which they are located to meet all applicable criteria and design or performance standards in all articles of land use ordinance. So actually Juliet I think this is where the historic comes in. I think this is where that road French conversation that we had last time comes in. And I think this is where lot size and things like that come in. Um,

is everyone and I could go back and and read it if you want, but I think with the 40 foot buffer on lot six, which buffers that lot from the red house, which is may or may not be historic and protected. Um, I think we meet the standards of 5.14 anyway.

No, I think Well, I think we should discuss 25 ft off of that red house buffer right adjacent to the red house um the proposed road is going. There's no buffer between that red house and the site, right? There's that, right? But the language is

structure or of any new structure to be constructed in any district blah blah blah. So, I think it applies to structures, not roads. Unless you're reading that section differently than I am. Um, yeah. Isn't there the 25 foot buffer?

Yep. It applies to structures. Not true. And we Is this where we we've got the 40 foot buffer, right, Adrian? On the back side of that property. So really it's from the road side which there be no structure there anyway. That's at least 24 feet gravel to road to gravel. So So they would have to technically build on lot one almost right on the gravel line which they can't because there's a buffer there as well for the drainage. Right.

Yeah. There's a 50ft ride ofway and then there's um some additional grading for drainage. So they're going to be at least 55 ft. Well, and plus there's a front setback, right? That's 50 feet. So they're feet on top of that. Yeah.

So the house could be uh on lot one could be 100 ft from that lot line minimum, right? And that would mean them building right on the front step. That's what I was getting at, which is well over the 25 ft. Yeah. So I guess what I'm saying is the 5.14 talks about protecting historical structures, right? And so that red house is potentially considered historical,

right? And it's saying 25 ft buffer around such resources. So we have 40 feet behind the house. We don't have anything where the road is proposed. And I I guess the way I'm reading that ordinance is the start of that sentence. And I agree it's confusing and I think somebody missed some spaces and some, you know, formatting in here because it doesn't make a whole hell of a lot of sense, frankly. But the way that sentence reads is the design of any remodeled existing structure or of any new structure to be constructed in a district that is to be you know next to one of

these special places will be on um shall be compatible with such historic properties in terms of mass scale design, building material and height. And then still within that sentence or subsentence is the buffer strip. So I

I'm not I'm not sure that relates to anything that doesn't have a structure on it. Would we be assessing though the the building envelope comes all the way down there and could potentially be seen um you know the western the the side closest to the Royalsboro Road. I mean really approving structure, but we're approving envelopes, I guess. Wouldn't that be possible that there be a structure built there that's about 100 ft with no buffer directly to that red house?

is the visual impact from the road, but that's not what it says. It doesn't say anything about that. is it's it is visual, Bob, like you're saying, but it's not the road. It's it's from the property line of the historic property.

Well, maybe maybe Candy can answer this question all it was all about the visual impact driving down the road. Um, and that was that was it. So, maybe Candy can help. I don't have 514 in front of me right now. Um, but definitely I would go with

what um what George told you, Bob. Um, because that 514 also refers to eligible properties and the town also has a list of historic resources in the town that are not just from the National Historic Register. that that list is from the comp plan. So, it it definitely is on those lists and visual impact is is part of it.

say about this and I honestly think the last sentence in 5.14 is the easiest to understand. Appropriate buffer strips of 25 ft shall be maintained at all light lot lines of property abudding such historic properties. So lot line right of historic properties surrounding that red house. We have the 40 ft in the back. We have the road 136 in the front. We have something else on the other side. But on that other side is the proposed access road. And I would agree with you if that wasn't tucked into a subsection B2 which only applies to new structures or remodeled structures. Right. If that was on its own, I completely 100% agree with you.

But it's tucked into a B2. Yeah. But but I hear you. But the design of any remodel of existing structure or of any new structure to be in any district. So, it's ex it's existing, remodeled, or new. New structure. There's no new structure. There's a road, right? So, there's a new structure on lot six and we need a buffer, which we have.

Mhm. There's no new structure on the road. There's a road. And I'm like I'm happy to be convinced otherwise, but I have to read. You are calling you are saying the proposed road is is what is triggering or not triggering

is not triggering right because the road is not a structure not a structure and it's not in a district well the district doesn't matter they say any district in here well and even even assuming right which I think is unclear even assuming it's protected I'm not sure we need the 25 foot buffer on the road because there's no structure on that a budding piece and maybe I'm wrong. I'm happy to be convinced otherwise,

but it's tucked. I agree with you, Ann. Yeah. And that's why I I was just trying to say that even if you looked at the road going in, roads 20t wide, there's two feet of gravel on each side. Then there's a 50 foot buffer on lot one anyway. So you're you're got to be close to over a hundred. If you built right on the front of that lot, it would be over 100 feet away from the property line,

right? But I think the question we're talking about, John, is whether the 25 foot buffer applies to the road. It does not, right? Structure, right? So I I think the intent of this I don't think that sentence was supposed to be lumped into B2. I suspect the intent of that sentence was to be its own provision,

but nobody wrote it that way or formatted it that way. So the way I I read it is it has to be a structure It's a new structure that's triggering that buffer, not a road. So it's a proposed Yeah. Okay. All right. I I disagree, but I I'm all right.

Okay. I wonder if we can get more like I wonder where we got this information for this ordinance. Did we get it from MNAP or or sorry MHPC? I have no idea. Okay. So, um Alan, what do you think about a 25 foot buffer to the road?

Is it required? Is it not required? To the road. Yep. Yes. Not a structure. Yes. Yes, it is not required. Or yes, it is required. So, we need a 25 foot buffer to the road. Correct. Wes, where are you? we're not approving a structure. We're um I agree that you know where that appropriate buffer strips of 25 ft shall be maintained at all lot lines of property abuing such historic properties. I know that's I I get the section B2 argument, but um

of B2 is a structure, site, archaeological site, or property whose exterior appearance is worthy of protection from incompatible uses. I mean, maybe that red house falls into that. Um, for a buffer between that house and the road anyways. Um, so

I'm sort of leaning towards towards that being a requirement. Wes. Well, Wes and I disagree. So, so you gota you got to pick one of us. So, I wasn't paying attention. So, my I my reading of this is that the 25 foot buffer only applies to properties with is only triggered by a new structure.

Correct. And a road is not a structure. Wes and Juliet and Allen's take is that it applies to all lot lines regardless of structure and therefore requires a 25 foot buffer to the road. Oh yeah. Yeah. I would think it would be to another structure. You guys may not agree it's a structure, but uh the red property,

would you agree that's a property whose exterior appearance is worthy of protection? I mean, is that sort of what we're that's sort of what we're trying to I think we're assuming that it's protected, right? So these these provisions aren't even triggered unless it's protected. So you have to look at

it's frankly still a question honestly I hate to say this but you need to look at the definition for a structure where it says anything on or in the ground and we've all been through this before with structures. Yeah. that buffer that's against 136

would it help or and I would I assuming it wouldn't be harmful if that was increased so it was kind of more even with the backside of that house and that way like when I was there today and the way where the road would be and where their house is I I think they'll just continue to look at vegetated area. Um,

and I wasn't I didn't have the feeling I had just looking at the plans on like how close the road would be to the house. I thought it didn't seem like a bad situation when I was there. And um the only thing I think well one thing I think could be kind of detrimental if that was my place would be if someone that first lot that house was like right across from from them. And it seems like that lot's plenty big enough so that

which it could be. Yeah, it could be the way the the buffer is right now. But I think there's plenty of buildable area on that lot. to increase that buffer and not be a detriment to that first lot. Yeah, I think it would be because what do you need? 44,000 square feet contiguous building envelope and they're at 45 and they've got a little leg out back going around the back of the wetland. So, I think they'd probably be up against that as as far as getting that lot one out.

I see. Yeah. improve that buffer at all. You would likely Looks like they're using all the space they they've got, but yeah, you'd kind of be banging up against that. So, um Okay. I don't I don't think we're talking about lot one. We're either talking about the road or we're talking about lot six because lot one doesn't abut the historic property. Right.

That's correct. Right. Right. Okay. So, let's focus on one piece at a time. A road is not a structure. I think we can all agree on that one. Um, right? Because a structure is anything constructor erected with a fixed location on or in the ground blah blah blah. Excluding driveways, walkways, patios, and other paved surfaces and fences and stone or brick walls used for area separation and not as part of a building. Okay. The road is not a structure. I think we all agree on that. I think where we disagree is whether the 25 foot buffer is only triggered by a structure or whether it's triggered to any property to whether a 25 foot buffer is required around any property line of historic structure. I think that's where we disagree. I think I am outvoted or would be outvoted if we were voting on this. And so I think this is something that the property owner, the developer needs to either get an opinion that this is not

protected under our ordinance um or figure out how to put in a 25 foot buffer, which they can't do because they can't move the road. But that's their problem to solve. So is everyone okay with that approach? So, I I still understand why why are we talking about the road if the road's not a structure?

Because Julia and Wes and Allan think that that provision is not only triggered by a new structure. They read it as being triggered by any as being required around any property line with a historic structure. Oh. around any property line of a historic property regardless of whether you're building a structure.

Yeah. And so you just you're not supposed to do anything within 25 ft. Right. That's how they're reading it. Hey, one thought. Um I know there's no space between the proposed road and the um historic property, but what about the other side? And this might be what you were trying to bring up, Ron, or somebody. That buffer on the other side of the road, like on lot,

but that's not on the property line of the historic lot. It's not. Either you read it as it's required on the property line or it's not required at all. You guys are killing me. We're going around in circles. Yeah, it's kind of a different topic. Sorry.

Yeah. Yeah. Appropriate. Okay. Okay. So, it's either required on the property line or it's not required at all. Yeah, the lot line. Okay. Okay. Y okay. Okay. We're obviously not approving structures in this, but we are approving envelopes for structures with which they'll go. So, I think that's kind of an important distinction when it comes to deciding whether or not that that buffer should be there or not. um you know that envelope was pushed back further. There was no possible way to see maybe but um it seems pretty clear to me anyways. Um but let's keep moving.

All right. Yeah. Okay. So, we are obviously not approving this preliminary this final plan tonight, which is fine. Um so, I'm adding this to the list of things the applicant needs to address in their final plan stage. um they either need to provide us evidence that it's not protected or they need to figure out how to put a 25 foot buffer on that property line. Right.

For the and again I guess are we saying for the road? Yeah. Yeah. That's not happening. told us where it's going and they've issued the permit. That's the road, right? So I mean so we we are either go I mean so the other side of the road is lot one not the road abudding the property that may or may not be historical

right so I can't I'm not I mean if the town can't determine if their own house is historical why why would we well we have something saying from Maine historic preservation that we should treat it as historic if you want to do your research and get something from main historic preservation or something else that tells us it's not historic, we will look at that and reconsider it. But that's why we're putting the burden back on you.

Right. So, we we've all assumed that it is. And we are also assuming that lot one's on the other side of the road. Yep. And the ordinance reads again that it does not abut that property. Right. We're not talking about lot one. We're not talking about lot one. We're talking about the road,

right? So now we need to So is this the So the argument is is the road a structure? No. No. The rest of the planning board interprets that as being required that 25 foot buffer being required regardless of whether there's a structure.

Where in the ordinance is this language? 5.14 B2 the property line and the road right now? Is the road What? What's the road? Can you hear me now? Yeah. I just had to call in my phone because um I've been only able to hear part of this conversation and you guys can't hear me because I'm having internet issues. So, I'm on my phone now. John, what did you just ask me?

How What's the distance between the red of Butter's property line and our road? How many feet between like the edge of pavement? I I I would No, I'd actually probably say it would have to be the edge of the two-foot gravel on that side.

Well, there's a curb there, so it's a little different. Um Well, yeah, that's the curb and the wall and and all, but approximately 14.5 ft. Yeah. So, we got to find another 10. See right right now if this was not historic

there is no buffer between a property line and where a right ofway access rights. Right. Right. So the key here is whether that it's historic or not. is that potential that it should be. Yes. I guess I mean that's the qu I mean again I don't think anyone's arguing it has the potential to be. Will it be? Is it I don't know how that determination gets finalized.

I you need to work with Maine Historic Preservation and get us a final determination or something that that says otherwise. Right. So the language of our ordinance is which has been identified by the main historic preservation committee commission as a basically a structure of

historical significance or a structure whose exterior appearance is worthy of protection from incompatible uses due historically aesthetic qualities. So based on the email that we saw from main historic preservation, it definitely I think it definitely meets B2 may also meet B1, but if they are willing to clarify for you that it doesn't meet either, we'll take that information.

John, I can I can email you the contact and a example of a letter to them tomorrow. Thank you, sir. Yeah. And and so I believe that process requires some involvement from the homeowner. It does. figure it out because right now based on the information we have and pulling the board, we would deny this subdivision application for not meeting that section. So this is something you will need to figure out for your final plan phase or we will deny it. Does that is that clear where we need to go?

Was there any wiggle room in where the road came out? Like did it have to be exactly on that property line or could it moved down some? Well, it's we're already within 25 ft of the entrance. So, it's already a violation,

right? But could it move to the north some? No. No, it can't. It can't. There's no wiggle room according to the DOT permit. And we're already coming in at an angle to Royalsboro Road. So, we can't really angle it anymore and still meet the ordinance.

Mhm. to like, you know, gain distance as you go away. deemed historic, this piece of property is undevelopable because DOT won't allow you to enter anywhere but right here. But now the town won't allow a road there or even a driveway because there's you need 25 ft,

right? They could buy 25 feet of the neighbor's lot. Well, that that would be an advisory decision from the main historical society. And like I said, I will give John all the information, the contact, and a generic letter on what to ask.

this is correct. Um, that unless you can buy 25 feet from the neighbor, this property may not be developable if that property is indeed historic by main historic preservation. I will tell you, you can take our denial and appeal it because obviously we're not unanimous in it and I don't know what the ZBA or court would do with it, but yeah, that's where we are. Well, can I also send that letter to the state and um see what what their reading is?

Can I just say something? The way this works is um when you're talking about it being historic or not, there are several levels. One is the National Historic Register and one is the state deeming it historic. DOT in all of its

work around the state is the agency that gives um properties for main historic preservation to consider. And when they sent us the list and saying that um that it would it could be eligible for the National Historic Register. They're saying it's a historic building.

that we're putting this back on the applicant as a problem to solve and either you can or you can't. But that's what we need for the next plan phase, even if we don't agree and don't like it. So I if if you if the applicant approached the land owner of the red home and was able to purchase 11 ft, then it would meet the requirement. Is that correct?

I I don't know how much room they have, but either way, this is the property owner's problem to solve. Right. Right. So, can we move on? That's an option, Alan. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. When When did the historical piece come up? Can anyone kind of bring that around? Did I see emails back in February about this?

Yes. Yes. Why wasn't that forwarded to us any sooner? Candace, I really appreciate your participation, but it really needs to just be the planning board at this point, unless we ask for your help. Um, so the main historic preservation has been something that's been required since the beginning and it's part of our checklist. So, it's something you should have known about even if you didn't.

We did. So, okay. I mean, again, I mean, I'm just saying it sounds like this group's had some talk about it and wasn't informing us. This group has not had any talk about it until now. I'm looking at May 19th. This group has not had any conversation about this until right now.

No, I I there have been emails. I I saw one dated back to February. I thought I had spoken with Adrian about this and I told her that it may came it may come up. in late April or early May, right? Um but yeah, it does look like the emails

go back from main historic and the planner go back to February, which we we did not know anything about until the last two weeks. Okay. Well, we didn't ask George to do that. I'm not sure why George did that, but either way,

I'd like to know. So maybe well you can you are welcome to go talk to him but either way the burden is on you guys to provide the letter for main historic preservation. George did it for you which you may or may not like but you were welcome to go to them directly. I don't know why George did it. The planning board didn't ask him to do it. So but either way the burden is on you guys to provide that letter. So George did your work for you. you don't like the way it was done, you can go do it yourself and hopefully you get a different answer.

I don't Yeah, I would disagree with that assessment. Thank you. So, he didn't do any work for us. Can we move on from this? I think we're all clear on where we are and what needs to happen. Yeah. All right. Great. have an undevelopable lot. I mean, is there anything else?

So, I mean, it's your choice. We can finish going through this and maybe I just I just want to make sure that's what we're saying right now. Without 25 ft, it's an undevelopable lot. Well, I think what we're saying is it needs to be in investigated further.

No, no. I I Well, what needs to be investigated is the historical and the 25 foot buffer. Correct. Yeah. I mean, if I if I I was in your shoes, I would send the letter to the state. They might come back and say, "This is, you know, the this is not a super important structure. You don't need it here." Or,

you know, who knows what could happen, right? which which we have that option to do. But again, we Yeah, we have that option, but it's your your view is it it has to have a 25 ft buffer if the property next door is historic. Yes.

Well, which you're deeming now that it is based on the information we have now. It is right. That's what I'm saying. Not made a final determination. So, if you have other information, we will consider that at the final plan stage.

Yeah. Yep. So again, are we all on the same page and can we move on? Um, so planning board, we're okay with it meeting the rest of the ordinance standards, right? We're good with the changed road, we're good with the lot size. Bob, were there any other flags that you saw that we need to look at?

Okay. Um, financial capacity and technical ability are the next ones that we have. financial capacity on this one? again where they um would like to get a bond, but they they don't own it at this time because they're waiting to see if they can have a subdivision. So, it's the old catch 22 and the bank has said that they will sign anything

Is that right, John? Close, Bob. I I I think the way we'd say is is our purchase and sale agreement is contingent upon a subdivision approval. Yeah. Until we own the land, we can't apply for credit for it. We wouldn't be using credit anyway. a standby letter of credit or or a a credit in instrument like what your paperwork showed. So, we've been back and forth trying to talk to the town regarding an escrow account where we'll be putting the cash and we're still waiting for those instructions on what the town requirements are, whether it resides at our bank, whether it resides at your bank, who needs to be named on it, etc. We don't have that information still.

So, but you have the cash We're going to do an escrow instead of a letter of credit. Yes. So, do you have bank statement showing the cash? I could. Yeah, I think that would do it. Again, I I I just a bank statement instead of the actual instructions that we're going to need to use whether it gets approved or not

because my bank's going to need to see that before they authorize the transfer of any funds. So, I think we're talking about two different things. So you will need a performance guarantee to make sure that you do the worksh

right and that's in the name of the town and if you bail on this which we've had the town can act on the performance guarantee and can finish the work. Right? So that's that's one piece. What we're talking about right now is do you have the financial and technical capacity to actually do the work? Forget about whether you skip out or not.

Do you have the funds or are you basically someone who's flying by the seat of his pants and has $5 to his name and has never built anything before and we have absolutely no faith that you're going to be able to do this. So the performance guarantee is our backs stop and our financial and technical capacity is evaluated up front to make sure that you're a legitimate developer who can carry out this project. Does that distinction make sense?

It does make sense. I just I'm trying to remember and Adrian keep me honest. Did we have that second requirement? Yeah. So, and during the submission in March before our first preliminary meeting, we provided a letter from Kataden Trust Company

um regarding with Ronald Miley who's one of the people in the PNS um which I believe covers the financial capacity. what John was kind of getting into was the performance guarantee which I know is on the final checklist but we were you know trying to get everything in for that as well. Um so we are still waiting on some information from the town to get that part straightened out but I believe this Kataden trust letter uh covered the financial capacity.

Okay, great. That's what I was asking was for you to point me to where I should be looking. I appreciate that. Yeah, it's attachment eight. So, are you guys all okay with So, one thing um and I brought this up last time is who the players are and how they're all related and we have the um the PNS in one name and the application in another.

So, we updated that as well. So before we were originally applying under Vodor LLC, but the PNS was under John Weekes and Ron Miley. We have changed the applicant to just be John Weekes and Ron Miley to match the PNS to keep it all the same and straightforward.

Okay. Um and voter LLC is still in your plans though, right? We will remove that for the next set. Okay. So then now our PNS, our financials and our applicant all match, right? Yes. Okay. All right. Planning board, any concerns on financial and technical capacity at this point?

Um impact on groundwater quality or quantity standards. So we This is one of those that you've requested a waiver on, right? Am I remembering that correctly? Yeah. The um hydrogeeologic assessment which we discussed last time and how that wasn't necessary um based on the soils and the

location of the septic and the the wells and the setbacks. So planning board we did submit the form. Yep. We don't need to consider that specific waiver now until the final plan stage, but they should at least know whether they're going to get it. Um, do does anyone is everyone okay with no hydro geologic survey given the space that's out there?

I am. Okay. So, contaminant. I don't think we have any reason to think it will. Um, and drinking water wells should be constructed as shown on the map. So, I think we're okay. I think we're okay on groundwater quality. Right. any concerns on that section? And then we're on to groundwater quantity. Um shall not lower the water table beyond boundary of the subdivision. uh shall not increase runoff and in all areas with documented limited groundwater availability. Planning board shall consider a requirement that a note be added to the final plan requiring that each lot be provided with a drilled well that produces an adequate supply for domestic purposes prior to sale of the lot. So, we had we did have a well driller letter, which is what we usually get in these situations, saying they have they have found water in this area. Do you guys have any groundwater quantity concerns?

time we go back to the drawing board let's look at this ordinance this section right the quantity part because we don't you know we got to change this okay well based on what's written right it's 8:45 and based on what's written there now do you have any concerns

no all right moving on flood plane management standards um they are not in a special flood hazard area so are Are we okay with this? We are. All right. Identification of freshwater wetlands, rivers, streams, or brook standards. I don't think we we have a small wetland that does not meet the 10 acre. Um, but it's shown on the plan anyway.

Do we have any other concerns with section 6.26? um identification of farmland standards. All farmland of five or more acres that is an active farm production um shall be identified on the map. So we don't have any of that. Storm water management standards um site location of development permit. This does not require review under site location. Right.

Correct. Correct. Okay. Um, permit, does it? No. No. Okay. We do have an erosion and sedimentation control plan. It's not within the watershed of Runaround Pond. that this has a history of flooding or is in areas with potential for future flooding. So, are we all okay with 6.28 storm water management?

Yes. Okay. Spaghetti lots. We do not have any spaghetti lots, nor do they front on any water body, so we're good. Impacts on adjoining municipalities. We don't adjoin any municipalities. Compliance with timber harvesting rule. Um this is not in timber harvest, right?

This is not in forestry, right? Correct. Okay. Reservation or dedication and maintenance of open space and common land. There is none proposed. the homeowners association documents, have the articles of incorporation, do we? We just have the bylaws.

We provided the covenants and let me see what is this document called declaration of covenants restriction restrictions and easements for the subdivision based on the town's um form or template. Okay. And updated that for this project. So we do have for 6.32 it says the final plan application shall include the following covenants for mandatory mannership own um membership which I think we have. It also requires draft articles of incorporation. So this is going to be a nonprofit um so we need the draft articles of incorporation and then the draft bylaws.

things for the final that document. No. Okay. bylaws. uh articles of incorporation for the association itself. Yep. Okay. I think you have most of the relevant information in here. um you know like article C says we're not consistent with pro blah blah blah the bylaws of the associ association shall govern issues such as meetings d so it it certainly contemplates bylaws but it doesn't have them in here

covenants Okay. All right. Um, so in combination the documents referenced subsection D shall provide all of the following. You have the lean in there. be covered by road maintenance agreement if you have covenants as shown cover everything in E one through six but Adrian if that's something that you'll make sure are encompassed either in the bylaws or the covenants

Okay. 6.33. We don't have a cluster development. 6.34 is where we're getting into the performance guarantees. So, we have a construction cost estimate. And then it says a performance guarantee shall be drafted such that the town shall receive written notice at least 60 days prior to their explanate expiration.

held by the town or an irrevocable letter of credit issued by a bank. by the town attorney at the applicant's expense as to form and specifically approved by the planning board is substantially equivalent um may be acceptable. So what what is the issue with the performance guarantee?

The plan is that it will be an escrow account and it sounds like what you just read means it needs to be held by the town. But we need the information from the town on, you know, who what bank that's going to, who holds it, um what name it goes into, but also

agreement for this land that's contingent upon getting subdivision approval. So, they don't have legal rights to um you know, take out an escro account for this land until they own it. looking to have as like, you know, a condition that we set it up. They can't set up the escro account before they receive approval. Does that make sense?

Uh sort of. Um, so I think and and other planning board members jump in if we're missing if I'm misspeaking. Um, I think we need to see the clear procedure including town approval, which we now have a town um manager. Uh so her sign off that everybody is on board with what the plan is to establish this escore account. It will be held by the town of Durham. Here will be the conditions. We're all set to go. We have the escore agreement drafted and the only thing left to do is deposit the money. Um, I would be okay with that as long as it really is a fully baked plan and in front of us and then we would just make it funding it contingent on um or releasing the the final sign plan contingent on funding that escro agreement. So, you'd have your approval. You wouldn't get the final sign plan to record until you fund that escro uh account. Does that meet your needs and make sense?

does that work? Yeah. Okay. Okay. Planning board members, does that sound like an acceptable path? It does. Okay. escrow account, right? We're clear on that. performance guarantee that we're talking about. Got it. And then we need a separate escrow fund for inspections.

We already have that. They've got $1,500 in the escrow for that. Well, it's supposed to be 2% of the estimated costs. So 2% of $163,000 is more than that, right? Well, the ordinance is lot by lot. Well, the escrow for inspections is

is based on how many lots they have. So, pre presently they have $1,500 in the escro account for inspections. So, that one's all set. Is the other one? Well, I mean, the ordinance says prior to the release of the recording myar, the applicant shall deposit with the municipal officers a check for 2% of the estimated cost of the required improvements to pay for the cost of inspection by a qualified engineer hired by the town.

talking about different? No, no. I was talking about they have already paid for the escrow for any inspections or any reviews that you require. So, you're talking about the technical review fee in case during the approval process.

Yes. Want a second opinion, right? Yeah. Okay. This is a little different. This is after approval. They're going to put $3,200 or whatever 2% is in a separate escro account for you to use during inspections if you need technical help.

Does that make sense? and if it needs replenishing then they have to replenish it. Nope. I think the current fund is if we need help and the subsequent fund is if you need help. different things. The performance guarantee is usually for the road, but the escrow is for inspections.

an inspection escore account in accordance with the ordinance. All right. Um, waivers, you have submitted us three separate waiver requests. So, I'd like I'd like to go through those quickly and make sure that you will get those.

are there four? Okay. So the first one is for a highintensity soil survey. Um they utilize a medium intensity soil survey. Um test pits were completed and they're not impacting any wetlands. Highintensity soil survey would not provide any additional useful information needed to design the project. Planning board, are you okay with this waiver request?

Yep. Yearing no objections. All right. So, the second one is for the hydrogeeological assessment. We just talked about that there's sufficient room to um space out wells and septic. Uh so, I think we're all okay with that, right?

Yes. Okay. Um the next one is a traffic trip generation and traffic impact analysis. development is a six lot single family residential development and will result in minimal traffic generation project to this size does not warrant a traffic chip gen traffic traffic trip generation assessment or traffic impact analysis.

What do you guys think? Yeah, I agree with that. projected to generate more than 140 vehicle trips per day. So, it's not even required for this subdivision, I don't think. final and preliminary plan. Um, which we're not there. We have way too many outstanding questions, I think. Um, there is a possibility for waiverss of performance standards, but we don't have any requests for that.

And they also submitted a waiver for traffic impact. Do Yep, I just said that. Oh, there's traffic trip and traffic impact. Yep, they're on the same. And the traffic impact analysis, they're not even required to provide because they don't have more than 140 trips. But was there something else on that one? Nope. I agree. Sorry, I just wanted to make sure that was heard.

No. Yep. I appreciate that. And you just mentioned um waiverss of per other performance standards which we have not submitted. Is this uh whole buffer historic issue something that is waveable? I'll be honest. I don't think

um I don't think that's I don't think we have the authority to wave anything legally, right? We do under our ordinance. Um that honestly you can probably you can ask um I will probably ask for an opinion from our town attorney on whether we can actually give you a waiver of a zoning standard which there's case law that we can't but that does bring up a point that you may want to apply to the ZBA

for a um I can't remember if it's a hardship variance or a um whatever it's called basically for a variance that might be an option for you then come back to us or you could get the decision from us and appeal it um and ask for your variance at the same time or something like that. Bob, did you have a question?

No, I'm just saying if if they write to the main historical society for a advisory opinion, that opinion should, you know, be valid. So, I would wait to do that before I went and appealed it. Yeah, I agree. I mean, either way, they're going to have to bring something back to us, but that's just one more option. They could request a variance from the ZBA. They could request a waiver from us that we'd have to decide what to do with. And actually, Adrian, if you think you're going to do that, will you give me a heads up so I can request a legal opinion from our town attorney on that?

Sure. Yeah. I I have no idea what we're doing yet, but Yeah. No, I understand that there's a lot to digest after this meeting. Um, but if you are gonna do it, if you you give me a heads up, that would be better for everyone.

Yep. Okay. glare? different kinds of lighting? that would allow us to address the headlight issue. Are you guys? looking. conditional use, but it's gone. Well, and this isn't even a conditional use. No, I know. So, Well, that's unfortunate, but It is what it is, I guess. All right. So, planning board to summarize where we are, we found that it will generally meet most of the standards except we have the following. Um, under site distances, we want the applicant to reach out to DOT, CMP, the town, whomever to figure out what they need for permission to cut those lowhanging branches to the north of the entrance to

improve the sightelines with the idea that the planning board would probably impose a condition that those be kept maintained. Um, with respect to waste generation, we've asked that the applicant clarify with the town whether the waste hauler will go up the road um or whether there will be a requirement to establish a central collection point on 136 and to design a central collection point that will provide for safety of the waste hauler of the traffic on 136

um and for addressing the trash itself. We have asked the applicant to further research the prop the adjacent the red house property and its historic status under the main standards and um if it is a historic property to provide us a 25 foot buffer um all

around that property as it abuts the subdivision including the road where the road goes. incorporation, draft bylaws, um a finalized escrow agreement to be funded for a performance guarantee. Yeah. an um when the applicant talks with the DOT um maybe a question for them would be expiration of the permit. Um I was going to ask the applicant when they planned on starting construction, maybe right after the application approval. I know we talked about this a little earlier. I do think there is an expiration date on that permit, but just to check in with the DOT on that.

The expir there's no expiration permit unless the road elevations change. the permit the the existing DOT permit was received in uh I don't know June of 2019. might even be a two-year window to start construction. So, I'm looking at the Well, that's driveway

expire within 24 months. preliminary preliminarily approves the subdivision plan with the one, two, three, five, six with the seven outstanding issues. isues that I just identified which must be addressed at the final plan stage or the subdivision may be denied.

Second. All right, roll call. Juliet, yes. Ron, yes. Wes, yes. Alan, yes. and Ann is a yes. Okay. Um Ann, can you provide us those in writing? Yes, absolutely. Absolutely. I will do that um soon. Hopefully tonight. Any other questions or comments from the planning board or the applicant?

actually, let's talk about scheduling. How long do you want to figure out how long this is going to take you to do and submit something and we'll schedule it based off of that or do you want us to give you a new date? I guess I'll ask back at you. Are you doing like special meetings for this project now that it's in the queue? like we don't have to line up with the other meeting dates that are only once a month.

Well, I guess that's why I'm asking. So, right now we have two scheduled for June. We have our regular meeting which is probably full. Um although we could sneak you on that meeting if you got done fast enough. And then we have a second meeting that's a sitewalk and public hearing for another subdivision that we cannot get you on. I don't know if the planning board wants to schedule a third meeting in June to hear this or whether we would just put you on our regular July meeting.

When are the June and July dates? So the regular June date is June 2nd. July will be July 7th. submit and try and get on our own special meeting, that would You're saying it would probably end up in July anyway. Unless the planning board tells me they want three June meetings.

Yeah, we're already doing a special June meeting, right? and which is already schedu um right the dockets's full right yeah right yeah we can't do that we'd have to schedule a third June meeting which I don't think there's a lot of appetite for so you can

now or we're like kind of out of luck and and we'd be I don't know it's been hard to get on a meeting unless we schedule it with you guys in person like at this meeting. So I So I think I don't know if John you have there are five Wednesdays in June.

There are five Wednesdays in June. Um so I think if you get a submission in, you can get on the July regular meeting and you would be the first because you're continuing business. If that's too late for you, third June meeting.

get from the silence of others that that may be the case. I don't want a lot. I don't want to When is your second June meeting? Just so I can look at a calendar. It's the 16th. Yep. So, it would have to be the 23rd. Nope. I'm Nope. I have another meeting the 23rd. It have to be the 30th. So, honestly, if it's the 30th, it might as well be the 7th.

Yeah, it's only one week before the 7th. Does it have to be a Wednesday? No. It's easier for scheduling. Like, we know they're available. Yeah. thoughts on schedule trying to schedule a special meeting going for the July 7th or

getting back to the board? um understanding of it right now. I mean, we we we lost three and a half weeks with this meeting. So, I I I don't want to keep waiting, but you know, town's saying they're not going to meet, they're not going to meet.

have everything together, you can get on the July 7th meeting. Mhm. Um, and we need to submit everything two weeks in advance for continuing business or preferably. Yeah. Okay. 7th meeting unless um you know if we find out in the next week that we have everything we can email um Bob and you

an and see if there's potential to get on a special meeting on the 30th. Um, okay. We can discuss it at our June 2nd meeting if you do get it in. Okay. Oh, like we could be on that agenda. You could probably get on the June 2nd agenda. Well, I mean,

it's only two weeks away, though. Yeah. Right. But if you get it in ahead, ahead of June 2nd, we will discuss a special meeting in our June 2nd regular meeting. And there are only two conditional use permits for the June 2nd meeting

only. Okay. Yeah. Taking us a while. Well, but today's the deadline, isn't it, Bob? Yeah. So, only two. Yep. And they're both minor conditional use permits. I appreciate you saying that since one of them's mine. No problem. Right.

Um, all right. Uh, Adrian, do you have any other or John, do you have any other questions? as long as we get the seven things that you need, you know, in writing so that we can because I only was able to write them down, you know, as we went. So, um

I don't think I have any other questions besides getting those. Okay. And with respect to the historic piece, you might want to talk to a land use attorney to find out talk about your other options including a variance. thing was the escrow. So

you had mentioned we need to get some sort of a letter with the town manager with the process. Is that one of these seven things? Yes. Okay. So, I'll have exactly what you're asking us to do in writing. Yep. We just want to make sure that the town and the applicant have a really clear understanding and agreement on what that looks like and the only thing left to do is fund it. So, but I will um I'll put that in writing for you.

Okay. Thank you. And also the the historical society usually gets back within five days. They're not going to take three weeks. Yeah, Bob, if you can provide your contact over there, um, every time I've tried to reach them, it all has to be done by mail and it takes like a long time. So, if you have somebody who we can call,

that would be great. I will send John all that information tomorrow morning. Great. Thank you. Yeah. Right. Anything else? No. All right. I will take a motion to adjourn then. So moved. Can I have a second? Second. All right. Juliet,

yes. Ron, yes. Wes, yes. Alan, yes. And Ann is a yes. All right. Thank you guys. Have a good night. Thank you, Kathy.